 
|
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: hard not to comment art/film without considering sociaty in general...... posted by Victor Khomenko on May 24, 2004 at 16:39:19:
Victor, you say "anytime art tries to carry political message it fails in the artistic department."What about Griffith's "Intolerance", Eisenstein's "Potemkin", Dohzhenko's "Earth", Reifenstahl's "Triumph of the Will", Ford's "The Grapes of Wrath", or Godard's "Weekend"?
Picasso's painting of "Guernica"?
I recall several days ago you discussed "Alexander Nevsky," a film about a Russian leader defeating a German army made in 1938. You do not think there is a political message there? Or if you think there is a political message there does it make the film an artistic failure in your opinion?
I am a little surprised by your statement. Michael Moore's film may be bad or good due to the way he handles his political statement. But just because he has a political message in there you believe it is a failure? Without even seeing it?Melville's book "Moby Dick, or The Whale" has problems, but I don't consider it an artistic failure because of his pointed criticism of Christian missionairies. I can't watch 99% of Godard's post-68 work because of the way he handles his political messages in the work, but it isn't the presence of his political message that I specifically object to.
I realize you were just responding to another poster with a brief note. But the last sentence of that note is quite a statement, and I would appreciate it if you would clarify or elaborate on it if you don't mind.
Thanks!
Follow Ups:
***I am a little surprised by your statement. Michael Moore's film may be bad or good due to the way he handles his political statement. But just because he has a political message in there you believe it is a failure? Without even seeing it?I guess you found something I never wrote - please show me where I said it was a failure. My problem with him is his politics and his apparent willingness to bend the truth to make his point - based on what I know about him. Based on that I shall not waste my time on this bomb thrower - I can throw bombs just as well, perhaps even further.
To answer your BIG question, I think Patrick already touched on the answer. There are different political flavors. Potemkin is not really a political work - it is a strongly humanist one rather than the promotion of any particular ideology, and that makes it stand on its own feet.
I guess my main objection is with making a political statement de jour in such an overt and in-your-face way that it dominates everything - things like Philadelphia. From what I read about Moore's film it is such work, therefore, knowing his political views it becomes simply a waste of time. I doubt you will find many parallels between, say, BFC and Potemkin, and I suspect fifty years down the road people will still watch the Eisenstein's work, but hardly anyone will recall the mundane Moore's works.
Ditto for Alexander Nevsky. That film is about fight for freedom - the notion so universal that it transcendes the political spectra. You can easily consider it just this way, without even realizing its political message.
Things like Triumph of the Will are harder nuts to crack, but even there I see the difference. Leni's work is that of an artist describing the wave of emotions taking place at that time - so she is more a documentary writer than a promoter of a particular idea. She is taken with the movement, she is obviously sympathetic to it, but she is still more of a landscape painter. She was equally enthusiastic and at home filming the mountains... I doubt it Moore's next film will be about the natural beauty of Nebraska.
"I guess you found something I never wrote - please show me where I said it was a failure. My problem with him is his politics and his apparent willingness to bend the truth to make his point - based on what I know about him. Based on that I shall not waste my time on this bomb thrower - I can throw bombs just as well, perhaps even further."I sincerely doubt you can. Michael Moore, lover him or hate him, is making films that people are watching. Unless I am missing something you are not and I doubt you can. Not a knock on you, it's just not easy to get the attention Moore has by making documentaries, which, itself isn't easy to get funded.
***it's just not easy to get the attention Moore has by making documentaries, which, itself isn't easy to get funded.Oh, yeah? Apparently Hollywood is on the mission today - the mission of destroying Bush. Apparently there is wave of anti-Bush (anti-conservative) films coming out... apparently there are also a few decidedly pro-Kerry films... so tell us more about how hard it is to get such funding - it is music to our ears.
Sheesh...
I said
***it's just not easy to get the attention Moore has by making documentaries, which, itself isn't easy to get funded.
Victor saidOh, yeah?
Yeah.Victor said
Apparently Hollywood is on the mission today - the mission of destroying Bush.Apparently you still suffer from the delusion that "Hollywood" is some single minded entity with an agenda.
Victor said
Apparently there is wave of anti-Bush (anti-conservative) films coming out...
What would that be, Van Helsing, Spiderman II and The Village?
" apparently there are also a few decidedly pro-Kerry films..."Such as? And please provide some support that whatever films you cite,if you cite any, are actually pro Kerry films. Tyr to remeber the time involved in taking a film from pitch to screen, if you have any idea what I am talking about.
Victor said
" so tell us more about how hard it is to get such funding - it is music to our ears."I have some second hand experience on this. A very good friend of mine has been involved in the productions of several documentaries. It is very difficult to fund them because it is very difficult to genrate any money from them. Many are funded by grants, There are usually hoops to jump through for grants. It can be a nightmare and it can take several years just to fund some documentaries.
Victor said
Sheesh...
Yeah, You spew so much opinion from so little actual knowledge about film making.Sheeeeeesh......
***Apparently you still suffer from the delusion that "Hollywood" is some single minded entity with an agenda.Cheap red herring. First - only a fool would deny that Hollywood is largely liberal.
Second - it doesn't take the whole Hollywood to perform a mission, only a few determined individuals with lots of money.
You are not suggesting there are no rabbid liberals with tons of money in Hollywood... that would be too much even for you.
Next you are gonna play us for complete idiots and suggest it is just as hard to get financing for a liberal viewpoint "documentary" as for a conservative one.
Sheesh indeed.
I said to Victor
***Apparently you still suffer from the delusion that "Hollywood" is some single minded entity with an agenda.
Victor said
Cheap red herring.Hardly. I guess you already forgot the content of your own post. Here is what you said... "Oh, yeah? Apparently Hollywood is on the mission today - the mission of destroying Bush."
Victor said
First - only a fool would deny that Hollywood is largely liberal.Hollywood is a large piece of real estate. Film makers are as diverse in their political beliefs as any other large group of the general population. Of course you ignore this diversity in your claim that "Hollywood" is out to get Bush. Your charge was naive and painfully simplistic. Only a fool would charge an entire industry with a singular mind.
Victor said
Second - it doesn't take the whole Hollywood to perform a mission, only a few determined individuals with lots of money.Fine. But you said "Hollywood" is out to get Bush. Your mistake , not mine. If you wish to talk about specific film makers that are out to get Bush go ahead. Cite them and discuss the situation. Your whinning about a "Hollywood" agenda here is just laughable though.
Victor said
You are not suggesting there are no rabbid liberals with tons of money in Hollywood... that would be too much even for you.
No I am not suggesting any such thing. I suggest you actually read my posts before reading things into them.
Victor said
Next you are gonna play us for complete idiots and suggest it is just as hard to get financing for a liberal viewpoint "documentary" as for a conservative one.
Prove it isn't.I see no list of anti-Bush pro Kerry movies that you claim are comming out. Figures.
I went mentally back to your "arguments" and nearly chocked on my pizza from laughing.You said:
"Hollywood is a large piece of real estate. Film makers are as diverse in their political beliefs as any other large group of the general population. Of course you ignore this diversity in your claim that "Hollywood" is out to get Bush. Your charge was naive and painfully simplistic. Only a fool would charge an entire industry with a singular mind."
I guess I will have to agree with you that it IS a piece of real estate - so chalk one point for your wisdom.
Next statement is... is... ignorant? Idiotic? Whatever. Everyone knows it is heavily liberal... could it be everyone but you?
A simplistic notion of Hollywood?
I can see Scott opening the morning paper and seeing the headline:
"Japan to increase its steel production by 10%"
Scott drops his toast in indignation. "Why - he yells - Japan is one large piece of real estate!" he proclaims!
"Their people are diverse! How could you say "Japan" when there very well may be a housewife in Yamatzuki that has nothing to do with the steel production increase! In addition there's also a still mill in Osaka that will be closing down!"
I truly admire your discussion power, Scott... it is just that I have little respect for such inaptitude.
nr
...and even no wife... instead - Scott's post on the computer!Pizza with a twist... I buy those for-one small ones, but then cover them *completely* with sliced pepperoni. That makes them moderately enjoyable.
If a wife is the food of love, then my dear you have all my compassion for lacking both of them...
...And a lot of olive oil, and a springle Origan...
