Is "style over substance" an invalid critique when

>>82353324
I believe so. It seems like quite a basic thing to say when a film can be entirely carried by it's visual style.

File: IMG_2797.jpg (51KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 400x400px

>>82353324

If it's not filmed well it's not filmed well

>>82353324
Yep.

File: true_autism.webm (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

>>82353324
It's shit over more shit.
Fuck The Neon Demon.

>>82353661
I'm sorry how is it not filmed well?

>>82353324
Form is content, is how I'd put it. For some reason, there are still people who watch a film and think they've experienced something other than the sounds and images that make up the film.

>>82353776
>that webm
Refn is a true auteur

Blade Runner - stunning visuals, beautiful atmosphere, but empty on substance. If we're choosing one, its substance for me every time. But they do (or should) go hand in hand.

>>82353324
>>82353555
>In a visual medium
Yes but it's also a narrative form, one which has roots in poetry and theatre as much as visual arts.

So no, you don't just get to cop out on the half you're no good at without people noticing.

>>82354010
Yeah but most other narrative forms don't really have the option of being as stylistically interesting as film so it's not a 50-50 split

>>82353776
DELET THIS

>>82353776
To be fair, who wouldn't.

File: japkino7.webm (1MB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 720x480px

>>82354372
Or you can just do both expertly

>>82354010
So is Koyaanisqatsi a bad movie because there's no narrative at all? Are Malick films bad because they behave more like poems than conventional plots? Eat a dick and choke on it

>>82353324
Yes. Its a matter of personal preference desu

>>82354568
Yeah, ideally. But if one is prioritised and done expertly then it doesn't matter if the other is lacking.

>>82354575
>Are Malick films bad because they behave more like poems than conventional plots?
I watched my first Malick (Song To Song) a little while ago and I was trying to put a finger on how the story was moving. The only word I could come up with was "Experimental", but I think you nailed it with the poem comparison.

>>82354566
I'd kiss her GIRAFFE-LIKE AND DELICIOUSLY SLENDER NECK, AND FEMININE PENIS

>>82354008
>blade runner
>no substance

Any Neon Demon webms to show off this supposed great style?

>>82354575
this is interesting because you're getting into the form v narrative debate- films are made up of moving images so of course the image should be prioritized, although some prefer narrative to form- the one thing that must remain is substance, there is substance in a Malick, for instance, even if there is no narrative and a heavy amount of form. There is also substance in a film which is based more on screenwriting than on image. If there is no substance you get artifice, things like flashy camera movements and cinematography, without the actual artistic qualities which make film interesting. It's nu-art, fake art. Stuff like La La Land or Drive or The Neon Demon.

>>82355475
This must be bait, La La Land is not on the same level as Drive and The Neon Demon.
Of all of them The Neon Demon is the superior film.

>>82354575
Koyaanisqatsi has a narrative. If you can't see it you're not watching very closely.

File: 9dfd47e2257fadb0f0d1b958371f3b04-the-guest-1468826860.jpg (158KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1280x960px

Why not both?

>>82353324
The style still has to be substantial in order for a film to matter at all. The question for that movie is do pretty girls in neon lights and fake blood qualify as a style worth caring about.

>>82353324
Buzzword. Critics used to pan capeshit, now in this post-big-bang-theory world that shit is untouchable.

>>82355577
>>82354575

Koyaanisqatsi uses only visuals and music but it conveys a lot. It's not just 'pretty pictures'. There's a cohesive message about the two-way relationship between human beings and their surroundings/environment both materially and spiritually.


Batman v Superman on the other hand has some nice visuals, which are completely detached from its terrible screenwriting and its jumbled, insane, posturing narrative. It conveys absolutely nothing subtle, intelligent, or worthwhile.


Both of these movies focus on Visuals over narrative. Still, one succeeds at the narrative it chose, while the other fails.

One is a good movie, the other is not.

I hate this movie but...
Refn is such a pretentious fucking asshole that it was stylistically designed to be that way. He made the movie shallow and basically about nothing - pure style, no substance - just because it is about a model that symbolizes obsession over one's beauty. So the movie kind of reflects that.

This is the only defense of this movie that I have heard and that makes sense. However, I hate this fucking move. Fuck refn.

>>82355612
My nigga

>>82354575
>Are Malick films bad
yes

>>82355956
>it is about a model that symbolizes obsession over one's beauty

Fucking lmao this isn't what this movie is about at all and it makes sense that someone who has to get his opinion from others can't critically think for himself.

>>82355475
What makes La La Land and Drive and The Neon Demon fake art and the movies you say have substance not fake?

File: ryan-gosling-kiss-nicolas-winding-refn-23.jpg (276KB, 1008x1222px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 1008x1222px

>>82353776
I guess he learned that from someone else

>>82356192
It should've been models. And I meant it that models are stereotypically seen as shallow and the whole modeling culture seen as toxic because of the obsession over how someone looks. I didn't mean the main bitch in the movie.

