People have been whining at me to see crash for like 2 years now. "OH MY GOD YOU LIVE IN L.A. AND YOU HAVEN'T SEEN CRASH YET?". THis is the first ive heard of it being crappy, but its definitely enough to make me put off watching it for a much longer time.
A little off topic, but this thread caused me to check out IMDB's bottom 100 list since it's been awhile. I know that 'bad movie' is strictly a personal preference, but damn...there are a lot of easily suggestable movie viewers who must expect everything to be The Godfather or something: Mindless popcorn action flicks and kitschy sci-fi B-movies, both of which make decent rentals, or blonde bombshell celebrity vanity projects which came out no more than 10 years ago = 'Worst movie EVAR!!11!1!'??? GTFOOHWTBS!
so let them! life has a lot more questions that resolutions and good dramas reflect that. I haven't seen Babel, but any movie that deals with relationships, race, gender, (dis)abilites, sex, snap judgements, violence, doing the 'right' thing and communication - none of which are really tidy or easy issues - would seem artificial and Nora Ephron/John Hughes-esque with clean answers through and through. But being unrelentingly enigmatic and harsh is totally annoying, too. Even Noe and Bergman have a little hope in their movies!
Good dramas have resolution. It's pretty much Writing a Story 101 -- rising action, climax, resolution. Hard to argue with thousands of years of storytelling following that form.
I don't see why you can't be complex within that structure.
The reason I hated this piece of shit movie so much wasn't because of the acting, the cinematography, or the music -- who cares about those, anyhow -- I hated it because the characters were used for one purpose: To show pain and suffering. The development of the characters was nearly non-existent; they were thrown onto the screen, beaten up, ground up, and then the movie ended.
Although i liked the film(though afterward i wasn't sure why) I agree with you on this %100.i think thats why i was kinda confused at the end.peace
Good dramas have resolution. It's pretty much Writing a Story 101 -- rising action, climax, resolution. Hard to argue with thousands of years of storytelling following that form.
I don't see why you can't be complex within that structure.
you're speaking waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much in absolutes. not all good dramas have have to have a resolution.
Jesus, dude. Give it up. Just because a relative handful of writers have left out the resolution stage of the dramatic structure (why don't you look that term up, by the way) doesn't undermine thousands of years of writers using resolution in their writing. While you're at it, look up "catharsis," too. This is the part of a dramatic work that, you know, like, makes it dramatic and stuff. You can totally find it in the resolution, by the way.
hahahahaha...that's some asshurt. 'c'mon...give it up dude! just because some dudes weren't obviously my students, and learn the RIGHT way to write drama, that doesn't mean I'm rewriting my syllabus. I know the secret drama formula!"
C'mon...Any teacher that tells me that they know THE way is a teacher that I am IMMEDIATELY skeptical of. Hasn't much of the last century been about trying to discover new ways to tell a story? should we throw out modernism, the absurdists, postmodernism? Some of those writers and dramatists and filmmakers were telling stories without an ending. They were telling stories about life, love, about that act of telling stories themselves. Sometimes, the characters, the story, the exploration of form was *gasp* more important than a resolution.
GET THEE FROM THE CANON! YOU DO NOT MEET THE DRAMA FORMULA OF ONE MR. MIKE SEIVER'S NIKES ON SOULSTRUT!
Man. This strictconstructionist view of what constitutes drama is yawninducing.
I am reminded of Ernest Hemingway, who said that Huck Finn was the best thing ever written in American literature...wait. He said that the first 2/3s were- it contained everything American literature had ever needed to have. But, the end sucked.
My point? endings have perplexed storytellers for those thousands of years you seem to be citing ad nauseum. why don't we take some of our obsession away from what are often dissapointing endings, and focus on what are often the more important parts- story, character, language, to name a few.
If you can't see how a proper ending is essential to the development of characters, themes, and plots, then why am I even arguing with you?
Hey, teacher - have you never heard of an ambiguous ending?
Are they really so uncommon?
Yes, they can be unsatisfying to the viewer, but they are certainly a narrative technique like any other, and you acting like they either a) don't exist or b) have no place in film just makes you look, at best, stubborn, and at worst - a fraud.
hahahahaha...that's some asshurt. 'c'mon...give it up dude! just because some dudes weren't obviously my students, and learn the RIGHT way to write drama, that doesn't mean I'm rewriting my syllabus. I know the secret drama formula!"
