David Lynch

[El Virus]

I certainly like Surrealism, maybe even 'love', for although I favour many different genres and pieces of art, Surrealism shots straight to the very soul. This doesn't mean I often allow myself to enjoy it. Besides, I've encountered the type I love best mostly in literature.

 

How come you don't 'allow yourself to enjoy it'?

 

Since this is mostly a film thread; Un Chien Andalou (By Buñel and Dalí) is a must, if you enjoy this type of art. It's a short film, but probably one of the best expressions of it.

 

By David Lynch, I've seen Mulholland Drive (didn't understand a thing, and wasn't too eager to try to figure something out)

 

Don't you just love it when that happens? Being quite confused with a story, and then having to revise it and invastigate in order to get it, is just great. (And despite the fact that it might have sounded like irony, I am being serious).

 

I just watched "The Forbidden Zone". It's a complete callback to a lot of the 1930s films (which was why it was originally banned from theatres in the 80s for using blackface), and the sets were purposely two-dimensional to echo German Expressionistic films (Cabinet of Dr. Caligari coming to mind....). It was fun, and quite hilarious.

 

Never heard of that one.

Banned because of blackface? Amos 'n' Andy would have had a rougher time.

 

Back to David Lynch: the guy, as weird as his films are, is supposedly a pretty down-to-earth guy.

[...]

He's still brilliant through.

 

Talking about eccentric geniuses, Charlie Chaplin (one of the greatest creative minds of all times) is said to have been very harsh while directing. There is a story of him re-shooting a scene hundreds of times just due to the handling of a rose. He even re-casted the role and changed the set; until he finally gave up and included one of the very first takes in the movie.

 

Writers, directors, musicians, painters; they all had their things. I guess that when you are gifted with such talents, you cannot be blamed for it.

 

On the other, my favorite Filmmaker, the only one beating Lynch and Kubrick to this day, is Terry Gilliam

 

Really?

 

I must confess, all I have seen by Gilliam is Brazil (Which is great, by the way).

[Charie]

El Virus

How come you don't 'allow yourself to enjoy it'?

It seems that not only artists - we, mere mortals, as well - have some issues, sometimes. This one of mine concerns things I consider almost 'sacred'. I just can't bring myself to explore such matters in vain.

 

Since this is mostly a film thread; Un Chien Andalou (By Buñel and Dalí) is a must, if you enjoy this type of art. It's a short film, but probably one of the best expressions of it.

Oh, I've heard about that one ('cause Dali is inolved, and it's hard not to hear some things or other about Dali, from time to time). I think I need to find it, sounds like something defenitely interesting.

 

Don't you just love it when that happens? Being quite confused with a story, and then having to revise it and invastigate in order to get it, is just great.

It is; however, you need to be in love with the story all the same, even if not understanding it, to investigate, watch and re-watch it many times. And I wasn't impressed by Mulholland Dr. at all (well, it could be due to some inappropriate mood I was in when watching it, but I doubt that was the case with this movie).

[El Virus]

I just can't bring myself to explore such matters in vain.

 

I get what you mean. The same things tends to happen to me with any sort of book or movie.

 

I postponed reading L'Étranger by Camus several times, just not to 'ruin' it.

Now, Existentialism is something I truly enjoy, by the way.

 

It is; however, you need to be in love with the story all the same, even if not understanding it, to investigate, watch and re-watch it many times. And I wasn't impressed by Mulholland Dr. at all (well, it could be due to some inappropriate mood I was in when watching it, but I doubt that was the case with this movie).

 

I haven't seen Mulholland Drive, so I don't have the slightest idea about it.

 

That's the thing with Surrealism; it tends to be a bit puzzling the first time.

 

Talking about Dalí, do you like Surrealist painters?

[Charie]

El Virus

Now, Existentialism is something I truly enjoy, by the way.

You mean in literature/movies/...art, or the whole idea? Is Existentialism your main way to see the world? Maybe I don't understand what does Existentialism really mean, but I thought it was a very pessimistic way to view the world.

Well, I didn't think of that much, mostly because it concerns philosophy, which I despise. Along with psychology. Would gladly put both in a sack and drown in the deepest of Marianas Trench. As scientific disciplines, at least. In my experience, they only give you headache (or worse) and bring no profit whatsoever.

 

That's the thing with Surrealism; it tends to be a bit puzzling the first time.

