Cracker: Wallywood
735 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 12 13 14 15 16 … 30 Newer→ Last
-
Sure, but if you're trying to prove that it's all subjective, then you must accept that Citizen Kane is no better than Robot Monster.
You must accept that Citizen Kane is not objectively better than Robot Monster or any other film, yes. On the other hand, so long as enough people subjectively maintain that Citizen Kane is better (therefore deserving of more analysis, better conservation, greater circulation) than Robot Monster, we're okay, no?
-
[edit to add context, brutally robbed by intervening Tiso post]
Okay, you got me. There Is No Such Thing As Meaning. I submit. ;)
Hey, that's still in doubt too. Safest to say "There's no consensus on the nature of Meaning"
Sure, but if you're trying to prove that it's all subjective, then you must accept that Citizen Kane is no better than Robot Monster.
It's not objectively better. It almost certainly is subjectively better.
[edit: LOL, ta Gio]
-
3410,
How is this any different from suggesting that a sharp saw is "better saw" than a blunt saw (all else being equal)? Isn't that essentially an objective fact based on a value judgement?
PS. You're supposed to be on my side on this, Gio. ;)PPS Why do I get into these arguments? I've been so good at avoiding them. ;)
-
3410,
It almost certainly is subjectively better.
Technically, that sentence doesn't make sense, does it?
-
Sure, but if you're trying to prove that it's all subjective, then you must accept that Citizen Kane is no better than Robot Monster.
I would like values to be objective, but I think art would be static if they were, like the traditional art forms of the Pacific islands. I think art can only change because values are not objective.
Maybe some values are so well-established that they may as well be laws. After all, artists like Raphael and Michaelangelo have been consistently well-regarded for centuries now. Cinema is a bit more difficult, because it is a relatively new medium and many of its values are new; but others are related to those of other art forms.
Perhaps "The robot monster is not even a robot " is a pretty good value, and one likely to last. If a director makes a film with robot in the title, you are entitled to a robot. That is a simple matter of truth in advertising.
-
3410,
So long as you are judging the films by [the values by which we consider films like Citizen Kane to be great] those values appear objective.
Hmmm... still struggling to digest that one, Paul.
-
a sharp saw is "better saw" than a blunt saw
I think it's safe to say there is more agreement about that tool's purpose and performance than for movies and other cultural artifacts.
-
3410,
I would like values to be objective, but I think art would be static if they were
I don't think so. Even if art values were static, the world is always changing, so the relationship between them would always be changing too.
-
if objective values exist, what are they and how would be know them to be objective?
-
3410,
I think it's safe to say there is more agreement about that tool's purpose...
I'm saying, it's not about agreement; it's a fact. A saw is, by definition, better sharp than blunt. Just because we can't quite articulate the purpose of films, as we can with saws, doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't one (or some).
-
So is a sharp saw or a blunt saw better for playing Mozart on?
-
PS. You're supposed to be on my side on this, Gio. ;)
You forget I'm the postmodernist figure of fun around here. Objective value judgments are like kryptonite to me.
A saw is, by definition, better sharp than blunt. Just because we can't quite articulate the purpose of films, as we can with saws, doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't one (or some).
Ohhh... sounds like you'd enjoy Uses of Literature, by an illustrious compatriot of mine. I've been wondering if that's what Philip was thinking of when he wrote of the Uses of Avatar.
-
Technically, that sentence doesn't make sense, does it?
Needs more clarification. I meant, it's almost certain you can find some individual or group who will say CK is better.
If a director makes a film with robot in the title, you are entitled to a robot. That is a simple matter of truth in advertising.
Was there a monster though? If so, it was at least less of a gyp than Pirsig's book.
Btw, a blunt saw probably makes a better torture implement. It might also be a bit safer for children to use.
-
You must accept that Citizen Kane is not objectively better than Robot Monster or any other film, yes. On the other hand, so long as enough people subjectively maintain that Citizen Kane is better (therefore deserving of more analysis, better conservation, greater circulation) than Robot Monster, we're okay, no?
But there are things that Citizen Kane does objectively better than Robot Monster. Its acting is more persuasive. Its cinematography was groundbreaking. Its dialogue is more compelling. It is -- as this is important in terms of the canon -- about a serious subject (if Charles Foster Kane had been a spaceship commander, we wouldn't be hearing as much about Citizen Kane). It is from a film-maker whose other work we recognise as important and valuable. All this is objective. Even people who prefer watching Robot Monster couldn't argue with that.
-
I've been wondering if that's what Philip was thinking of when he wrote of the Uses of Avatar.
Homage not plagiarism!
-
You forget I'm the postmodernist figure of fun around here. Objective value judgments are like kryptonite to me.
Me too, but I don't claim titles I don't understand. Rather than "postmodern" I go for "skeptical".
-
How is this any different from suggesting that a sharp saw is "better saw" than a blunt saw
But does this maxim have teeth?
...and some people do think that Robot Monster is the best movie ever made
- especially one about a Gorilla with a fishbowl
on its head...
as opposed to Peter Jackson's King Kong which is about a Gorilla thrust into the fishbowl of publicity...
while Citizen Kane is about that other publicity seeking monster Hearst... -
I find I'm enjoying your pieces more and more Ian. Timing and execution.
-
A good film is a good film and a bad film is a bad film. I like good films, I do not like bad films. I judge things as by whether I like them or not.
