Where are the film buffs?

[dhcjrew]

you can borrow mine if you want.

I never understood why The Big Lewbowski got this big cult following. I think it's their worst film.

Do you by chance ever go to Orion Cinema? They specialize in showing obscure/cult classics/foreign language/artsy fartsy, etc... type films. I used to go there all the time before my daughter was born. It might be your cup of tea.

Thanks for the offer, though I'm in no rush to see it. If anything, I'll send you a note.

I barely know Finland to tell you the truth. My wife was born and raised here, but I've only been here as a permanent resident since July 07. I've only been to a couple cinemas the previous trips I've made here, but we ended up with snoozers.

And yes, having children does handicap your chances of watching movies. I have a 3 year old boy and another one on the way. Besides that, I've been working PT and possibly gearing up for grad school at the Art & Design Uni.

[dhcjrew]

@Xochiquetzal

Thanks a bunch. I'll give them a search on the web and see where that leads me.

[dhcjrew]

@Paul_D

Wow, you're right about the prices. I wonder what Criterion Collection DVDs would cost here then. They already cost an arm and a leg in the US.

[Hank W.]

I know a video-shop in Helsinki that sells a great selection of movies: Pieni Leffakauppa, in Harju (Aleksis Kiven katu 10).

Just note they are in a neighbourhood of a lot of video stores that could be named pieni peffakauppa

[dhcjrew]

FYI, Mozart's contemporaries, by definition, were the other composers of his time (his peers, his classmates, his generation), and the word "contemporary" does not whatsoever relate to "contemporary composers."

Hank was saying that composers in Mozart's time considered his music a bit "new agey."

Contemporary classical music is a period that started in the mid-1970s with the retreat of modernism, and continues to this day.

Mozart was a prolific and influential composer of the Classical era.

I guess that's where I assumed wrong. I thought he meant Contemporaries of today, or Contemporary Classical. Now that I'm in-tune with what Hank was saying, I can respond with my take on it.

There will always be criticisms, in any art form for that matter, that a piece is ahead of its time. I'm not sure what I miscommunicated to give the impression that some of our current artists are ahead of their time, or "new agey." I was merely alluding to how the crafting of Arts and Entertainment have progressively gotten lazy.

[dhcjrew]

I just got the first rolls off my Agiflex and it seems we got a winner. My Yashica-Mat is then again excellent for portraits... still need to find something for 6x12... old junk is old junk is good junk but now I need to start selling my tryouts. And 35mm I take with a Zenit and a Minox... no worry of getting dirty or dropping them

A bit OT, but I forgot to ask you about your works. Do you have a portfolio of your pieces?

[Hank W.]

Ah, its on the "list of things to do" - got a new computer and an old scanner and lots of negatives... and an account in photobucket. One day...

Meanwhile if you want to see some nice "backyard photography"
=> nature
http://www.primedirectivephotography.com
(I think he had a picture of my outhouse there somewhere )

[Karhunkoski]

(I think he had a picture of my outhouse there somewhere )

Would that be under "Commercial" or "Sports & Leisure" ?

[Hank W.]

Oh, hes gone removed the "Horror" section Tom's a tad more "professional" than I am.

[dhcjrew]

Meanwhile if you want to see some nice "backyard photography"
=> nature
http://www.primedirectivephotography.com

His pieces are okay. His 'architecture' section is probably one of the nicer selections. Nothing really stood out for me in the others.

His uses of focus (either on a long lens or wide-opened aperture) leave me unsatisfied. His use of a shallow depth of field, in my opinion, are overused in most of the pictures.

His 'abstract' section was sort of a bummer for me, I was expecting more than he showcased. A picture of a broken tree did little for me since anyone could have easily taken a picture of a broken tree in a slant frame, and shallow DoF. What makes it abstract?

Some of his B&W (and Sepia) reek of either digital camera use, or digital editing--messy and massive shades of gray tone. I think shooting some B&W with some NC400 B&W C-41 film would yield some nice separation of shades.

I'll have to find a friend's page that I believe had a more stronger presentation--photo wise.

EDIT-- Found It.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joalsphotos/
He's got some really good stuff.

[sinikala]

Since Hollywood is running out of fresh ideas, they need to borrow hit movie ideas from other countries to make it "fresh" in the states. U.S. audiences aren't custom to watching movies with subtitles... most are too lazy.

Hollywood borrowing ideas from international cinema is hardly a new idea... The Magnificent Seven was made in 1960, less than a decade after Kurusawa's "original".

To simply slap subtitles on a samurai film would not necessarily have worked for a mainstream US audience, language is not the only barrier. The audience needs to relate to the protagonists, people in the US 50 years ago could more readily relate to a cowboy genre than to a bunch of katana wielding Japs, hence a version of the story more suitable for them.

For similar reasons, the Mafia / mob / US urban culture films that scubagirl mentioned ...

i LOVE mafia/gangster/organized crime movies.
my favs: Goodfellas, A Bronx Tale, Carlito's Way, Reservoir Dogs, State of Grace, Dog Day Afternoon, Godfather Trilogy, Donnie Brasco, Casino, and most recently The Departed. Oh, does Some Like It Hot count? LOL
I also love "urban" gang movies: Boyz n da Hood, Menace To Society, New Jack City, Set It Off, etc.... Looking very forward to seeing American Gangster.

leave me totally cold. I can't relate to them, they hold slightly less interest for me than watching paint dry - irrespective of how good the direction or convincing the acting.

