 
|
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 |
I guess you didn't want to hear about her reaction from my lips, so I asked my wife to write me about her impressions - after all it was she who suffered more from it - and so she did.So, there goes... another pin into Lord.
Here is what I think about Lord of the Rings:The reasons making me have kept my eyes open while you were peacefully snoring Saturday, were pretty simple - I wanted to see what kept Gregory riveted to our downstairs screen for 6 hours. While he was watching it, and I took an occasional peak and heard loud noises coming up from under the kitchen floor, I thought that perhaps it was like classical music to a person who only heard sounds of tam-tam his whole life - just cacophony for the unenlightened, and if I sat down and sank into the world full of fantasy and poetry - I would love it.
You know how much I love symbolism and its traces in poetry and paintings...I was dreaming of a recreation of Iceland's sagas, Kalevala, Nibelungs... Ibsenasque lofty ideas... you get the picture.
I caught "Lord of the Rings" from the middle and decided to stay put to get the taste of it. "It is OK even if I do not get the hang of the plot, I can always watch the whole series later... I will just plunge in my favorite world of fantasies at least for a while!"
I was watching it... and watching and watching... and the more I watched it, the more disappointed I became. To begin with, maybe I should have not had any expectations of "recreating" something as elusive as the spirit of symbolism... It is also true, that perhaps Tolkien had nothing to do with the whole idea of symbolism. I regretted that I did not read him and was unable to judge the movie from a standpoint of at least accurately conveying the spirit of the original. Alas!
However, viewing it as an independent creation I could not help, but feel betrayed in my expectations. To start with, it smelt and breath of "computerized" images. The pallet was extremely primitive and garish. There were no "tints" or "half tones" - just all the colors one's simple mind, unburdened by such trivial things as harmony, discreteness of means - simple taste, can imagine. I think the task for the artist was not to leave any color unused and he performed that brilliantly!
The graphic, although showing some width of imagination, also struck me as primitive and devoid of one thing that makes one look for hours at seascapes of Reuisdal or works of Turner, or De Chirico or Hopper - namely ART. It was craft - pure and simple.
I can guess that at one point the creators wanted me to see heavenly landscape. For that noble task they brought forth everything they could dream about to make me see the paradise - mountains, creeks, pavilion in a weird mixture of styles and angelic faces of the main characters - the boy, the wise man, etc. (pardon me for not knowing the names of the characters - but I only watched it for half an hour)
I cannot add anything to this. I am sure you understand what I wanted to say.The sound "artist" cooperated nicely with the visual effects one. And what soundtrack it was! The director at appointed places wanted me to feel horror, apprehension, delight, relief, etc. For that he used incessant "sound effects", which will probably win yet another Oscar, but will still stay what they were - not music, but "EFFECTS." Did they make me feel horrified, apprehensive, delighted, relieved - not in the least...
I could write much more about it, but feel that it would be grossly unfair to do so without watching the whole movie (or at least one of them, for I am not sure I will be able to sit through the whole creation.) I know, I know you will tell me (and I agree) that in most cases it is enough to watch just a small part in order to be able to judge the whole thing. Nonetheless, I did not say anything about actors' contribution and therefore, feel guilty.
I cannot wait to rent the first part and sit patiently through it. Then, maybe, my harsh opinion of it would be more justified or (I have a futile hope) contradicted.
Follow Ups:
Either you like it or you don't. There's really no need to explain it further, anymore than you should have to explain why Ghostbusters didn't make you laugh or Titanic didn't make you cry. Movies are simply entertainment designed to put paying customers into theater seats, hopefully after they stop at the concession stand for a 40oz drink, a Theodin-sized tub of buttered popcorn and a box of Milk Duds.I was recently extremely bored and realized the situation couldn't get much worse if I took the time to see ROTK. It wasn't that bad. At least it had a real ending(s) unlike the first two LOTR movies. The ring was melted, and as we know from Terminator 2 , where that crucial microchip was dispatched with in a similar way, that's absolutely conclusive. Jar Jar (or whatever his name was) fell into the molten lava with the ring so we can be nearly 50% sure he won't show up again in a sequel. Sam overcame his homosexual attraction to Frodo and settled for a female hobbit. The black-haired human rose to the throne of that battle-ravaged wedding cake of a city and immediately got his subjects to work completely restoring it in record time for his coronation. Frodo and Dildo set sail for the New World where the horse paths are paved with gold that (hopefully) doesn't reveal reddish-hued Elvish script when heated.
So that, after 9 hours of viewing, is what it all came down to. I had no life-changing epiphany. I don't understand myself, humanity, God or the universe in a new, enlightened way. But the truth is, I NEVER expect this from any "film" I see, even if it is a "superior" work of art from France or Russia, so I agree with Audiophilander and his wife.
