Re: Movies
Posted: Sun Feb 09, 2025 7:30 pm
I saw an interview with its creator and he said it's like the inversion of reading a book, where you have all the words laid out by the author, but it is up to the reader to create the visual image, different in the mind of every reader. ("Reader Response Criticism"). With "Mad God" he provides all the visual creation but leaves a lot of the rest to the viewer.pipbarber wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2025 6:39 pmI loved mad god but i don't know why, i didn't know what was happening and i still have no idea what it was about but i was totally immersed.stylofone wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2025 11:31 am This week I watched the remake of Nosferatu. It didn't quite work on me, but it had some excellent bits in it. I will go back and re-watch the Herzog version from the 70s and also Andy Warhol's Blood for Dracula, which I remember fondly.
Then last night I got around to watching "Mad God" which is a surreal arthouse cult animation. I really enjoyed it, it reminded me of being young and pretentious and going to see Koyaanisqatsi, 2001, Robot Monster, that sort of thing.
It also looks like Phil Tippett has had a lifetime as a creative contributor to a genre based on mythic, archetypal stories - especially the monsters, and it has somehow allowed him to drill into the subconscious with this mind-fucking imagery, in a way which is not normally allowed in commercial film making.