 
|
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: "Amarcord:" A beautiful beginning, what with those posted by tinear on March 19, 2004 at 18:50:45:
Aside from Victor making no sense thanks for the warning.BTW, Yes you can ignore Fellini's so called greatness if you don't like the film.
I say so called because good films manage to stay relevant to the public eye. Like oh well Raiders of the Lost Ark. Unlike ANYTHING Fellini has ever made. Put all opf his films together with total rentals and sales world wide and it wouldn't equal Spielberg's 5th best.
Movies don't need plots... Can you explain the dancing hookers...who were not all hookers so he doesn't totally get the film either? He puts the words beauty and emotion but of course he can't expalin it.
He's the equivalent of the cable touters. It makes a difference because I say so and offer no relevant facts that are remotely plausible to back it up. May as well sell aluminum siding and rust proof on cars.
I'm an English Lit major so I have read enough crapola of literary types who INVENT things in movies that simply are not there. The see what they want to see because of the prestige of the writer...just like believeing Monster Cable because they are the mighty Monster Cable.
At least Raiders is honest in its entertainment. It sure is a helluva lot more fun and re-watchable - of course DVD sales prove that.
Follow Ups:
You resented before the joke about being anti-Fellini. You trashed the 8 1/2, now Amarcord. In all your posts I read (I did not read every one to know, sorry) you regularly dump on Fellini - usually in a gratuitous was too. I don't recall you ever say anything good about the Great Master.Then why are you afraid to accept the anti-Fellini label?
I hate many things, but I am not afraid to state that openly.
So you are an English Major... that is cool. You read those people "invent" things about movie that don't exist.
Truly sounds like you simply are unable to see them, and those who wrote the books you read actually took time to understand something.
Firstly, people analyze literature from many perspectives. Most of my papers look at gender roles. For example if there is a well known plays such as Shakespeare's "As You Like It or Twelfth Night" there is much to be discussed on Gender issues.Taking another work like Plato's "Five Dialogs" and you're not going to write a paper on Gender Roles because it isn't there. That does not mean someone won't try and take one line of text and try and re-invent all of Plato because they THINK it's all about gender. They thought wrong.
In English Lit you can write from Gender, Psychological, deconstructionism history etc. Deconstruction is analyzing something that is not there but is REALLY what it's all about. Kinda like Subtext.
Now if you were to take 81/2 and argue from a deconstructioist view I have no problem with it - but it has to be argued well.
Roger Ebert even didn't manage it. Yes he loves it but he can't truly explain why it's a good film. I have no problem Victor if you love the movie because it speaks to you in some way - but you nor Ebert can explain why it should matter to me or anyone else. I didn't feel anything but contempt for that film. It's the ONLY Fellini film I've seen - but if the others are like this he won't impress me.
My comments earlier about age are valid. Consider this. Someone who is 20 or 30 who is growing up on films made since 1980 are the first films they see. When such people go back and rent movies before the 1960s or black and white the production values already take a hit. People rave on about Citizen Kane but quite frankly there are at least 50 films since 1980 that are vastly superior visually than Kane...the technology is superior PERIOD. So when I go back and watch Kane I respect the visuals as a history, the film holds up better than most films from the period - it was about something significant but I didn't feel it.
I can drive a 1940's sports car but it's nothing compared to the brand new Bugatti. I can respect it and I can say the Buggati might have stolen a whole pile of ideas...but performance is performance and NOTHING from 1940 is remotely as good as this new car in any measurable way at all.
Films are different of course. Comparing the Old Dawn of the Dead to the new one is the reverse. The new one increased the pace increased the numbers of characters, decreased the sub text, intimacy, insight and social commentary. The new one is bloody fun nevertheless. It's just not very deep - or actually it has some commentary about suburbia in a post 9/11 and the shallow nature of life but it doesn't stop fast enough to let people think about what it has to say.
The problem is patience. If you live in a large city as opposed to a small town you'll understand what I'm talking about. People in big cities are in a big rush and they want their movies in a big rush - get to the exploding head already and who cares about the message?
I think I would probably agree more on movies with you than a lot of other people's movies on this forum...but I'm not going to imply their hethens because they like the new Dawn of the Dead better than the old Dawn of the Dead, or they think Gladiator is a good movie. I disagree with them...I'd suggest they see the original Dawn and tell them that it's much slower paced and doesn't have the effects or the quality of actors -- but it had a point...it managed to end up not being a zombie movie at all. Hopefully they'll understand that. If not oh well.
Well, as I suspected, you are at the door of discovering Fellini. One film is good start, but I think you are judging way too strongly after that one experience.Fellini's work covers incredibly broad range, from his early BW films all the way through to Intervista and Ginger and Fred, and I can only urge you to give it all your most serious consideration.
I was strongly put off by your statement to the effect that apparently the Amarcord didn't score at the top, and therefore should be bipassed. It IS an important film from a great master, and don't let a brief off-the-cuff discussion here sway you in one direction or another.
I think your comments about age only make sense if one flows with the trend, and can't look outside. Many people here don't fit that mold - many of us certainly investigated the broad world around us, even if it was quite hard to do sometimes. A person who is not locked in his era, but takes a broader view of the art from day one, is safe from falling into that trap.
Today in America there is no such climate that would encourage most young people to do so... except for the few fortunate to live near the Lincoln center. That is why it is important to spread the word around, that life is not limited to the current releases.
Anyway, best of luck in your search.
How do dare to compare Felliniīs " Amarcord " to " Raiders.." What a foolish thing to do! You would leave me breathless if I would take you seriously.
Oh yes you are a good advocat for " masses against quality ".
No, you canīt be serious.
No I'm comparing Raiders to 81/2 and Raiders is a vastly superior film on all counts. Intelligence, interest, fun, depth(and let's face it wasn't about depth).I have not seen Amacord...judging by this thread Amacord isn't the one to see to judge Fellini...so I will pick one of the ones people like and give him a second chance. Perhaps that will change my mind about 81/2.
Also, you like to dismiss Raiders. Interesting how both MOST critics - you know the people who are professionals and so called artsy fartsy conissours generally consider Raiders to be one of the 100 greatest films ever made.
This is not just about what the masses like - unlike Jurassic Park which the masses liked the critics felt it was good or worse.
This is why you need to distinguish between a big seller like Raiders and a big seller like JP. The first is critically praised the second really isn't.
The numbers in both camps are on Raiders' side whether two people on this forum disagree - you'll find more Spielberg movies on a best 100 list than you will from Fellini on MOST professional film critics list.
From what it sounds like Amacord Fellini is a one trick pony, a complaint i have with a lot of so called great fdirectors...they make one narrow field very well and when they go outside of that they bomb. Scorcese? If it's not seady side of life his films are hardly good. Woody Allen? Horny nerd who's a misfit in society ---same films over and over.
Sure they're great at that aspect - but Woody Allen trying to make an action film - it would probably suck even compared to Michael Bay(well maybe not that bad).
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 ]
