Vhanja wrote:

.... I have also written earlier in this thread that there are Hollywood movies with elements of being great. And I have never said that Hollywood was bad. Quite opposite, I've often mention that they are at the top of the class when it comes to quality of production.

"with elements of being great" is not the same thing as "being great" - so even when you are back-pedalling you are still saying that you consider Hollywood movies to be second-class compared to Tokyo Story - at least intellectually.

But I don't care - we've established that we expect completely different things from a movie, so there's no point in continuing the discussion or trading film recommendations (interestingly enough, there's zero overlap between our lists of favourite movies).

Unfortunately the subtitles are in Norwegian, as far as I can tell, so I don't have any opinion on the video. However, I'd like to point out that nobody here has ever said that comedy can't be art - quite the contrary, actually.

Now, backing up a bit. Vhanja wrote "Art is defined by the art milieu itself". I actually had been asking how to define art, not who defines it. Because the art people (with and without relevant diplomas) I have asked didn't have an answer either...

Vhanja wrote:

To me, a sign of a great movie, is that the story in itself isn't important. It's just means to an end, and that end is to convey the ideas behind. ....

There's a theory (and a TED talk) that humans are "hardwired for story". You may be the exception, but for me it's true. I want a good story (with interesting characters). The idea behind the story will only arrive in my head if the story doesn't bore me to sleep. Which Tokyo Story did not do - but only by virtue of its exotic setting, both in time and place. If the movie had been set in contemporary Europe, I most probably would have switched off after 20 minutes - or at the very latest after the first hour, when I felt that Ozu had said what he had to say. None of which was enlightening, intellectually satisfying, surprising or particularly entertaining for me.

Amongst other reasons because I had just seen the ideas Ozu wanted to convey (children leaving their parents and the misunderstandings between them, the difficulties of people getting old in a changing country) in Gran Torino, which is another Hollywood Masterpiece - a Great Movie - that you have probably missed.

If you dismiss Hollywood productions as too shallow because of Twilight, 2012 and The Day After - well, then you are basing your opinion on too small a selection of movies - just like SolarSystem her opinion of French movies. When I was about 12, my music teacher told me that my not wanting to sing pop music ("I just

Vhanja wrote:

....

Edit: To give another example of how irrelevant emotions are to art or something great: I can get tears in my eyes and even actually start sobbing by watching the Coca Cola Christmas Commercials ("Holidays are coming..."). Would you call a Coca-Cola commercial great art?

 

I believe there's quite a few Coca-Cola bottle pictures in art museums around the world...

But I haven't seen the commercial you refer to, so I have no way of judging. And even if I had seen it, I couldn't judge, for the simple reason that I have no way of objectively defining whether a work is a work of art or not. And neither has anybody else I discuss the question with.

What does your husband say on the subject?

I would agree that Maria Magdalena or other Sandra songs are not works of art (though Sandra was undoubtedly in the Künstlersozialkasse, i. e. considered an artist for administrative purposes) - because they are so completely forgettable and made no impact at all on me.

What do you think of "Yesterday", or the Beatles in general?

miriel68 wrote:

... history is written by the winners...

Absolutely! (I loved Braveheart.) For me the main villain of Star Trek into Darkness has always and undoubtely been Admiral Marcus - but then I'm always willing to think the worst of the military. And I've never liked the movie because the story didn't quite make sense to me... (after the brilliant reboot I found it very disappointing)

(OT: Which is why I'm really pissed off that I need to buy the DVD if I want to see it again because somebody nicked it from the library!)

Youtube to the rescue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnZJjNjMg98 - Khan as tragic hero...

belis wrote:

Mycroft is the government so the way I see it he would have little difficulties to circumvent the process. It would make sense for him to make Eurus disappear after a fire. It is easy to explain lack of the body in those circumstances and tell everyone that she was burnt to a crisp in her room.
...
 

I never doubted that Uncle Rudy/Mycroft were able to make Eurus disappear, I just doubted it was either morally right or legally correct. And as we seem to agree that they were "circumventing the process" I continue to find Uncle Rudy a despicable person - and possibly Mycroft as well, depending on how old and how manipulated by Rudy he was when he took over.

besleybean wrote:

....
I think there is the same dichotomy with music, too.

Yes there is, but more among the general public than among musicians, I believe. Musicians are more interested in whether a particular piece is interesting than in when and by whom it was written (which of course determines how it is to be played, so it's important to know, but there's no dichotomy "Mozart is good/Beatles are bad").

And even among the general public, film and tv are blurring the lines: People who would never dream of setting foot into a concert hall know quite a lot of classical pieces - there's a hilarious scene illustrating that in the French movie Intouchables.