...of refining the frozen supermarket pizza.I mean - anyone can make a good dish out of a frech chicken, but try THIS challenge!
What else should I dump (not sprinkle... DUMP!) on it?
Well a frozen pizza will never turn in a beautiful princess.
And it is so easy to make one .From scratch.
But it happen 3 to 4 time a year to put one of this beast in the oven.
I always buy a " bio " one with almost nothing on top, then I add some hot Italian sausage, mushrooms,fresh ham, olives, and Mozarella, Or plain tomato sauce, olives and anchovis...
But nothing taste as one made in the wooden oven with the right wood!
Still no substance from you just personal attacks. Nothing new.
Just what you deserve, Scott, nothing more, nothing less. You make idiotic statements - you take your lumps.
What lumps? You grand stand and offer no substance to support your opinions. Big Deal. Any dork with a computer and an online account can do what you do here. You may be laughing but you are also being laughed at. So what? Fortunately for the rest of us your opinions have no impact on the film world. So feel free to keep spitting in the wind.
Fortunately my opinion does have impact on film world. For some years now I have refused to pay to watch Hollywood films... lesse... several years, perhaps twenty films not watched a year, at probably $18 a pop, say, $10 form that goes to Hollywood, I guess that's maybe $1000 or so.But you are weaseling and changing subject. What on Earth does my impact have to do with your most idiotic discovery that Hollywood is large piece of real estate? Man, that was rich!
Next you even discovered there were some different people living there - well, Scott, time to reread Rabelais - there's a comparable discovery contained therein.
Nope you are inconsequencial to the film world and utterly clueless. Your impact on and knowledge of film go hand in hand. God I hope you are better at building amplifiers.
nt
***Your impact on and knowledge of film go hand in hand. God I hope you are better at building amplifiers.LOL! Why don't you also kick my dog while you are at it!
I have nothing against your dog. I do apologize. Even though I have never auditioned any of them, I am confident that you are indeed much much better at building amplifiers. I did not mean to disparage your product in any way.
I didn't find it very offensive, more humorous that anything, but I still appreciate your apology - needless to say being in the open (name and all) does invite some nasty comments, and usually without any apology... often quite mean.
***I see no list of anti-Bush pro Kerry movies that you claim are comming out. Figures.You obviously are not all that well informed - you should thank me for giving you this info.
So I am one step ahead of you - I know they are coming, and I heard the titles, but did not write them down, so I guess you will have to do your own legwork... if you do then perhaps you will get knowledgeable enough so we could continue this discussion instead of your usual hot air.
There is no leg work to do. You are making unsupported assertions. Get back to me when you have something of substance to report. Let me know if you ever figure out why your claims are amusingly naive and obviously incorrect. Time for you to do some home work.
Dear Scott, you have constitutional right to remain as ignorant as you wish.
Tell us again what you know about the production of documentary films, oh right you already did when you told us nothing about the subject. Talk about ignorance. Thankfully your impact on the film world is proportional to your knowledge of film production. I'll do the math for you 0=0.
Please forgive me if I put words in your mouth! I was extending the thought of your post's final statement. You said that "anytime art tries to carry political message it fails in the artistic department." Based on that I thought you would consider "Farenheit 911" a failure.Correct me if I am wrong: You do not mind politics in art, per se, just not overtly. You prefer any political comment to be underneath the work, as opposed to being "all over it".
I respectfully disagree with you. "Potemkin" and "Nevsky" have political messages and I personally do not think they are quite so hidden beneath "humanism" or "freedom".
You were silent on Picasso's "Guernica". Perhaps it is the exception that proves the rule?
Thank you for your response. And I agree with you re: comparison of Michael Moore and Sergei Eisenstien. Eisenstien's films WILL be viewed decades after Michael Moore's works are dust. And I say this as a fan of Moore's work. I suspect HE might agree with you too!
Take care and have fun, Victor!
***You were silent on Picasso's "Guernica". Perhaps it is the exception that proves the rule?Two reasons. One - Patrick already mentioned it. Two - I am in general not a great fan of Picasso... I feel his monumental nature, but I am not in love with most of his art.
Ah, and perhaps three... it's been many years since I saw Guernica, so I do not have fresh enough impression to comment on it - just to be fair.
But you are basically right - it is the overtness of the message that I object to. One can find messages in all works, if that is his inclination, sometimes it takes effort, but one should be completely dumb to miss it in Moore's work.
And thanks for giving me chance to look once again at Potemkin and Nevsky... however after some evaluation I still feel that the political message in these was not in your face, especially in Nevsky.
Call me dumb, but I must have watched it hundred times before someone told me about its message!
I guess that bring up the question about the type of the message. If it is present clearly in Petemkin, and really sticks out like a sore thumb in Philadelphia, you would never realize it was there in Nevsky - you would need to be told about it.
I would be the LAST person to "call you dumb", Victor! First, I am not the smartest person in the world by a long shot. Also, I do not purposely try to post things to insult anyone. I enjoy reading the different perspectives on film that people have.If I were to chance upon "Alexander Nevsky" without knowing anything about when it was made, what was going on between Germany and the Soviet Union, etc., I too would probably take it for only great film about a leader who leads his people into battle to repel a fearsome enemy. In fact, that is the way I enjoy it 98% of the time when I see it. I allow the context of its making to influence my enjoyment (and it only brings an additional smile to my face) the other 2% of the time!
Perhaps your experience of "Alexander Nevsky" is close to mine with "Citizen Kane". I chanced upon it late one night as a young teenager. My mother just said that it was an old film by Orson Welles about a newspaper publisher. She did not then (and maybe still does not) know anything about William Randolph Hearst,etc.
So I watched this movie and thoroughly enjoyed it. It was another six years or so before I knew the background behind it!I saw "Philadelphia" once. I did not hate it, but I never HAVE to see it again. "Nevsky", on the other hand, I will HAVE to get the Criterion edition! In fact, I am planning to get the Criterion edition of all of Eisenstien's sound films (at least the ones that Stalin's ministers allowed him to make)!
Believe me, I didn't take any offense.I think we are entering an interesting discussion topic here, which is much bigger than Moore, his films and the political undercurrents at Cannes or Oscars.
That is the hidden messages, or hidden baggage if you will.
I think we all can quickly see the overt messages, be it the BfC, Philadelphia (home of the best cream cheese!!!), Erin Brockovich (sp? Who cares!), or some other such film.
It is harder to spot when it is in the background.
These can include many things, like the political and historical situation at the time the movie was made, direct orders from the authorities, and things like important steps in artist/director development - his personal life, etc. etc... who knows, maybe his getting out of closet, having severe emotional trauma of losing loved ones, etc.
For instance, one could not evaluate properly such works as Pasolini's Salo without looking at his biography and the history of his relationship with public - both international and Italian.
But how on Earth could an average viewer be aware of all those underpinnings?
Even the most sophisticated ones probably miss many of them, and the majority of us catches very small proportion.
Often what happens is the movie leaves a profound mark on one's memory, and forces the viewer to look and dig deeper. But how common is that? How many of us, besides clark, that is, come to the theater having done excruciating background preparation? Most of us treat such excursions as recreation, not final exams.
From there one might draw a cynical conclusion - since the messages are not incorporated directly into the movies, they must be simply ignored.
Thus is it really wrong to simply watch Nevsky like most kids would, without even knowing who Stalin was?
I would argue that taken from that perspective that work would still represent a great achievement, and that no message, however strong, would make a bad movie great.
Many of us do enjoy learning about movies and what surrounds them, but the truth is there is so much there we simply can't possibly cover it all, so what is wrong with simply enjoying the work for its artistic merits? Nothing, really. Great art can be appreciated at infinite number of levels, and with more knowledge these levels change, and the work takes new forms, but important thing is it will never look weak, flat and shallow - even if you were to just scratch its surface.
So, if you will, I have no issues with the "dissolved" messages, those that are present in the work without calling attention to themselves. Art is always about subtlety and finesse of means of expression, and the same applies to the messages, I think.
Just a few random thoughs during some idle moment at work.
nt
There are different degree of political messages made by artists. Some are more humanistic or more philosophical, some related to more actual events.
And the last one is the more difficult to achieve, as too much catch and sqeezed in his own time. Of course there are exceptions!
I donīt think that Picassoīs " Guernica " is a good one. The intention very touching, the art...Not for me.
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 ]