No-ah, it is not a bit puzzling all the time. And that is beautiful. I've always found the complete impossibility to understand entirely what happens in the unique wolrd of Surrealism most appealing. You can make guesses, but you still won't find the truth, ever.

 

Talking about Dalí, do you like Surrealist painters?

It's a shame, but I'm not really educated when it comes to visual arts (to tell the truth, when it comes to whatever, actually, with a possible exception of Harry Potter - now that's a shame in itself, I suppose). I don't know many Surrealists, so I don't think I'm able to answer your question.

However, I certainly love Impressionism and Symbolism, in both visual arts and poetry.

 

About Dali - I not once wondered if I'm completely stupid not to adore him as most of my acquaintance do. I don't feel Dali, even if I admit that he was a fabulous painter.

[JofaGuht]

I don't understand what does Existentialism really mean, but I thought it was a very pessimistic way to view the world.

 

Actually, it can be used as a pessimistic mindset, but it's really not that pessimistic. Not nearly as much as Nihilism, at least. I don't know, either way, I've always been way more into Taoism.

 

About Dali - I not once wondered if I'm completely stupid not to adore him as most of my acquaintance do. I don't feel Dali, even if I admit that he was a fabulous painter.

 

I'm not as much into Dali as I used to be, but it's true that the paintings aren't quite as vast when it comes to emotion. Everyonce and a while, they give off a delightful air of nightmarish confusion (I'm a fan of darkness, by the way) but Dali uses far too many motifs for that to happen consistently. Still "The Hallucinogenic Toreador" is probably my favorite painting ever.

 

When it comes to surrealist artists, right now, Steven Cerio. Actually I'd consider it more "psychadelic art" than "surreal". Either way, trippy yet freaking brilliant stuff.

 

How about Magritte? Any of you into him at all?

 

Well, I didn't think of that much, mostly because it concerns philosophy, which I despise. Along with psychology. Would gladly put both in a sack and drown in the deepest of Marianas Trench. As scientific disciplines, at least. In my experience, they only give you headache (or worse) and bring no profit whatsoever.

 

....Uhhh....que? I think I'll just stop and say "different strokes". Sometimes I forget that stuff can be subjective since so much of my mindset and life is based on working out the puzzle of the universe, and when I'm not doing that, I'm working out the puzzle of humanity. And when I'm not doing that, I'm watching cartoons.

[El Virus]

You mean in literature/movies/...art, or the whole idea? Is Existentialism your main way to see the world

 

Both. It has to do with the literature I read, influencing my way of thinking, and thus the way I see the world.

 

Maybe I don't understand what does Existentialism really mean, but I thought it was a very pessimistic way to view the world

 

As Jofa has pointed out, it is not a negative thing on its own; probably the most pessimistic one is the Nihilist movement.

 

It is not easy to define it; it’s a philosophical movement that emphasizes the individual existence and freedom of choice. It depicts the desire to make rational decisions on an irrational setting. But its meaning varies from the different decades of its existence, and the beliefs of the existentialists differ as well.

Its best expression is seen on the works of Jean-Paul Sartre, whom some believe that the term should just be restricted to. You can find a great speech by him about the subject here (I should warn you about the length, and about some other things).

 

Now, it is related to Nihilism. They tend to defy the meaning and purpose of life, but only on different magnitudes.

 

Well, I didn't think of that much, mostly because it concerns philosophy, which I despise. Along with psychology. Would gladly put both in a sack and drown in the deepest of Marianas Trench. As scientific disciplines, at least. In my experience, they only give you headache (or worse) and bring no profit whatsoever

 

I recently got interested in philosophy and now highly esteem it; but I used to dislike it some time ago.

Such as there are some philosophical movements that are very interesting and answer-providing; there are others which are but a mere waste of time (to me, at least).

 

Those that try to give a far-fetched solution, with no real things to support it, are despicable. But most major doctrines escape this rule.

 

And that is beautiful. I've always found the complete impossibility to understand entirely what happens in the unique wolrd of Surrealism most appealing. You can make guesses, but you still won't find the truth, ever.

 

That is very true, every time you watch/read it you will most probably find something new. And that is the magnificence of it.

Any art form that includes symbolism is great; as a matter fact, I don’t tend to catalogue something as ‘art’ if it doesn’t include any.

 

- About Dali - I not once wondered if I'm completely stupid not to adore him as most of my acquaintance do. I don't feel Dali, even if I admit that he was a fabulous painter.

