DVD Review: Godard X 2

If you want cinema to live, you must understand where a filmmaker derives his or her style from.

 

This pretty much represents the state of cinematic relations in the modern world. As soon as someone stands their ground and takes a firm stance, nobody can handle it. If someone makes a point, you counter that point with your own view if it differs. If you agree, then expand upon the ideas. There is nothing worse than someone who challenges your views, and as soon as you elaborate, they disappear into thin air.

 

I dont know who you are talking about, whethere it is Armond or myself, but there is one thing for sure that you aren't, and that is original. You need to get a rainbow hat with a pinwheel on it that says "Armond White is a Contrarian" because you are on one of the most heinous and cliched bandwagons in the history of cinematic criticism. Let's think about this. If we all had your opinion and were narrow minded to think that Godard is to only be savored and a savior for the "intellectual" filmmakers, whatever that means, then us dumb people who like action films mean nothing. Well I am completely sorry to say this but the landscape of cinema reaches way far beyond your bigoted narrow scope of vision. Yes, of course, here is another case of pot calling the kettle black, because I disagree with you, I am a contrarian, well, you disagree with me, so that means you are a contrarian and that you have truly horrible tastes in cinema. I feel bad for people like you, all you can do is wait for the list of Oscar nominees in order to make your judgements on what is good or bad. Well, you know what? You can have them! Have all of your Oscar pictures, you can have your Film Forum, or how I like to all it, Film Boring, or the IFC Center, which stands for I Felt Comatose, since that is what happens after you watch one of the movies there, you enter a state of a coma from how boring the films they play there. I like art films, whatever that is, just as much as the next Joe Blow, but it doesn't mean that I hold those movies superior to any other film. For Goodness sakes, have some humility as a cineaste, don't be a god darn Tarantino lunatic and say, I saw this! and I saw that! and this is so much better because I said so! You probably like Tarantino as well and think Inglorsuoius Bashetrerds, or however that moron mispelled it, is a masterpiece, well, Wake Up! Turning the holocaust into an action film? That is where I draw the line! Why don't we just do that with every genocide? Of course, it will be a fun action packed ride! Genocides are so awesome! WooHoo! Too bad there are not more genocides so there can be more movies, gee wiz! Well, I hate to say it, but I feel sorry for you people. You wonder why the cinema is deteriorating? Because of people LIKE YOU and people like TARANTINO, because there is no understanding or humility, it is all, me me me me, more more more more, die die die, kill kill kill, faster pussy cat, kill kill kill some more. Is this who we want one of the forefathers of cinema to be? Because in a hundred years, when history looks back at cinema, Tarantino is going to look at you hipster fanboys and hoist him up to American Icon status, a place that should only be reserved for Coppola.

 

The pot calling the kettle black was referencing you discrediting my position because I put you down when you were the first to spew invective with your dipshit nonsense. You also seem to be obsessed with the word troll, trolling, trolly, whatever form you want to use, I really could not care less, but when it comes to cinema and the rational discourse about the cinema, then I am all ears. If you can believe that Godard (highbrow cinema) can thank Fuller (lowbrow cinema), then you can believe that Godard has influenced Bay, since you all feel the need to deem Bay as a hack, which is what Fuller has, and always will be in Hollywood. Just because Cahier du Cinema champions the lowbrow does not make it so, but I guess you have your lotion and tissues with all of your back issues. Here we go with the Tony Scott name dropping again. You really must be cineilliterate if you think Scott is an influence on Bay. Have you seen any of Scott's early movies? Top Gun? True Romance? If anything, as soon as Bay developed his style, Scott took after him with his hideous Taking of Pelham Bay remake. Scott wishes he could bring the aesthetic beauty that Bay brings to his films. I'm sorry if you do not believe action movies are lesser than your Oscar bait, but I would take even Scott's nonsense over The Reader. If you want to feel guilty, just watch The Reader, The Wrestler, Slumdog Millionaire, have all the fake tears pulled out of you as much as possible, but there is no reason that the local cineplex has to be filled with such gloom and doom. If I was talking about some fanboy hipster director and praising him (PTA,Fincher,Tarantino), you would all be right behind me, but as soon as one little word is spoken about a genre that deserves more respect than it gets, that's when all hell breaks loose. If you want to roll around in your trashy movies and highbrow cinema, then enjoy all the white elephants you want (only true cineastes will understand this reference, and hopefully will weed out all the pea brains). You have to understand that Hollywood was once ruled by genre, a place where art film never existed. So Bay should fit right in there with Ford, Welles, Weiman, Bogdanovich, Rosenberg, Linder, but of course they did not have their noses in the air the way you people today do. Everyone is a hack, if he or she didn't win an Oscar, then they are a hack. If you do not believe that someone like Godard, who never even won an Oscar, can't influence someone like Bay, I've got a bridge to sell you.

 

Is this a troll to get a rise out of people? If Godard's example had taught you to love sound and image, you wouldn't be capable of arriving at such an insane opinion. It is one thing to be a contrarian, another thing to be an attention-hungry flywheel.