- Status
BenLaw
Well-known member
strapped for cash said:
Maybe he's so engrossed in the film, that he can't tear himself away to reply to you Strapped.
Of course, it could be that's he's just not read it, or he can't be ars*d to reply because le branleurs haven't delivered it yet.
expat_mike
Well-known member
Sadly still no sign of it today (only a mailbox of spam) - hope lives eternal for tomorrow. BBB may end up being correct in his viewpoint about the postal service. 
On a different topic, I have been reading an interesting article about the nature of thought.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929350.500-thoughts-the-inside-story.html?full=true#.UlRLNxBaat8
"Consider, again, the difference between perceiving and thinking. In order to perceive, say, an apple, there must be a causal connection between you and it. Light must be reflected from it and be processed by your visual system. No such connection is required to think about an apple. You can think about one whenever you want, whether or not it is there. This is what allows the faculty of thought to be used "in all kinds of situations"."
The above section started me thinking about the difference between perceiving the film image that is processed by one's visual system, and how concious and subconcious thinking converts this into emotions. This ties in with the comments yesterday, about the power of films to manipulate the viewers emotions.
I am beginning to wonder if it might be a good idea to start suggestions for the next film, while I wait for the postal service to deliver the film.
On a different topic, I have been reading an interesting article about the nature of thought.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929350.500-thoughts-the-inside-story.html?full=true#.UlRLNxBaat8
"Consider, again, the difference between perceiving and thinking. In order to perceive, say, an apple, there must be a causal connection between you and it. Light must be reflected from it and be processed by your visual system. No such connection is required to think about an apple. You can think about one whenever you want, whether or not it is there. This is what allows the faculty of thought to be used "in all kinds of situations"."
The above section started me thinking about the difference between perceiving the film image that is processed by one's visual system, and how concious and subconcious thinking converts this into emotions. This ties in with the comments yesterday, about the power of films to manipulate the viewers emotions.
I am beginning to wonder if it might be a good idea to start suggestions for the next film, while I wait for the postal service to deliver the film.
Before crying "branleurs," we should at least consider the possibility that the package is currently being kicked around a UK sorting centre.
strapped for cash said:
If so, then the word we are looking for is Toss*rs. Personally, I'm still blaming Le Branleurs.
expat_mike
Well-known member
John Duncan
Well-known member
Putain!
To be fair, I looked it up on the map and it's quite far away. Though also to be fair, I could have driven it to you by now.
To be fair, I looked it up on the map and it's quite far away. Though also to be fair, I could have driven it to you by now.
expat_mike said:
I'm not aware of any research using modern equipment into how film viewing influences brain chemistry, but I'd venture that neurobiological processes would differ from person to person. There's older scientific research, of sorts (think of the Kuleshov effect), while scientific papers on subliminal advertising have been published very recently.
I'd also argue that we can never discuss unconscious processes beyond the level of theory, because the idea of an unconscious aspect of the human psyche was only ever a theoretical construct, and can't be studied scientifically or empirically. (To my understanding, subliminal and unconscious processes aren't quite the same thing; though I'd have to conduct substantial reading to say anything useful about this.)
I fear that if people start analysing viewer brain chemistry, the results would be used as a scientific template for the construction of art. (Not that art and science are completely discrete terms). Perhaps more worryingly, the results could be used by advertisers and propagandists. (When such research has been undertaken in the past it's generally been under instruction from despots and dictators.)
In certain regards, I think there's a case for more collaborative research between the hard sciences and Humanities, though I worry about what this would mean for the arts and whether artistic expression can ever be reduced to a formula.
Huge and profoundly complex subject there, Mike!
expat_mike
Well-known member
Very true, but fascinating all the same. I think there is research reported in recent years, especially now that research tools like electrode skullcaps and eye tracking cameras, make it easier to collect data.
