John Campea goes off on backwards thinking Ethan Hawke

All the ChickensAll the Chickens Birmingham, AL
He really says out loud what I'm thinking when people bitch about super hero movies while obsessing over high art films. Of course, art is subjective, but a super hero or fantasy element in a film doesn't make it bad, nor does a drama about priests molesting kids or some other political/social statement automatically make the movie great. Both can be incredible and emotional, and both can be bad (or just plain boring).


Comments

  • DeeDee Adelaide
    I’m not a fan of either superhero movies or artsy fartsy movies, but Ethan Hawke is the most pretentious twat currently walking the earth. He is the main character in every novel ever written by a white middle age college English professor. 
    Freiberg
  • The defining face of Gen X echoing through the years. 
    Freiberg
  • bizmarkiefaderbizmarkiefader San Francisco
    It's perfectly fine to not like super hero movies.
    cdrive
  • cdrivecdrive Houston, TX
    Hmmm I don’t know if I’d say Logan was “waaaay better” than anything Ethan Hawke has been in the past number of years.  Boyhood was pretty fuckin’ good and groundbreaking.  
  • If you say artsy fartsy unironically, you don’t understand what makes an important film. Sure, a superhero movie can be well made and entertaining, but what weight do they really hold? When you put both Moonlight and Infinity Wars on a scale, do you really think IW is as important or well made? There are two reasons a superhero movie has yet to be nominated for best picture at the oscars: 1) since avengers, they have grown stale in every aspect except the plot, which is the only thing that evolves each movie, and sometimes that isn’t even true; and 2) name one superhero movie that made you and your friends debate other societal issues or engage in scholarly examination of the technique at which the film was made. My point is superhero movies are like, to quote a reviewer at the Chicago Tribune, Michael Phillips, “an all-you-can-eat Breadstick bar; it tastes great but after a while, you realize it’s just carbs and pretty empty, and if you eat too much you’ll fell sick afterwards.”
  • DeeDee Adelaide
    edited September 2
    Well... has Ethan Hawke ever made an important film? Are those ones where he just walks around talking to Julie Delpy for two hours important? I mean, really, are any films important unless they’re addressing a serious social issue? And are those the only ones ever worthy of any award (which, in the grand scheme of things are basically meaningless to anyone outside the industry). 
    Freiberg
  • amyja89amyja89 Oxford, England
    He was really good in First Reformed that came out this year. Super heavy film, most definitely not a super hero situation!  :D
  • edited September 3
    I just watched Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets and it was hot garbage.  It also has a bit part played by Ethan Hawke, a man who thinks superhero movies can’t be art.  Art is subjective, art is in the eye of the beholder, and if that means Hawke and Delpy walking around and talking that’s valid, and if that means Capt. America punching out a CGI monster well that’s just as valid.  And what does “important” even mean when talking about art?  Does it mean engaging the viewer in a meaningful way, because both art house and comic book movies do that.  Does it mean creating new and breathtaking worlds filled with interesting and well made characters, because both art house and comic book movies do that too.  Does it mean making the viewer think about their world, their place in society, in history, because both art house and comic book movies do that too.  Comic book movies can be the highest art, pulling powerful performances from incredible actors, making us question the nature of the civilization we live in, bring us to our feet and make us weep.  Just as art house films can be cheesy, with bad effects and wooden performances, making us ask nothing more than “how did this get made!?”  To say This is art and That is not is to grossly misunderstand what art is, what role it plays in human existence, and most of all ourselves.  It’s okay to not like stuff, but to declare that something isn’t art because it doesn’t meet your madeup prerequisites is laughably ignorant.  My absolute favorite film is a black and white social satire about the French aristocracy at the outbreak of WW2, and last week I saw the Meg and loved it; they are both beautiful art in their own unique ways that bring me joy because I don’t have a stick so far up my ass that I can’t just enjoy something.  Ethan Hawke is great, he is also, as Dee so succinctly put it, a pretentious twat, let’s not give his words too much credence.
    Dee
  • cdrivecdrive Houston, TX
    I’m partial to Reality Bites, because Houston natch.  That movie gives me the feels. 
  • Well, Ethan Hawke famously talks about his need to pay the bills and using the pretty common making  one for me and one for you technique of actors with artistic ambitions. 

