 
|
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 |
12.73.206.147
In Reply to: "Today's movies are not built to last." posted by clarkjohnsen on September 16, 2004 at 09:56:51:
They're only interested in short term profits in a marketing scheme that sells films along with soap, food, pills, or anything else. If you want art get yourself a set of crayons. The Irving Thalberg's of the world have disappeared or either they are more interested with some other "art form". Ray Hughes
Follow Ups:
There are many good and great films being made today. You simply have to know where to find them, and be willing to look. This takes effort. Work. Desire. And good films must be important to you. The major studios have never been about selling great films. They marketed Jimmy Stewart because he sold tickets. And the marketing of yesteryear, with stars appearing on live commercials selling cigarettes, would leave today's marketing to shame.And today there is MORE opportunity to see very good films. Hollywood's glamour age was controlled by the studio system. If a film was not made by a major studio, then you were not going to see it. No video. No cable. No independent art/cinema houses. No small film festivals. There were no independent studios for small filmmakers. Now, there are a litany of small film studios, making adventurous and great films. But if all your film knowledge comes from what is advertised on television and the papers, the coming attractions, who makes the talk show rounds, and what is on Entertainment Tonight, then you are likely to think that ALL films are made to sell popcorn. Just as there are many who think that there is no music to be found unless it is played on the radio and M.T.V., and is made by Britney Spears.
Personally, IMHO anyone who thinks PULP FICTION is one of the better films of the past twenty years needs to get a cinema education. If I had the power I wouldn't ever let him do another film. I haven't found anything worth going to see in years. I can't find anything on television to watch. The great cinastes are all dead with the exception of Milos Foreman and Terry Gilliam and the director is now nothing more than an employee.
Well, what I actually wrote was that Pulp Fiction has been the most influential film (regardless of taste) of the last twenty years. Anyone who would dispute that statement needs to see more films.Whether it is a good, very good, or great film, is left to taste. But according to Rottentomatoes.com, 94% of the critics favorably reviewd the film. And such excellent reviewers as Roger Ebert and Janet Maslin of the New York Times gave it superior reviews. I'll accept their cinema credentials, thank you. And with respect to Gilliam, please see "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" for an example of a jumbled mess (though I admit I did not watch the film while on L.S.D.)
Critics are paracites. They have gotten so many films wrong. There simply are too many bean counters and MBAs in charge of the film industry to ever produce anything serious. Too much marketing research and consultants dictating what sells. If one film is successful then "you can't argue with success" mentalities take over and off we go on a genre tyrade which floods the market with more of the same. I was once serious about film in my youth. Basically films are made for the young. David Lean and Stanley Jubrick were my idols and I think no one today even comes close. Critics were only marginal to both of them. Kubrick was exiled by Hollywood and Lean was played as a director too difficult to work with. The two greatest directors of the last 20 years were treated as almost untouchables by the industry. The industry doesn't want directors in control. They want a sellable commodity and they only care about the bottom line. Ray Hughes
You complain about critics, then go off on a tirade against Hollywood. Critics are parasites? That is a conclusion devoid of any analysis. How are they parasites? Specifically, which critics are parasites? Are ALL critics parasites? Or only those with whom you disagree (which seem to be numerous)? And who says that they have gotten so many films wrong? You? Specifically, which films did they get wrong?No serious films? Have you seen "The Fast Runner", filmed entirely in the Artic, entirely with native peoples? Have you seen "Rabbit Proof Fence" about three grade school age girls victims of the Australian program of taking aborigines from their families to train them to be domestics which continued until 1967, who trekked more than 1000 miles across Australia to be back with their family (and the actual persons shown at the end of the film)? Have you seen the documentary "Hoop Dreams" about the lives of inner city children who are gifted in basketball, and the coaches who coach them, and the recruiters who recruit them? You admit that you have stopped watching films, then proceed to disparage films that you admit you do not see.
I never saw Stanley Kubrick as a victim. I suspect that he did not see himself that way. He made the movies that he wanted to make, the way he wanted to make them, and most critics actually have praised his work. And the fact is that today's film scene is much more generous to independent film makers than Hollywood was in it's glory day because there are many more outlets for film makers to get films made. So I fail to see your point that critics are parasites because they failed to support Kubrick. And directors who are difficult to work with may have difficulty finding work for a variety of reasons. Such as actors refusing to work with them. Other crew members refusing to work with them. Again, if a director is a problem, and Hollywood refuses to hire them, I fail to see how that is it the fault of critics.
Your statement that critics blasted Kubrick is simply incorrect. From Rottentomates, the only site that I am aware which groups critics opinions: Eyes Wide Shut (80%), Full Metal Jacket (97%), The Shining (93%), Barry Lyndon (95%), Clockwork Orange (100%), 2001 (94%), Dr. Strangelove (100%), Lolita (100%), Spartacus (95%), Path of Glory (89%), The Killing (92%), Killer's Kiss (80%). So, specifically who were the mass of critics who were unkind to Kubrick?