You may agree, but for the wrong reasons.
AND.
Worse, you make a fatal error....First it is stupid to cite countries, as all nations are capable to bring up " good films ".
But the main point is, you put all at the same level! Have you ever seen a film like.." Wild Strawberries", or like " The Seven Samurai " or John Hustonīs " The Dead " or..or..
You can not tell me that you can NOT appreciate some differences.
I must suppose you donīt eat an Hamburger every day, do you?
Both films are excellent in their own ways; the former may be more artistic and original, but the latter is more enjoyable on repeated viewings. Of my 500 or so DVDs, The Magnificent Seven is in my film library, but The Seven Samurai is not. In the long run, both of these films will have their place in the pantheon of film classics, but there's no reason to insult The Magnificent Seven because it reached a more mainstream audience than The Seven Samurai; it just makes the critic appear petty and elitist. If you still want to make it into an issue of taste, go ahead and eat your Russian fish eggs; I'll stick with a good ol' juicy homemade American hamburger anyday!I'd rather not get into Bergman, your preference for Wild Strawberrys notwithstanding. He's certainly a great film-maker (i.e., for instance, I happen to have the Criterion DVD version The Seventh Seal in my collection), but his films aren't something I would screen at a film party in my home unless I was subtly trying to let folks know it was time to leave. John Huston turned out a number of remarkable films, but I think a movie like The Treasure of Sierra Madre is probably a better example than The Dead.
I appreciate Dalton's comments about LoTR even though I somewhat disagree with his assessment that it's a "children's sword and sorcery fantasy" because I'm of the opinion that it's so much more even if it isn't on a par with Tolkien's novels, and besides, that isn't even the dominent emphasis of the films or the author's works. If I were to point toward any of Tolkien's books as children's fantasy, it would probably be The Hobbit, which was intended for younger readers.
AuPh
That is all about that you will not understand. The " Seven " are a unique REAL masterpiece, the" Magnificent " is not it is just an Hollywood ham, it just lost his soul in the process of translation, it has mute and has been mutilated.
You can not do it better.
It was when it came out, just another fun movie...Have you had really had a look recently at it ? I did for and hour...dull..way too long...modestly played...Too bad that you are not in Germany..I would have kill you for that!
I am desesperate at you.
> > > "Have you really had a look recently at it?" < < <Yes, and it's still magnificent! From the acting of leads Yul Brenner & Steve McQueen and it's epic vistas to it's rousing film score, this movie is a classic in it's own rite!
No doubt that the Seven Samurai is a masterpiece, but bores with repeated viewings. The irony is that it's length can be justified even less than the extended versions of each film in the LoTR trilogy. How one can view The Seven Samurai as a masterpiece and LoTR as anything less eludes me!
> > > "Too bad that you are not in Germany..I would have to kill you for that!" < < <
Too bad you aren't in America, I'd have to provide you with a brutal Three Stooges down dressing, me being Moe and you, Larry or Curly; your pick! ;^)
AuPh
Well you know the Italian tune......
***How one can view The Seven Samurai as a masterpiece and LoTR as anything less eludes me!Easy. The masterpiece draws you in, you want to continue watching it.
With the rest you want to switch the channel. I flipped chhanenls dozens of times on the Magnificent. One time is more than enough.
It will probably surprize you to no end that I shall side with Patrick on this one.
It is becoming an infernal situation, we MUST find some ways to agree NOt to agree as they so smoothly says....
I fell asleep on Seven Samurai the last time I tried to watch it all the way through; it was like Sominex or Solaris (either version)! Lord of the Rings, OTOH, was rich, riveting entertainment that has never bored me, my wife or our friends. In the case of Seven Samurai, I found myself needing to stretch, go to the kitchen to make sandwiches, take breaks and grind coffee to stay awake.Perhaps if I'd made my sandwich with Grey Poupon instead of spicy mustard I might've made it through Samurai again, but instead I found myself considering Harakiri! ;^)
AuPh
It would have take the pain I would have to ...slowly but steadily strangle you....
;^)
It will come back as sharp one can be.
I promess.
...if your wit is anything like your whet-stone, how can I trust it? ;^)AuPh
***If I were to point toward any of Tolkien's books as children's fantasy, it would probably be The Hobbit, which was intended for younger readers.Not according to a person I respect and who actually managed to read most of the first book... she said it plainly that it was a book for children, and not to bother with it.
Since I know and value her knowledge and depth, I will take her word for now over yours - OK?
She got bored with it (she ain't a child any longer) and never read more of it.
