Audio Asylum Thread Printer

Get a view of an entire thread on one page

FAQ / News / Events

Films/DVD Asylum

Re: Ok

207.81.75.114

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display All Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ]

In Reply to: Re: Ok posted by patrickU on March 20, 2004 at 08:15:25:

Actually, I probably agree with Victor's taste more than he knows. Sure there is going to be the odd one like 81/2. That film is on many best 100 lists. My point is so is Raiders, Jaws, Schindler's List, and E.T.
I bet if you looked at all of the best 100 lists by all of the major review bodies you would find ALL of those Spielberg films on the list - and you would see some Fellini, Kubrick, Bergman, Scorcese, Hitchcok, Kurosawa etc.
THINK about this. If they are wrong to have Spielberg movies then they are wrong to have the others' films there as well.
My point is that there is no way to compare these VERY different filmakers. If we're going to say that Fellini and Kurosawa are the masters at introspection and the epic then Spielberg is the master of storytelling.
It's NOT about the buck...it is about the lasting nature of film. And no one can deny that Jaws a 30 year old movie has not lasted. The definition of masterpiec or classics is that they last. It has NOT lasted because of the effects. The effects are totally out of date, so is the body count and gore. The shark doesn't even look real. So why has it lasted? Because it's a great STORY that has been told as perfectly as it possibly can be.
That said you may find other stories to be more interesting as I do -- but that is not the film's fault. Jaws is as perfect as the story can be told - critics agree - the masses agree - it's a masterpiece and a classic and a major influence on the film industry.
Like all other masterpieces and classics and major influences on film history not ewveryone is going to "LIKE" them. I'm not a fan of Casablanca or Gone With the Wind. I respect that they were influential and important to film history...but neither is a particularly great movie to me.
This is why film is TOTALLY subjective. There are movies I like that I myself know are not good movies. Outland with Sean Connery is a thin story - without character development - not great effects yet I like it. There really isn't a whole lot of good things about it but a persoanl gut reaction to it. Subjective.

Follow Ups:

Re: Ok - patrickU 12:35:42 03/20/04 (3)
No nobody can be wrong all of the time...
But Spielberg aknowledge Kurusawa as a master, if I remember well.
I have, as told before nothing against " Jaw " on the contrary, and one of his first commercial tv film was not bad , the one with the car chase.
No, films are not totally subjective, are wines subjectives too?
There are culture behing them, inside and ouside.
- Yes all ART ALL OF IT is subjective. - RGA 11:33:17 03/21/04 (2)
  The Mona Lisa is a piece of crap. Art critics have kept that painting alive because they are fascinated by the man NOT the work. Jackson Pollack is a prime example. I could vomit on canvas and produced his mess...yet he's a famous painter. Why? Cause he was a drunken fool who dod something different. People assume different is better - it's not. It can be but different itself is nothing.
  Wine is a food. Lots of very smart people out there who don't drink...It's doubtful they could tell the difference between a $4.00 red or a $150.00 bottle...or at least wouldn't know which would be considered better.
  Bottom line is Jaws is a masterpiece. Because you don't like it or don't think it should be so doesn't change the fact that it meets all of the criteria. On lots of critics top 100 list and has survived 30 years...it's part of the canon of film and influenced the summer blockbuster like no other film. At that time it did what it did better than any other film in history...some would argue that it has yet to be surpassed for what it did...and the other film that one could argue surpassed it was by the same director - Raiders.
  I don't get why Casablanca is considered a masterpiece I give it ***/*****. The fact is though it has done what Jaws has done(IMO to a lesser degree) but nonetheless it meets the criteria. I'm not wrong--there is no right or wrong.
  - Calling the Jaws a "masterpiece" cheapens the whole scale - Victor Khomenko 12:02:29 03/21/04 (1)
    It basically presumes there are no movies that are superior to it, as what could be superior to a "masterpiece"? A better masterpiece?
    If your scale is already pegged at Jaws, then it is indeed very limited.
    - WTF? - RGA 20:03:54 03/21/04 (0)
      You are saying that there can only be one masterpiece in the film industry - one masterpiece of music...so if we pick Beethoven then Mozart is kaka?
      I'm saying the Jaws has met ALL of the OBJECTIVE criteria for whatever the term means of being a masterpiece.
      1) It has lasted - standing the test of time by both the masses and the critics.
      2) Critical bodies are the ones who determine ART apparently and they call it a masterpiece. Art stands the test of time and is relevant to the MASSES. Jaws succeeds FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR more than anything Fellini has ever made. There is no discussion of that there is a fact. Your ego can't handle facts it would seem.
      3) No there is no movie superior to it for what it is. Show me one? Show me a thriller or even a summer blockbuster shark movie that's better than this one. For what it is nothing is better than Jaws. Or I should not even say that i should say - as deemed by critics and the general public...that does not mean the odd person won't like it...the odd person doesn't like 81/2. Guess what more people are going to not like 81/2 - but that's obvious.
      The Exorcist is considered a masterpiece of the Horror genre...that doesn't mean there is no better movies...but for what the Exorcist is nothing is deemed better by critical ART JUDGING organizations than The Exorcist on that subject matter.
      The Godfather is considered a masterpiece and I strongly disagree with the merit the film gets. I don't think it's anything better than good ***/*****. I do respect the fact however that is considered a masterpiece. Most critical bodies rave about it. Lump it Victor...sopme things are masterpieces whether you like it or not...Ana Karenina is a long snooze and no deeper than a Harlequin Romance...it's a BAD book by a BAD writer. That doesn't change the fact that people think Tolstoy has talent and that his atrocious books are actually good.
      The fact that I HATE F Scott Fitgerald's "The Great Gatsby" I can bitterly argue is one of the biggest dumps of kaka ever put to paper doesn't change the fact that it's considered to be a masterpiece. I have to deal with so so do you.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Parts Connexion

You can not post to an archived thread.