whoa... you do have a brain in your head,i was'nt sure your comment's on that boggie nights scene were well thought out.i think that this scene and the "look's like shit" scene sum's up the whole transition in porn from big budget to video,i.e low budget.but i think you missed the point somewhat.there is a scene right at the end where jack horner is walking around his house/studio and he walks into the editing/cutting room.he ask's his editor how is it,to which the editor replies "it is what it is".
jack horner tried to delude himself and others into thinking he/they were artist's making 'real' film's but at the end of the day,(sorry,i hate those saying's),the establishment,ie hollywood, just saw them as (dirty) old men who get off on making 'fuck film's.' which is a fact that he had to except.so no mattter how 'glammed-up' the girl/actress is,no matter the location of the scene,no matter where you watch these film's,(cinema or at home),whether it is 'chav porn'(whatever that is?) or not...."it is what it is."
officer dribble .
Re: officer dribble .
Do you find it necessary to start a new thread and add in posters names in the title, why don't you just stick to the one thread and leave the names out of it. Make your point by all means but don't act like a tit in the process, that's 2 posts you've started which targeted both myself and Dibble when all you had to do was join in the conversation in the original thread. You'll find by acting the smart ass that all reasoned debate goes out the window.
JP
JP
-
Officer Dibble
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: officer dribble .
"whoa... you do have a brain in your head"
Er? yes, I guess. Indeed it?s quite a COHERENT one where these matters are concerned.
"i wasn?t sure your comment's on that boggie nights scene were well thought out."
Then let me reassure you - they were. They were meticulously thought out and pondered over in the preceding few days after repeated viewings of the film in question.
"i think that this scene and the "look's like shit" scene sum's up the whole transition in porn from big budget to video,i.e low budget."
Er, isn't that what I said in my closing paragraph?
"but i think you missed the point somewhat."
I haven?t missed any points, except the point of you quoting the editor of Jack's films "it is what it is? and, for that matter, the point of this whole post.
'It is what it is' is a totally meaningless statement, yet you are giddily bandying it about as though it carries a kind of deep meaning and profundity that only you are privy to. I am familiar with the Boogie Nights scene in question and my interpretation of it is this - It is the only thing the editor can find to say, or wishes to say, about it (the video gonzo film). When he says it he has the air of a man tired, dejected and resigned. He would like to have said that it was he best thing since sliced bread, but he couldn't, because in reality, both he, and Jack, believed it to be a load of shite. It would, however, satisfy the low rent consumers and pay a few bills. It was what it was, nothing more, nothing less, it would serve a purpose, there was nothing more he could say, or whished to say, about it. The sooner it was out of their sight the sooner they could forget about it. In their minds in was ?a none film?.
?jack horner tried to delude himself and others into thinking he/they were artist's making 'real' film's?
In the context of Boogie Nights Jack Horner was an artist, he was making real films, and he was working with celluloid - the same stuff Coppola shot the Godfather on. All his movie-making associates were skilled professionals and craftsmen who had leaned their trade down the road in Hollywood - cameramen, soundmen, editors, and lighting technicians. There was virtually no amateur movie making in the realm of 35mm celluloid, it was very expensive, way beyond the means of all but the richest amateur filmmakers. Now, going back to the movie, after one of Jack Horner?s biggest shoots, while the film is still in post production, he asks the ex Hollywood editor?s opinion on their new film. The editor replies, ?It?s a movie Jack. A real movie.? And indeed they were real movies (with fucking) made in the late 70?s and 80?s. 'Vista Valley PTA', 'The Budding Of Brie' and 'Taboo', to name but three. Superb movies. Real movies.
Boogie Nights is not a film about the establishment?s attitude to porn, indeed that issue is never even mentioned. It is not a film that examines whether porn is art, or can be art. For the purpose of the film we simply need to accept that Jack believes that it is. The film is not even a film about a lad with a big dick. No, the film is about the emotional turmoil, the angst, the loss of confidence and self doubt experienced by Jack?s group when their happy-go-lucky creative way of life, their philosophy, is threatened by commercial forces beyond their control.
Regarding ?chav porn?. It?s simply very cheaply produced Brit fuck films with virtually no production values or script, often featuring low class, low rent, scrubbers of the type JP has outlined. It?s not very inspirational, uplifting or erotic. Indeed some of us find it distasteful and depressing, hence our antipathy towards it.
Officer Dibbs
Er? yes, I guess. Indeed it?s quite a COHERENT one where these matters are concerned.
"i wasn?t sure your comment's on that boggie nights scene were well thought out."
