 
|
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: You knew it was coming posted by mvwine on November 22, 2002 at 07:43:48:
First, let me start by adding a couple of names to your list. I would not hesitate adding Stanley Kibrik - I do see him as more American than anything else.I would also add a name I would expect to cause a contraversy - Max Linder. I know, I know, he was born and died in France, but his years in America were productive, and most importantly, he was Charlie Chaplin's teacher and inspiration. Many of his discoveries were later copied by the pale Marx Brothers, albeit without his flair.
Anyway, to answer your last question, I'd say that with the Stanley's addition the US finally gets a crack at joining the ranks of great directors.
Other guys on your list are all good, even very good, and would no doubt do an honor to any country, but as I usually say, the competition for the top spot is extremely strong, and our guys, good as they are, get silver, not gold.
I love the early Woody, he is wonderful, but he is more like Mozart next to the truly deep and monumental giants like Mahler, Beethoven and Shostakovich. Ditto for the other guys. More like a baroque chamber vs. grandiose symphonies.
I like all the guys on your list with one exception - Hitchcock... somehow I never developed any attachment to him, except for his short subjects and his magazine.
And yes, I think Chaplin should be in the first part of your list.
Follow Ups:
Each of his films was special, an attempt at something different and largely succesful.Disagree about Mozart. Mozart compared to Shostakovich or Mahler-- no way. Not even apples and oranges. French to Chinese food or something on that order.
Woody is much more a lightweight than Mozart IMO. Woody's self absorption is noticeably more obvious in his work than is Mozart's for one main difference.
Like you, I don't have a great affinity for Hitchcock. I've seen most of his stuff, wouldn't care to see it again.
***Disagree about Mozart. Mozart compared to Shostakovich or Mahler-- no way. Not even apples and oranges. French to Chinese food or something on that order.Well, that's the problem with simple one-line analogies... but I am sure you got the jist of my statement. No reason to push the analogy, it is not worth it.
***Woody is much more a lightweight than Mozart IMO. Woody's self absorption is noticeably more obvious in his work than is Mozart's for one main difference.Well, to me some parallel is still there. I see certain light elegance in Woody's work, the kind you see in the Louis XVI furniture, that is unique among the film makers (therefore the Mozart parallel). His self absorption CAN irritate for sure, but his best work is unforgettable. Among which I personally love the Crimes the most.
Like you, I don't have a great affinity for Hitchcock. I've seen most of his stuff, wouldn't care to see it again.
Crimes & Misdemeanors is my favorite Woody as well. ;-)I don't feel that because Mahler is a "heavyweight", that makes Mozart a "lightweight." I perceive no lack in Mozart compared to the very different Herr Mahler. Mozart, though he can certainly sound elegant and pretty to modern ears, is a composer of substance and depth. The forms are smaller, true. But is there less truth or genius in Mozart's music because of that?
Frankly, although I acknowledge his importance, I don't have a great affinity for Mahler - I've heard most of his stuff, and wouldn't care to hear much of it again (Das Lied von der Erde and Des Knaben Wunderhorn excepted). I'd rather watch Rear Window than listen to any of the symphonies.
It was just a quick shot, will do better next time. I know - I will stay with the athletes analogies. Here goes: Mozart can run a 100 meter dash in 9.9 seconds, that is GOOD, even DARN good, but not good enough to win gold!How's that?
I guess if we were to take home something critical and substantive from this discussion, then I would like it to be the fact that one needs to look in a much broader sense before allocating Good, Better and Great labels. As we know, the rest of the world, that is all those insignificant places outside the US borders, are swarming with good directors and films. Some of them so outright good it makes you humble.
Mozart is a small, perfect jewel. Platinum setting...no doubt.Seriously, we love ya! Truly. We just wanna put down Mahler!
but wanted to avoid another controversy. I agree, with him added, it raises the level.Yes, even on this list, how many "monumental" movies are accounted for? Not as many as one would think. I believe it stems from the cultures - Americans by and large, I believe, don't really view films as "art", but as an "event", like a county fair, or a night on the town. Fun, to be sure, but not "life affirming" or "challenging". Even the films like David Lynch's that attempt to be challenging, end up as a confusing mess, more often than not. So, it's back to the foreign film rack at the rental store for art. Of course there are exceptions, but rare ones.
And I admit, I am looking forward to "The Two Towers" as an event, not an artistic experience. I like the events when executed well, but long for art as told from an American perspective.
I gave at the office!
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 ]