But are you implying this movie has a plot or character motivation? This movie is about nothing. But I get what refn was trying to go for.

File: sensible chuckle.png (346KB, 450x490px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 450x490px

>>82354575
>Koyaanisqatsi a bad movie because there's no narrative

But it has a narrative. Baraka and Samsara are even easier to follow.

> Are Malick films bad because they behave more like poems

Bad poetry isn't good because it's poetry. It's bad. Malick can't form a coherent thought about what he wants to say, so even though there's the framework of a story, there's nothing there.

Malick really is just "good cinematography" without merit. No context in which to put it to use. This gives him lots of praise from film critics - the same kind who would talk about the many depths of a blank canvas - and from pseudointellectuals, usually college students.

Watch an actor who was actually in his movie try to respectfully say Malick has no fucking idea what he's making a movie about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw08GQw0hBI

"He needs a writer" is pretty cutting for Hollywood.

>>82356410
>Bad poetry isn't good because it's poetry. It's bad
I don't necessarily agree with everything else you said, but I can't agree with this enough. I'm sick to death of people treating a dislike of Malick as if that person is saying they dislike art period.

>>82353324
The neon demon is kino. Critics are morons as usual

File: lucasfuckoff.png (114KB, 225x207px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 225x207px

>>82355929
>>82356410
>>82357252
wew my lads

>>82357252
>I'm sick to death of people treating a dislike of Malick as if that person is saying they dislike art period.

It's a disease of the modern world that people are apathetic about art with intent and absolutely rabid about defending art without meaning.

The same people who defend the 12000th blank canvas artist or "woman shooting painted eggs out of her cooch" as deep and meaningful because "art is subjective, it can be anything" attack art with intent as primitive and stupid.

Engages the enneagrams.

File: ????.jpg (54KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 600x800px

>>82356410
>Malick can't form a coherent thought
??????????

?????????????????????????????????

>>82356410

>Malick can't form a coherent thought about what he wants to say, so even though there's the framework of a story, there's nothing there.

You could save yourself and me a lot of time by just admitting you're a plot-fag and value story-telling above all other qualities. None of this forced validation by claiming Malick is objectively bad poetry.

>>82357480
Thanks for putting my thoughts into words. I agree with this.

>>82354010
>Yes but it's also a narrative form, one which has roots in poetry and theatre
you could say the same thing about music, but music is allowed to be carried solely on aesthetics alone.

I say the same standard is acceptable for film.

>>82357480
>You could save yourself

How very generous.

> plot-fag and value story-telling

If Malick was truly making poetry why doesn't he follow through? Why doesn't he make a Koyaanisqatsi? The entire problem is that you can see him trying to have a story framework but failing to tell any story. Reference the experience of the actors who get hired I posted for your convenience.

> claiming Malick is objectively bad poetry

You're already retreating into "you can't attack art I like because I define art as subjective". It's pointless to talk to you.

People like you fall for bullshit every day and there's no helping you until you open your own eyes to it.

>>82357638
>The entire problem is that you can see him trying to have a story framework but failing to tell any story.
Your problem is that you are making assumptions about what he is "trying" to do.

>>82355612
>He's here to help

What the fuck? No he wasn't. Did the people who even wrote the tagline watch the flick?

>>82357480
The problem is that Malick does create narratives and characters, they're just so shallow and poorly created that some people honestly mistake them as non-narrative films. But they exist, almost always to the detriment of the """poetic""" elements of his films.

>>82357638
I haven't seen it but Voyage of Time sounds like what you're talking about

File: The-Guest-Halloween.jpg (44KB, 970x545px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 970x545px

>>82357739
>He's here to help
>No he wasn't
That's the joke

>>82357695
>Your problem is that you are making assumptions about what he is "trying" to do.

Okay so as predicted you're now full on into asserting art is magic and beyond criticism. You don't have a single counter argument to what I'm saying so all focus goes to invalidating criticism entirely instead.

>>82357751
see
>>82357695

He doesn't use the characters as any more than tools to make observations about life.

>>82353324

It can be.

There can be substance in composition.

But without the style or artistic choices conceptually or narratively justifying themselves, "beautiful" would be the highest achievement a film that relies solely in aesthetics could achieve. Which isn't all that interesting.

>>82357751
>Voyage of Time

Yes that sounds more like something that could be defended as poetry. In fact I'll add it to my list.

Amusingly it's got worse reviews than his other movies.

File: ackchyually.png (21KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 700x700px

>>82357860
But you're not saying anything of value.
You're just making assumptions and then giving Malick a grade based on them.

This isn't me saying
>EVERYTHING IS ART!!!!!!!!11111!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!1!

This is me saying that you aren't willing to go on his ride and would rather critique from a position not relevant to what he is attempting.

TL;DR you're a pretentious schmuck with his mind made up

In film, style IS substance (or at least a component of it). People who don't realize this are most likely the kind who decide whether they like a movie based on the literal events of its plot.

