American cartoons
Here I watch a cartoon like South Park, the Griffins, and I think what idiots did this shit. Stupid films in general,and young people watch and become dull. I personally got tired of this transition to Soviet cinema and I advise you who did not switch.
stalker7162534
Well, yes, of course, Americans are stupid.
I did not say that they are stupid. I said that they (like us, in principle) after watching "South Park" will not hide their shortcomings, which are shown there.
The ghost of totalitarianism "Consider the cartoon" Practical Pig ""
Gee, son, LOL!
Anneal on! Write more!
Consider the cartoon "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" - propaganda of violence! Over pensioners! A shame!
"In liberal America, it is considered in the order of things to use torture during interrogation"
Consider the cartoon "Kolobok" - cannibalism, blah !!!!!!!!! In the USSR, it was considered in the order of things to have children during the Holodomor !!!!
Did these fables help anyone? I think very few people. Yes, the author's language is good, everything is shown exactly. And things are still there :-)
Very few people learn from books or films. Take phrases, copy clothes - that's please, but that's where they stop.
The stalker again has nothing to say, and he hysterized :)
If only Kolobok read it again - there he was eaten by Fox, not Kolobok :)
Yes, I can't get away from laughing, how epic you lost.
Stalker, do you admit that the Wolf in "Practical Pig" was tortured on a lie detector?
Yes or no?
Do you admit that you said nonsense - that eating a piece of bread by a fox is considered cannibalism?
Yes or no?
The birthplace of electricity
You also judge by annotation about the messages in the books.
By the plot it is quite possible to understand the main point. As a rule, I am not mistaken. Although sometimes it happens .. (
And about music, probably, by the names of the tracks.
It is impossible to judge music by the description, only the genre can be understood.
Or is it such hypocritical selectivity.
All of you who do not agree with you and with other tastes = hypocrites?))
Still, you need to approach the matter more professionally, not relying only on your own impressions, what do you think?
You know, we're actually talking about art. And you can talk about him only from the position of like / dislike. For the angle of the stroke or the size of the stroke are completely useless in relation to Dzhakonda: for some she is a masterpiece, for others she is a terrible woman with a moronic grin, and for others, "it is beautiful, because the book says so." And how can you arrive at the exact criteria? For me, the term "professional approach" to cinema is not clear at all. What does this term mean? I understand the professional approach to medicine - a person has been practicing and studying for a long time and it is easier for him to recognize a sore than for me. The same approach in engineering is quite understandable: of course, the designer's opinion on the characteristics of the bridge is more important than mine. But that's why someone, having studied somewhere, suddenly gets the right to tell me what is beautiful, what is talented, and what is so-so in works of art, I do not understand at all. He has his own tastes, I have my own. The only difference between us is that he can clothe his passions in the form of an essay with a bunch of abstruse maxims, and I will say everything in one paragraph.
Just don't shout about Tarkovsky's uniqueness, because it's not true.
Don't you like him? Do not look. Why be so nervous? ) For me it is unique, because I have not seen such a formulation of the problematic in connection with an interesting and watchable plot. Well, I don't like close-ups for 10 minutes and the thoughtful silence of the heroes of the fate of the Universe at this moment pondering. I do not like it when the report of the Hadron Collider Acceptance Committee resembles from the screen, i.e. they say a lot and for a long time, but the essence is impossible to understand clearly. I don’t like it when the heroes carry incoherent nonsense, and then everyone in the reviews explains what global thoughts were hidden behind this nonsense. I just don't like it all, period. )
It did not occur to
you that cinema is a fine art, and that the notorious "play of light or display angle" can perform certain artistic functions. Did it ever occur to you that a painting is an object of art? And that its frame and the color with the texture of the wall on which it hangs are also of great importance? Here are some and go and inspect, and then say whether they liked the frame or not. And the wall was chosen correctly or so-so. And for them, these moments are really important for perception! Not for me.
Homeland of electricity
And according to the annotation you can
If you can look in detail and plus at the actors, you can.
And here are the tastes
Well, you subtly hinted that if someone does not like the idea of ​​this film, then he is a hypocrite. )
Consideration of films in terms of their importance for the development of cinema.
And what does this mean? No, well, I understand ex. the first color or the first sound, or the first in its genre. And everything else is basically the private opinion of an individual. Someone thinks "Battleship .." is an epoch-making work, someone is just propaganda. And how to understand who is right? It seems that there really is propaganda, but there is also a director's talent. And there is no single criterion .. (
In this case, I am not worried about either your preferences and tastes or my own.
Oh, I doubt it ...
I'm talking about the fact that Tarkovsky's films have practically zero significance for the development of cinema.
And here's the proof.)) Who decided that? Did the Lord write on the tablets? World referendum? It was decided by you or you, under the influence of a critic or a group of critics. But this is not a fact at all. Why? And because I already wrote, there are no clear criteria in art. Some may like it, others may not. And you can prove it all the way. But all the same, no objectivity, only personal tastes.
This is generally what it was said for.
To the established vicious practice of listening to certain learned men (it is not clear how and what they learned to begin with) who begin to impose their own sympathies and antipathies on the audience.
I am neutral towards Tarkovsky.
"Tarkovsky's films have practically zero significance for the development of cinematography", "For that matter, Bresson's films raise much more pressing problems than Tarkovsky's films, and at the same time they are shot much better. Cinema still needs to be assessed as a whole - and here Tarkovsky is nothing does not stand out from the galaxy of the same festival directors, like any Almodovar, Kurosav and others like them, who occupy the position of "white elephants" in cinema, who do not move the industry forward, but simply use the achievements of real masters. "
And why does it seem to me that you do not really like him? ))
I say that he is nothing original. He did not bring anything new to the cinema
"Skating rink and violin". First Prize at the New York Student Film Festival in 1961.