Which also proves that SolarSystem's opinion of French movies ("intellektuelle Kackscheisse" - on page 4) must be based on too small a part of French cinema production - the movies I (and most of the French), enjoy probably don't make it into German university courses. There's nothing intellectual about Taxi, Paulette, Babysitting, A bout portant, Jappeloup, Dance avec Lui, Les femmes du 5ième étage, Mince alors, Le concert, Mais qu'est-ce qu'on a fait au bon dieu...

I see no point in pigeonholing a film based on the country where it was made or by whom it was financed. "Mass-production" companies can produce great movies (Tokyo Story being a case in point) and indie films can be awful...

Ah-chie distinguishes between "takeaway food" movies and "idea films". My favourite films are both at once - popcorn movies with an idea or two thrown in. My favourite example is probably Die Hard III, a classic Hollywood summer blockbuster. I find it incredibly entertaining (starts with an explosioni and then the tension mounts) and it also says something about interracial relationships (Graham Greene as a New York detective and the whole black/white discussions) and social prejudice (cliché truck driver is the most educated guy around). For that I forgive it the technical impossibilities...

I like the movies I watch to be immediately entertaining (preferably with a few surprises) - if there's a message hidden somewhere, all the better. But let it be hidden - I don't want to be constantly hit over the head with it in a boring movie (like in Bladerunner 2049), especially not if it's something I've already seen. And I'm at a point, after watching probably thousands of movies and living a bit, that I've seen most things.

Which was also the problem with Tokyo Story. Well, apart from the fact that I don't understand Japanese and am far from sure that the French subtitles did justice to the dialogue. It's story is essentially the same I got in a few minutes in the song "Cat's in the cradle", saw in Gran Torino (which has the double advantage of Clint Eastwood and a really surprising end) and last but not least, lived. I'm not trying to say that it's not a good - or even great - film, but that I haven't been personally affected by it.

But it was a fascinating glimpse into another world - so fascinating that I did watch the 135 minutes, even if the only surprise is the music. Unfortunately the world is so different that I'm sure I didn't understand more than half of the movie at best - but I think I'm not interested enough to dig deeper. Too far away, too long ago...
 

besleybean wrote:

....He chooses his roles and has rejected many. 
I don't see him typecast at all. ...

Maybe I misunderstand the word, but I thought typecast referred to what casting directors think of an actor and which roles they offer him? And when I think of an actor being "typecast", I think of what movies roles Hollywood offers him. And of the 8 Hollywood roles I find on IMDd (counting Dr. Strange as one in both films), 6 were major ones (if you count John Ford as major even though he doesn't make it on the "first billed only" list) , 4 of which portrayed an AA and/or genius (I haven't seen The Current War, but I suppose Edison was a genius).

Nobody denies that Benedict Cumberbatch has done a lot of interesting work outside of Hollywood - but Hollywood is what counts in the film business.

miriel68 wrote:

....

Khan is arrogant, but in a different way than S&S. He "knows" he is better because he has been engineered as such, but his arrogance stems from believing, that being better he cannot be beaten by a "weaker" opponent, such a Spock. And yet again, his hubris is the motive of his ruin, but in this case, it is all more tragic because he was not interested in personal glory, but in saving his people.

I love the idea of Khan as the movie's tragic hero! Now I really must get hold of it again!

 

Vhanja wrote:

I have never read Dr. Strange, but I always assumed that his personality was taken from the comics, not inspired by Sherlock.

I agree (though I haven't read Dr. Strange either). And I believe that Benedict Cumberbatch was cast for the role because (parts of) his portrayal of Sherlock corresponded to how the director wanted Dr. Strange portrayed.

Vhanja wrote:

I don't view a character as being arrogant, that is to say that arrogant is a main feature of the character, if they show it in one or two scenes out of many.

Okay, I'll give you Stephen Hawking as not arrogant. However, the first approx. 10 minutes of The Imitation Game span most of Alan Turings adult life - from the job interview at Bletchley Park to  being arrested, presented in reverse order. And in both situations he's shown as arrogant - there is no suggestion of a development.

Vhanja wrote:

That would mean that Khan is a warm and caring persona because he cried in pain over his lost crew. He might care about them, but that is not a main feature of his character.

I'll need to watch Star Trek into Darkness again, but as far as I remember I never saw Khan as the main villain of the movie or had trouble understanding his motivations... (but then I remember the original Khan who hated Kirk because he held him responsible for getting his beloved wife and much of his crew killed which connects back to the original series - the whole pre-story that's missing from the remake. What were they thinking?)

To go back to Vhanja's original post, right now I'm at Benedict Cumberbatch playing four arrogant geniuses: Sherlock, Khan, Alan Turing and Dr. Strange,

one not-arrogant genius: Stephen Hawking

and one arrogant not-genius: Assange

Considering that BC hasn't made all that many movies, I do think that shows a tendency towards being typecast. Which might be just one of the reasons why he started his own production company...