Movie Polls

Which of these eponymous nonfilmmaker adjectives describing a film would most make you interested in seeing it?

Please reference this thread for the rules of this group.

Please note this is a different poll from last week

Please vote only once in each poll.

Re:Which of these eponymous nonfilmmaker adjectives describing a film would most make you interested in seeing it?

I voted Shakespearean because I'm familiar with most of the other authors and find them interesting, yet depressing.

Re:Which of these eponymous nonfilmmaker adjectives describing a film would most make you interested in seeing it?

I vote Shakespeare.

I don't want to say that the other authors are monodimensional. But when I think of, say, Dostoyevsky (sp?), I think of brooding, dark, heavy stuff like Crime and Punishment. While the Russian novelist may well have left us a string of wry comedies, I do not know of them.

Yet with Shakespeare, we have three distinct genres--history plays, comedies, and the big tragedies. So when I think "Shakespeare," I think multi-dimensional not mono.

Re:Which of these eponymous nonfilmmaker adjectives describing a film would most make you interested in seeing it?

JimBell:

I vote Shakespeare.

I don't want to say that the other authors are monodimensional. But when I think of, say, Dostoyevsky (sp?), I think of brooding, dark, heavy stuff like Crime and Punishment. While the Russian novelist may well have left us a string of wry comedies, I do not know of them.

Yet with Shakespeare, we have three distinct genres--history plays, comedies, and the big tragedies. So when I think "Shakespeare," I think multi-dimensional not mono.

Stop using the word "eponymous!" It's confusing.... ...ahhh..... .......JK!  Riffing on my own brain malfunction.  Please see the prior poll discussion.

I also voted Shakespearean, and Jim says best what I was thinking.  I'm familiar with most of the other authors as well, and none of them are really as multi-faceted as the good Bard.  And few of them really have multifaceted repetoire past what they are most famous for.  And if they did, most to all "lesser known" works likely retained basic, stereotypical characteristics that gave rise to the adjectives you have in the poll to begin with (Dickens comes to mind there). And at least with Bill Shakespeare, you get the chance of seeing some faeries or some cross-dressing or something.

Re:Which of these eponymous nonfilmmaker adjectives describing a film would most make you interested in seeing it?

Great points from everyone about Shakespearean. I agree, and it got my vote.  There is such complexity in Shakespeare's works that I would likewise be drawn to a work that employed such depth and thought. 

#2 is Orwellian, because dystopia is cool (and satire, and commentary).

Re:Which of these eponymous nonfilmmaker adjectives describing a film would most make you interested in seeing it?

Going strictly on my gut reaction here...

I chose Orwellian because it gave me the feeling of an experience that would  challenge my imagination, make me think, and leave me with an uneasy feeling.

Shakespeare's work can cut across a larger cloth, so one would never know what they were getting (some appeal to me, others not.)  Plus, I am not a big fan of men in tights, so, alas, I passed on The Bard.

Re:Which of these eponymous nonfilmmaker adjectives describing a film would most make you interested in seeing it?

I had to go with Dostoevskian for the humanity of his writing, though painfully absent from the list were three I would have gone for:

• Connorsian
• Bukowskian
• Fantesian (my personal favorite to say out-loud)

Good poll though--interesting to think about.

Re:Which of these eponymous nonfilmmaker adjectives describing a film would most make you interested in seeing it?

Brecht gets my vote, though he's technically disqualified from this list - he co-directed two short films in 1923 and 1931. Brecht certainly had the most ideas about writing for the cinema and how the format should be used. Orwellian, Kafkaesque just makes me think of all the terrible student films with hard lighting and illogical plots the Eurotrash kids at my college made.

Re:Which of these eponymous nonfilmmaker adjectives describing a film would most make you interested in seeing it?

I voted for Lovecraftian because I'm a big sci-fi and fantasy nerd and I think the writings of H.P. Lovecraft are superbly imaginative pieces of fiction.

I'm tired of Shakespeare personally.

Re:Which of these eponymous nonfilmmaker adjectives describing a film would most make you interested in seeing it?

Tenenbaums:

Great points from everyone about Shakespearean. I agree, and it got my vote.  There is such complexity in Shakespeare's works that I would likewise be drawn to a work that employed such depth and thought. 

Is that really what most people mean when they say a movie has a Shakespearean quality though?  I'm not sure.  I'm not sure if I've even heard the word applied to many movies now that I think of it.  Usually the word just connotates that something is set around the time he was alive?  Or am I wrong....?

I actually was debating whether to put Shakespeare on the poll at all becuase I just figured he would win just because too many people like Shakespeare and haven't experienced much of the other guys.

I mean Shakespeare represents so much, I'm not sure that the defense that he is so broad and complex would mean a description of a movie as Shakespearean would make me want to see it.  On the contrary it would make me more confused about what the movie might be like.  Whereas we usually know that Owellian often has to do with the feeling of some kind of totalitarian futuristic society.  And Dickensian is probably going to be dealing with some kind of struggles of the lowerclass in a city environment....  Of course with that particular author's perspective on those subjects.