Films/DVD Asylum

• de Sade vs. Good Taste . . . . - rufus 11:10:29 12/13/02 (4)
  In Reply to: Norman Rockwell vs. Michelangelo (nt) posted by Victor Khomenko on December 13, 2002 at 08:19:12:

  There is no art in Salo. Just a meager adaption of the Marquis. As usual, the book was better. 8^)
  
  

  ---

  • As usual, they are not REALLY related - Victor Khomenko 12:00:39 12/13/02 (3)
    In Reply to: de Sade vs. Good Taste . . . . posted by rufus on December 13, 2002 at 11:10:29:

    I strongly disagree with you. Salo is close to a pinnacle of artistic achievement, but its subject is extremely objectionable, making it hard for some people to see beyond it. It is like a naked girl selling postcards - you will probably not see what's on them.

    Salo should be approached in that way. Art CAN be shocking - as we know, Bosch created quite a stir in his time. There are numerous examples of that through the ages.

    We are seeing the same effect here as some reported in Glengarry (albeit in the opposite direction) - the subject dominated and captivated. In Salo it dominates and repulses.

    I always advise the people who love movies to learn to separate the artistic side from the subject. In some cases it is not necessary, as they simply flow together, but in others it is mandatory.

    One of my favorite examples of how these two are unrelated, is the short 50 second segment in the Lumiere and Company, the one by Michalkov-Konchalovsky - one of the best ones there. In that micro-movie he "studies" a rotting corpse of a dog. As repulsive as the subject is, he manages to do incredible job directing the camera. Take a look if you have a chance.

    
    

    
    
    
    

    ---

    • PS. I like Bosch, but the "Church" paid him to scare!! nt - rufus 18:49:24 12/13/02 (0)
      In Reply to: As usual, they are not REALLY related posted by Victor Khomenko on December 13, 2002 at 12:00:39:

      nt
      
      

      ---
    • I was speaking of the artistic value . . . - rufus 17:53:25 12/13/02 (1)
      In Reply to: As usual, they are not REALLY related posted by Victor Khomenko on December 13, 2002 at 12:00:39:

      it had none. It was a cheap rehash of "120 Days of Sodom". There was nothing to gain from seeing it. Artistic? Whoever made up all the poo-poo did a great job. I guess that was artistic, FX.

      The beauty of criticism is that it is ALL opinion. My opinion is no more valuable than yours.

      There are NO artistic experts beyond appraisal and history. All the rest of art is what each individual feels or thinks about a work. Only the creator of that art truly knows.

      I may just go rent Salo again (if it hasn't been decommisioned). What is an earlier work of his for me to draw comparison--Canterbury Tales or such?
      
      

      ---

      • Re: I was speaking of the artistic value . . . - Victor Khomenko 18:04:37 12/13/02 (0)
        In Reply to: I was speaking of the artistic value . . . posted by rufus on December 13, 2002 at 17:53:25:

        Well, it IS your opinion, of course, so we have just exchanged ours.

        If you want to study his art (I am intentionally using this word here), then the usual suspects like the Decameron, Arabian Nights, Medea and Canterbury Tales are all fine and important.

        But I would also add one that I find rather unusual - Comizi d'amore (Love Meetings) - a documentary about love. I thought it was extremely artistic and interesting. I would probably skip the Theorema.
        
        

        
        
        
        

        ---

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Schiit Audio

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---