It's all good unless it ain't.
It's Knowledge Bro. -
But there are things that Citizen Kane does objectively better than Robot Monster. Its acting is more persuasive. Its cinematography was groundbreaking.
That's a subjective measurement surely, based on a model of naturalistic acting that just twenty years earlier had no currency, and that might some day be similarly passè.
Its dialogue is more compelling.
Again, subjective but besides it may not be central to somebody's appraisal of the value of a film.
It is -- as this is important in terms of the canon -- about a serious subject (if Charles Foster Kane had been a spaceship commander, we wouldn't be hearing as much about Citizen Kane).
Being about a serious subject surely is not a prerequisite for being of value? I mean the subject of Don Quixote is not serious.
It is from a film-maker whose other work we recognise as important and valuable.
It was his first film and the powers that be ensured he'd almost do nothing else in cinema. Mankiewicz and Toland both died within twelve years or so but made nothing else of lasting value. Cotten is the person who came closer to having a career and let's face it, it wasn't much of one.
Even in terms of the objective groundbreakingness of Citizen Kane, one could always say "But what about Rules of the Game?"
(I like Citizen Kane a lot, and I see what you're saying. Still.)
-
It was his first film and the powers that be ensured he'd almost do nothing else in cinema. Mankiewicz and Toland both died within twelve years or so but made nothing else of lasting value. Cotten is the person who came closer to having a career and let's face it, it wasn't much of one.
From our perspective, in 2010, we would look at (the legend surrounding) The Magnificent Ambersons, Chimes at Midnight, Touch of Evil, The Trial, the prodigious radio career etc ... The story of Welles -- the promise and the disappointment and the way he then worked outside of the system -- is a big part of why Citizen Kane matters now.
Yes, according to the standards we agree to measure cinema by, Citizen Kane ticks the boxes (which this Ebert column kind of sends up). But those values may one day change, I agree. I also think that the way people like Michael Medved talk about bad films has damaged the reputations of some genuinely experimental films: within the 50 worst films list devised by the Medveds, who are responsible for attaching the "worst film ever" label to Plan 9 from Outer Space, are films like Zabriskie Point, Last Year at Marienbad and The Last Movie. None of those deserve to be there, in my opinion. So, a canon based on the kind of technical accomplishment I was talking about does risk being a narrow one.
Being about a serious subject surely is not a prerequisite for being of value? I mean the subject of Don Quixote is not serious.
I haven't read Don Quixote but in the case of Kane I think one of the reasons it's in the canon is because it's a study of American ambition, reinvention and failure similar I guess to The Great Gatsby. But it did take a while for it to become "the greatest" -- again, the importance of a critical consensus.
-
The meta-story of Kane taps into American cultural myths about success in the same way that more recent mainstream movies and tv shows (like Lost and Hurt Locker) express themes including American exceptionalism and defensiveness on the world stage.
Movies tell us about ourselves and others throughout time. They can also be enjoyable. Even simultaneously.
-
Not wrong Sacha-
(which is possibly why I dislike linking LOTR & ANZ film so much)- and anyone who is going to try and play Mozart on a saw needs to find the bluntest most flexible and harmonious one EVAH!
(Remember he created a work for musical glasses, so this is - not impossible.)
-
a sharp saw is "better saw" than a blunt saw
Well, that does rather depend on the use you're going to put it to. If all you want to do is test your newly-invented saw sharpening machine, then you might think a blunt saw is better.
Depends on how you frame the question. Or, as Chris rather wittily put it
So is a sharp saw or a blunt saw better for playing Mozart on?
Dunno. but I'd be up the front, throwing the goat.
it suggests that we have a homogeneous view on the matter [Citizen Kane]
And that rather depends on how you define 'we'. Western cinema, sure. But do the Japanese think it's the best film EVAR? Or do they prefer 'Seven Samurai'?
'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' was well recieved in 'the west', but I remember reading about how it was greeted with a fat yawn in SE Asia, and they had trouble working out why westerners were going gaga over it.
Which has led me back to thinking about Avatar. Is part of the problem some people have with the fuss caused because it doesn't, for want of a better phrase, 'know it's place'.
I doubt any food critics are going to get their knickers in a twist over the release of a new McChicken Supreme Burger, no matter how tangy the special sauce is. But if Maccas released a new 3-D burger, and gallons of ink and hundreds of kilobytes were expended in The Serious Press about it's cultural significance, you might get more than a few heads meeting desks aound the place.
So '2012' was big dumb fun. No more, no less. It knew it's place. But Avatar? Well, it's significant, innit? And that Matrix? Deep, man... Made me think about the nature of reality and all that.
So for whatever reasons, 'The Matrix', and 'Avatar' get treated seriously. Because their makers are po-faced egotists and demand that they are. Because the films were successful. Because success gets confused with significance by the critics. Because audiences are unsophisticated. Because there's no such thing as serious journalism any more, so big equals significant. Look! a dog with a fluffy tail! Because whatever.
But by attaching that significance to something, maybe it's perceived as demeaning or belittling values that others hold to be precious? Haven't got time to think this through fully, cos the babies crying, but possibly?
-
Mozart's Adagio and Rondo for Glass Armonica and Quartet K617 is a good example of change in aesthetic values. Although musical glasses today are regarded as a novelty act, they were played as serious music in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.