You are also incorrect with respect to David Lean: A Passage to India (80%), Dr. Zhivago (94%), Lawrence of of Arabia (97%), Bridge on the River Kwai (100%), Oliver Twist (100%), Brief Encounter (100%), Great Expectations (100%).
I go to movies to be uplifted, to be tranformed, and yes reborn again in a different place and time RICH in culture, music, art. I believe that by and large the movie producers are in a stagnant period where the mediocre is heralded as good. I don't believe in rewarding mediocrity. Most of the film producers today have no more artistic sensibility than a dung beatle. They are in the entertainment industry on the same par with professional wrestling and pornography and organized crime. The movie industry is virtually a closed fraternity and they want to keep it that way. Critics are paracitic in nature. They feed off the creative work of others and their mouthing off can make or break a film. Most are "ELSWORTH TOOHEYS" a character from Ayn Rand's novel, THE FOUNTAINHEAD. Pauline Kael would have served humanity more if she had sold shoes at Sears. She virtually ruined Lean's film RYAN'S DAUGHTER, a fine film and one of my favorites. Kubrick fell from grace after A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and as far as I'M concerned only made boring films thereafter. There is little sardonic wit and comedy after CLOCKWORK. BARRY LYNDON is nothing but Marissa Barenson staring off into space and taking great sighs although very well dressed and amid antiquity. The most beautiful thing in the film is the wallpaper on the walls. The heart attack scene is one of the best dying scenes I've ever seen. Cordially Ray Hughes
that the Hollywood and indies together put out maybe 10 truly great films each year.
.
I do not know what a "truly great film" is. Certainly, "Wizard of Oz", "Citizen Kane", and "Casablanca" would qualify. But that was not the point of this post. It was that there are fewer good films are being made today than in past years. Those "great" films of yesteryear were the exception, not the rule. Hollywood did not make that many great films in the thirties, forties, and fifties. So, if the film industry is not making that many great films today, and they did not make that many "truly great" films in the thirties, forties, and fifties, then there has been no change. Which was my original point.But let's take it a step further. I looked up films made in 2002, a year I picked because I saw most of the films released that year (I am still working on 2003). Among the very good/great films in 2002, in rough alphabetical order: Adaptation (which nobody saw), Black Hawk Down, Gosford Park, Harry Potter, Lovely and Amazing (which anyone who does not watch foreign films, albeit British, missed), Monster's Ball (with Halley Berry's superlative performance), Moonlight Mile, Signs, The Fast Runner (in the Inuktilut language of the Artic, filmed on location in the Artic. The scene of the Eskimo running naked, through the ice and snow, falling in freezing water, is alone worth watching the film. And something that Hollywood would never have attempted forty years ago), The Grey Zone, The Man from Elysian Fields (with an incredible performance from Mick Jagger), Antwone Fisher (with the most emotional reunion scene I have ever seen in film), About Schmidt, Chicago, Insomia/One Hour Photo (which proves that Robin Williams is a very good dramatic actor), Rabbit Proof Fence (another story that Hollywood would never have attempted forty years ago), and Read My Lips (a very good foreign thriller, which again, went unnoticed by anyone unwilling to make any effort).
The point is that there are very good and great films made every year. Some are hard to find, but are worth seeking out - if you love film. Now try to name as many very good/great films from 1939, 1947, 1948, etc. Maybe tougher than you think.
Gosford Park (unintelligible dialog), Harry Potter (shiny crapola), Monster's Ball (Halle the only highlight), Chicago (cut! cut! cut!), Rabbit Proof Fence (pack o' lies)... Don't know what this says about your thesis...clark
.......either in the movie theater or when I watched the DVD at my house.
...there was a lot of complaining in the press as well, not to mention a short line of folks where I was, talking to the manager about the sound.Altman, like Fellini, is widely known not to care very much about sound.
clark
(1) What about the others I mentioned?
(2) The original point was the the film industry released so many better films back in it's heyday, and all the great films have disappeared. So, to prove the original "thesis", pick any year before, let's say, 1955 (1939 would be too easy), and give me ten very good or great films made in any given year, as I requested.
(3) How was Rabbit Proof Fence a pack of lies? After all, there are many who say that there was no extermination of Jews. I would like to know whether it is a pack of lies merely because it does not fall into your world view.
(4) Gosford Park - I understood it just fine.
1) What about the others I mentioned?They were either OK or I missed them, obviously.
(2) The original point was the the film industry released so many better films back in it's heyday, and all the great films have disappeared. So, to prove the original "thesis", pick any year before, let's say, 1955 (1939 would be too easy), and give me ten very good or great films made in any given year, as I requested.
Time does not permit...
(3) How was Rabbit Proof Fence a pack of lies? After all, there are many who say that there was no extermination of Jews. I would like to know whether it is a pack of lies merely because it does not fall into your world view.
You needn't be rude about it. Do a search here, you'd come up with
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=films&n=15820&highlight=rabbit+proof+fence+clarkjohnsen&r=&session=
Rabbit-Proof Fence:
a “true story”?
by Keith Windschuttle(4) Gosford Park - I understood it just fine.
Bully for you. See reply above.
clark
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 ]