C'mon...Any teacher that tells me that they know THE way is a teacher that I am IMMEDIATELY skeptical of. Hasn't much of the last century been about trying to discover new ways to tell a story? should we throw out modernism, the absurdists, postmodernism? Some of those writers and dramatists and filmmakers were telling stories without an ending. They were telling stories about life, love, about that act of telling stories themselves. Sometimes, the characters, the story, the exploration of form was *gasp* more important than a resolution.
GET THEE FROM THE CANON! YOU DO NOT MEET THE DRAMA FORMULA OF ONE MR. MIKE SEIVER'S NIKES ON SOULSTRUT!
If you can't see how a proper ending is essential to the development of characters, themes, and plots, then why am I even arguing with you?
Hey, teacher - have you never heard of an ambiguous ending?
Are they really so uncommon?
Yes, they can be unsatisfying to the viewer, but they are certainly a narrative technique like any other, and you acting like they either a) don't exist or b) have no place in film just makes you look, at best, stubborn, and at worst - a fraud.
Why don't you go ahead and put some more words in my mouth.
My point has been that human beings look for resolution. This is reflected in all forms of art, especially music and literature. I have also argued that the best works of drama follow a structure that's been in use for thousands of years. One of the schools of theater to predominately use the ambiguous ending is the theater of the absurd, which died nearly half a century ago. Its so-called torch-bearer, Tom Stoppard, rarely uses ambiguous endings ("Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" being the only that comes to mind).
I never said that movies can't be good if they don't have an ending. I never said that ambiguous endings don't exist. I never said that ambiguous endings have no place in film.
Are they really so uncommon? The vast majority of stories I've read and taught have clear endings. The music we listen to on a daily basis has resolution, the information we read and hear on a daily basis has resolution.
You are arguing this because you keep speaking in absolutes, and expect everyone to agree with you or else they are uninformed and not worthy of your time. I don't think I'm putting words in your mouth, it was you who said "good dramas have resolutions" and "a 'proper' ending is essential to the development of characters, themes, and plots" and refuse to acknowledge that narrative structure can successfully exist without these "rules" being used. Well, I am saying that "good" drama can feature an ending where plot strands go unresolved, character fates are unrevealed, and even crucial themes of the narrative are left in the air. Your argument that precedent makes law is absurd ... yes, for thousands of years, a certain narrative structure has been the norm and found in the "vast majority" of storytelling. That doesn't make it exclusively "right."
You are arguing this because you keep speaking in absolutes, and expect everyone to agree with you or else they are uninformed and not worthy of your time. I don't think I'm putting words in your mouth, it was you who said "good dramas have resolutions" and "a 'proper' ending is essential to the development of characters, themes, and plots" and refuse to acknowledge that narrative structure can successfully exist without these "rules" being used. Well, I am saying that "good" drama can feature an ending where plot strands go unresolved, character fates are unrevealed, and even crucial themes of the narrative are left in the air. Your argument that precedent makes law is absurd ... yes, for thousands of years, a certain narrative structure has been the norm and found in the "vast majority" of storytelling. That doesn't make it exclusively "right."
Why would writers for thousands of years continue to use this structure if it wasn't the best way? Why have the vast majority of composers for thousands of years continued to use harmonic and thematic resolution in their compositions if it wasn't the best way?
I've never said it's the right way; I've said it's the best way.
They can both be good -- I've never argued otherwise, as you insist I have -- but one is clearly preferred over the other.
Why would writers for thousands of years continue to use this structure if it wasn't the best way? Why have the vast majority of composers for thousands of years continued to use harmonic and thematic resolution in their compositions if it wasn't the best way?
I've never said it's the right way; I've said it's the best way.
They can both be good -- I've never argued otherwise, as you insist I have -- but one is clearly preferred over the other.
Why would writers for thousands of years continue to use this structure if it wasn't the best way? Why have the vast majority of composers for thousands of years continued to use harmonic and thematic resolution in their compositions if it wasn't the best way?
I've never said it's the right way; I've said it's the best way.
They can both be good -- I've never argued otherwise, as you insist I have -- but one is clearly preferred over the other.
when fatal attraction was test screened to audiences, they booed and hissed because the awful glenn close character didn't get her "good drama" comeuppance. so they re-worked the ending where not only did she get it, they really killed her in the most over the top and satisfyingly resolute way imaginable. such a great story
Comments
http://www.soulstrut.com/ubbthreads/show...true#Post757078
hahaha
so let them! life has a lot more questions that resolutions and good dramas reflect that. I haven't seen Babel, but any movie that deals with relationships, race, gender, (dis)abilites, sex, snap judgements, violence, doing the 'right' thing and communication - none of which are really tidy or easy issues - would seem artificial and Nora Ephron/John Hughes-esque with clean answers through and through. But being unrelentingly enigmatic and harsh is totally annoying, too.