    But I think you’re much more likely to get meaningful commentary or personal creative expression from a non-comic book movie. Never say never though. 
  • Frakkin TFrakkin T Currently Offline
    edited September 3
    If you say artsy fartsy unironically, you don’t understand what makes an important film. Sure, a superhero movie can be well made and entertaining, but what weight do they really hold? When you put both Moonlight and Infinity Wars on a scale, do you really think IW is as important or well made? There are two reasons a superhero movie has yet to be nominated for best picture at the oscars: 1) since avengers, they have grown stale in every aspect except the plot, which is the only thing that evolves each movie, and sometimes that isn’t even true; and 2) name one superhero movie that made you and your friends debate other societal issues or engage in scholarly examination of the technique at which the film was made. My point is superhero movies are like, to quote a reviewer at the Chicago Tribune, Michael Phillips, “an all-you-can-eat Breadstick bar; it tastes great but after a while, you realize it’s just carbs and pretty empty, and if you eat too much you’ll fell sick afterwards.”
     This is a very elitist and dismissive take. I know why a superhero movie has yet to be nominated: the majority of academy members agree with your take, that popular movies are trite & disposable while the "real" films are the ones that show on 50 screens that we never even hear about until awards season. Humans have been telling each other stories of larger-than-life heroes since we've been telling stories, from Gilgamesh to Hercules to King Arthur to Sherlock Holmes to Flash Gordon to Superman etc. If you're ready to dismiss them en masse as "just carbs and pretty empty," maybe you don't understand what makes an important film. 
    Freiberghisdudeness915All the Chickens
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • HunkuleseHunkulese Québec, Canada
    Frakkin T said:
    If you say artsy fartsy unironically, you don’t understand what makes an important film. Sure, a superhero movie can be well made and entertaining, but what weight do they really hold? When you put both Moonlight and Infinity Wars on a scale, do you really think IW is as important or well made? There are two reasons a superhero movie has yet to be nominated for best picture at the oscars: 1) since avengers, they have grown stale in every aspect except the plot, which is the only thing that evolves each movie, and sometimes that isn’t even true; and 2) name one superhero movie that made you and your friends debate other societal issues or engage in scholarly examination of the technique at which the film was made. My point is superhero movies are like, to quote a reviewer at the Chicago Tribune, Michael Phillips, “an all-you-can-eat Breadstick bar; it tastes great but after a while, you realize it’s just carbs and pretty empty, and if you eat too much you’ll fell sick afterwards.”
     This is a very elitist and dismissive take. I know why a superhero movie has yet to be nominated: the majority of academy members agree with your take, that popular movies are trite & disposable while the "real" films are the ones that show on 50 screens that we never even hear about until awards season. Humans have been telling each other stories of larger-than-life heroes since we've been telling stories, from Gilgamesh to Hercules to King Arthur to Sherlock Holmes to Flash Gordon to Superman etc. If you're ready to dismiss them en masse as "just carbs and pretty empty," maybe you don't understand what makes an important film. 
    I can't think of a genre of movie that best deserves the empty carbs label than the Marvel movies and definitely aren't art or important, unless you want to go with the everything is art stance. Yeah, they're fun for a couple hours, but they've made basically the same movie 20 times now.
  • DeeDee Adelaide
    Hunkulese said:
    Frakkin T said:
    If you say artsy fartsy unironically, you don’t understand what makes an important film. Sure, a superhero movie can be well made and entertaining, but what weight do they really hold? When you put both Moonlight and Infinity Wars on a scale, do you really think IW is as important or well made? There are two reasons a superhero movie has yet to be nominated for best picture at the oscars: 1) since avengers, they have grown stale in every aspect except the plot, which is the only thing that evolves each movie, and sometimes that isn’t even true; and 2) name one superhero movie that made you and your friends debate other societal issues or engage in scholarly examination of the technique at which the film was made. My point is superhero movies are like, to quote a reviewer at the Chicago Tribune, Michael Phillips, “an all-you-can-eat Breadstick bar; it tastes great but after a while, you realize it’s just carbs and pretty empty, and if you eat too much you’ll fell sick afterwards.”
     This is a very elitist and dismissive take. I know why a superhero movie has yet to be nominated: the majority of academy members agree with your take, that popular movies are trite & disposable while the "real" films are the ones that show on 50 screens that we never even hear about until awards season. Humans have been telling each other stories of larger-than-life heroes since we've been telling stories, from Gilgamesh to Hercules to King Arthur to Sherlock Holmes to Flash Gordon to Superman etc. If you're ready to dismiss them en masse as "just carbs and pretty empty," maybe you don't understand what makes an important film. 
    I can't think of a genre of movie that best deserves the empty carbs label than the Marvel movies and definitely aren't art or important, unless you want to go with the everything is art stance. Yeah, they're fun for a couple hours, but they've made basically the same movie 20 times now.
    Woody Allen has made the same movIe 20 times too and he’s a critical darling. 
    amyja89LandscrapingFreiberg
  • bizmarkiefaderbizmarkiefader San Francisco
    Everybody has genres or types of movies they just aren't interested in. Why is it so important for people that everybody worship Marvel? They're fine, usually fun, easily forgettable movies.
    Dee
  • All the ChickensAll the Chickens Birmingham, AL
    edited September 6
    Everybody has genres or types of movies they just aren't interested in. Why is it so important for people that everybody worship Marvel? They're fine, usually fun, easily forgettable movies.
    I think no one would care if he just said "I don't like superhero films." For one, because he's made that statement before, and to further that he even said they were "destructive," which is asinine.

