 
|
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: Victor the gentleman. nt posted by patrickU on January 28, 2004 at 08:44:57:
;^)
Follow Ups:
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 ]
