 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: The unbearable heaviness of that period! posted by Victor Khomenko on November 21, 2002 at 14:55:57:
...Raging Bull, OTOH, is at least a 4 on a 1 to 5 scale. Also, it should stand the test of time unless boxing is banned, and as movies about sports and personal struggles go it's pretty solid. Oh well, to each his own; it looks like we're batting a perfect game today. :o)AuPh
Follow Ups:
There's so many double and triple meanings behind what is put on and off the screen. Scenes shot on location feel surreal yet those shot on fabricated sets have a strong tone of believability. Dream sequences mesh with actuality so much towards the end that one isn't certain if the end scene is real or an afterlife sequence from the suicide.Fellini just didn't know which way to go with the film so he put all possibilities on the screen at the same time and left it up to the viewers perception to decide the path. For every path the viewer could interpret, it ends up making sense. Fellini plays with our minds previsualization capacity, stretches our visual perception, and fools our memories.
Scaffoldings are built towards the sky and encompass nothing but what is imagined. What was filmed gives no definite structure but ultimately conveys several lucid ideas. It redefines narrative film and shows a glimmer of potential of what can be done with the medium.
Tom §.
***Also, it should stand the test of time unless boxing is banned, and as movies about sports and personal struggles go it's pretty solid.Well, another formulaic film about an athlete struggle. Are you a fan of these? I have to say that this is a completely American phenomenon - those silly and immature against-all-odds sports movies.
I suggest you do this test: if the film bores you into sleep, make sure to watch it again - you might be onto a masterpiece.:-)))))))))))))
Back to politics?
I made it through 30 minutes okay, but after I started dozing off I decided my time would be better spent communing with folks here at AA until the sandman finally arrived.AuPh
You know, next time around it might be 45 minutes.TCM had it? Nice for them.
I am about to give up completely on Bravo and AMC. I watched the Bounty last night on AMC and it was torture. They turn a 2 hour film into a 3 hour ordeal. It is beyond enoying, it is at the point of killing the whole idea.
To say that RAGING BULL is "just another movie about sports and personal struggles" is like saying THE OLD MAN AND THE SEA is a book about a guy who catches a fish...To draw a distinction between "greatest American director" and "greatest director" is to miss a crucial point -- a film may speak equally to the all the world's people through story/emotion (aka Charlie Chaplin's work) or through cinematography, especially black and white cinemagraphy (too many examples to list). With this criteria, RAGING BULL's compelling narrative and striking photography (especially the tightly-edited, surreal fight scenes) qualifies Marty Scorces as one of the world's Marty greatest directors.
IMO Scorces is without doubt the greatest living American director, a title I don't bestow lightly.
If the American industry produced 200 films on the same theme, then The Old Man and The Sea would perhaps start blending into that crowd, but not with Tracy's performance, of course.Hundreds of silly films on athletes IS an American tradition, like it or not, like the westerns are. And taken from that perspective the Bull IS formulaic.
I don't think it is wrong to identify the American directors (actors too) as a special category. They do have very distinct flavor (jist like the French or Italian ones), and they do represent the national cinema wich has generally been isolated and lagging in artistic area.
To me again this is like being a US champ, but only an Olympic bronze winner. You can use either title depending upon the context, and both represent different views of the same achievement, allowing you to put it into RIGHT perspective.
It can be said, that it is the inability to see things from the world perspective is what limits the American movie industry acievements.
> > > It can be said, that it is the inability to see things from the world perspective is what limits the American movie industry acievements < < <The Americans DO see the world perspective... it's called MONEY... the US film industry was founded on the premise of delivering technology-driven entertainment to the masses in exchange for the almighty dollar. I think the European countries have always been more concerned with making films that are either purely artistic works or vehicles to examine the human condition for social or political purposes.
Money vs. art..... the eternal struggle goes on.
:o)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
