So - it’s art if it’s macho and violent?
Jodorowsky was asked about Dune. His thoughts were, are, it’ll be nice. It’ll be entertainment. But it’s not Art. The book Dune is Art. Blade Runner is Art. Come and See is exceptional art. Mel Gibson said a good thing once. In movies, you want the 3 Es. First entertain. Then educate. and lastly, hopefully Enlighten. If all you operate on is entertainment. The first. There’s no substance. There’s nothing to come back to. Art
tends to be all three. Layered substance. Soul.
Thank you for answering questions that weren’t asked, I guess.
There’s so much to criticize!
If you can only think of macho and violence filled examples for what you consider art - it’s instructive. I would also ask what that enlightenment entails.
Really? I heard good things from people I admire, but even when I love a director and they are reviewed well, they sometimes fall flat for me.
But maybe you meant my comment.
Again, there is no inherent disconnect between films made for families and art. The problem tends to be people not taking children seriously and making commercial schlock for children instead of art that speaks to children.
My favorite critiques of phantom thread were the ones that point out that the sumptuous costumes were in the end, rather ugly, but then pulling back, argue that perhaps that was PT Anderson’s point. It’s an interesting watch, but it’s probably not up to the standards of There will be blood or The Master. And it’s not as fun as boogie nights,
That reminds me-- I’ve got a copy of Hard Eight in my queue.
I don’t think Jodorosky’s big surprise ending for Dune would have been great art. As a piece of concept art it’s great I suppose. I guess in this trailer he doesn’t see enough er… well sorry but his whole wedding night thing made me want to vomit.
Bladerunner 2049: Premiered October 6, 2017
Dune: vielleneuve attached 1 Feb 2017.
Plus, legendary pictures doesn’t appear to have been involved with BR 2049.
IIRC Villeneuve’s big impressive film was Arrival.
Also, BR 2049 isn’t for everybody but it isn’t dogshit.
As a recovering Jodo fan with pretty major concerns of his oeuvre’s repetitive reliance on fraught freudian tropes and excessive sexual violence shock-value thematics, (not to mention his 70’s on-set rape claims, later walked back as exaggerations for shock-value), (… and certainly he’s not the only auteur director intent on depicting such obsessions), I’d agree that his criticism of the increasing economic conservatism/risk-aversion in the Hollywood system is accurate but not very interesting at this point (and increasingly less relevant with the alternate modes available). It’s a runaway dynamic born of the successes of the entrenched studio systems vertical integration with the production and distribution and established media generally.
Jodorosky’s Dune might have been a societal-wide transformative mind-blowing revelation like he imagined, or it more likely would have been a disaster/dud. But actually, it did have a world changing impact, though Star Wars and Aliens and all the other fruits of seed fragments that ricocheted off of the wreckage of that project. The hero’s journey/mysticism elements that Star Wars encoded into the pop sci-fi canon are credibly traceable to his work. (and of course as I’m sure many here know The Fifth Element is 100 percent a Jodorosky/Jean-Giraud story).
Recently watched On the Silver Globe (Soviet era suppressed Polish Sci-Fi epic), it has some serious Dune-esque vibes going on (and it’s an amazing work, just very long and intense), I can almost imagine it having some elements of what Jodo would have realized in his version.
His version of Dune wouldn’t have been Dune.
It would have been some weird psychedelic space opera he called Dune.
Jodo doesn’t have the Midas touch.
Rainbow Thief and Tusk for example.
It’s probably for the best that his idea was scrapped, so that parts of it drifted out to inspire other scifi franchises.
had totally forgotten about Rainbow Thief, (I remember oddly sort of liking it - might have to revisit that one). Personal fav of his work is probably Sante Sangre, optically stunning and maybe the clearest vision in his efforts imo.
Yeah, I think I agree on Santa Sangre. Has the right mix of narrative and weirdness.
Whereas El Topo, Fando y Lis, and The Holy Mountain are just a roller-coaster ride of symbolism.
Definitely a cinematic experience, and death of the author and whatnot, but I have a funny feeling that all the imagery might only serve to signify how much Peyote he was doing at the time.
I’m also a fan of Mr. J. But an ‘art house’ treatment of Dune wouldn’t work as intended for the vast majority of filmgoers. Lynch’s Dune was unusual (and risky) enough; yes… many fans were disappointed and newbies were understandably confused. This time it has to be told straight and convey the spirit of the book. Heart plugs, weirding modules, and (ala Jodorowsky) artsy obliqueness won’t deliver a Dune for all.
I remain unconvinced that entertainment and content are mutually exclusive. Why is it that for our films to have merit, we must suffer them? The argument also doesn’t adjust for how frequently the auteur approach to cinema can also make for terrible, destructive drivel from terrible, destructive people.
Risk isn’t some inherent impossibility for a film with a budget, it just means that the creative forces have to be more collaborative and subtle in their battles. Look at Mad Max: Fury Road and Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse. Big properties with big budgets and big risks that paid off in equal measure. They’re thoughtful and well executed.
What bothers me is Jodorowsky’s position seems to assume that if its not one single artistic vision, then it’s inferior, which says more to me about how he views art than how meaning is produced and communicated.
I’m looking at you, Lars Von Trier…
But yeah, just because someone claims to be making “great art” instead of “commercial films” doesn’t automatically give them any moral high ground.
Me too. Not all films need to be insufferable, incomprehensible, or confusing to be great art.
Both excellent examples!
Basically, it seems to be that he is the arbiter of what is worthwhile art and if he doesn’t deem it so, it’s just not. More bullshit gatekeeping, in other words.
Oh the clothes are horrible! The legendary special fabric in it looks like someone caught and skinned an uncomfortable chintzy 1920s English sofa. From a pub.
I loved the film but we seemed to be the only people in the cinema thinking it was slapstick comedy in tiny gestures, the eating noises and his pained looks and gurning face.