- I'm not as much into Dali as I used to be, but it's true that the paintings aren't quite as vast when it comes to emotion.

 

I can but to agree with both of you; even though his paintings are extremely attractive to the eye, I never got much out of them.

 

Magritte is very good, his simple paintings hide a lot of meaning; but my favourite Surrealist is perhaps Max Ernst.

 

 

Also, I found a decent video club that has ”Fire Walk With Me” (amongst other excellent films). Unluckily, I’m not sure whether I’d be able to rent it in the following days.

[Charie]

JofaGuht

When it comes to surrealist artists, right now, Steven Cerio.

Thanks for the link, it cheered me up a lot. I like that style.

 

How about Magritte? Any of you into him at all?

I'm not. For me, most of his works are just funny ideas, not really worthy the effort put in them. I find no meaning there, plus, which, in my opinion, is the most unforgivable, his works are not beautiful.

I might enjoy (Shaitan, I do enjoy) some works without any deep meaning or feeling or sense, even if this is a pointer to my bad taste, if they are crafted and polished and 'pretty'. So, Magritte for me is neither pretty, nor meaningful - and I don't like him. Or ignore, more like.

 

so much of my mindset and life is based on working out the puzzle of the universe, and when I'm not doing that, I'm working out the puzzle of humanity. And when I'm not doing that, I'm watching cartoons.

That sounds as a high level of consciousness, on the whole.

My mindset is mostly centered on working out the puzzle of 'when will Harry Potter marry Severus Snape', or 'if I were some count with a castle'. And when I'm not doing that, I sometimes get in my head nonsensical questions like 'how are the tesseracts possible', for which I wouldn't understand the answers all the same.

 

El Virus

You don't really expect me to read that manuscript, do you? I'd better ask father, who was very interested in philosophy in the past. *checks the list of subjects she has to ask father about*

 

As for me, I'm undeniably a subjectivist, the way I view the world. By the way, the philosophy I tend to favour is that of Humpty Dumpty.

 

I suppose the fact that philosophy and psycology may be interesting to explore as various people's opinions is what I meant by my '<throw away> as scientific disciplines, at least' comment. Besides, I didn't have much experience with philosophy, so perhaps I'm berating it without actual reason. You know... all those tomes of opinions, in dry scientific language-style, which cover the walls of the living room - they look copmletely uninspiring.

 

Any art form that includes symbolism is great; as a matter fact, I don’t tend to catalogue something as ‘art’ if it doesn’t include any.

This is vague, hence disputable. After all, one can't create something without using his own experiences and personality, which would result in some symbols anyway. I don't think that symbolism and 'deep veiled meaning' are the same.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++

And now, folks, I'm finally going to the market.

[El Virus]

You don't really expect me to read that manuscript, do you? I'd better ask father, who was very interested in philosophy in the past. *checks the list of subjects she has to ask father about*

 

No, I don't even expect you to check the links; I just provide information and resources from time to time.

But the good thing about speeches is that they tend to be long texts, and most of it is just a rambling of redundant information put into odd words; the point is always summed up in last paragraph.

 

As the last sentence reads: "It is a doctrine of action, and it is only by self-deception, by confining their own despair with ours that Christians can describe us as without hope"; which was useful to explain whether it was a pessimistic doctrine or not.

 

This is vague, hence disputable. After all, one can't create something without using his own experiences and personality, which would result in some symbols anyway. I don't think that symbolism and 'deep veiled meaning' are the same.

 

Indeed.

But I always found Symbolism and deepness to be closely related; the first being a broader term.

 

I don't know, either way, I've always been way more into Taoism.

 

What got you into Taoism?

[Charie]

El Virus

No, I don't even expect you to check the links

Hey hey hey! Easy there, I did check the link. I just thought I didn't have the time to read it at the moment, and I'd simply forget about it later.

 

But the good thing about speeches is that they tend to be long texts, and most of it is just a rambling of redundant information put into odd words; the point is always summed up in last paragraph

Oops, this didn't occur to me. Suppose I didn't read much speeches lately.

 

"It is a doctrine of action, and it is only by self-deception, by confining their own despair with ours that Christians can describe us as without hope"; which was useful to explain whether it was a pessimistic doctrine or not.

Even better, now: I feel accused of self-deception and - what was the other one? - of 'confining my own despair with yours'. The most depressing is the fact that this is the naked truth; it's just that self-deception is my way of viewing the world. Because I like it. Call that weak, I'm not denying. The most pessimistic thing about your precious Existentialism is that it sounds too much like rough realism, which is definitely overrated.

