Movie Polls

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

seely:

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.

Excuse me for my ignorance, but who are Connorsian and Fantesian in reference to?  I googled those terms and couldn't really find anything!

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

protexblue:

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.

Thanks for pointing out that Brecht was a filmmaker.  I didn't even realize that!  Have you seen those films??  I guess he must have been a screenwriter as well as you say.  I'd be curious to see that.

I was actually thinking of chosing either Brechtian (not even because I'm that familiar with his specific work, but just what he stands for), or Dostoevskian or Kafkaesque.

I ended up chosing Kafkaesque.  I know what you are saying about the bad student film kind of image, but I think the term Kafkaesque gets bandied about often towards really bad and pretentious works unfortunately.  I don't find Kafka's work to really have that much pretense about it.  It's easy to take his themes and produce really bad and pretentious work without any talent though.  A really great Kafkaesque piece is worth treasuring though.

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

Risselada:

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.

That depends on how you're viewing and accepting the term Shakespearean.  I mean, in essence, Shakespeare's work can be delineated by comedy, tragedy, and history (or some combination thereof).  So, there's broadness in that, but there are common and basic characteristics of Shakespeare's writing and story construction that when translated to the screen could give rise to the adjective.

The comedies usually involve a ruse, a mixup, or a misunderstanding that gives rise to hilarious consequences.  Also, almost all of them are romances and contain only minor antagonistic forces (usually, the story's antagonists are the actions of the main characters themselves).  So, if your film is a Shakespearean comedy, that's kind of what you can expect.

The tragedies usually involve failed quests for power, failed quests for revenge, failed romances, and/or a whole lot of death in the end.  So, if your film is a Shakespearean drama without a historic element, you pretty much know where that's going.

The histories are exactly that: dramatic interpretations of histories, usually involving people of great power and the people scheming to take that power for themselves.

Now, this is distilling it all into absolute basics without getting into the thematic elements.  The thematic elements are varied but they all have one thing in common: they are explorations of the human condition.  Whether that condition be love, grief, ambition, revenge, the burden of power, the familial bond, or anything else, that is the one theme that crosses all of Shakespeare's works. 

And to those of us who like variety, we might be drawn to the possibility of what condition is being explored, rather than the foregone possibilities offered by the other authors.  Incidentally. my number 2 would be Orwellian as well, because even though dystopic futures pepper his works, I appreciate his satire, and his messages are relatable.  I actually thought about picking that one, but I like the variety implied by Shakespearean.

But you do run into the possibility of fewer people being aware of the other authors.  Not everyone reads Kafka for fun, is all I'm saying.

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

Risselada:

seely:

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

Excuse me for my ignorance, but who are Connorsian and Fantesian in reference to?  I googled those terms and couldn't really find anything!

I know Fantesian is in reference to John Fante, whose most famous novel might be Ask the Dust. I haven't read any of him, but I'd like to, because he writes about 1930s Los Angeles, and I like the stories by Raymond Chandler from that time.

Connorsian -- I'm going to guess here... Flannery O'Connor? I'd love movies like that. But would that be "O'Connorsian?"

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

JimBell:

...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.

I recommend Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, because while it penetrates miles deep, it still made me laugh out loud a couple times per chapter.

It's amazing how much humanity Dostoevsky puts into those 700-some pages; it's one of the most satisfying and whole reading experiences I've ever had. One of those those books that after you read it, it's hard to imagine world literature existing without it.

O

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

In spite of what I said about Dostoevsky, I still voted 'Shakespearean,' mostly because it's the only one I've ever applied to a movie on my own initiative.

For some reason I think of "Shakespearean" in terms of his tragedies. I have therefore described Magnolia as Shakespearean, and this is one of the highest compliments I can give to a film.

Magnolia, like Macbeth and King Lear, strips away all of my poise and confidence and nonchalance, makes me confront the real evil and frailty of humanity. These works show me, to reference Lear, naked man -- "the thing itself."

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

SkyPilot:

Connorsian -- I'm going to guess here... Flannery O'Connor? I'd love movies like that. But would that be "O'Connorsian?"

Oh I didn't think of that, but I should have.  I think our friend Noah would describe Sling Blade that way.

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

SkyPilot:

JimBell:

...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.

I recommend Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, because while it penetrates miles deep, it still made me laugh out loud a couple times per chapter.

It's amazing how much humanity Dostoevsky puts into those 700-some pages; it's one of the most satisfying and whole reading experiences I've ever had. One of those those books that after you read it, it's hard to imagine world literature existing without it.

O

Dang, that's quite an endorsement!

I read Crime and Punishment and I can say that I remember more than a few moments that made me laugh or at least exposed the humorous absurdity of the situation.  Of course like any good and complex novel there are a lot of other emotions mixed in.

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

SkyPilot:

 

It's amazing how much humanity Dostoevsky puts into those 700-some pages; it's one of the most satisfying and whole reading experiences I've ever had. One of those those books that after you read it, it's hard to imagine world literature existing without it.

O

Ha, it looks like I signed this post "O"!

Either that, or it's the "O" Jon dropped from O'Connorsian.

Or it was the beginning of a monologue that was cut off... "O Dostoevsky, reading wasn't worth it 'til I found thee..."

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

Risselada:

seely:

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.

Excuse me for my ignorance, but who are Connorsian and Fantesian in reference to?  I googled those terms and couldn't really find anything!

Sorry I missed your reply, but Skypilot had it right. 

Fantesian - John Fante (see: Ask the Dust, which actually was made into a film I have yet too see)

Connorsian - Skypilot pointed out to me this morning it really should be O'Connorsian, since its Flannery O'Connor.  All her films would get a solid R-rating at least.

And finally, Bukowskian, well thats obviously good ol' Chuck Bukowski.  Who wouldn't want to see a movie most likely centering around a drunk, egotistical, narcissistic, self-pitying, penniless, womanizing a**hole?