Even so, I can't help feeling that some of the experiments must be very binary in their design (ie happy picture, sad picture, but ignoring the other sensory inputs that make up the complete package for everyday film viewers - eg type of music, are you watching alone or with friends, room decor etc). I shall try to relocate some of the articles, but it may take a week or two.
The technology is certainly available to conduct such research, though if research papers have been published, they've been published outside my field.
I've read scientific papers on brief experiences of 3D viewing, but the techniques used were pretty crude (sliding a bead to indicate how "immersive" the experience felt, despite the fact that "immersion" is an incredibly complex term the researchers didn't attempt to define; and post-viewing tick-box exercises). I'm not aware of any such research into film viewing specifically, which doesn't mean that such papers don't exist.
The problem is, when scientists write such papers they make crude assumptions and throw around terms that are highly contentious in my subject. It'd be like me conducting lab experiments without grounding in the appropriate scientific discipline. This is why such research should, in my view, be interdisciplinary or not conducted at all. (There are currently moves toward collaboration between the hard sciences and Humanities in several UK universities.)
None of that means I wouldn't be interested to read papers on the subject, if you can track any down. Are you talking about papers published in peer reviewed journals?
I've read scientific papers on brief experiences of 3D viewing, but the techniques used were pretty crude (sliding a bead to indicate how "immersive" the experience felt, despite the fact that "immersion" is an incredibly complex term the researchers didn't attempt to define; and post-viewing tick-box exercises). I'm not aware of any such research into film viewing specifically, which doesn't mean that such papers don't exist.
The problem is, when scientists write such papers they make crude assumptions and throw around terms that are highly contentious in my subject. It'd be like me conducting lab experiments without grounding in the appropriate scientific discipline. This is why such research should, in my view, be interdisciplinary or not conducted at all. (There are currently moves toward collaboration between the hard sciences and Humanities in several UK universities.)
None of that means I wouldn't be interested to read papers on the subject, if you can track any down. Are you talking about papers published in peer reviewed journals?
expat_mike
Well-known member
Good news chaps.
The film arrived today, and I have just watched it. :dance:
To be fair, it did make a bit more sense the second time around.
Thanks JD. :cheers:
Let the discussion begin.
The film arrived today, and I have just watched it. :dance:
To be fair, it did make a bit more sense the second time around.
Thanks JD. :cheers:
Let the discussion begin.
BenLaw
Well-known member
At our book club we tend to have the chooser / proposer of the book to say why they suggested it and a bit about what they thought first. Do people think that's a good idea? If so, it's BBB to go first!
John Duncan
Well-known member
Hoorah!!!
OK.
Well, I hope you've all enjoyed it. I chose it because it's not really like any other film I've ever seen, and I knew it would make an impression on anyone who saw itI. I think it's visually striking (really want the blu ray when it is released), very funny, quirky, clever, and just a really good film.
You either loved or it, or hated it, and I'm very keen to know. So tell me now!!!!
OK.
Well, I hope you've all enjoyed it. I chose it because it's not really like any other film I've ever seen, and I knew it would make an impression on anyone who saw itI. I think it's visually striking (really want the blu ray when it is released), very funny, quirky, clever, and just a really good film.
You either loved or it, or hated it, and I'm very keen to know. So tell me now!!!!
BenLaw
Well-known member
Somewhere in between. Liked much more than disliked. Obviously very visually striking, Clodagh was keeping an eye on it whilst I watched and absolutely loved some of the set and costume design.
Very funny in parts as well: VInnie Jones repeating his line over and over, getting the mundane answer from the guy killing his wife and saying 'fair enough', the gay burglars, the hyponist murdered just before undoing the chicken magic etc.
My real concern about it is, 'what was the point?' I have some ideas about what individual elements of it meant but was there any cohesive message? General themes of modern living and pop culture I guess, but was anything of significance being said about them? The director has a background in pop videso I believe and at many points it felt to me like a very long Radiohead video.
I have more to say but will have to leave most til tomorrow and intrigued to see what others think.