 

But I always found Symbolism and deepness to be closely related; the first being a broader term.

Hm? I thought the opposite.

I guess they are just different . Symbolism as a genre, and deepness as a description.

[El Virus]

I now realise that post of mine could have sounded rather insulting or offensive...it was not supposed to, really.

 

Hey hey hey! Easy there, I did check the link. I just thought I didn't have the time to read it at the moment, and I'd simply forget about it later.

 

With that I meant that you are not forced to check the link, which would have been a better way to put it.

I'm sorry it it sounded rough, 'expect' seemed to fit when I first wrote it.

 

Even better, now: I feel accused of self-deception and - what was the other one? - of 'confining my own despair with yours'. The most depressing is the fact that this is the naked truth; it's just that self-deception is my way of viewing the world. Because I like it. Call that weak, I'm not denying. The most pessimistic thing about your precious Existentialism is that it sounds too much like rough realism, which is definitely overrated.

 

You shouldn't have taken that personally, I was just quoting from that text I provided. And it was to show why I actually give this sort of information out, which does not necessarily mean I agree with it.

 

Hm? I thought the opposite.

I guess they are just different . Symbolism as a genre, and deepness as a description.

 

And if you are talking about the artistic movement of Symbolism, then what you are saying is right.

 

Now, if you get the whole thing wrong (as I have) and thought that you were talking about the use of symbols hiding various meanings, then I wouldn't be so mistaken .

 

------------------------

 

Once again, sorry about the problem; I hope you can forgive (if you feel angry or offended, that is).

[Charie]

El Virus

Yes, I suppose your reply wasn't as offensive as I took it; I was hungry when I read it.

 

Now, if you get the whole thing wrong (as I have) and thought that you were talking about the use of symbols hiding various meanings, then I wouldn't be so mistaken

Now, if you get the whole thing even wronger and think that Symbolism and 'the use of symbols hiding various meanings' are the same...

And I didn't say you were mistaken; I just mentioned my thought. They still are different.

[El Virus]

Now, if you get the whole thing even wronger and think that Symbolism and 'the use of symbols hiding various meanings' are the same...

And I didn't say you were mistaken; I just mentioned my thought. They still are different.

 

Of course, but I would be mistaken if I said that deep meaning and an art movement of the XIXth Century are the same; which is the Symbolism you were talking about, right?

[Charie]

Wrong, I was talking about what that art movement means, practically.

[JofaGuht]

Magritte might not be very complex, but for some reason it always hits a spot of nostalgia in me. It makes me feel like I'm dreaming about a memory.

 

What got you into Taoism?

 

A handful of things. When I was first taught it in school, they made it out to be a "lazy" religion and didn't really go into the detail that creates it. I never really had any faith, but Buddhism was something that interested me, but I really didn't want to get into anything that had any deity or leader.

 

Taoism came back to me when I discovered the meaning behind the yinyang. I always believed that good and evil were the same thing, but no one really understood me when I said it. It was really cool to find out that there was a universal symbol that agreed with me, and the "harmony of opposites" became one of my first beliefs about nature in general. Even Lao Tse had an opposite, he had Confucious (if you study both philosophies it's almost humorus how absolutely opposite Taoism is from Confucism).

 

There's also a little family history there as my aunt was really into finding a proper translation of the Tao Teh Ching. She was into that sort of thing, as well as a lot of ancient Tibetan writings (even though the Tao Teh Ching wasn't tibetan) but still that's were a lot of it came from. She bought me a copy of a truer haiku translation of the book. I read it and discovered it, first of all, not to be a religion, but a philosophy, and secondly was really able to love and relate to it. I loved the fact that the writings aren't too demanding of a simple right and wrong, and that there was nothing wrong with taking the obscurities and seeing them my own way (like a David Lynch movie, heheh).

 

I was reading about existentialism before hand and didn't get that much into it. First off, though you can take ideas from it and turn into your own thing, I still found a little arrogance in the words, and all in all the concept of the "anguish of being" really got to me. And how the "The concept of infinite nothingness" is a cause of that fear and anguish, and Taoism is a perfect counterpoint to that. I think that one of the many things that the "Tao" is, is that concept of infinite everything/nothingness and isn't meant to cause anguish but meant to be embraced.

[El Virus]

Wrong, I was talking about what that art movement means, practically.