"Ivan's childhood". At the XXIII International Film Festival in Venice (Italy) in 1962, the film "Ivan's Childhood" was awarded the main prize "Golden Lion" by St. Brand.
The main prize "Golden Gate" at the VI International Film Festival in San Francisco (USA) in 1962.
Main Prize "Golden Head of Palenque" at the 5th International Film Festival in Acapulco (Mexico) in 1963.
The film has won over 10 awards at many other film festivals.
"Andrey Rublev". FIPRESCI Prize at the XXII International Film Festival in Cannes (France) in 1969.
Solaris. Special Jury Prize "Silver Palm Branch" and the Ecumenical Jury Prize at the XXV International Film Festival in Cannes (France) in 1972.
"Mirror". 1980 Donatello David for Best Foreign Film in Italy.
"Stalker". Critics Prize at the Trieste International Film Festival (Italy) in 1981. FIPRESCI Prize at the 1981 Madrid International Science Fiction Film Festival (Spain).
Etc.
General conclusion: members of the jury and critics of these festivals are stupid, suckers and do not understand anything in cinema, tk. they gave all this to the usual mediocrity, who did not really do anything in the cinema and stupidly copied others ...
This is what it said
about the topic of "advanced" directors and films.
The frame and wall are separate from the painting.
Lighting in the cinema also exists separately, I can edit it in any film with the help of an ordinary modern noise reduction device, and put anything on a computer anywhere. And the picture visually goes along with the frame, do you have blinkers in your eyes and look into its embrasure?
As for the list of films. While on domestic. The first two are not bad, I've seen. Made with talent. Parajanov never liked him. Foreign ones then I'll look. While I only read science fiction in the original, the idea was interesting, I wonder how much the author left the work ...
The ghost of totalitarianism
What is the essence of the plot? The fact that a cat's hatred of a foreign mouse culture is ridiculous and stupid.
As residents of English-speaking countries say don`t worry be happy
stalker7162534
What a good picture - an excellent illustration of the thesis "American liberal cartoons are inherently violent."
Sori did not read the whole topic. Almost everything American cartoons give off stupidity and "stalking". There is one exception ... "Back to the Future" is a very entertaining and informative cartoon. In addition to the cartoon itself, children will learn useful information and presented in an original manner.
Homeland of electricity
Applying innovations that have since become firmly entrenched in film production.
To be honest, for me, innovation in this matter is something global. Ex. sound, color, new genre, new special effects or comp. graphic arts.
this is a private opinion
This is probably a very professional opinion.)) I have not dug that deep.) A
landmark film for cinema in terms of those very innovations.
You see, and I think so. But I read some critic who argued in full that there was nothing special there, except for the hand-painted flag and that this was all an excuse for the Bolshevik repression and murder of citizens. How many people - so many opinions ...
he did nothing for the development of cinema
I don’t understand again. He did not do anything, but various juries at the highest level gave him a bunch of prizes, and now his films are studied in universities. Is everyone wrong? Or did he have some achievements?
You appeal to critics, although you yourself declare "vicious practice".
Wait, you mentioned the criticism. So I showed you that critics just praised him very highly. And for me personally, the opinion of critics is not very important. I like it or not. Look how feces threw Bondarchuk with his "Island." And I think the film is excellent and very important for the national cinema. Because for the first time it was possible to combine the exact adherence to the work, large-scale special effects and not make a primitive and a standard Hollywood action movie out of this (which, alas, is already beginning to be seen in our country).
The festival director gets a standing ovation from the festival audience and receives prizes at festivals.
Those? Are all festival award-winning directors second-class directors? They don't really know how to shoot?
And you can also paint on the mustache
with a marker on the Gioconda. Late with the ideas - I have already seen the exhibition of "contemporary artists", where both the mustache and the beard and who knows what they painted on it. "They see it this way" ... They say that you will understand the essence better.))
And the movie comes with a cinema or a TV set
Certainly. Agree that the spectacular effect of the film will be much greater on excellent technology, in excellent quality and with a large diagonal. This is how perception is arranged ...
Homeland of electricity
You don't want to, however you want. Lady's desire is the law. )
South Park is an example of good satire. sometimes unnecessarily vile and not entirely clear ... but nevertheless.
family guy is yes ... but to each his own. some soap series about Cinderella, some family guy, some radio echo of Moscow. we are entertained, carried away, we choose. here no one imposes anything on us, the
topic is about nothing, but srach as always
Of the cartoons, I only watch the South Park - sometimes there are good satires in it (no more than 4-5 episodes per season), but mostly one pakhabism or stupidity.
Well Disney has been a classic for a long time. )
In general, to begin with, it is better to familiarize yourself with examples of truly good and original auteur cinema, before cultivating the figure of Tarkovsky, who occupies the niche "fishlessness and cancer is a fish" in Russian cinema.
Yeah. IMHO, the Cult in all its glory ... Especially the shkololo annoys, and on their third-party resources such hysterical fluorodros are given out, before that, apparently having taken lessons from the spiritual teachers of literature and Russian, LOL ...
“A film, if it’s not a document, is a dream, a dream. Therefore, Tarkovsky is the greatest of all. the most laborious and at the same time the most malleable genre of art. All my life I have been knocking on the door leading to the space where it moves with such self-evident naturalness. Only once or twice did I manage to slip there. "
In general, their cartoons of course suck. But I really liked Kotopes and Bobby walked for a long time. Personally, even when I was little I did not like all these full-length and ordinary ones too. They are kind of bespontovye.