 
|
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: No mud, no wrestling, but lots of words ...! (Long!) posted by Roxanne on January 27, 2004 at 21:13:23:
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.
Follow Ups:
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 ]
