Cracker: Wallywood
735 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 … 30 Newer→ Last
-
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.
I think Matrix and Avatar have a lot in common, actually. They were both technically innovative, or at least the first to adopt a series of devices and techniques on a massive scale; they are both films of ideas; they are both very spectacular; they are both almost flamboyantly derivative (William Gibson, the Dragonriders of Pern, you name it, they heavily borrowed from it); they were both extremely successful right from the start. When that happens, it's always going to generate a lot of discussion: what do these films mean, what does their success mean, is it possible to make blockbusters that talk about important themes and issues?
But I wouldn't underestimate the importance of the success itself: when just about everybody has access simultaneously to a film or a book, it creates a perfect space for conversation, and for the critic it's also an opportunity to reach a broader audience. It certainly didn't hurt my blog readership none that I wrote about Avatar, I can tell you that.
-
...through a glass, darkly...
Although musical glasses today are regarded as a novelty act, they were played as serious music in the 18th and 19th centuries.
and in the 20th Century we had
the spectacle that was Goblet Mix!
er sorry Goblin Mix ... -
Rich, I must be Asian then, because I loved The Seven Samurai and was also bemused by Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon , and have still yet to see Citizen Kane despite a lifetime of assurances I can't live without it.
-
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.
I really don't get how the matrix can be seen as a deep movie. Great special effects, good sci fi story, and hell of a lot of good fun to watch. "Ooh, we're all part of something bigger and don't realise it!" was no great revelation.
-
Paul L- o, a Benjamin Franklin glass-armonica in action!
Never seen one before.
I play wine glasses - it's a wonderful sound
but I am word/soundwright, not a musician
and the voices that come from glass
can not be rendered in words-
Mozart forever! -
-
3410,
a sharp saw is [a] "better saw" than a blunt saw
Okay, we're talking about saw as* saw, not as torture implement, child's toy, musical instrument, or sharpening machine tester.
Likewise, a film can be used to pass the time, impress a date, learn factual information from, etc., but "good"/"bad"/"better"/"worse" means judging a film as a film, ie it's aesthetic qualities.
Objective value judgments are like kryptonite to me.
Right; I did forget that.
I like good films, I do not like bad films.
I mostly like good films, but also plenty of terrible ones. It's an interesting question; how can one like bad films? I like Robot Monster because - I think - there is something beautiful about such a glorious failure of the creative vision (and the production process) - a meta-message, if you will, about what it means to be human, and also because films like that end up presenting bizarre "art" that no genius could possibly create on purpose; a scambled message from the subconcious.
* or "qua", if you prefer. -
3410,
I play wine glasses
Do you? How wonderful. I've been talking recently about doing that myself, but I'm not sure I could afford a set.
-
3410 - collected them for years: have glasses that shimmer sound if you whistle at them let alone ting 'em. Aue! I am not a musician - and there arnt any in the family.
So. When I play wine glasses, I am underlining my words, or I am singng my poetry over the top of them. I only do it in family friendly circumstances.
-
More or less. I wrote elsewhere about the reaction of Herald readers to Calder's critique of Avatar and was very surprised to find it echoed here ...
... Did you read the reactions to Peter Calder's review on the Herald? But that point - analysing the film is an incorrect response - has come up time and again on PAS as well.
.... So on the one hand it's the films themselves that claim to be about big ideas and Truth and not just the spectacle. But then if you do try to examine those big ideas, you get shot down pretty much right away.
Do you have to be such a victim about it? Page after page here, people have been rolling over ideas, analysing, debating, using big words -- about this film. I'm not really sure what the problem is if some of them opt for a more prosaic analysis.
And for goodness sake, Calder wasn't exactly stripped to the waist and dragged through the streets for being an intellectual. I don't think anything that bad happened.
You've complained about the director prescribing the way the film can be thought of -- but you seem outraged by people declining to think of it in quite the way you do
-
Likewise, a film can be used to pass the time, impress a date, learn factual information from, etc., but "good"/"bad"/"better"/"worse" means judging a film as a film, ie it's aesthetic qualities.
Yay formalism. I disagree that the notion of judging film as film is universally meaningful, and I don't think that is the way we judge artworks in practice.
-
3410,
When I play wine glasses, I am underlining my words, or I am singng my poetry over the top of them. I only do it in family friendly circumstances.
That, I would like to see, but I suspect I never will. :)
-
(This was a double post but now just waffling.)
It isn't fair to say that Gio's objecting to prosaic analysis; rather he objects to the rejection of analysis.
-
3410,
I don't think that is the way we judge artworks in practice.
Neither do I (see the second half of the same comment), but I still think it's useful.
-
But if it isn't how we actually do it, isn't that a strong argument that it isn't right?
It is often interesting to look at art purely from a conceptual standpoint, but that isn't to say that concepts are the important thing in art.
-
Dunno 3410 - but if you get south (and I work/wander both sides of this motu) give us a buzz ("an inclusive term for 'phones/faxes/email/andEVENLETTERS-letalone personal presentation") & could happen-
-
3410,
But if it isn't how we actually do it, isn't that a strong argument that it isn't right?
Not saying that it's everything; just that it's not nothing.
-
3410,
if you get south... give us a buzz
Will do, but don't hold your breath. I'm rather a homebody. :)
-
Me too - which is why I'll never get north now-
-
still yet to see Citizen Kane despite a lifetime of assurances I can't live without it
I have the dvd for you, and I believe you'll like something about it beyond reputation
-
Do you have to be such a victim about it?
Yeah, I thought that “desperate bitching” comment was pretty petulant, too. Poor baby.
Wait, that was Gio, right?
-
Robot Monster was a robot, he was just a robot dressed in a gorilla suit wearing a silver fishbowl on his head.
Its dialogue is more compelling.
From Robot Monster:
I cannot yet I must. How do you calculate that? At what point on the graph do 'must' and 'cannot' meet? Yet I must... But I cannot!
Compelling enough for you?
I saw Robot Monster at one of the very early Incredibly Strange Film Festivals, back when they had it at the Capitol on Dominion Road. Ant Timpson and a whole bunch of his mates dressed up in silver, occupied the first two rows of the theatre, shouted at the screen and fired toy laser guns and things. About halfway through someone dressed as Robot Monster came into the theatre and carried off the woman who was sitting next to me. It was the most riotously funny experience of movie-going I have ever had. And I'm not normally one for the 'so bad it's good' genre of film.
I can't say that Citizen Kane had the same effect, but I agree it's a much better film on every level, right down to the punchline.
ETA:
-
Plus the "cannot and must" speech. One of the comments declares it the greatest movie of all time.
-
3410,
So, maybe Citizen Kane vs. Robot Monster isn't the greatest example. Can we run this again using The Godfather Part 2 vs. Leonard Part 6 ?
-
Or The Godfather Part 2 vs. The Godfather Part 3.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.