Then let me reassure you - they were. They were meticulously thought out and pondered over in the preceding few days after repeated viewings of the film in question.
"i think that this scene and the "look's like shit" scene sum's up the whole transition in porn from big budget to video,i.e low budget."
Er, isn't that what I said in my closing paragraph?
"but i think you missed the point somewhat."
I haven?t missed any points, except the point of you quoting the editor of Jack's films "it is what it is? and, for that matter, the point of this whole post.
'It is what it is' is a totally meaningless statement, yet you are giddily bandying it about as though it carries a kind of deep meaning and profundity that only you are privy to. I am familiar with the Boogie Nights scene in question and my interpretation of it is this - It is the only thing the editor can find to say, or wishes to say, about it (the video gonzo film). When he says it he has the air of a man tired, dejected and resigned. He would like to have said that it was he best thing since sliced bread, but he couldn't, because in reality, both he, and Jack, believed it to be a load of shite. It would, however, satisfy the low rent consumers and pay a few bills. It was what it was, nothing more, nothing less, it would serve a purpose, there was nothing more he could say, or whished to say, about it. The sooner it was out of their sight the sooner they could forget about it. In their minds in was ?a none film?.
?jack horner tried to delude himself and others into thinking he/they were artist's making 'real' film's?
In the context of Boogie Nights Jack Horner was an artist, he was making real films, and he was working with celluloid - the same stuff Coppola shot the Godfather on. All his movie-making associates were skilled professionals and craftsmen who had leaned their trade down the road in Hollywood - cameramen, soundmen, editors, and lighting technicians. There was virtually no amateur movie making in the realm of 35mm celluloid, it was very expensive, way beyond the means of all but the richest amateur filmmakers. Now, going back to the movie, after one of Jack Horner?s biggest shoots, while the film is still in post production, he asks the ex Hollywood editor?s opinion on their new film. The editor replies, ?It?s a movie Jack. A real movie.? And indeed they were real movies (with fucking) made in the late 70?s and 80?s. 'Vista Valley PTA', 'The Budding Of Brie' and 'Taboo', to name but three. Superb movies. Real movies.
Boogie Nights is not a film about the establishment?s attitude to porn, indeed that issue is never even mentioned. It is not a film that examines whether porn is art, or can be art. For the purpose of the film we simply need to accept that Jack believes that it is. The film is not even a film about a lad with a big dick. No, the film is about the emotional turmoil, the angst, the loss of confidence and self doubt experienced by Jack?s group when their happy-go-lucky creative way of life, their philosophy, is threatened by commercial forces beyond their control.
Regarding ?chav porn?. It?s simply very cheaply produced Brit fuck films with virtually no production values or script, often featuring low class, low rent, scrubbers of the type JP has outlined. It?s not very inspirational, uplifting or erotic. Indeed some of us find it distasteful and depressing, hence our antipathy towards it.
Officer Dibbs
-
Officer Dibble
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: officer dribble .
Quite JP. However, I wouldn't have used to word 'smart' in relation to chef and is ill considered outburst. My first impression was that 'chef' had been at the cooking sherry - like some latter day Keith Floyd, or even that Galloping Gourmet (pronounced "gormy" round here) chap back in the 60's. He may even have been trying to impress some chav birds.
Officer Dibbs
Officer Dibbs
Re: officer dribble .
first of all let me start by appologising to both you and j.p. I wasn't trying to be a 'smart arse' or clever ,i just thought that if i named names i would have more chance of you guy's or girls,(whoever you are),actually reading it.
after reading your last post,officer dribble,it is my view that you did miss the point.entirely.Boogie night's was a commentary,a 2 and1/2 hour snap shot of the history of porn circa early 70's to late 80's. it tells the story of how the less intelligent/bored/down on their luck individuals were all manipulated in some way,shape or form by jack horner.he made them feel loved,needed and apprciated in a world that negected them.they were all one big happy family of misfit's and that suited jack and his co-horts down to the ground.
i totally disagree with the fact that they were all seasoned professioal's.i havent seen the film in ages but i seem to recall a scene where dirk is filming his first scene with,the so-called mother of the group,i forgot her name.jullianne moore's character.anyway,they are so engrossed in watching dirk shagging, that no one notices that they run out of film for a couple of minute's and have to film the whole scene again.or at least part of it.now,if they learned there 'trade' in hollywood then maybe the should have stayed there to finish their training.or gone to film school instead.