Even Noe and Bergman have a little hope in their movies!
I don't see why you can't be complex within that structure.
Although i liked the film(though afterward i wasn't sure why) I agree with you on this %100.i think thats why i was kinda confused at the end.peace
all movies in this thread are hot garbage.
(excluding 'code unknown')
you're speaking waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much in absolutes. not all good dramas have have to have a resolution.
if that is what you are teaching, i feel sorry for your students.
C'mon...Any teacher that tells me that they know THE way is a teacher that I am IMMEDIATELY skeptical of. Hasn't much of the last century been about trying to discover new ways to tell a story? should we throw out modernism, the absurdists, postmodernism? Some of those writers and dramatists and filmmakers were telling stories without an ending. They were telling stories about life, love, about that act of telling stories themselves.
Sometimes, the characters, the story, the exploration of form was *gasp* more important than a resolution.
GET THEE FROM THE CANON! YOU DO NOT MEET THE DRAMA FORMULA OF ONE MR. MIKE SEIVER'S NIKES ON SOULSTRUT!
Man. This strictconstructionist view of what constitutes drama is yawninducing.
I am reminded of Ernest Hemingway, who said that Huck Finn was the best thing ever written in American literature...wait. He said that the first 2/3s were- it contained everything American literature had ever needed to have. But, the end sucked.
My point? endings have perplexed storytellers for those thousands of years you seem to be citing ad nauseum. why don't we take some of our obsession away from what are often dissapointing endings, and focus on what are often the more important parts- story, character, language, to name a few.
NO ARGUING WITH TEACHER!!
Hey, teacher - have you never heard of an ambiguous ending?
Are they really so uncommon?
Yes, they can be unsatisfying to the viewer, but they are
certainly a narrative technique like any other, and you acting
like they either a) don't exist or b) have no place in film
just makes you look, at best, stubborn, and at worst - a fraud.
Wow... ether!
after reading this, i thought of about 6 people i want to say this to. that's life in the mission district i guess
Why don't you go ahead and put some more words in my mouth.
My point has been that human beings look for resolution. This is reflected in all forms of art, especially music and literature. I have also argued that the best works of drama follow a structure that's been in use for thousands of years. One of the schools of theater to predominately use the ambiguous ending is the theater of the absurd, which died nearly half a century ago. Its so-called torch-bearer, Tom Stoppard, rarely uses ambiguous endings ("Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" being the only that comes to mind).
I never said that movies can't be good if they don't have an ending.
I never said that ambiguous endings don't exist.
I never said that ambiguous endings have no place in film.
Are they really so uncommon? The vast majority of stories I've read and taught have clear endings. The music we listen to on a daily basis has resolution, the information we read and hear on a daily basis has resolution.
I can't believe I actually have to argue this...
Get off your high horse, Bobo.
You are arguing this because you keep speaking in
absolutes, and expect everyone to agree with you or else
they are uninformed and not worthy of your time. I don't think
I'm putting words in your mouth, it was you who said "good dramas
have resolutions" and "a 'proper' ending is essential to the development of characters, themes, and plots" and refuse to acknowledge that
narrative structure can successfully exist without these "rules"
being used. Well, I am saying that "good" drama can feature an ending where
plot strands go unresolved, character fates are unrevealed, and even crucial
themes of the narrative are left in the air. Your argument that precedent
makes law is absurd ... yes, for thousands of years, a certain narrative
structure has been the norm and found in the "vast majority" of storytelling.
That doesn't make it exclusively "right."
I can't believe I have to argue this, either.
Excuse me? Where do you teach drama?
I've never said it's the right way; I've said it's the best way.
They can both be good -- I've never argued otherwise, as you insist I have -- but one is clearly preferred over the other.
because people depend on escapism to cope with life which doesn't always have clear resolutions.
are you for real?
Excellent.
An essentialist among us.
Why don't you get back to sniffing Michael Henderson's thonged crotch?
You calling anyone an essentialist is hilarious.
you know what else is a good drama?
die hard.
HELLO? SPOILERS?!