 

:: I keep getting it wrong.

But over all, were you talking about that movement?

 

Argh; don't even bother to answer me, I can be an idiot most some times.

 

Taoism came back to me when I discovered the meaning behind the yinyang. I always believed that good and evil were the same thing, but no one really understood me when I said it. It was really cool to find out that there was a universal symbol that agreed with me, and the "harmony of opposites" became one of my first beliefs about nature in general.

 

If I remember correctly, Valis by Phillip K. Dick revolved around the subject on certain parts (that book, though not his best work, catapulted me into wanting to read more about philosophy).

 

Buddhism was something that interested me, but I really didn't want to get into anything that had any deity or leader.

 

It depends on the type of Buddhism; the religious and philosophical aspects differ a lot; the latter actually denies the existence of god (which is why I always believed it to be more of a doctrine than a religion), but I am not entirely certain whether they also hold the Dalai Lama as their leader.

 

I was reading about existentialism before hand and didn't get that much into it. First off, though you can take ideas from it and turn into your own thing, I still found a little arrogance in the words, and all in all the concept of the "anguish of being" really got to me. And how the "The concept of infinite nothingness" is a cause of that fear and anguish, and Taoism is a perfect counterpoint to that. I think that one of the many things that the "Tao" is, is that concept of infinite everything/nothingness and isn't meant to cause anguish but meant to be embraced.

 

The problem with it, is that it's meaning is constantly distortioned, and thus it is not easy to tell who is an existentialist writer and who isn't.

 

Even though I have not founded a philosophy to embrace; so far this one and Absurdism are the ones that interest me the most; but I am still young, and a newbie to such a broad topic, so my beliefs will probably keep drifting.

[JofaGuht]

Valis is one of the few books of PKD I've actually read. I recall liking it as I read it, but I'm guessing it's not one of those that really stuck with me, since I've forgotten most it. I remember wanting to read the whole trilogy, but I think I'm gonna need to go back.

 

I know what type of Buddhism you're talking about, I forgot what it was called, but I know it doesn't idolize Buddha like the other form. Either way, I think enlightment is subjective. I can't really describe it.

 

It's another one of those late night posts for me.

[El Virus]

Valis is one of the few books of PKD I've actually read. I recall liking it as I read it, but I'm guessing it's not one of those that really stuck with me, since I've forgotten most it. I remember wanting to read the whole trilogy, but I think I'm gonna need to go back.

 

That reminds me, I need to read the rest of the trilogy as well.

Though not the best writer, he was one of the most creative science fiction authors; you should check some of his short stories, or perhaps some of his novels. Which ones have you read?

 

 

It's another one of those late night posts for me.

 

Same with me. Login' off.

[JofaGuht]

Which ones have you read?

 

I've read Valis and the first half of A Scanner Darkly.

 

That overly detailed form of writing isn't very inviting. Even though the stories are interesting, the style of writing just isn't very involving, at least not for someone so finicky with books like me. Reading books should be enjoyable, it shouldn't be like doing homework. Unfortunately, easy-to-read books tend not to tell the kind of dark tales I like. And then I discovered Robert Cormier, and that all changed.

[El Virus]

I've read Valis and the first half of A Scanner Darkly.

 

That overly detailed form of writing isn't very inviting. Even though the stories are interesting, the style of writing just isn't very involving, at least not for someone so finicky with books like me.

 

There is a movie adaptation of A Scanner Darkly coming out soon; even though I dislike the performers and I don't expect much from it, I like the style it will be filmed in. As long as they don't ruin the book for me.

 

I like detailed writing, but there is something about PKD's style that I'm not too fond of (perhaps its the characters). But he is undeniable one of the most creative and influential writers of the genre. He is still one of my favourites, mainly because of the way he questioned reality on so many different forms.

You should go for his short stories, which are outstanding. Or alternatively, The Man in the High Castle, which is more alternative history.

 

Reading books should be enjoyable, it shouldn't be like doing homework. Unfortunately, easy-to-read books tend not to tell the kind of dark tales I like. And then I discovered Robert Cormier, and that all changed.

 

Never heard of him. What genre did he work on?

[JofaGuht]

There is a movie adaptation of A Scanner Darkly coming out soon; even though I dislike the performers and I don't expect much from it, I like the style it will be filmed in. As long as they don't ruin the book for me.

