 
|
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: Addendum on when the Academy Awards started to sink posted by clarkjohnsen on March 16, 2004 at 14:23:06:
I enjoy the award shows - not because they're awarding the best films which rarely happens but because they are for some strange reason enjoyable. More so the predictions and arguments preceding and following.The smaller award shows such as Cannes are a different beast. There are three main groups of films. Films as entertainments - giant roller coaster films that are fun while you watch - Alla Raiders of the Lost Ark or B-grade horror films you laugh at - art films attempting to be cerebral - some work most don't which is why only a minority hold the to high regard. Then there are the crossover which manage to entertain and be cerebral.
There are good and bad in all three groups...to not recognize one group or to devalue one group is shallow mindedness.
The Academy is an example of this not rewarding comedies or horror films because they're deemed "Lower" than some other form. I agree they are lower in that the best drama is generally better than the best comedy or should be weighted higher. But most years a black comedy or some other genre is done as well as it can be done and it will lose to something like Ghandi.
There is a reason tha E.T. gets a wide theatrical release every decade...one is it can sell more tickets to each new generation, the other is that it tells such a wide appealing story and is a master at that story that people will go and watch it again. The kids in 1982 will now take their own kids to see it.
The notion of a classic or a masterpiece can fit few other films than Jaws or E.T. Movies that some dim witted individuals passed of as nothing more than thriller or special effects movies continue to be popular well after the special effects. Jaws and E.T. don't hold up any longer(even with the few touch ups). Films that are nearly 25 and 30 years old still managing to impact "MOST" movie goers is impressive no matter how a few in the minority whine.
And contrary to their conceited belief systems it is not just the unwashed masses who revere them. This is different than a film which grosses lots of cash and is forgotten three years down the road. Ace Ventura like McMovies. People go to movies because there isn't much else to do and it's still relatively inixpensive - just because a movie makes lots of cash doesn't mean the people who went to see it LIKED it.
Films that get re-released to a wide audience ten year later and then 20 years later however does. Even cult hits like Rocky Horror Picture have their audiences that see more in it than I but ti means something to them.
A Clockwork Orange is always re-released down here - not a wide release but I bet it's not the only city. At least they nominated it - shows the Academy had something going for it.
Follow Ups:
NT
***The notion of a classic or a masterpiece can fit few other films than Jaws or E.T. Movies that some dim witted individuals passed of as nothing more than thriller or special effects movies continue to be popular well after the special effects. Jaws and E.T. don't hold up any longer(even with the few touch ups). Films that are nearly 25 and 30 years old still managing to impact "MOST" movie goers is impressive no matter how a few in the minority whine.That is a weak argument. The fact Jaws still "impacts" has to do a lot with the shock element.
The shock can be done in a subtle way (the creeping horror of the Repulsion) or in a direct, primitive , hammer-to-the-head one, as in Jaws.
Either one will continue shocking the public, but really, only one should be considered as a "classic", as the effect of the hammer is way to predictable to imply any creativity on part of the maker.
Simply showing open guts will get it every time. 25 years, or 50 years, or 300 years later. But that is NOT art.
Jaws doesn't shock anyone - nor was it about shock even when it was released. Of course It was hugely successful on its original release...it was after all responsible for wht the future would bring - the Hollywood Summer Blockbuster. Nothing before Jaws ever made much money in the summer. Jaws, of nothing else, was a pivotal moment in film history.You toss the word art around like you know what it is is. Jaws is art - it may be the equivelant to you of dogs playing poker but it's still art.
Jaws and many films as entertainments are STORIES - maybe you need to look up what a story is. There is a premise, some sort of conflict(Man vs Man, Man VS Environment, Man Vs Himself and Man vs Beast). All movies fall into one of these amng others. Jaws is the latter.
Why cannot a story be told about an ex NY cop that goes to a small town where a shark resides and is eating the tourists? The Fact that the story doesn't meet with Victor's approval sure doesn't make you right. Apparently more people than not liked the story premise and moreover the handling of that story. Most critical bodies would call Jaws a masterpiece and not because it had a gory sequence or two.
There are far newer shark pictures that have totally been forgotten that have way more blood and guts and way better special effects...Deep Blue Rising or whatever it was called...hell I can't even remeber the title it was so memorable.
Jaws was far more story and character development than shark eating people - it is a highly re-watchable film as well. Thrillers and horror films are usually next to impossible to watch a second or third time...you've seen the jumps and the scares and the gore...so why would you watch it again...that's right the very good performances and story of these people is why.
If all you could see in Jaws and E.T. were the puppets I feel sorry for you.
I am heartwarmed you worry about you. That is fine, but please don't ignore yourself.So Jaws was art and not a shock? Listen, you are entitled to your opinion.
There's character development? Maybe you should watch some better films to understand where the Jaw sits on the scale. You are not the one who loved the Gladiator? No?
I understand why people like Gladiator - I don't. I view oit more as an action movie and even there it wasn't particularly good.There are people out there who have reviewed tens of thousands of movies who have JAWS in their top 100. People who have seen EVERY notable foreign film on the planet who stoill have JAWS and possibly 4 -5 other Spielberg films in their top 100 and not some of those notable foreign films.
I don't give a rat's bottom whether you hate Jaws or not, or whether someone liked Gladiator or not. I think most people who liked Gladiator though would recognize that Jaws is a superior film.
Your idea of character development tell me isn't Guido...other than that he has no ideas left and is horny is there anything else you can tell me about him? no YOU CAN"T because there was nothing to tell. He was a miserable talentless horny prick - that sums him up.
You can't admit that film is subjective can you? You are desperately attempting to convince people that film is objective and you somehow have more insight on it than every other person on this planet. Now I know why you love 81/2 you have as gigantic an ego as Fellini.
Jaws wasn't a character analysis. They were realised characters based off what audiences would go in armed with as a knowledge base.Not every film must include self introspection and the discovery of the meaning of life. I'd really rather them not try as Socrates covered the ground.
s
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 ]
