 
|
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: Re: Steven Speilberg posted by Victor Khomenko on January 11, 2003 at 06:05:00:
It seems to me, that he enjoys success, at being able to do what he wants to do...to make movies, and the movies he wants to make, with relative freedom, outside of whether they "succeed" finanicially.Something like this, in and of itself, engenders hostility, within the his peers of the film industry, and to those whose job it is to tell us what we should see and consume. 'How dare one person, have that much Freedom, and be able to do this', so goes their reasoning.
Well, it seems to me, he has earned that privilege, and to do so, in spite of what the arbiters of Taste, tell us is utter garbage, is admirable. Those who "do" something practice it and do it, and those who can't, Teach...as the saying goes. In the end it's all subjective, anyway.
We all know what we like, and there isn't anything or anyone that's going to tell us, what it is. Film is a subjective experience, that we enjoy, personally, not in some collective sense. The Artists who touch our Soul, deserve to be elevated to the level of the Gods...because that's as close, most of us, will be to The Gods.
Follow Ups:
I have no problem with someone making tons of money, but if one wants to be an artist, then his "success" better be defined differently. Considered that way, Spielberg is nothing but a failure.
Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and Schindler's List were artistic failures? Not in my opinion.
...does movie making have to do with art? They aren't shown in museums after all. Last time I checked they sell the tickets. It's a business. At the business of moviemaking he is successful by any measure.joe
nt
... is not necessarily art - re: movies.joe
...they also sold tickets to see the Michelangelo dude. Made tons of money. Good business, no doubt.
...vs. mass market.Face it Victor - hollywood can't stay in business making niche market products. Mass market success does not connote failure.
joe
***Mass market success does not connote failure.I never stated that in the general sense. But we were talking about a particular guy, and I would suspect he sees himself as an artist, not just a man selling tickets in the booth.
Success or failre - that depends on your aspirations. If his was to be the best and most efficient producer of substandard films with huge financial reward - then he is successful, and I have no problem with that. But from what I know he DOES see himself as an artist.
BTW - what you are calling "niche market" used to be mainstream films, just perhaps forty years ago. And forty years ago Dumb and Dumber would not collect a thousand bucks.
How did we manage to change that much?
...to regard the mass market phenomenon as a recent artifact of Hollywood. It really isn't. The handful of Hollywood gems from the past were accumulated over a century of filmmaking. There were thousands of unexceptional B and lower pictures the studios churned out by the hundreds each year using contract actors. Reagan starred opposite a chimp - remember? Is that really so far removed from Dumb and Dumber? Hardly a vision of an idyllic past. And foreign films have never done serious business in the US except for the occaisional British import by the major studios...joe
Well, you got me thinking. It is impossible to have the right answer without running a complete number crunching analysis, but my gut feel still is that there were more good films made in the forties, etc, than we see today. In addition I presume that the total output of the US movie industry is higher today - is this correct?
First question - I'm not so sure. My dad went to the movie theater every Saturday morning when he was a kid in the 1940s and early 50s as did many others of his generation. B movies, serials and cartoons were the fare of the day. Can you say the Three Stooges? There was a clear demarcation in quality that was more explicit than today. B movies were a staple. Gangster movies, Westerns, War movies, love stories and melodramas. All produced to rather predictable and quite purposeful formulas with contract actors. Then there were the road show engagements. Major hollywood properties shown only in the best theaters and a more limited number of premium screens. I saw the tail end of this era in the '60s back in Houston as a child at the Windsor Cinerama. A roadshow engagement theater with a HUGE curved cinemascope screen made from three screens edge to edge. I still remember this huge single screen premium theater. Balcony seating. a total audience that had to exceed 700. Intermissions. I saw the first few Bond films, Lawrence of Arabia, How the West Was Won and few others in the place. An experince that is not recreated anywhere today. They tore it down years ago. Even at their peak there would only be a handful of roadshow engagement theaters in even a large city, so there were never very many.And then there were the drive in theaters. Believe me, quality was not the driver in these, but there were surprises. I saw The Good the Bad and the Ugly, A Fistfull of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More and Once Upon A Time In The West at the South Main Drive in back in the Houston of my childhood. Of course I saw a couple of Godzilla double bills there too.
Your second question - are there more movies made now? I don't really know. There were quite a few made in the pre TV era, so the quantity differential might not be quite so great as you imagine.
joe
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 ]