    It's the idea or attitude that any movie with a super hero or some fantasy element automatically means it's an objectively bad movie or can't be as good as or better than a lower budget "high art" film that people take exception to. Most don't care either way about his personal preferences in movie viewing. And if he's going to give his opinion, others will give theirs to counter it.
    Frakkin TFreibergDee
  • Frakkin TFrakkin T Currently Offline
    Hunkulese said:
    Frakkin T said:
    If you say artsy fartsy unironically, you don’t understand what makes an important film. Sure, a superhero movie can be well made and entertaining, but what weight do they really hold? When you put both Moonlight and Infinity Wars on a scale, do you really think IW is as important or well made? There are two reasons a superhero movie has yet to be nominated for best picture at the oscars: 1) since avengers, they have grown stale in every aspect except the plot, which is the only thing that evolves each movie, and sometimes that isn’t even true; and 2) name one superhero movie that made you and your friends debate other societal issues or engage in scholarly examination of the technique at which the film was made. My point is superhero movies are like, to quote a reviewer at the Chicago Tribune, Michael Phillips, “an all-you-can-eat Breadstick bar; it tastes great but after a while, you realize it’s just carbs and pretty empty, and if you eat too much you’ll fell sick afterwards.”
     This is a very elitist and dismissive take. I know why a superhero movie has yet to be nominated: the majority of academy members agree with your take, that popular movies are trite & disposable while the "real" films are the ones that show on 50 screens that we never even hear about until awards season. Humans have been telling each other stories of larger-than-life heroes since we've been telling stories, from Gilgamesh to Hercules to King Arthur to Sherlock Holmes to Flash Gordon to Superman etc. If you're ready to dismiss them en masse as "just carbs and pretty empty," maybe you don't understand what makes an important film. 
    I can't think of a genre of movie that best deserves the empty carbs label than the Marvel movies and definitely aren't art or important, unless you want to go with the everything is art stance. Yeah, they're fun for a couple hours, but they've made basically the same movie 20 times now.
    OK if it's not art then anyone should be able to do it. Let's see you write a script, design characters, costumes, and sets, design visual effects that don't look like garbage, manage a crew of hundreds including some very fragile famous egos, shoot the damn thing so it looks good and doesn't take ten years to finish, then edit what you've shot into a coherent narrative. 

    Like it or not, creative people pour their hearts into every movie they make, whether it costs $2 million or $200 million. Does the business end of things get in the way of the vision? Absolutely, but you can be damned sure there's an indie darling that you just love where the director wasn't allowed or able to do something they wanted. There's a reason why "show business" is such a common phrase; every show is business but we look at it and take what we can. 

    If you don't take anything of value from Marvel or any superhero movies, I salute you. Your opinions are valid and you get to decide whether you like something. However if you're gonna come in and make broad generalizations about what is art and what is important in a world of 7 billion people, I gotta call bullshit on you a little bit. 


    FreibergDee
  • Doctor_NickDoctor_Nick Terminus
    edited September 6
    I don't seen anything about any "fantastical element" in what he said.  He's talking about the mainstream Marvel and DC style movies as far as I can see.  

    It's the idea or attitude that any movie with a super hero or some fantasy element automatically means it's an objectively bad movie or can't be as good as or better than a lower budget "high art" film that people take exception to. 



     
  • All the ChickensAll the Chickens Birmingham, AL
    I don't seen anything about any "fantastical element" in what he said.  He's talking about the mainstream Marvel and DC style movies as far as I can see.  

    It's the idea or attitude that any movie with a super hero or some fantasy element automatically means it's an objectively bad movie or can't be as good as or better than a lower budget "high art" film that people take exception to. 

    I guess when I say "fantasy element" I'm using that to differentiate a classic hero tale and one where the hero can fly or has a bone structure made of indestructible metal and retractable claws, although I guess the term "superhero" implies that itself. Most of these comic book movies are in the fantasy genre as well.

    He did say "It still involves people in tights with metal coming out of their hands." when speaking of Logan. It doesn't involve people wearing tights, but if metal coming out of a mans hand is the bizarre line you draw when taking a movie seriously, I'm not sure how you can take a wizard flying on the back of a giant eagle seriously or a "Good Witch" floating into the scene inside of a bubble. Or talking lions. Or I can keep going.
    Freiberg
  • DeeDee Adelaide
    Everybody has genres or types of movies they just aren't interested in. Why is it so important for people that everybody worship Marvel? They're fine, usually fun, easily forgettable movies.
    As @All the Chickens said above. I don’t like superhero movies - I think they’re snoozefests. But I’m not gonna tell someone who does like them that they are bad films or have no artistic merit. That’s just being a snob. 
    Frakkin TFreiberg
  • All the ChickensAll the Chickens Birmingham, AL
    Oh and the part where he says "It’s not Bresson. It’s not Bergman. But they talk about it like it is.” ... Ho-ly shit, man, that made my eyes do a 360 roll around my head.

    Outside of the fact that I can't imagine those comparisons have ever been made or uttered in the same sentence before, he honestly needs to be sporting a monocle and wood pipe when making that statement.
    Freiberg
Sign In or Register to comment.