Very funny in parts as well: VInnie Jones repeating his line over and over, getting the mundane answer from the guy killing his wife and saying 'fair enough', the gay burglars, the hyponist murdered just before undoing the chicken magic etc.
My real concern about it is, 'what was the point?' I have some ideas about what individual elements of it meant but was there any cohesive message? General themes of modern living and pop culture I guess, but was anything of significance being said about them? The director has a background in pop videso I believe and at many points it felt to me like a very long Radiohead video.
I have more to say but will have to leave most til tomorrow and intrigued to see what others think.
Hi-FiOutlaw
Well-known member
To start I've LIKED the movie as well!!! Very funny, liked the sets, lot of colour and imagination!
Just did not cought the discloser of some characters in the movie, for intance the add maker that realised that has forgoten the tape recorder in the restaurant and left the taxi runing like hell and suddenly stopped, didn't undertand why?!
Just did not cought the discloser of some characters in the movie, for intance the add maker that realised that has forgoten the tape recorder in the restaurant and left the taxi runing like hell and suddenly stopped, didn't undertand why?!
All I'll say for now is, does it have to have a meaning, a message?
There may well be a message about modern culture, modern living, but it makes no difference to me if it hasn't.
It's not my favourite ever film, though it's defintely in the top 20.
There may well be a message about modern culture, modern living, but it makes no difference to me if it hasn't.
It's not my favourite ever film, though it's defintely in the top 20.
Well, I've been up all night working, so I'll keep this brief. I thought of two questions that might inform discussion:
1) Cultural specificity -- how do the film's themes translate?
2) Surrealism -- what do the film's different spaces represent and how might we interpret them in relation to different aspects of the human psyche?
We might consider question two primarily in relation to wife-murderer's narrative. More tomorrow, if/when I break free from work commitments...
1) Cultural specificity -- how do the film's themes translate?
2) Surrealism -- what do the film's different spaces represent and how might we interpret them in relation to different aspects of the human psyche?
We might consider question two primarily in relation to wife-murderer's narrative. More tomorrow, if/when I break free from work commitments...
John Duncan
Well-known member
My first impressions sort of match Ben's I think;
- very amusing in places (when the dead wife fires her arms at her husband like rocket launchers and what happens when said husband jumps out of the window at the end both made me laugh out loud)
- interesting to look at - I can't say stunning or beautiful or similar, but a lot of thought went into the production design (especially the feuding couple's house) and the way the camera mostly sits full square in front of the actors.
Other than that I was somewhat inclined to ask of the film - "what is your function in life?"...
- very amusing in places (when the dead wife fires her arms at her husband like rocket launchers and what happens when said husband jumps out of the window at the end both made me laugh out loud)
- interesting to look at - I can't say stunning or beautiful or similar, but a lot of thought went into the production design (especially the feuding couple's house) and the way the camera mostly sits full square in front of the actors.
Other than that I was somewhat inclined to ask of the film - "what is your function in life?"...
I think it's function was to entertain and amuse. I'm a
little surprised that not more of you found it as funny as I do, though my sense of humour is a little twisted.
Did you not laugh when the family sit down for Xmas dinner, and dad goes crazy at the sight of the Turkey? Vinnie Jones's translator obviously not being able to translate, and just making things up? The gay burglar with the teeth? "Come baby, come come baby" ? The family headbanging in the car?
I could go on, because to me it's an extremely funny film virtually all the way through.
This was the directors first film, his work before was in TV advertising as far as I can remember.
little surprised that not more of you found it as funny as I do, though my sense of humour is a little twisted.
Did you not laugh when the family sit down for Xmas dinner, and dad goes crazy at the sight of the Turkey? Vinnie Jones's translator obviously not being able to translate, and just making things up? The gay burglar with the teeth? "Come baby, come come baby" ? The family headbanging in the car?
I could go on, because to me it's an extremely funny film virtually all the way through.
