 
|
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: Are all movies inherently cosmetic and sugar coated? posted by Troy on January 16, 2004 at 09:16:17:
... anytime you attempt to "frame" the living world you are forced to make some quaint decisions in order to make it fit it a conventional framework. What you are referring to is result of the process of distillation and extraction that goes on in any picture making process. IMO, when the world stands still for a tiny moment (as it does in a picture), a certain nobility is imparted to that "framed" little part of the world. Strangely, this holds true regardless of the picture - no matter if it is of a beautiful face, or a fresh pile of steamin' dogshit. Cheers.
Follow Ups:
And for a good example - not quite a pile of dogshit, but close - a rotting dog carcas - see Mikhalkov Konchalovsky's segment in the Lumiere and Co - his "framing" of that disgusting thing is art.I was going to say something along these lines when you posted. Framing, or in other words, just pointing, is what the director does. Without that pointing we would miss to look at that seemingly insignificant item in the huge picture of the surrounding world.
However... all that presumes the viewer willing to do this study, once pointed.
The viewer who will not start shifting restlessly when Greenaway concentrates on some rotten apples for five minutes. Someone who is willing to try to understand WHY the things are shown, and willing to appreciate HOW.
And THAT is what largely is missing today.
To the viewer conditioned to see quick draws and perfect unaimed shots, space bugs being blown to pieces with a ray-gun, all in very rapid progression, all that beauty is not simply unimportant - it is irritating.
We all have seen kids being tortured at Hermitage while their parents are admiring another Corot - all their thoughts are at the ice cream stand.
Today most movie audience here simply sees the movies as the video game extension - hence the idiotic talks about the "future" of the film, where some "interactive" thing will start happening.
So every teenager, who can't even tell Van Gogh from Vermeer, will be able to improve the works of Rembrandt with his interactive joystick and 3-D glasses.
THEN we will enter the era of true and limitless sugarcoating.
So.... is all art sugarcoating the reality? Absolutely NO.
Thanks for mentioning this truly great effoert. I hadn't seen it in a while so I dug it out of my collection yesterday and watched it again. It truly represents world cinema and the delight that the 40 directors feel in using the Lumiere camera is contagious. The breadth of creativity and approach is startling.
Your answer is not really is an answer to Troy. Beside that there are so called " Cinema Verite " where you do not control the whole...but letīs forget them.
What you wrote is of course true, but you do not respond to the real questions ( I do not thinks they are, in fact real, but made up..)
You should reread his words.
I will respond tomorrow.
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 ]