But I do agree with scubagirl about The Big Lebowski. Utter shat.

[dhcjrew]

Hollywood borrowing ideas from international cinema is hardly a new idea... The Magnificent Seven was made in 1960, less than a decade after Kurusawa's "original".

I'm well aware of the 'idea borrowing'... just as G. Lucas adapted his 'Star Wars' from Kurosawa's 'The Hidden Fortress.' I see that my point isn't connecting with you. What I'm exploring is that it's downright lazy. It's not a matter of giving homage to a great filmmaker. How many Seven Samurai adaptations have you seen out there? TOO MANY. If you've seen one, you've seen them all. It's like name-brand products versus the imitation-brands from slave-labor factories. On one hand, you have a recognized, quality brand... say "Nike"... and on the other hand, you have a cheaply manufactured "Niike." Seven Samurai was the original NIKE, and all the others are the quick-let's-capitalize-on-this-NIKE-idea-NIIKE. I don't think I'd have to go much further explaining how those relate to my film criticisms.

Simply put, they're too lazy to come up with their own ideas. Regardless of the cinematic era, the point I'm trying to make is that filmmakers are getting more and more lazy--hence, the reason I said there was a need for them to borrow ideas.

For similar reasons, the Mafia / mob / US urban culture films that scubagirl mentioned ...

leave me totally cold. I can't relate to them, they hold slightly less interest for me than watching paint dry - irrespective of how good the direction or convincing the acting.

Just a question, but what are your standards for a great film? I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing with what you say about the gangster films mentioned.

[dhcjrew]

To simply slap subtitles on a samurai film would not necessarily have worked for a mainstream US audience, language is not the only barrier.

I wasn't talking about how well a film will sell in different countries.

The audience needs to relate to the protagonists, people in the US 50 years ago could more readily relate to a cowboy genre than to a bunch of katana wielding Japs, hence a version of the story more suitable for them.

so what does this say about US audiences in the 50s? Ignorance?

A great film doesn't have to relate to the audience to be great. When a film is specifically targeting a demographic, it's simply stating, "these are the easy targets for us to capitalize on." That's clearly lazy in my opinion. For filmmakers to argue the importance of relating the protagonists to the audience due to demographic and era is ridiculous. Why would I care if I did or didn't relate to the Yakuza as portrayed in Takeshi Kitano's yakuza films? Do I have to? I don't relate to detectives and I still enjoyed R. Polanski's Chinatown.

Am I understanding you correctly? What exactly are you saying?

[sinikala]

To simply slap subtitles on a samurai film would not necessarily have worked for a mainstream US audience, language is not the only barrier.

I wasn't talking about how well a film will sell in different countries.

So that makes two of us! Well done, have a banana.

If you want to demonstrate laziness in Hollywood, you'd get more mileage if you targeted remakes of english language films e.g. Get Carter, The Ladykillers, Ocean's Eleven, Thomas Crown affair etc.

Even then the counter argument; that the originals, as good as they were at the time, lack relevance for a contemporary audience, is still strong.

What exactly are you saying?

I'm saying that you're talking out of your bum.

You like what you like, nothing more. Your opinion is no more authoratative than anyone else's.

Let's leave it at that, eh?

[dhcjrew]

So that makes two of us! Well done, have a banana.

If I can copy/paste correctly, you said, "To simply slap subtitles on a samurai film would not necessarily have worked for a mainstream US audience, language is not the only barrier."
So you mean... it wouldn't have SOLD in the US?? Ahhh, gotcha. "selling" in this form does not require monetary exchanges.

If you want to demonstrate laziness in Hollywood, you'd get more mileage if you targeted remakes of english language films e.g. Get Carter, The Ladykillers, Ocean's Eleven, Thomas Crown affair etc.

Even then the counter argument; that the originals, as good as they were at the time, lack relevance for a contemporary audience, is still strong.

Why does it matter what film Hollywood remakes? I simply used international titles as a point of reference. If you want to use original Hollywood titles that got remade, then by all means, use it. It sounds to me, based from your posts, that your idea of a great film is proven from it's generated revenue. Spiderman 1, 2, and 3 generated millions and millions worldwide... but does that make them great films?

Regardless of the audience... regardless if the film is over 200 years old... regardless if it is in Chinese and you speak Martian... if a film is good, it's good.

But then you'd be asking me, "what makes a film good then?" Which leads me to...

You like what you like, nothing more. Your opinion is no more authoratative than anyone else's.

Authoritative? Since when did I believe my voice was much greater than anybody else's here? I spoke my mind about what I believed the film industry is reveling in, and you're here trolling. Why don't you contribute to the discussions instead of trying to talk down someone's opinion? I've already stated in the original post that because of my views, often times people would label me with an elitist attitude. YOU simply proved that.

I'm saying that you're talking out of your bum.

Let's leave it at that, eh?

Yessss.... very classy.