This was the directors first film, his work before was in TV advertising as far as I can remember.
Here are my thoughts...
For me, the most interesting narrative strand involves the husband that murders his wife, only for her to return in ever more violent manifestations.
Read through a Freudian lens, the wife's repeated burial and reappearance signifies an act of repression and return. (A "return of the repressed," as Freud put it.)
The husband repeatedly tries to bury (literally and figuratively) memory of his actions, but that memory unfailingly returns and gains more powerful form.
The same is true of the monster in horror films that represents contemporary social ills and cannot be destroyed. The more we try to repress something, the more violently or disturbingly it ultimately manifests. (At least that's the Freudian reading.)
In this regard SS5+ is a surrealist film (concerned with unconscious, or both conscious and unconscious aspects of the psyche). We might therefore consider what different spaces in the film represent -- the dark woods (id) and home (ego/superego). The murdered wife's ability to transcend these spaces should not be interpreted literally, but as symbolic of the husband's inability to repress memories of his murderous behaviour. (In other words, this narrative strand is about guilt.)
Understood this way, how do people feel about the film's conclusion, especially the wife's eventual disappearance and the "I Will Survive" ending?
Generally speaking, I thought the film was about characters' ability (or not) to move on by reconciling these opposing aspects of the psyche. Some did, others remained in a state of conflict and stasis. I'm not suggesting this is anything approaching a thorough reading. I only watched the film once, a couple of weeks back, and I'd need to watch it several times to say anything more. I might even challenge what I've said above.
I'm also not too hot on Japanese (or any East Asian) cinema and culture. I say this because I probably failed to pick up on certain culturally specific references and themes.
For me, the most interesting narrative strand involves the husband that murders his wife, only for her to return in ever more violent manifestations.
Read through a Freudian lens, the wife's repeated burial and reappearance signifies an act of repression and return. (A "return of the repressed," as Freud put it.)
The husband repeatedly tries to bury (literally and figuratively) memory of his actions, but that memory unfailingly returns and gains more powerful form.
The same is true of the monster in horror films that represents contemporary social ills and cannot be destroyed. The more we try to repress something, the more violently or disturbingly it ultimately manifests. (At least that's the Freudian reading.)
In this regard SS5+ is a surrealist film (concerned with unconscious, or both conscious and unconscious aspects of the psyche). We might therefore consider what different spaces in the film represent -- the dark woods (id) and home (ego/superego). The murdered wife's ability to transcend these spaces should not be interpreted literally, but as symbolic of the husband's inability to repress memories of his murderous behaviour. (In other words, this narrative strand is about guilt.)
Understood this way, how do people feel about the film's conclusion, especially the wife's eventual disappearance and the "I Will Survive" ending?
Generally speaking, I thought the film was about characters' ability (or not) to move on by reconciling these opposing aspects of the psyche. Some did, others remained in a state of conflict and stasis. I'm not suggesting this is anything approaching a thorough reading. I only watched the film once, a couple of weeks back, and I'd need to watch it several times to say anything more. I might even challenge what I've said above.
I'm also not too hot on Japanese (or any East Asian) cinema and culture. I say this because I probably failed to pick up on certain culturally specific references and themes.
John Duncan
Well-known member
BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW said:
I thought it was a good joke, yes, but then I thought he spoiled it by doing the 'father in a microwave' routine. I got the joke first time and didn;t need it explaining.
BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW said:
Yes, I had forgotten that one actually.
But sometimes I think he just went too far with the explanations - when the dad swoops and picks up the murdering husband when he jumps out the window, you know *exactly* what's happened (and it's the best joke in the film) - you don't then need another few minutes of him flying across the city to hammer it home.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
I test OLED TVs for a living – and trust me, different sizes perform differently- Started by What Hi-Fi?
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-
Biggest Upgrade Improvement? Rega Aphelion 2 or Aura?
- Started by hybridauth_Google_112692162581130744674
- Replies: 5
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram