 
|
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:
I am not sure where you are going with this.First, a beautiful photography is neither cosmetics nor sugarcoating, in my view, all by itself.
Second... you tried to define the cosmetics... but your definition is deficient. Consmetics is also used to enhance the beauty, and... to create ugliness too.
As such, I do dislike the word cosmetic here, I would much rather use something along the lines of painting.
And sugar coating? Is your goal simply to find some similarities, however small, in both good and bad films so you could then say they both have it? What is your point here?
I think life will be easier for all of us if we simply point at obvious sugar coating where it is objectionable - say, in Virgin Suicides, where it is dripping with it.
On the other hand to suggest that Wild Strawberries also has it, simply because it is put on film... well, I dunno.
Or maybe I am missing your point entirely.
Looking at your title, I think it sez it all - whether or not all films ARE, depends on your perception. If you are inclined to see it in every film, then perhaps you will find it.
Like the proverbial hammer.
Follow Ups:
Honestly, i'm not really sure where I was going with it either. Patrick and I were discussing it below and we both thought id deserved more opinions.Second... you tried to define the cosmetics... but your definition is deficient. Consmetics is also used to enhance the beauty, and... to create ugliness too.
Yes, both are right. But what Iwas talking about didn't really concery whether it's beautful or ugly. Cosmetic is manipulation of reality . . . and every movie has it. Patrick says it isn't.
And sugar coating? Is your goal simply to find some similarities, however small, in both good and bad films so you could then say they both have it? What is your point here?
My point is that Patrick says that only bad films are sugar coated and I'm saying that ALL films (with a few exceptions) are. It's inherent with the filmmaking process.
His perception may comes from seeing a too many " sugar coated films "...
But I must thank you Victor for given the appopriate answer an sparing me the pain* to do it!* In a foreign language.
I don't know... I am getting the feeling Troy is not crazy about my answers. Truth is I find it somewhat difficult to communicate with him - I almost have to translate what he is saying - his meaning often doesn't go directly into my brain. I think in this case the perseption barrier is being stronger than language barrier. I feel he sometimes has strong point, but to understand it I need to put on entirely different shoes.
I agree, I find it difficult to communicate with you and Patrick. English is obviously your second language and I think we are having a hard time translating the subtlties of our thoughts.But are our differences in philosophy more different than just language? I'm not so sure . . .
Don't wear shoes. Everybody go barefoot!
That is exactly what I feel, that is why I was happy you took the answer I would have been at pain to elaborate...
It is because he is not a " relative " to our unserstanding.
I feel the same too about his " points " and if I remember well we often agreed on differents things.
But this time he is just under his own level.
That happen to all of us...of course not in such a dramatic way..Or does it?
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 ]