 

I expect very much from it. Richard Linklater is an excellent filmmaker. Don't believe me? Watch "Waking Life" and "Tape".

 

Never heard of him. What genre did he work on?

 

Young Adult. But don't let that description sway your vision, he's not in the least bit a children's writer. He wrote my favorite book out there "Fade" and I've read everything else he's done, and none of it has disappointed (okay, two did, but two in like 25 books is still pretty good). He writes very honestly and darkly, and never had "good" or "evil" characters, but the best thing about is that he explores these themes in a way that doesn't burn a hole in your brain with fancy words and unconventional sentence structures, things that writers think make them good but in fact does the opposite.

[El Virus]

I expect very much from it. Richard Linklater is an excellent filmmaker. Don't believe me? Watch "Waking Life" and "Tape".

 

But Wynona Ryder, Keanu Reeves and Robert Downey Jr., aren't the actors I would choose. Not that I hate them, but I prefer it when things have different actors; well, it is Hollywood after all, what else can I expect?.

 

I've never seen anything by Linklater; but I don't expect much from it simply because I don't want to be turned off if it isn't as good as I would like it to (I do it with any book-into-movie adaptation, so as not to be disappointed later on). The style it is being filmed in is very creative, it adds an important touch to the movie.

 

Young Adult. But don't let that description sway your vision, he's not in the least bit a children's writer. He wrote my favorite book out there "Fade" and I've read everything else he's done, and none of it has disappointed (okay, two did, but two in like 25 books is still pretty good). He writes very honestly and darkly, and never had "good" or "evil" characters, but the best thing about is that he explores these themes in a way that doesn't burn a hole in your brain with fancy words and unconventional sentence structures, things that writers think make them good but in fact does the opposite.

 

Nice. I'll look for books by him the next time I go book-shopping.

[JofaGuht]

But Wynona Ryder, Keanu Reeves and Robert Downey Jr., aren't the actors I would choose.

 

I enjoy Robert Downey Jr. actually. And Keanu Reeves and Wynona Ryder aren't great but the good thing about bland actors is that they are very easily manipulatable by directors.

 

well, it is Hollywood after all, what else can I expect?./QUOTE]

 

No, actually. It is an independent film that Linklater used his personal and usual producers, Tommy Pallota and Anne Walker-McBay, for. It was shot on DV, and the reason it got the big name actors was because of the weight of the names of some of the execs, like George Clooney and Steven Soderbergh, and the fact that the book is pretty beloved by a lot of the named people.

 

Linklater was known as one of those "no-budget" pioneers of the early nineties. He made Slacker, which he made with his friends in 1991 for 20 thousand dollars and got distribution and a lot of critical acclaim. It's a story in the hands of people I trust.

 

---

 

Also, the things I said about PKD early is an opinion I can't really rely on. I haven't much experience with him, but since the couple of books I have read didn't really get to me, I sort of associate him with all the other writers & novels I pick up but am not able to connect with.

 

It gets bothersome. Especially some of the friends who are more into the philosophies that spark my interest, they go, "Oh, you're into this sort of thing? You have read Huxley." or "Gravity's Rainbow is a fantastic novel that's an obligation." or "William S. Borroughs is God." I follow their suggestions and the critical acclaim and get lead to a turgidity that's lucky if it can get me through twenty pages. I don't even bother buying books anymore. Now it's when I'm at a bookstore, I desperately search for that book that's for me. I mean, I've already read everything by Cormier, and he's dead now. So I'm stuck.

[El Virus]

No, actually. It is an independent film that Linklater used his personal and usual producers, Tommy Pallota and Anne Walker-McBay, for. It was shot on DV, and the reason it got the big name actors was because of the weight of the names of some of the execs, like George Clooney and Steven Soderbergh, and the fact that the book is pretty beloved by a lot of the named people.

 

Linklater was known as one of those "no-budget" pioneers of the early nineties. He made Slacker, which he made with his friends in 1991 for 20 thousand dollars and got distribution and a lot of critical acclaim. It's a story in the hands of people I trust.

 

I had heard it was something like that; but I think it's produced by Warner Bros. and I thought I was mistaken.

 

I'll look forward for that movie then.

 

It gets bothersome. Especially some of the friends who are more into the philosophies that spark my interest, they go, "Oh, you're into this sort of thing? You have read Huxley." or "Gravity's Rainbow is a fantastic novel that's an obligation." or "William S. Borroughs is God." I follow their suggestions and the critical acclaim and get lead to a turgidity that's lucky if it can get me through twenty pages. I don't even bother buying books anymore. Now it's when I'm at a bookstore, I desperately search for that book that's for me. I mean, I've already read everything by Cormier, and he's dead now. So I'm stuck.

