|
piss posted:The Ice Man: Confessions of a Mafia Contract Killer Think this one may have been mentioned before, but it doesn't really matter; it was a long time ago if it was. Its pretty drat good though. Part 1: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5740692213665972395 Part 2: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5116812489134120077 Its a strange phenomenon, but for some reason HBO has seen fit to do a service to the world in the way of documentaries.
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2011 02:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 00:12 |
|
|
Ok so I'm terrified to ask about this because I saw what happened last time but I assure you I am not crazy like the last dude was that got banned. I thought this would be the only real appropriate place to ask this since this is the documentaries thread. Just throw me a bone please. I just watched Zeitgeist: Moving Forward. I thought the part of the film that makes the suggestion about how we could start over with the circular cities was a little over the top for me, but what exactly was wrong with the rest of it? I suppose there were a lot of parts that we can only assume about that the film tries to act like it knows the answer to(companies not trying to cure cancer because it would be a revenue loss). I mean yeah we don't know that for sure but given how our system operates it doesn't seem like a totally screwed up conclusion to come to(or nutty to think might just be true). I guess I thought the movie was pretty well meaning and it's heart is in the right place, but from past discussions it seems like it really upsets people. I don't get it. Why? If someone watches it and wants to be a better person then how is that a bad result?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2011 02:51
|
|
|
Traffic Reporter posted:And loudquietloud is available in its entirety on hulu! The thing that amazed me was that how they could each hate each other so much and still play together so well. The Pixies: fueled by bitterness.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2011 04:25
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:...but what exactly was wrong with the rest of it? I haven't seen the third one, but the main objection to the other two Zeitgeist movies has always been that its creator plays it pretty fast and loose with the facts in order to create a compelling narrative which strings various conspiracy theories together. A synopsis of the first movie would read something like "Jesus is a myth because the NWO did 9/11 and the Federal Reserve will microchip you in order to introduce the Amero." You can find a pretty thorough critique of those movies here: http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/ The new one seems like a continuation of the Venus Project thing; which isn't really objectionable or anything but comes across as a little unrealistic and far fetched. But the fact that the Zeitgeist Movement which promotes the project originated from a mishmash of conspiracy theories and misinformation probably turns off a lot of people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2011 14:05
|
|
|
Tiny Faye posted:The thing that amazed me was that how they could each hate each other so much and still play together so well. The Pixies: fueled by bitterness. That's not really the impression I got from it, it felt more like rooming with someone you're already friends with in college: the proximity makes all their annoying tendencies so much more immediate and inescapable. But yeah, you could definitely feel a certain amount of ancient tension bubbling just below the surface of most conversations. I just love what a prick Frank Black came off despite his Stewart Smalley-esque motivational tapes. Also, is David autistic? Or was that just the drugs? (laffo at getting addicted to valium on your reunion tour) ApexAftermath posted:If someone watches it and wants to be a better person then how is that a bad result? The problem generally isn't that it inspires people to be better, which is certainly a positive outcome for anything. It just always comes back around to convoluted Alex Jones/NWO poo poo, which just exacerbates the problem of an uninformed/misinformed populace. That and there is a good deal of arguments that are based on fact or otherwise 'good' information but are assembled in a way that they outright fail one or more heuristics of a logically sound argument right off the bat (a la Freakanomics). If nothing else you have to give them credit for how captivating those films can be. Adjectivist Philosophy fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Apr 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2011 15:10
|
|
|
First Orbit To celebrate the 50th anniversary of the first human to orbit in space, a full length film has been released on youtube. Youtube posted:A real time recreation of Yuri Gagarin's pioneering first orbit, shot entirely in space from on board the International Space Station. The film combines this new footage with Gagarin's original mission audio and a new musical score by composer Philip Sheppard. For more information visit http://www.firstorbit.org
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2011 16:37
|
|
|
a 16 year old girl posted:
I agree that the first two movies do give off a very alex jones-ish conspiracy vibe in some spots(the 9/11 stuff was a little much for me), but I was under the impression that all the religion stuff was pretty much spot on for the most part. Bill Maher repeats pretty much the same information in his documentary about the Christ story basically being a repeated template back through the ages. I would say he is pretty far from being an Alex Jones type person(I mean poo poo, he kicked a bunch of obnoxious truthers out of the audience on his show). a 16 year old girl posted:The new one seems like a continuation of the Venus Project thing; which isn't really objectionable or anything but comes across as a little unrealistic and far fetched. But the fact that the Zeitgeist Movement which promotes the project originated from a mishmash of conspiracy theories and misinformation probably turns off a lot of people. Yeah I can see what you mean. The venus project thing was probably the point in the 3rd one where I kind of rolled my eyes. At least the film doesn't seem to be suggesting we can actually do any of this now at this point, but more or less saying "here is one suggestion if we had a brand new planet".
