Beautiful films?

[New Wave Shamrock]

I stand by that he was right place right time. He might have been the best of the giallo bunch, but his dialog and stories are rather weak.

I recognize why people love him, of course. There's a reason why I own many of his films. But closer unbiased examination does show he's overrated as a storyteller.

I'll give him mad credit for working with Goblin, though. Those are some of my favorite soundtracks of any genre.

Surprisingly, I am interested in pointing out stories I think are weak. If I think it matters. Usually, if they are about serious subjects or told in a serious tone. Argento is ambitious with his story ideas but it's not like Suspiria is trying to be an unflinching portrait of racial struggles or Deep Red is about abortion. Etc.

Storytelling is much more elastic when the film itself is conforming to genre. At least in the case of horror. I personally haven't seen enough dramas or art films to think I'm any kind of expert on other genres. There are people out there who will tell you a film doesn't even need dialogue. The camera itself speaks for them. Fills out story gaps. Etc. That's where I think Argento excels.

Go ahead and stand by whatever- I don't think you're being fair.

Though... I do have one major personal exception to this rule. Acting. If the acting is ridiculous, thick / too broad, or too reliant on hyper-masculinity or condescending stereotypes, I am highly likely to disengage with a film.

[Alien Redrum]

I think you misunderstand me, I'm not looking for anything deep in the story. God no.

I just want something more than a cookie cut story, and that's all Argento's movies have to offer. Which makes it doubly frustrating because his films are so beautiful.

I am being fair, I'm being very fair. I'm not knocking him, I'm pointing out his flaws. He's far from perfect, and there's nothing wrong with being critical.

My two favorite directors are Michael Mann and Michael Bay, but goddamn I can tell you everything wrong with their movies. I love Romero, but I can tell you everything wrong with his films.

Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean I'm not being fair.

[Alien Redrum]

Side note, I love how shiki is probably punching the screen right now because he agrees with me on some level since we've had this discussion ad nauseum.

[New Wave Shamrock]

I think you misunderstand me, I'm not looking for anything deep in the story. God no.

I just want something more than a cookie cut story, and that's all Argento's movies have to offer. Which makes it doubly frustrating because his films are so beautiful.

I am being fair, I'm being very fair. I'm not knocking him, I'm pointing out his flaws. He's far from perfect, and there's nothing wrong with being critical.

My two favorite directors are Michael Mann and Michael Bay, but goddamn I can tell you everything wrong with their movies. I love Romero, but I can tell you everything wrong with his films.

Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean I'm not being fair.

If Argento's stories in (I repeat) Deep Red, Inferno, Opera, Suspiria, Tenebre, The Bird with the Crystal Plumage, The Stendhal Syndrome, Phenomena, Cat o' Nine Tails are cookie cut, all I have to say is...



And the fact is, I haven't seen any argument from you that you believe filmmakers do use visual and stylistic signifiers and symbolism and motifs, etc, as aspects of the story itself. How do you believe silent films told their stories? You think the title German expressionism is a reference to dialogue?

Beauty isn't beauty alone. In film, a beautiful image either has impact - and does so because it's an image with a story to itself, an image that furthers the story on its own - or it doesn't, because it didn't act to support or supplant a story detail, and it winds up looking like something in a Joel Schumacher Batman flick: dead of emotion, cold, potentially ugly, and fairly tasteless. It may be slick and sleek and colorful and look expensive but it still tastes like cardboard. Or, to use a horror reference (Cronenberg's Fly), it tastes synthetic. (Which I imagine to be a lot like rubber.) Because it didn't have the same thought or substance behind it that artistic filmmakers carefully insert into their images.

Why would I think you were being fair? You basically name-dropped dialogue in a previous post (and "stories"... that's all you said and I assumed you were referring to scripts / screenplays) as though that were the core way all films told their stories. (Do I need to say that Cronenberg's Videodrome was made from an unfinished screenplay? So was The Evil Dead.)

[shiki-jitsu]

Side note, I love how shiki is probably punching the screen right now because he agrees with me on some level since we've had this discussion ad nauseum.

No I am too busy laughing too hard at the fact that New Wave Shamrock thinks you want depth in your stories.

I've given up trying to defend Argento on this forum about 10 years ago. It's just not worth the hassle. But yes I do agree to some extent, but not in the way you think. [Some] Argento films are quite beautiful, but he does not use that beauty in the same way that someone like Greenaway does. The missteps in Argento's output I think proves that. And this

No, I am not going to be dragged into this again on this forum.

But, back on track. We can't have a beautiful films thread and not see the name Peter Greenaway listed somewhere. So. My work is done.

[Alien Redrum]

Wait, isn't Greenaway the one where they literally played his fucking movie BACKWARDS and no one was the wiser?

[shiki-jitsu]

Wait, isn't Greenaway the one where they literally played his fucking movie BACKWARDS and no one was the wiser?

I don't think so. But I would be interested in seeing whatever movie you are referring to.

[Alien Redrum]

I need to find it. This really happened. And it's a movie you'd like.

[Alien Redrum]

Malick's Tree of Life.

[shiki-jitsu]

Malick's Tree of Life.

I thought that would be what it was.

I am fine with that.

[Alien Redrum]