 

Yeah, that happens. That's the bad thing about dead authors.

It's very difficult to get into a book that somebody recommended to me, it's like if I had some moral obligation to read it.

 

Not too sound like your friends, but you should go for sarcastically dark humorists like Bierce and Twain. Or 'hard boiled detective' fiction like Hammet or Cain. Or more philosophical writers like Miguel de Unamuno.

Sorry about that.

[JofaGuht]

but I think it's produced by Warner Bros. and I thought I was mistaken.

 

::reaches into pointless movie production knowledge in foreground of brain::

 

Again with distribution. I know it's not produced by Warner Bros, though they may be presenting it. Basically, you can have a completely independent film with a completely independent production company, you show the movie around, and a big-time distribution company can stand up and buy it, and they find theatres for the film. Or it could be backwards. The indie folks could have pitched the idea to the big-time company and get them to invest in it or even pay for it, then they take the money from the big-time company and gather their own indie production gang and use the money to make the film.

 

You cannot beat the uber-moviegeek when it comes to these things. And nothing makes me feel geekier than talking about this (that's a lie, talking about Joss Whedon would make me feel geekier)

 

I haven't really found the names of the companies producing the film, so I don't know for sure. But I know Linklater is using him own people, which most likely means he's using his own production company "Detour" to make it. If Warner Bros name is on it, then they are either distributing the film or they gave a crapload of money to Detour to make it.

 

But then again, since I went into such detail, it's my ironic luck that I'll find out tomorrow that the detail I just went into is completely wrong.

 

Not too sound like your friends, but you should go for sarcastically dark humorists like Bierce and Twain. Or 'hard boiled detective' fiction like Hammet or Cain. Or more philosophical writers like Miguel de Unamuno.

 

I used to really be into the "sarcastically dark" stuff, because I had gotten deep into Chuck Palahniuk. He's most well-known for the writing the novel that the film "Fight Club" was based on, but I really fell in love with Survivor, another book he wrote, and really dug his style. But he's got a couple misses as well, and that specific style, which is awesome when it works, is also hell to get through when it doesn't.

 

I'm also into journalist writers, as I'm a big fan of Hunter S. Thompson, and currently I'm reading some stuff from the rock journalist Lester Bangs. You can never go wrong when journalists write books because they were trained to get the point through right away and will never fall to turgidity.

[El Virus]

Again with distribution. I know it's not produced by Warner Bros, though they may be presenting it. Basically, you can have a completely independent film with a completely independent production company, you show the movie around, and a big-time distribution company can stand up and buy it, and they find theatres for the film. Or it could be backwards. The indie folks could have pitched the idea to the big-time company and get them to invest in it or even pay for it, then they take the money from the big-time company and gather their own indie production gang and use the money to make the film.

 

I agree to that.

But that's the problem with moviemaking; the director is too limited by the money he's got. Every now and then you might find a company wanting a totally different story, but unless it has the prerequisites to be a blockbuster, they won't produce it.

 

You cannot beat the uber-moviegeek when it comes to these things. And nothing makes me feel geekier than talking about this (that's a lie, talking about Joss Whedon would make me feel geekier)

 

Ey, better being a cinema-geek than a Star Trek/Star Wars one (not that there's anything wrong with that).

 

I used to really be into the "sarcastically dark" stuff, because I had gotten deep into Chuck Palahniuk. He's most well-known for the writing the novel that the film "Fight Club" was based on, but I really fell in love with Survivor, another book he wrote, and really dug his style. But he's got a couple misses as well, and that specific style, which is awesome when it works, is also hell to get through when it doesn't.

 

"The Fight Club" is great. I read it after seeing the movie (which to my surprise was not the ultra-violent pointless movie I thought it would be, but instead a profound one), and liked it even more. Too bad they changed the ending in the movie.

 

I'm also into journalist writers, as I'm a big fan of Hunter S. Thompson, and currently I'm reading some stuff from the rock journalist Lester Bangs. You can never go wrong when journalists write books because they were trained to get the point through right away and will never fall to turgidity.

 

I'm more into essays than novels, but I got into travel books lately. So far I haven't been able to get hold of a good one, other than "Life on the Mississippi".