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2011 23:10
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:I agree that the first two movies do give off a very alex jones-ish conspiracy vibe in some spots(the 9/11 stuff was a little much for me), but I was under the impression that all the religion stuff was pretty much spot on for the most part. Oh heavens no. The Son [of God] is not named after The Sun. The word Son comes from the German "Sohn", which wasn't known to anyone in the ancient Middle East. The idea that Sun worship was related to Sun worship appears to be lifted from that Star Trek original series episode with the Roman gladiators. There is no actual relationship. So yeah, read the skepticproject article posted a bit ago.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 00:02
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:Yeah I can see what you mean. The venus project thing was probably the point in the 3rd one where I kind of rolled my eyes. At least the film doesn't seem to be suggesting we can actually do any of this now at this point, but more or less saying "here is one suggestion if we had a brand new planet". Why did you roll your eyes? The film actually is suggesting that we can do this now. Technologywise there is no problem. It's the current system that is the problem, I think the film was pretty clear on that. I only watched part 2 and 3 of the Zweitgeist movies and thought they were pretty good. Back when the first one came out I tried to watch it but after a third of it I stopped. Too much conspiracy stuff (to be honest I don't remember much of it, maybe I'll give it another try). But that doesn't mean that part 2 or 3 aren't more or less spot on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 08:01
|
|
|
mod sassinator posted:Some random happy/fun documentaries I've enjoyed: Thanks for this! These all sound pretty much perfect!
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 16:54
|
|
|
I found this thread a month or so ago and I've been slowly chugging through it, watching the most recommended docs or just ones that sound interesting. Thank you to everyone who's contributed.Rooney McNibnug posted:First Orbit I read about this recently but haven't watched it yet. Putting it on the To Do list.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 03:03
|
|
|
bronin posted:Why did you roll your eyes? The film actually is suggesting that we can do this now. Technologywise there is no problem. It's the current system that is the problem, I think the film was pretty clear on that. "how could we make a perfect civilisation work if people didn't act like people" is a fine conversation to have down the pub. It's completely bloody pointless as a documentary. The great challenge of the age isn't to become *physically capable* of achieving a goal, it's getting people to work together effectively enough to achieve it. We could feed every hungry child in the world, easily, with the excesses we are capable of growing. We don't. It's like when someone proposes a zero-carbon target for Britain, and step 1 is "everyone stops driving", step 2 "everyone becomes vegan". The numbers work, but actually persuading people to stick to it is the trick, and the only thing really worth talking about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 03:52
|
|
|
This one was mentioned during its run of (sadly limited) screenings, but now Marwencol is available on DVD and Blu-Ray and I can't recommend it enough. It's very good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMWFhplFSEQ
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 05:21
|
|
|
I've not seen it in this thread, so here goes... Pedigree Dogs Exposed is about dog breeding and dog showing and the effect it has on the animals. It was in an older documentaries thread, but linked on MySpace. How passé.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 08:45
|
|
|
LawrenceOfHerLabia posted:I've not seen it in this thread, so here goes... Man, that is incredibly depressing.  It talks exclusively about the UK kennel clubs, but I wonder if it's gotten that bad in the U.S., not counting the puppy mills.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 09:37
|
|
|
This thing can happen anywhere where there is a breeding culture that values sculpting particular forms over optimal health.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 09:52
|
|
|
Can I get a recommendation for documentaries about the ''wild west'' or pioneers or western movies?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 04:33
|
|
|
ravenkult posted:Can I get a recommendation for documentaries about the ''wild west'' or pioneers or western movies? I haven't personally seen it but based on his other amazing work I bet Ken Burn's The West is great: http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/ You might also be interested in his fantastic Civil War documentary (what really made him famous) and more, check out: http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 07:41
|
|
|
I haven't see anyone reccommend the StoryCorps animations - they're awesome. Real interviews that are animated. http://storycorps.org/animation/ If you're in the mood for a sweet romantic tearjerker, http://storycorps.org/animation/danny-and-annie/ Or for just some tenderness, http://storycorps.org/animation/q-and-a/