i also have to take issue with the fact that you seem to think that these so-called artist's were 'great' movie makers.please...wake up and smell the 8-balls.the perfomers were either drunk or off their faces on cocaine.and just because they made films on celluloid and in soft focus doesn't mean that they were any good,because 99% of them were crap films.excellent porn,but crap film's.can you really compere 'the god-father' to,i dont know.....say 'the devil in miss jones'??? think about it!
the whole "it is what it is" thing is a summary of the whole industry of that era.it carries no deep,hidden allegory or metaphor.i never said it did.it is merely a realisation that after years of making 'real' films,they were what they were......fuck film's.porn to you and me.
i could go on but i think i shall leave it there......for now!!!
p.s nice debate....it's been fun.
after reading your last post,officer dribble,it is my view that you did miss the point.entirely.Boogie night's was a commentary,a 2 and1/2 hour snap shot of the history of porn circa early 70's to late 80's. it tells the story of how the less intelligent/bored/down on their luck individuals were all manipulated in some way,shape or form by jack horner.he made them feel loved,needed and apprciated in a world that negected them.they were all one big happy family of misfit's and that suited jack and his co-horts down to the ground.
i totally disagree with the fact that they were all seasoned professioal's.i havent seen the film in ages but i seem to recall a scene where dirk is filming his first scene with,the so-called mother of the group,i forgot her name.jullianne moore's character.anyway,they are so engrossed in watching dirk shagging, that no one notices that they run out of film for a couple of minute's and have to film the whole scene again.or at least part of it.now,if they learned there 'trade' in hollywood then maybe the should have stayed there to finish their training.or gone to film school instead.
i also have to take issue with the fact that you seem to think that these so-called artist's were 'great' movie makers.please...wake up and smell the 8-balls.the perfomers were either drunk or off their faces on cocaine.and just because they made films on celluloid and in soft focus doesn't mean that they were any good,because 99% of them were crap films.excellent porn,but crap film's.can you really compere 'the god-father' to,i dont know.....say 'the devil in miss jones'??? think about it!
the whole "it is what it is" thing is a summary of the whole industry of that era.it carries no deep,hidden allegory or metaphor.i never said it did.it is merely a realisation that after years of making 'real' films,they were what they were......fuck film's.porn to you and me.
i could go on but i think i shall leave it there......for now!!!
p.s nice debate....it's been fun.
-
Officer Dibble
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: officer dribble .
OK chef, fair enough. I still believe you?re misreading parts of the film and if I had the time I would love to split those hairs with you. Speaking of art in general, as well as reflecting life, great art serves as a catalyst for our emotions, each of us will interpret a work differently, and each of us will take something personal from it. In this respect your views are just as relevant as mine.
I trust you'll have no hard feelings at the caustic, sarky, tone of my response, but you were disrespectful (officer dribble?). In fact you went out of your way to be so, and consequently made yourself fair game. I didn?t feel that any comments I might have made on your scribblings elsewhere warranted that level of jibe, if they had, I would have expected no less.
Yes, it's been interesting, and I look forward to chewing the cud in future threads.
Officer Dibble
I trust you'll have no hard feelings at the caustic, sarky, tone of my response, but you were disrespectful (officer dribble?). In fact you went out of your way to be so, and consequently made yourself fair game. I didn?t feel that any comments I might have made on your scribblings elsewhere warranted that level of jibe, if they had, I would have expected no less.
Yes, it's been interesting, and I look forward to chewing the cud in future threads.
Officer Dibble
-
Deuce Bigolo
- Posts: 9910
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: officer dribble .
Exactly.......Everyone knows its Ossifer Drivel
cheers
B....OZ Crack that Whip
cheers
B....OZ Crack that Whip
-
Officer Dibble
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: officer dribble .
Now, that's more like it.
Officer D
Officer D
Re: officer dribble .
The Devil in Miss Jones is not a good example to choose, in my opinion, because, with the first sex scene not taking place until 40 or so minutes in, it was poor porn and poor erotica. But it could certainly claim to be art, though perhaps only moderately good art. It certainly had something to say on the human condition. Never having seen The Godfather (shock, horror) I couldn't say how it compared to that and I'm not entering into the debate over how to analyse Boogie Nights.
Re: officer dribble .
i am very sorry that you thought i was poking fun at your monniker on this forum,but i genuinely mis-read your name. for some strange reason i thought,this being a porn site forum that your handle/name was officer....you know!anyway,please accept my appologies i honestly did'nt intend to cause offense.
p.s it was nice debating for a change.let's agree to disagree.
p.s it was nice debating for a change.let's agree to disagree.