I Present My Replies (Film of Our Times)

<CheekyMonkey>: Jack Neo accomodates the community. Royston Tan feeds on his personality. It's wrong to say Neo is shallow without justification.

It is not through personal judgement that I state Mr Neo's incapability for depth. I understand his predicament as a film-maker, and I agree that he accommodates the community. However, let's take the last film from him that I could remember watching.

Home Run.

I would like to remind readers that the film was merely a re-interpretation of the film "Children of Heaven" and while it touched the hearts of many, it was the element from the original film that did so, while no, or very few from the adaptation took part in the task.

The overview in which the film provided audience, was one that depicted the young days of Singapore after gaining independence. It circled around the issue of poverty (which was the main element of tears) but other than being issue driven, there was hardly any character driven development and large amounts of time were used up to portray certain brief points, where such precious time could be implemented in greater development on the storyboard.

I wish to make known that my definition of shallowness is greatly constructed from brief or poor development of the different portions of the film.

<CheekyMonkey>: All about Money, Money, Money? How would you get those wonderful special effects you see in cinemas and actors of pedigree without having the money?

<OsirisZ>: ...(continued) and yeah... tt's how money grows money comes about wad... no money, how's there investment in industry, if no investment, how's there no money involved

I would refer to the portion "Money. Money. Money" and relate it to the overview of the entire paragraph. I believe my stated points were a short summary of how FINANCIAL gains has been taken as top priority instead of ARTISTIC presentations. This probably, from the obvious interpretations of my previous paragraphs, were in direct reference to Hollywood movies. In no form were my points in relevance to capital or investment. It was purely the fact that revenue and profits stated in profit and loss accounts were of greater priority. Taken into assumption, the production team was working on the basis of a one-time film. What was referred in the tagboard, where involved effects and great actors of pedigree at the expense of cash as currency, in my point of view, is categorized under the portion of investment and start-up.

<OsirisZ>: ONCE entertainment? i thought it still is...

My sincere apologies for the misunderstanding. I have edited the sentence with an additional word. I was sending across a point to the readers in which the FOCUS of film-making has clearly shifted in comparison to the past. The initial concept of film production was entertainment as I am sure you would agree.

EDITED: "Films were once created solely for entertainment."

<OsirisZ>: All i noe is, films serve many purposes, and sending a message across is juz one of them. wat bout the purpose of horror movies? Isnt it plainly and purely for entertainment and thrill? cant realli say ALL the movies nowadays are shallow lor~

I greatly emphasized at the opening of the article the focus on "Hollywood releases". As such, if we were to place the emphasis now on horror movies, where such are created purely for "entertainment and thrill", I would seek for a sincere comparison between two really famous films, re-created by Hollywood.

1. The Grudge (Ju-on)
2. The Ring, Sadako in certain countries (The Ring)

Refer to my reply to CheekyMonkey below for details on how my comments on shallowness were never intended and never presented absolutely.

<CheekyMonkey>: "No, all these never matter anymore somehow". That's really sad isn't it. Wonder why are we watching movies now that they are so-called meaningless?

In all fairness and equality, I believe you overlooked such comments:

"Certain films deserve the praise..."

"Of course, there are real successful movies who are earning big bucks in this decade are films of impeccable standards, in every aspect possible. Such, I will not even dare to raise my critical finger to."

There was no single tinge of intention there to label films, I believe, in which you are equating movies of today absolutely as meaningless. To add on to a more balanced ratio of comments, I reinforce again, that these comments that were coupled along negatively mentioned quoted words were with reference to certain Hollywood Releases, which indeed, are not ideally producing films. I hold my stand still.

<CheekyMonkey>: Basically, your viewpoint is from a personal biased perspective which puts across your desire for films of abstract intellectuality. Try keeping the review fair if you want it as such :)

Somehow there has been a portrayal of my personal views of one that favors abstract intellectuality greatly. I could not interpret however, in which paragraph of the article giving an extremely personal biased perspective in favor of films that present abstract intellectuality.

Probably such misunderstandings were caused in the last paragraph, but the usage of the word "abstract" was in a context where Film Festivals, were compared to commercially released films in terms of, in your words, abstract intellectuality.

The next usage of the word "abstract" was the mention of Singapore Dreaming, where it was featured in various film festivals internationally but yet, "in a Singaporean context of course, wasn't much at all of abstract." Refer to my review, in which you would agree with me, that a personal positive liking for that film was taken into.

I now state my missing stand as a film-maker, where abstract intellectuality is an experiment and an adventure. If I was to stubbornly live with experiment, where would my audience come from?

<zed_j>: U forgot about the large slice of the audience that do not appreciate art house films and are not sophisticated enough to understand them. But I concur that your points are still valid.

Well a really big thank you Zed_J, but on the point of art house films, please refer to my response on abstract intellectuality. However yes, I agree that there is the large slice of audience who would not possess the sophistication in this particular area. I didn't forget them. I never stated them, nor did I insist that commercially released films had to be following the particular approach of such films. I merely just categorized such art house films and film festivals as "The Other Side of Films", where indeed, is worth the appreciation of those who are willing to and are able to.

That's all people. Now I need sleep.