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 07:57
|
|
|
GonzoRonin posted:Man, that is incredibly depressing. At best the American Kennel Club is on par with this, I'd feel safe betting we're more then a hair worse though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 08:22
|
|
|
ravenkult posted:Can I get a recommendation for documentaries about the ''wild west'' or pioneers or western movies? Never seen one nor am I aware of one, but I think a New Zealand flick called This Way of Life might be your cup of tea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 08:24
|
|
|
Gardias posted:This one was mentioned during its run of (sadly limited) screenings, but now Marwencol is available on DVD and Blu-Ray and I can't recommend it enough. It's very good. If you're in the UK this is being shown on More4 this Tuesday under the name "Valley of the Dolls".
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 10:36
|
|
|
Espn has a pretty good series called "The Association" where they follow a basketball team and focus on the day to day lives of the players and coaches throughout an entire season. This year they followed the Boston Celtics. If you're a fan of basketball you'll probably really enjoy it. I don't really think you need to be a fan of the team to get a lot out of it. It's 5 episodes long and you can find them on youtube or probably reruns on espn. The fifth and final episode aired last friday.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 17:33
|
|
|
Not a documentary, but a very interesting presentation: The Banishment of Beauty (playlist) is about traditional figurative painting vs. modern art. Being a huge fan of classical painting and an art history nerd, I loved every word of this, and agree with all of it. This should be very interesting to watch even if you don't know much about art (probably even more interesting that way). I can't recommend it enough. It's about an hour long.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 23:12
|
|
|
Think this is probably a repost but Lift http://www.elevatorworld.com/blogs/?p=1845
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 23:29
|
|
|
o3o posted:Not a documentary, but a very interesting presentation: The Banishment of Beauty (playlist) is about traditional figurative painting vs. modern art. Being a huge fan of classical painting and an art history nerd, I loved every word of this, and agree with all of it. This thing is terrible and so offensively narrow-minded that I'm gonna rant about it with a whole bunch of dumb words. First of all this guy can't even distinguish between modern art, modernism and contemporary art. It also contains the unironic use of the phrase "my kid could paint that" when referring to Picasso's work. He also proudly displays a smug and willful ignorance throughout the entire thing by dismissing everything (including historical context) which could shed light on a work of art's value or meaning. Because if you can't immediately understand something then it's obviously bullshit and can you believe that "your tax dollars are paying for this rubbish??!!" If someone's main objection to an art movement like dadaism (which is one of his examples of art which is terrible because it's ugly) is that the dadaists didn't make pretty pictures and they flat out ignore the historical context which prompted the dadaists to reject traditional aesthetics then that's not a problem with dadaism. It's their own problem because they're simply too lazy and unwilling to invest any effort to engage with the dadaists work beyond the superficial. He even shows The Bombing of Guernica as an example of visual art which fails to emotionally connect with the viewer because it's too ugly… Although I guess that's the real reason that Colin Powell had to put a curtain in front of the tapestry. Traditional figurative painting can no longer claim that it's high art just because it's so well made. With the advent of photography striving for realism in painting also became pretty much pointless, get over it already. There were painters a hundred years ago who adapted and moved onto more interesting ways to utilize the medium. The attempts of futurist painters to capture the beauty of speed on canvas, or the attempts of cubist painters to depict a subject from multiple viewpoints at the same time are still a million times more innovative and interesting than what this guy proposes real contemporary art should be like. He can jerk it to the superficial value of aesthetic beauty all he wants, but the shallow sanitized depictions of reality he advocates results in nothing but stale and insipid art which doesn't challenge the viewer, doesn't provide them any new insights or experiences and can't offer anything beyond something pretty to look at. He also cherry picks some of the least visually appealing works of art in order to make his retarded point that all abstract art is crude, ugly and lacking in craftsmanship. But you can't tell me that the work of people like Tullio Crali or Kazimir Malevich wasn't aesthetically pleasing or that it