I'm not criticizing the opinion of a person whose knowledge and depth you respect (i.e., after never finishing the first book), but we're discussing subjective view points, are we not? If testimonials were that important, I'd simply toss out the name of someone like Steve Hoffman, an intelligent, highly regarded audio engineer who's opinions are respected by many on these boards as well as his own! He not only claims to have read Tolkien's Ring trilogy, but rereads them annually! My point being that one intelligent person's viewpoint is just as good as another's; it's just different strokes, and critics don't always agree.AuPh
You made a strong statement that - obviously inspite of many opposite opinions - the book is not children book.So far I see no justification for that. It is commonly called children's book and I think for a good reason.
I think those who happen to like it, took serious offense in others calling it children's book, as they must feel that diminishes their idol's standing... well, that's THEIR problem.
Actually, that person was even harsher in her statement, but I shall spare you that part.
Those who revere these works don't regard them as children's books any more than you might regard, say, Tolstoy's War and Peace as a children's book!> > > "...many opposite opinions..."
Not that many, unless you're counting your's & Patrick's repeated over & over again, ad infinitum. ;^)
AuPh
You apparently don't get it.The books on sorcerers, little kids fighting dragons, cute monsters, Tooth Fairy, and all that shit are ALL presumably children's, unless proven otherwise.
It is that "proven otherwise" that you are missing.
The burden is on YOU.
On the other hand, only a complete idiot would claim the War and Peace to be in that category - I don't know if you are grasping that difference.
Only the thinking of putting this two in a phrase, make me shivers.
The profundness of the first equal the dumbness of the other.
It is some mysterious "young adults" versus... versus... Gee, I don't even know.But I agree - the sense of proportion is completely missing here.
;^)
> > > "You apparently don't get it." < < <No, I get it just fine; you seem to be locked into a stubborn tunnel viewpoint that would even have your optometrist throwing up his arms in defeat!
If you had described Tolkien's books as a series originally recommended for young adult reading we might've found room for compromise, because regardless of the author's intent these novels have been marketed as such and I can provide reams of evidence to that end. BTW, "young adult" does not mean "children's" literature; young adult tends to imply post adolescent literature.
In numerous reviews I've read concuring with this viewpoint most readers of Tolkien develope a passionate desire to reread the novels later in life, because they take on a different significance. IMHO, this is what the BEST literature does, because an initial reading or surface understanding of such a complex work will grow and changes with subsequent readings.
> > > "...only a complete idiot would claim War and Peace to be in that category..." < < <
Even though I won't bother categorizing you as "a complete idiot" because you felt insulted that someone would dare to tread upon the hollowed name of Tolstoy by comparing one of his weighty works with another more contempoorary author's weighty work which you hold in much lower esteem, I will say that you are much like book 2 of any 3 book trilogy (i.e., no one can figure out where you started or where you're going nor what you'll do when you get there). ;^)
AuPh
Must be the same ones that still real comic books.I didn't say anything about their age, BTW... but I think your response says it as it is... even if you didn't intend it that way.
Bad Victor, ...bad, bad! You certainly made an inferrence about the age of Tolkien's readers & viewers; no offense, but that's the sort of slippery manuever one might expect to see Outside!> > > "Must be the same ones that still real[sic] comic books." < < <
See ya in the funny papers, big Vic! :o)
Cheers,
AuPh
...that getting personal when you have nothing to answer with, is really bad form.It is something that "young adults" should not do.
But I guess you still just don't get how much of your white underbelly you exposed with that silly "young adults" line?
Speaks volumes.
...such a blatantly hypocritical statement should amuse even those who might agree completely with your rigidly inflexible and subjectively vapid viewpoint on LoTR; I'm genuiniely embarrassed for you Victor.> > > Your mama should've taught you that getting personal when you have nothing to answer with, is really bad form." < < <
Wha-? You're whining now because I indicate that you might be weaseling and calling you (i.e., but NOT name-calling) on something you clearly did through innuendo!
> > > "But I guess you still just don't get how much of your white underbelly you exposed with that silly "young adults" line?" < < <
LOL! Oh, I get it, you're having difficulty grasping the distinction! Well, I'm sorry if this plays havoc with your perceptions, but there is a verifiable difference between children's literature and that which is regarded appropriate for a young adult and adult market. If pressed I'll gladly point you to sites containing INFORMED opinions which concur with my own, but I'd rather not contribute further responsibility for raising your blood pressure (i.e., any more than has already apparently occured).
> > > "Speaks volumes." < < <
The Library of Congress couldn't spin you out of your LoTR malapropisms.
Regards,
AuPh
Hey - that is your constitutional right: you like children's books and films - enjoy, no need to get this defensive, or try to force those who don't want to.My only objection is when you start presenting the naive and poorly made children's opus as something on par with... with... well, there is that life outside the children's books.
But I guess the War and Peace comparisson already told us the whole story.
I recall, when my daughter was around 13, she would argue and rather hotly, that Michael Jackson was the second Mozart.
OTOH, your attitude on this subject is another matter, but let's not go there.> > > "I recall, when my daughter was around 13, she would argue rather hotly, that Michael Jackson was the second Mozart." < < <
Naw, that would probably be Joe Bonamassa! ;^)
Cheers,
AuPh
...of course the only way to appreciate films of this scope and grandeur is from the start; the story is an epic journey and cannot be joined as persuasively in the middle. BTW, it will probably take even more work for her to get into Tolkien's novels, but that's not what we're discussing here.> > > "I guess you didn't want to hear about her reaction from my lips..." < < <
Actually, I think you misunderstood my point. Since our wives do not regularly frequent this site I was simply trying to avoid disparaging your spouse's opinion, which is something many might regard as disrespectful and ungentlemanly, myself included. However, based on the reinforcement she's offering you here I think I have a better grasp of why you always open doors for women at the drop of a hat; apparently, it provides a stronger more intelligent female presence for you to stand behind! ;^)
Seriously, well, not really (grin), but if you REALLY wanna have "dueling wives" LoTR reviews, that can be arranged in the full view of our distinguished Film Asylum audience! My wife, with a record number of "wins" as a successful fantasy author will vie for the vaunted WWF (Women Wrestler Fantasy) belt against your significant other in our noble film forum. It seems like a big enough arena for such an event, but if this wraslin' match is gonna get down and dirty someone else will have to provide the mud, because I'm fresh out! :o)
Cheers,
AuPh
I feel like somebody entered my name in the Primaries and forgot to tell me I was running, but after my (ahem) beloved AuPh decided to all but promise I'd contribute something, I feel compelled.First, I will freely admit a couple of things. I don't claim to be cultured, vastly educated, or even highly literate. I will not quote obscure philosophical references. I will not remark upon ART FOR ART'S SAKE, which I find to be a discussion with absolutely no value, because art by its very nature is totally subjective. But I'll offer some street cred, for fun.
I am NOT a fine artist. I have some passing acquaintance with the masters, and I once took a really fast three-hour walking tour through the Prada. I think most modern fine art is crap, and I generally laugh out loud at the pretentious, self-important displays of toilet parts and dismembered mannequins painted with rainbows that passes under the label today.
I am NOT a connossieur of classical music, although I played with great dedication for more than 15 years, was a professional for five, and played with John Williams, Peter Nero, and the great Henry Mancini. (I also played with the Sons of Bluegrass and dressed in liederhosen to play polka at a political fundraiser. I say this because when you're truly employed in the arts, it isn't a high-concept occupation. It's working your ass off, generally teaching 40 hours a week so you can afford to take the next audition for the Symphony of the Most Remote Place on Earth, which will draw in 500 desperate, eager souls just like you.) And I find most modern classical music to be about as generally musical as broken glass in a box. I can say that, because I once had to play a piece called TUBE: A PIECE FOR NINE CLARINETS AND BROKEN GLASS. Dear God have mercy on my soul, I played it with a straight face.
I am NOT incredibly literate, in the sense that I seek out and enjoy great literary novels. I find most modern literary works have all of the depth of a toilet bowl, with none of the practical attraction, and I think if you analyze them closely, you will find there are three common factors in nearly every pretentious literary work: someone has a dream, someone acts in a way completely inappropriate to normal life as we know it, and generally, a bird appears that symbolizes something stupid and obvious. I have written and published many books, none of which qualify in the least as literary works. This does not distress me.
And now that I've explained that I am uncultured, unlettered barbarian, I'll tell you why I love "Lord of the Rings."
I have read the novels, many times. I read them when they were looked down upon as "kids books." I read them over and over as the world slowly, with great and ponderous dignity, worked its way around to mentioning that perhaps this Tolkein fellow might have had something. I loved them with a pure, burning passion. (Of course, I might have been tainted by the fact that nobody explained to me I ought to have been reading only Good Literature. I grew up reading everything from Nancy Drew and Erle Stanley Gardner to the Bronte sisters and James M. Cain. I like imagination. I am not particular about its form, I only demand it be well done.)
I was fully prepared to NOT like the films. I have rarely seen an adaptation that I loved as much as the original novels; they're either so slavish that they lose all sight of the spirit, or they're so free with the concepts that they no longer represent the work. And fantasy has been given even shorter shrift in film than in literary circles. It's most often been treated by the filmmakers as little more than cartoonish, and nearly always has been given some wink-wink-nudge-nudge aspect to remind us that the people making the movies didn't *really* expect us to believe this hogwash.
That was not what I found in Lord of the Rings. Instead, I found a team of people who had read and internalized the novels, who were nevertheless willing and able to make the changes that absolutely had to be made to bring the story to a visual medium. The adaptation is stunningly good, in my opinion. The characters are faithful to the spirit of the work. If I have a criticism, it is that the in-computer work does tend to have a flatter palette than I would have liked, but for heaven's sake, we're talking about an art form that is so new it's literally younger than most of the people seeing it. There is room to grow. I would be disappointed were there not.
I cannot fault the music, which does exactly what I wanted it to do ... underscore the story, and do it in a way that enhances but does not overpower. (And who knew Billy Boyd could sing? And so well!?)
But most of all, this film has something that I do not find in many movies -- I would say "these days," but that isn't true; it's simply never been there at all in fiction or film. It has the courage to tell a story that is the mirror opposite of what we're so often given as "heroic." I offer the example of another Oscar-nominated film: "Cold Mountain."
When I watched "Cold Mountain," I kept getting more and more annoyed by the obviously "literary" touches that practically screamed, "Look at me, I'M ABOUT SOMETHING!" (Remember my literary rules? Someone has a vision ... Nicole Kidman looks in the well and sees her beau -- and BIRDS! There are always birds. But I digress.) I groan every time I hear the grating, annoying trailer slurp its overdone accent across my ears. Who dares to say this movie isn't fantasy? Nicole Kidman can't get a date? Her piano stays in tune on a jouncing cart ride across the south to such an extent she can play beautifully WHILE THE CART IS MOVING? The Four Seasons just charged us to have *their* piano tuned before a party, and hell, they just rolled it across the hall.
But worst of all, the movie had no heart. Or, actually, it had exactly what it promised: a cold one. It hammered its message home with a piledriver: LIFE IS HORRIBLE AND SHORT AND WORTHLESS! YOU CAN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE, YOU'RE JUST A SCRAP OF FLESH CAUGHT IN THE GRINDING WHEELS OF AN UNCARING UNIVERSE! The angstridden longing of Nicole and Jude was ludicrous to me, an overwrought and astonishingly selfish (and self-centered) anti-romance. (However, I fully approved of Renee Zellwegger, who said what I was thinking on more than one occasion.)
Exactly the opposite, in Lord of the Rings. Its message is really very simple: you make a difference. Not because you're pretty or wellborn or royal, but because you have the power to choose. It's a story of love and sacrifice and heroism, and that makes it different from nearly everything out there. The plight of Sam and Frodo at the end of the world means more to me than a hundred Jude Laws and Nicole Kidmans, whose main goal seems to be ensuring that they don't die virgins in the midst of all of the bloodshed and strife.
I like Lord of the Rings because, at heart, I'm one of those completely ordinary hobbits, thrust daily into a world larger and more frightening than I'd ever prefer. I love encountering, just for a brief, shining few hours, people who are willing to give their lives for love, for hope, and for something larger than themselves.
Because otherwise, we're left with the likes of Cold Mountain and Mystic River for inspiration, and personally, it's enough to make me want to go back to liederhosen and play another political fundraiser.
-- Let the flames begin! --
Roxanne Longstreet Conrad, aka Rachel Caine
(and the wife of AuPh, but don't blame him, I talked him into it)
Hi Roxanne,I have to say that having known AuPh for years, I kinda expected a certain similarity in views between a husband and wife - I think that is inevitable in most good marriages. So no major surprise here - seems like you have good resonance going.
I would like to make just one brief comment. You say:
"Because otherwise, we're left with the likes of Cold Mountain and Mystic River for inspiration..."
I have not seen either of those two films, and perhaps you are right in their regard, but my feelings at this point is that we do not have to limit our search and our ideals to the above mentioned films.
I would suggest that during the last century or so dozens of great directors have created hundreds, if not thousands, of trully great films, and it is those gems, and not the mediocre mass-produced mass-culture stuff, that we should use to define our aspirations.
And therefore, while the LOTR might indeed have some merit when put against the pale backgroud of your typical mass-pleasing fodder, it simply disappears from view when considered in the context of the hystorical achivements in the art of movie making.
A ghost train on a village fair, so in a way it can be fun when you can enjoy the ride, every has his own, I remember enjoying the over drawing film called " Raiders of the .."
The problem is people some people se more in it than that. Like a religious war. And THAT I do not appreciate.
I am in full agreement with you - I have no problem when people enjoy whatever they do, and we all have our guilty pleasures - remember the darling Clueless? He-he...My hair goes up when people start calling something "Best film ever" or something along those lines simply because they love it.
But the torture continues....
Last night it was on the cable again, and Anya said: "I must try to understand with open eyes and ears what people love about it, I owe it to myself".
So she turned it on again. As I was sitting near, reading - of all authors, Tom Clancy... oh-ho... don't ask me why, but at least that wasn't his wooden prose (can't imagine anyone actually reading his books, really), it was the non-fiction account of Airborne... one of my guys gave it to me, as I am considered a military expert, so I felt obligated if not to read it, at least skim through it.
Anyway... here I am sitting, reading, and then I realized that Anya really put her finger on what is perhaps the MOST irritating about the LOTR - it is its NOISE TRACK.
The noise is constant, irritating, empty and frankly idiotic.
It was interesting to watch the action and listen to the noise. In most scenes there is no tension at all, the plot is shallow and the acting non-existant, so the only thing that hinted at some "strong emotions" the viewer is supposed to experience, was the NOISE.
So it became the modern days equivalent of the Scratch and Sniff routine.
The problem was the noise was always the same, not changing one bit, just as "climatic" every second along the way.
Dumb.
In 1766 Gotthold Ephraim Lessing wrote a critical work called Laokoon, where he in essence covered just that sort of "art" and method.
Too bad the makers of this elephant never read his work... they would know that in some forms of art the constant climax has no place, and is the sign of ultimate weakness and ineptitude.
Anyway... to make it short... Anya lasted for about 30 minutes, then said something along the lines of not being able to take it any longer, and I can't express to you the sense of relief that I experienced when my ears were finally relieved of that horrible, lame and ineffective NOISE.
I presume all her attempts at delving deeper into that work ended last night. I know mine had for sure.
I have not forget..I am waiting like a spider, at the next best occasion, to rub it under your nose...
I learnt that only the films who resist the " time test " are outside the " flavor of the day " that is insidiously invade our daily routines.
I suppose Anya is honest personn, and try her best....I would do the same.
The sound track..Well in my original post I did write just the same...the HORRIBLE all way digital, disturbing, hurting my brain and my stomach, sound.
It almost disturb my sexual appetite of the day....
So in resuming : Blue sky AND noise track = LOTR
The actors seems always deseperate to find another living person on the set, hehe....
What a crap!
Your last lines said it all.
Thank you for the very polite response, Viktor ... I'd be interesting in talking about what we each consider historical achievements in the art of movie making. (Although, I'm sure we won't agree on them.)I am the prototypical consumer of mass market entertainment, I suspect ...! But I've learned that it's not necessarily a bad thing, and it's what makes me happy. I attempted to be highbrow and literary early on in my career, but I got over it. (And my sales went up when I did.)
Thanks for the opportunity to contribute ...
Roxanne
Hi, Roxanne,Thank you for letting me into your inner world! I can see that we are judging Lord of the Rings from different angles and am hoping that you will not misconstrue my reply as anything but sincere.
By my temperament I am a critic, and you are a creator. My mother who is an artist says, that without my opinion and critique she would not be able to paint. Let her statement be what it may - pure and unadulterated motherly love, but it is true that any work with a claim for success should be able to withstand a good amount of "red pencil" editorials.
I deeply respect a creative spirit and wish I could get as excited about my own insignificant work as I see all the time in my mother. I tend to immediately see all the weak sides of any work rather than concentrate on the achievements. I am guessing that you have the same excitement and passion that you put in the act of creation as my mother. Please, do not regard this as patronizing, for I am very sincere in this admiration.
Perhaps, I was expecting too much from LOTR as an independent work (I think any screen adaptation should be viewed as such, and not mere a transfer of the book to the screen.) It may also be that having not read the book, in my mind I was not surrounded by the world created by the author, and therefore, was unable to keep that fascination for the movie, which I regarded as an original fantasy and, unfortunately, still see as some sort of Disney animation, which is not a bad thing, but not the type of art that I was hoping to see.
Be it what it may, we can agree that this movie will delight a lot of viewers. As far as I am concerned, there are many movies which I hope will delight me for many years to come.
Who knows, maybe years later I will look at it with a warm nostalgic feelings, that time always brings to us, and... even like it.
Anya
A polite response? I am afraid to think of what AuPh has been telling about me all this time... :-)The historical achievements? I am a rather conventional guy with mostly classical tastes, so in terms of what I consider the great achievements, it is mostly the works of the directors that AuPh has listed in his post... there are a few other, fringe type, less known, but the majority of what I consider references come from the great masters, and we all know who they are. It is things like Cabiria, Bicycle Thief, Persona, Wild Strawberries, The Seventh Seal, Paths of Glory, Grand Illusion, Barry Lyndon, Ivan the Terrible, The Discrete Charm, and many like these that truly define the scale of the absolute values, plus some modern directors like Claire Denis and even more obscure Lavinia Currier.
