What should version watch next - Tenet ot Oppenheimer?

Tenet or Oppenheimer

  • Tenet

    Votes: 5 62.5%

  • Oppenheimer

    Votes: 3 37.5%
  • Total voters
    8
Corpsey

Corpsey

bandz ahoy
I think the only issue I had with Oppenheimer was the underwhelming nuke. Other than that a 10/10. Maybe an 11/10.
 
pattycakes_

pattycakes_

Can turn naughty
Pretty sure all those films like Dune and Oppy with that colossal epicness crossed with scandinavian maudlin thing are by and for the dead inside. They get a heavy catharsis hit when their respective internal chasms of nothingness rub up against each other in some kind of slow motion icy tango.
 
luka

luka

Well-known member
patty used to live the brazilian rainforest. he had a parrot perched on his shoulder, shamans blowing trippy smoke up his nostrils from a hollowed out twig.
 
pattycakes_

pattycakes_

Can turn naughty
it was in those jungles where i learned how to see and tell a toucan from a turkey

no prizes for guessing which one oppy is
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
kid charlemagne said:
dont be dense. it is a text as in a form of art that is analysed, just like a song, book, or painting. are you blatantly misreading him on purpose? hes not telling anyone how to watch a film or what anyone is supposed to think, hes saying that are projecting their own feelings and gripes and missing what the film is, rather than what they want it to be. your spiel sounds like something an incompetent viewer would say
Click to expand...
There's no need to call it a text. For instance, no-one ever calls or has called a jungle tune a 'text'. It's just jargon used to make film studies students feel they're doing something more elevated and recondite than they actually are.

The implication of telling someone they're missing what the film is is that their thoughts would be better if they were different.
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Ian Scuffling said:
Agree with kc wholeheartedly and also take issue with "interpretation." I am not arguing for "correct interpretation" (I am in fact "against" it in Sontag's sense) as I think that argument degrades art into text in the literal sense and grist for the content mill. There are subjective, affective responses which are the whole reason we engage with art, BUT art is also an object, one which can be misunderstood or selectively "interpreted." We are allowed and encouraged our emotional responses, but we mustn't let those emotions override our ability to understand, to connect with the artist as they wish to be seen, the text they which to express. Certainly an artist can fail to connect in a way that is on them and certainly this is more difficult in cinema of all mediums. But when we engage in this way, attuned to our subjectivity and the artist's, with the best artists we are transported or reborn, as is intended by the masters of the medium and laid out by the best critics. There may not be a correct way to watch a film, but generally agreed upon are the most rewarding ways to watch a film.
Click to expand...
It's hard to disagree with something which sounds just like something any man in the street would say. It's quite a climbdown from your original positions but, yes, art and in its reception are sort of this, sort of that, can't say fairer than that guv.
 
dilbert1

dilbert1

Well-known member
In any event, it should be left open as to whether someone who has seen a film or an artwork in person might have their mind changed by reading a good critic’s analysis and interpretation. Even though good criticism of that kind takes a great deal of knowledge and skill (which may be in short supply) to produce.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top