lacked in craftsmanship. His last point is that high art is a business and that some contemporary artists are extremely adapt at catering to this market while others will never make a penny with their work, but so what? That has always been the case, even for some of the artists that he despises so much. Contemporary art is somewhat stagnant sure, but the art establishment isn't conspiring against him and other artists like him because what they make isn't crude and ugly enough or whatever. The problem is that what they bring to the table is even less innovative and deep than what passes as contemporary art today. Their stuff just isn't interesting enough to be considered high art. Cool and short art stuff on Youtube which are somewhat related to my rant: The ABC's of DADA Alexander Rodchenko and the Russian Avant-garde
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 16:09
|
|
|
a 16 year old girl posted:This is EXACTLY what I thought'd it be. Thanks for saving me the viewing. God I remember in art school during a review (in front of the rest of the students), taking an extremely narrow view of modern art and the faculty, politely, tore me a new rear end in a top hat. It was necessary though however embarrassing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 16:14
|
|
|
a 16 year old girl posted:excellent response. Thanks for saving me raised blood pressure. I can't stand art 'experts' and the like who lump 'modern art' into one big blob and use that to just smugly dismiss it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 16:50
|
|
|
a 16 year old girl posted:
The opening theme of this is incredible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 17:00
|
|
|
Wow God forbid someone has a different opinion than you about something! Look at that wall of text. Please keep telling the internet all about how your ideals and opinions of art are the only true and valid ones and anyone who disagrees with you should shut up and never speak their mind ever! Edit: By the way, he refers to "modern art" as anything that was made after the late 1860s, which is not incorrect. He isn't being technical and naming any particular movements because the presentation is meant to be understood by everyone, not just by those who have studied art history. That doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about. He's a pretty well established artist and he knows his poo poo. He's not some ARC fucktard. Also the fact that you think photography has replaced traditional figurative painting really shows how ignorant you are so I'm not sure why I'm even responding to your nonsense. o3o fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Apr 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 19:30
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:He also made this very good documentary if you like Dangerous Knowledge Ooh, ta, will watch it now! It hasn't been released yet, but the trailer for TT:3D is up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QldZiR9eQ_0&feature=related Looks ... terrifying!
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 20:23
|
|
|
o3o posted:Also the fact that you think photography has replaced traditional figurative painting really shows how ignorant you are so I'm not sure why I'm even responding to your nonsense. Photography didn't replace traditional figurative painting entirely, no, but the camera definitely removed much of the artists' relevance as someone who captures life, at least financially speaking. Artists were suddenly more 'obsolete', there was less paying work around and so they had to find new ways to give themselves and their work value. Figurative painting is still taught today, because it's an essential basic that every artist should learn, but it most definitely does not have the same importance in society in regards to recording life. That's....pretty fundamental to any basic understanding of art history.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 20:51
|
|
|
WingAttackPlanR posted:Marwencol I just watched this and it was amazing. Did anyone else expect his doll's doll to have a doll of its own? I really felt for the guy; he seemed to have a bit of a past but he really just wanted to have control over his life after having it taken from him. The comment from the gallery-viewer who said they'd prefer to see real photos of war so far missed the point it was obtuse. It's interesting how far inside his head you can see and how much he opens up. Plus the fact he takes kick-rear end photos.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 21:34
|
|
|