So nothing really special there, but I believe one must know the classics and fundamentals before rendering his judgement. And I don't mean you in this case, as there is little doubt you and AuPh have covered most of that, it is just that you decided to take a different direction from there. A somewhat nihilistic direction, in my opinion, but that is your choice.
I also strongly disagree with you when you say all modern art is garbage. While we all have seen such cases (there is a broken snow shovel on display in the Phily Art museum...) the modern art is rich with talents - too many to mention, really. Needless to say, all great movie directors could arguably be considered modern artists.
There is another notion one hears often. It goes along the lines of "Oh, you don't really like Bergman, you simply say you do because you are supposed to!"
While some of that undoubtedly exists, I can assure you that I never force myself to love something... I am too old for that, so I allow myself to simply absorb the work and go with my skin reaction, and if it turns out I don't like a particular work of a great master (enter Satyricon), then so be it.
Did you like " Casanova " ?
I did not. But I have it seen only once, would you give it another try?
There was something terribly wrong in it for me, the actor maybe?
I never saw that one... it is generally not available here, but I saw it on ebay, and will try to get it.
I was full of promesses as I so much like his memoirs..The film did fail short...I you have it, let me know, of course.
nt
;^)
nt
:o)My wife may or may not respond to Victor's nice rebuttal, but as gentlemanly as it is, and I'm sure that she will appreciate that aspect of it if she takes time from her schedule to read it, I thought his remarks smacked of condescension. We are both fully aware of the plethora of films produced over the past 100 years and respect artistry from every locale, period and inspired Director. OTOH, there are many films that are what Roxanne and I both tend to regard as pretentious crap (i.e., at least, for us these films turned out to be a waste of time; YMMV), and most of this boring cinema doesn't originate from Hollywood by a long shot!
In other words, much of Victor's "hystorical achievements in the art of movie making" are assessed on a subjective basis. We might differ on what those achievements are and how relevent they are on the context of the history of cinema. Personally, I think The Lord of The Rings trilogy will eventually be viewed as classics, treasures for generations to come, and be highly regarded as a cinema milestone for translating what was regarded as an unfilmable work, cult-like in it's following, into a popular accessible epic with a worldwide audience.
How these works will stand against Fellini, Bergman, Eisenstein, Renoir, Bresson, etc., remains to be seen, but to write something off as being trite simply because it comes from Hollywood, or in the case of LoTR from New Zealand, and appeals to a mass audience, is the epitome of egotistical, elitist attitude. Ignoring the fact that a film series has touched so many people in a positive manner and trying to nit-pick it to death with innuendoes about non-existent racism, homo-erotic content, it's length, it's remarkable CGI effects, it's color palette, etc., just makes the critic appear petty and bitter.
So, if you and Victor want to continue digging around in the Film Asylum sandbox, either as playful children or impatient felines dependent upon what you're trying to accomplish, then Roxanne and/or I will gladly sift through it, with kid gloves if necessary, and address any inappropriate deposits.
AuPh
Well Victor, had some problems with the fact that your dearest cited two films that would not enchanted two films snobs like us, but in this context in was not possible to juxatpose LOTR with " Wild Srawberries " would it be not? So she had no choice...
And the upcoming feeling of condescension may start in you, because of you and less in Victorīs post..
Of course, in the history of movies making, like in all others art form, the subjectivity of one determine the value...But as there is good taste, there is also a ladder from zero to ten!
It is like some people saying all wines are tasting the same, it depends on people taste. Ignorance and stupidity pared with arrogance of the insensible and ignorant.
LOTR in my view has not even the quality of beeing discussed, so bad I review it. But again it is fun to speak of it as some scenes in this picture may have been ( the second one had some good moments )..But there no wonder as in a seven hours film nobody can do every thing wrong....
It will find his place in the same way as " Star Wars " did.
Look the reality is just easy: Hollywood do makes movies for profit only ( 99% ) others makes them for artistisic values and of course as the rest of us, for money too. But the mixe may not be the same...
Nothing against New Zealand but their choice to beat Hollywood at their worstest, or in this case " Lucas factory ."
Victor and I try to exchange views, learn from others , as others learn from us, and without pepper the soup may be tasting lame.
LOTR is and will remain in all times to come, a gigantistic failure. But for the child in some of us, it may have some values. But no more as a " mystery train " would have.
Yep, "artistic" is what snobs call a film when no one will pay to see it! ;^)Cheers,
AuPh
It was not that much more.
Of course the Hollywood machine is in only for the money, every US star who got an inteview here tell you that..the latest..? KC....
But you do not have to read that..You can see it..hear it...smell it .....
You keep forgetting there is huge world outside the US, and many films that do not become popular here are considered masterpieces in many other countries.America has its unique taste, and we should admit, in many areas it is not the best.
