Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by RGA (A) on March 20, 2004 at 12:09:57

In Reply to: Re: "Amarcord:" A beautiful beginning, what with those posted by Victor Khomenko on March 20, 2004 at 05:08:11:

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.