o3o posted:Not a documentary, but a very interesting presentation: The Banishment of Beauty (playlist) is about traditional figurative painting vs. modern art. Being a huge fan of classical painting and an art history nerd, I loved every word of this, and agree with all of it. I paint realism. This documentary is a crock of "ig'nant and proud" bullshit. He showed some abstract works that were moving and beautiful, then dismissed them as paint on ragged cardboard. He's got no taste at all, can he not see the mixture of textures and colours, how the ragged edges and slap-dash painting contribute to a sense of frantic urgency? The guy acts like a painting isn't art unless there's a naked woman on it. Then he showed some stunning works that experiment with layers of paint, using broad, unnatural slashes of colours: bright yellows and vibrant purples, but at the same time you can see that the figure in the painting is standing in deep shadow. He can't see the skill that takes? Then he shows some boring, paint-by-numbers demi-realistic landscapes and calls that technically accomplished. Part of technical accomplishment is knowing what to paint, and a generic post-card picture of some mountain mesas in standard yellow-light, blue-shadow is dulllll. Those pictures were done and done better by people in the past when they didn't have cameras. Now we want to see HOW each artist views the world. It's not that hard to understand, but abstract art really scares some people. edit: wot r grammer
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2011 01:44
|
|
|
Listen. I know art. Better than you. I am considered the foremost expert on cubism amongst my peers. Now THIS is art: The Joy of Painting with Bob Ross http://www.google.com/search?q=The+...1dd9b3eb8a71edc
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2011 04:03
|
|
|
Lacerta posted:I paint realism. This documentary is a crock of "ig'nant and proud" bullshit. I think there are just some people who would be better suited as mathematicians or something instead of artists. They can't comprehend any way to value art outside of technicality, so they dismiss everything that wasn't obviously slaved over for 300 hours with impeccable linework or whatever as garbage. There are a lot of photographers for instance who spend thousands of dollars on getting the best equipment to take the best possible picture of the prettiest landscape and it comes out looking just like another carbon copy of a National Geographic photo. Perfect technically but soulless to me because there's no thought or attempt to do anything new. No individuality. It's great for postcards and calendars I guess. It's also a way to judge art without having to think, just follow the rules. "Does it adhere to this guideline? No? Well then it's trash!" polysynth fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Apr 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2011 04:45
|
|
|
I don't know anything about art and yet I still found the works he put up by modern artists to be far more engaging then the paintings of a random natural setting and realistic depiction of a human form. Having realism be the only accepted art style would make art pretty drat boring.
Monaghan fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Apr 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2011 04:52
|
|
|
Not sure if it's already been posted, but Dream Deceivers has stuck with me since I caught it on PBS as a fluke back in the early 90s. It's a very deep and at times uncomfortable look into the Judas Priest court case when they were charged over subliminal messages allegedly being the cause between Belknap and Vance's suicide pact. It covers everything around the case in far more depth than what the media at the time blithered. The documentary does feature interviews with the disfigured Vance which might be hard for some to watch. From what I know the documentary's not been released for sale and was only shown the one time on PBS. It is possible to buy a studio copy from the producers to the tune of a few hundred dollars. It was on googlevideo for a while but looks like it's been pulled. I did find it in 6 parts on youtube. Quality's iffy in parts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfJkeGpiD9M 1/6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNg-QLsv_9U 2/6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9a4unAzRggk 3/6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn20gHzQp-U 4/6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydWFnxDet0Y 5/6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5V3kJ233hg 6/6
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2011 05:21
|
|
|
Wait so is Google Video just completely going away? Is there any way we could update the OP with docs on Google before they're all nixed in the next week?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2011 06:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 00:12 |
|
|
Monaghan posted:I don't know anything about art and yet I still found the works he put up by modern artists to be far more engaging then the paintings of a random natural setting and realistic depiction of a human form. Having realism be the only accepted art style would make art pretty drat boring. I liked that he basically straight up went 'I only value things I personally find pretty, everything is my kid could make and is trash!' I love realist art too, I think there is beauty in nature, but it really just makes me more sad then anything to hear someone, intending to educate people, write an entire art movement off (hell, multiple ones all lumped under the same blanket) as worthless. That's like a film 'expert' saying 'there is literally no good movie about science fiction, because I saw some B-movies that were sci-fi'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2011 07:01
|
|