PocketMatrix

all the directors are going for uncoventional these days. romeo and juliet sucked ass. the direction wasnt anything special and the acting... well, paul was not impressed.

It's OVERLY artsy fartsy.  Just for the sake of being different.  STUPIDITY!  I hate that crap.

Its always apparent those who have artistic ability and those who are lacking. Paul and RICoder are part of the mainstream, so I wouldn't expect either to deter too much.

See, there it is, the holier than though artsy fartsy shit.<br><br>Look, I am much more the scientist than the artist, but I am a photographer, and I do have a serious appreciation for the arts.<br>The thing is, and it is apparent, that some people mistake "flare" for artistry.  Like, for instance, Pulp Fiction.  Resevoir Dogs was good, because it was fresh, but Pulp Fiction was mainstream tripe, yet people loved it.  Why?  Or Romeo and Juliet?  Re-Imagined?  P-LEASE!  Who the hell thought they were so fucking good that they could re-imagine Shakespear?  More love stories have been loosly based on that theme than can be counted, but IT is the original masterpiece.  To put 'dagger' on the end of a gun and think you are a fucking genious for it just shows that you spent too much time getting attention from your second-rate art teacher at a community college.<br><br>Let's not make that mistake here.

Now, Baz, on the other hand, I like.  And Moulon Rouge (however it is spelled) was great.  Very inventive.<br><br>Speilberg forgot how to direct after Jaws...too bad.<br><br>Tim Burton, got stale after The Nightmare Before Christmas.  Also a shame.<br><br>The sad sad sad part is that cinematography is almost a dead art.  It's all special affects now, and they ain't THAT impressive.  But there are exceptions.<br><br>Great Cinematography : Three Kings, The Matrix.<br><br>Then there is subtle genious.  Like in Unbreakable, which was pretty good, but impressive in subtle ways.  For instance, the point where Bruce Willis realizes he IS a superhero, they put the camera on him, and the lighting on his hood makes a shadow on his face that looks like a classic super-hero mask.  Impressive.<br><br>But whitty comentary and a little jaz, or some stupid modernazation of classic works...leave it for the junk box.

RI, Baz did romeo and juliet as well.

Stick to coding, and at least pretend that you know what you are talking about.<br><br>I have seen a million variations of Romeo and Juliet. They are all the same. William Shakespeare was very talented, and in the lyrical word and portrayal of emotion. Yet we continue to see these watered-down, stereo-typical, and overly-romanticized versions. <br><br>We have no real concept of the period in which Shakespeare lived. That time is so romanticized, it isn't even funny. The buildings are always luxurious, the people lavishly dressed. The sword has even lost its luster as a weapon of death, and has instead become a symbol of romance.<br><br>Baz was brilliant in his execution of Romeo and Juliet. He protrayed the those people as the people they were - punks. Punks 500 years ago, and punks now.<br><br>The weapons of choice are obviously the most common and deadly weapon we have: firearms. To die by the sword is romantic. death by bullet-in-the-head doesn't quite have the same ring to it, does it?<br><br>I think Baz's variation is actually more accurate to William Shakespeares original vision than any other I have seen. So it was not "re-imagined" at all.<br><br>The decision to keep the original dialog intact was also brilliant. Certain phases take on new meaning in this day and age, and Baz even initiated some of them with humor.<br><br>Combining contemporary imagery with a dialog that is obvioulsy dated, was risky. But it added to the entire surrealism surrounding the story.<br><br>So call me artsy fartsy if you like. But one thing I never confuse is flare and artistry. Flare is "the Matrix". I liked the movie, but I can hardly define it as "great cinema" - just simply "entertainment".<br><br>I would suggest that everyone take a few courses in art. Real art classes, not art history. Something intense, with detail... like figure drawing. To loosen the mind, and let the imagination flow over the gentle curves of the human form. To let loose and feel what real creativity is, instead of having it fed to you like a newborn.<br><br>Once you have a grasp of what true creativity feels like, you will begin to extend it into other aspects of your life, including your job. You'll find new ways of doing things, and see alternatives that weren't so obvious before.<br><br>I don't care about personal likes and dislikes. But you better have a good goddam reason either way before even discussing this shit with me.<br><br>

wow! Well said Randall. Spoken like a true artist. I think it was Picasso who said "You have to reteach yourself to "see" again" and look at things in a different way. Your the kinda guy Id like to have working on my films. The public can have x-men and independence day, Ill stick to something with a little more substance.

RIC,<br><br>I have a book that I think you'd really enjoy.  It's no longer in print but the author is selling them out of his garage on Amazon.com.<br><br><br><br>It's a hilarious comparison of technical vs. artsy-fartsy.  My dad (a EE of 40+ yrs) gave me a copy when I got my first engineering job years ago and I still find it funny.<br><br>RIC, from reading some of your posts here I think you and I think along a lot of the same lines.  If you ever find yourself out on the left coast, give me a shout.  We'll fire up the BBQ, crack open a few cold beers and talk about how we can keep our tax dollars from having to pay for nonsense like the NEA.<br><br>

Dig, sounds like a plan...and you do the same if you hit New England.<br><br>As for you RANDALL!~<br><br>Look man, say what you want, but Baz's version of R&J was sophomoric at best.  Sorry.  The Matrix, which I am not saying is a classic piece of art, was used as a metaphore for EXACTLY what you are talking about; thinking outside normality, going the extra step.<br><br>The problem, as I was trying to state it, is that most people, including many artists, cannot ditinguish a stick figure from Picaso's Don Quiote.  Just because it is art in one case, does not mean that it is in all cases.  See?  Or 'The nightmare before christmas' was great, 'monkey bone' was not.<br><br>We may disagree on what is good and what is poop-on-a-stick, but to dismiss my oppinion as uneducated would be as bad as for me to do the same to you.  How old are you?  Just curious...

its all just so unneccessary and doesnt add anything. okay what did he really do with r&j? changed swords to guns (woah, fuck me!) and set it in our time as opposed to shakespeares time. woopy fucking doo. <br><br>so-called 'artsy' people only lap that up because they think its cool to be apart from the 'mainstream', like they're really intelligent and at the edge or something. what a waste.<br><br>its not groundbreaking, its just trying to be 'modern' and has become more like 'meh, who gives a fuck?'<br><br>ah whats the point? none of us will change our minds either way... which pretty much makes every argument we have a waste of time.

OOK!  ^--I think I agree with paul...<br><br>I have a lot of friends who fall into the artsy-fartsy category.  The REALLY good ones aren't like that, they grew out of the die-my-hair-blue, I wanna rebel, listen to the Dead Kennedys stage.  But, I think that stage is important to the growth of an artist.  It is just unfortunate that so much of it makes it to the mainsteam and is revered as art, when really all it is, is a stupid basketball submerged in clear glue!