So instead of writing the film off simply because it produce little revenue in the US, one might try to understand what people elsewhere are finding it.
But your fixation on "paying to see it" is telling.
True perhaps, but conservatively speaking I think poor taste has more application on the political scene than in films. ;^)> > > "You keep forgetting there is a huge world outside the US, ..." < < <
C'mon Victor, you DO realize that this is ME you're talkin' to here? No offense buddy, but I'm very up on what goes on outside of the US; heck, we even have a subscription to Variety, so I can see what's popular outside the US entertainment-wise.
FTR, it would appear that Europeans like American films, and often even more than their own product! Oooops! There's that nasty word "product" again. Oh well, it's probably inevitable that commercial interest will have some bearing on what people watch and the bottom line is still the bottom line: even "art" can't stand in the way of folks having a good time? :o)
AuPh
There is no question many American films produce tremendous revenues abroad - that IS the strenth of American movie industry.But let's not lose our perspective - what sells most is usually not what is synonimous with high quality.
Your original point was that snobs here want to see films nobody else wants to - and to that I say that is incorrect. Even if the proportion of people in other coutries who love those obscure in the US films is being swamped by the mad hordes of the French and Italian viewers standing in line to see the Titanic.
Which is to say I suspect many more have seen and love Friday Night in France than here. So wanting to see it here doesn't qualify one as a wierdo, but rather as someone who is curious what the big world loves.
I don't even want to mention the dreaded MacDonald analogy here.
No, in reality, what sells most is usually synonimous with what most folks deem worthwhile! Everything else "usually" appears on Bravo or the Sundance Channel at 3 AM in the friggin' morning. :o)AuPh
...I have been wasting my time here.
But letīs give him another chance...King Kong is coming...Hehe..
Down with Liv Ullmann! Here comes Peter Jackson!!!!!!Too bad Liv doesn't even pass the Sundance at 3 AM test - no one shows her here. So she must be truly insignificant to "young adults".
Well, I'm glad to see that you had a change of heart and brought your bat back out to play; I brought the balls. ;^)> > > "Down with Liv Ullmann! Here comes Peter Jackson!!!!!!" < < <
I'm sure that Liv Ullmann, now in her mid-60's, still excites the bedpan brigade provided they're "up" at 3 AM in the morning, ...well, maybe her films still do when combined with one of Bob Dole's little blue pills. Now Liv Tyler, as she appeared in LoTR ...! Well, perhaps it's best not to put too much stress on those pace makers, gents.
You know, as I'm sure you are aware, as one "matures" the range of "young adults" gets wider and wider. Eventually, almost everyone fits into that category; it's called getting old.
BTW, just FYI, I'm not partial to the remaking of classics (i.e., I intensely disliked the De Laurentis abysmal remake of King Kong back in the late 70's), but if anyone can breath life into this tired overgrown overblown gorilla saga, Peter Jackson could do it.
AuPh
Sheeeesh! Someone give big Vic a lace hanky and two passes to the nearest art-house; Frodo Baggins, you ain't. ;^)Deeply disappointed,
AuPh :o(
Damn. Missed my cue. Should have read your post before I posted mine. sorry, dear. (LOL!)I can't complain about condescension. I'm horribly condescending myself, at every opportunity; I just try to be clever about it. Writers all have a terrible egomaniacal problem. Why else would we be arrogant enough to believe people should pay their hard-earned money to read what we have to say?!
AuPh is terribly better educated in film than I am; he can attest that I quite often wander off when he's trying to show me Important Film, or (worse) go to sleep and wake up when the end credits roll. It isn't that I'm stupid or disinterested; it's just that there is some predisposition that I lack, the way he loathes mayonnaise and I mostly can't stand mustard.
I suspect why it's called "taste."
Roxanne
Would she not be a perfect match for Victor?
Il mio caro Patrick... are you trying to get me into big trouble?I already have such "snoring" partner, and quite strong-willed for sure, so I like my balls where they are, and not nailed to the wall!
I presume Mrs. Audiophilander and you would have been a perfect match for a " Lost in Translation " viewing....
And there is no sin in sleeeping together, tell Anya.....PS: My poor friend is she really capable of doing THAT?
And being a classy woman, she would probably use one of my 18th century damascus shamshirs to do that.At least, the razor-sharp blade would make it less painful... or so they say... ouch!
Yes, yes no doubt my dear friend, but seeing them nailed? That would be a terrible moral torture!
I MUST speak to her!
You are good friend, Patrick, but remember - YOU are getting me into this problem! That "snoring partner" thing IS dangerous!"But honey, I didn't sleep with her, I just snored!"
Bill Clinton should be proud of you!
:o)
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 ]