>>82355929
>jumbled, insane, posturing narrative.

>not sure if stupid or Memeing

>>82353324
why did they talk so fucking slow?

>>82357866
I get what he's trying, I just don't think it's ever wholly successful. For ever transcendent moment I've seen from him there's two that are facile, corny or just downright dull, and it almost always comes down to the narrative end of his films.

>>82357972
>making assumptions

Defend the existence of a story framework and half finished characters that have no arcs because he just makes it up as he goes along, as you can hear for yourself from the actors he works with.

I've provided you reasoning, pointed out the existence of the framework, given a video interview source.

You've said "nuh uh".

> This is me saying that you aren't willing to go on his ride

Again you retreat to "art is subjective, you can't criticise it". You have a mental defect implanted by a society that values art without anything to say. You regurgitate this talking point without even being aware of it.

> you're a pretentious schmuck with his mind made up

From a guy with no arguments defending Malick. Projection.

>>82358144
>there's two that are facile, corny or just downright dull,
Gonna go ahead and pigeonhole you as a braindead 4chan flavor 2 kool 4 skool detached cynic.

Have a goon 'un.

>>82357739
>>82357832
You're both morons, he objectively did everything he could to help before the girl started looking into him.

>>82357832
If they intentionally mislead then that's false advertisement which is ILLEGAL!

>>82358201
>You've said "nuh uh".
No, I said that what you and Mr. Plumber are focused on is not what he is focused on.

>without anything to say.
I mean, putting aside the fact that I think he has a lot to say, his images are visually interesting and I see no reason why capturing beautiful pictures isn't a valid form of self expression.

>Projection
no u

>>82353324
>Is "style over substance" an invalid critique when it comes to film?
It's an invalid critique for any form of entertainment. Substance is nice, but if its delivered in a shitty way, you're not gonna get any praise. Substance is something that matters more for real life, and even then if you don't deliver things with decent style, most people aren't gonna get what you're trying to communicate.
>In a visual medium, isn't style substance?
No. Something can still be stylisticly done, but lacking in substance. As a visual medium, the masterpieces are those works where the style isn't just technically well done, but actually conveys a message without a single word needed to be said.

File: TheGuest1.jpg (77KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 600x400px

>>82358255
Yeah, in his mind he's only trying to help (like telling the son to bring a knife to school and burning his bullies houses down...), but ultimately he ruins everything.

Check'd btw

>>82358276
So true, they should have written the whole plot on the cover to avoid misleading people.

That said, is there a more badass and cool motherfucker than David?

>>82358244
Because I don't like one artist? Like I said >>82357252, Malick is not the be all end all of film art, or poetry, or sincerity. Why is it so unfathomable that some people just don't like him as much as you? I even said I have moments from him that I love

File: What Year Is It.png (482KB, 806x736px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 806x736px

>>82358360
>what you and Mr. Plumber are focused on is not what he is focused on

Amazing argument from the guy who said:

>>82357972
>You're just making assumptions
>>82357695
>you are making assumptions
>>82357480
>just admitting you're a plot-fag and value story-telling above all other

Of course YOU are just making assumptions about Malick's purpose too, only you can't back it up with any arguments or examples at all.

> putting aside the fact that I think he has a lot to say

How many times do I need to point out that all you have is regurgitating "art is subjective, you can't criticise it" like it's a fucking mantra. What went wrong in your mind? Art school?

> I see no reason why capturing beautiful pictures isn't a valid form of self expression.

So you're done with asserting it's meaningful poetry now and just going down to "well the pictures are pretty"? You dumb fuck I already said he had excellent cinematography an hour ago.

So to stay consistent you now have to say any movie with great cinematography is also unqualified a great movie. We both know that's absolute horseshit.

>>82355612
>>82358448
Between this and Legion, I think we can count on Dan Stevens to have a promising career in a lot of weird, good stuff.
Shit like Beauty and The Beast will also make him a bankable star.

>>82354008
bait

>>82358512
>Because I don't like one artist?
cuz I dun like YOU nigga

>>82354568
what kino is this?

>>82358559
>So you're done with asserting it's meaningful poetry
Can you read?
>putting aside the fact that I think he has a lot to say

fuck off buddy
You're just trying to win an internet fight with "gotcha" moments.

>inb4 projecting
If I didn't point it out i'd feel incomplete.

>>82355612
>>82356094
>>82357739
>>82357832
>>82358255
>>82358276
>>82358448
>>82358569

Get in here, fags
>>82358765
>>82358765
>>82358765
>>82358765

>>82358647
>Can you read?

Can you?

>>82358846
What?
Bud, you said that I had stopped asserting that his films have meaning, so I pointed you to the fact that I didn't with a quote from my previous post.

Get a grip.

>>82358899
>What?

You heard me bitch.

>>82358915
I don't even think you're that guy.

>>82358956
Oh do you huh?