 
|
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 |
4.235.207.38
In Reply to: Duncan's meditation on Scorsese and Eastwood posted by clarkjohnsen on March 14, 2005 at 15:34:55:
shows what a poor writer truly he is.
Can't say I agree with his opinions, either. "Mystic River..." one of the best nominated films of the past 77-years!!!?
If Duncan can't see the commercialization and cliché in MDB, he has problems far beyond his writing---and that ain't good for a self-styled critic of any medium.
MDB and Mystic River are good, perhaps VERY good entertainment, but neither rises to Unforgiven's heights, which is the pity. Why Morgan Freeman allowed himself to be cast as such a kowtowing loser is beyond me.
Follow Ups:
in my mind as being . . . not so baffling for the praise they've garnered (because it's totally predictable, really) as infuriating. They're pure middle-brow product, marketed to once-a-year museum-goers who, once a year, seek out whatever film the industry has annointed to be that one must-see, "challenging," "important," "academy award material," watercooler movie so they can rest assured that they've done their duty to remain with the times and "culturally literate."
MR has a compelling story line and fine acting, through probably 2/3rds of it. Then...the Sean Penn character goes over the top, and those two HORRIBLE "acting" brothers (the goons) actually get paragraphs of lines to speak! Bacon is competent but somehow he doesn't have the gravitas to stand up to Penn. Surprisingly, Roberts does the finest job of acting---too bad he directed.
The climactic scene in the bar was so overly long and so inexpertly directed and edited that all manner of menace was absent, likewise its coda in the river.
But PUHLEEEEZE don't equate it with The English Patient. I'm still waiting to hear what the hell the Indian fellow with the rock star hair had to do with anything (except provide beefcake, that is).
Fine acting doesn't change the fact that both films are melodramatic pabulum directed at people for whom that sort of ill-lit overseriousness is the uppermost limit of 'culture.'Mystic River doesn't really have a 'storyline'--just a bunch of people sitting around looking pensive and saying Grim Working Class Folk sorts of things--until the last twenty minutes of the movie, at which point it unspools possibly the cheapest plot 'twist' short of 'the butler did it.' No one in that movie at any point acts like anyone in any of those situations would actually act, and if you ever met anyone as brow-furrowedly over-sincere as any of those 'characters,' you'd laugh in their face. It's all cheap bait. And the last five minutes of the movie are completely surreal, what with the sudden epidemic of inhumanity among all the characters.
Just on the pomposity of the scores alone they deserve to be linked.
______________________________
Stranger than that, we're alive!Whatever you think it's more than that, more than that.
-Incredible String Band
What are you referring to when you say that Bacon did not have the gravitas to stand up to Penn? The end scene, when both of them are on the street watching the parade, Bacon knows that Penn is responsible for exacting his revenge. And knows that Penn was wrong, as does Penn, at that point. I suspect that Bacon does nothing because he realizes that (A) Penn was reacting out of anger for loosing his daughter, and not because he was a common thief, and therefore likely to do it again, (B) Because they are old friends, came from the same place, and Bacon happened to make a respectable life for himself, while Penn became a street thug, creating feelings of guilt, whether justified or not, and this was his payback, (C) arresting him would accomplish nothing, except take dad away from his family, knowing that Penn must live with what he did, and (D) Robbins had been tortured from his experience since he was a child, and maybe his torment was over. All, some, or none may apply. Take your pick. But I doubt Bacon's failure to act was because of a lack of gravitas.This is what I admire about Eastwood's recent work. He does not provide the answers, and does not provide the big payoff. Lesser directors would have had some climactic arrest of Penn, police lowering the boom, then the film ends. Some directors think that we need resolution. We need the arrest of the killer. That is justice. Neat and tidy. Eastwood realizes that tidiness does not always happen, and sometimes things just fade away, leaving more questions than answers. Maybe that is why, despite his box office cache, he is relegated to largely raising funds for his movies.
from reading the book and seeing the film a couple of times is that Bacon knows Penn killed Robbins but can't PROVE it, thus the symbolical pistol shot with his hand as if to say "I've got you and one day I'll prove it".
the Dirty series that he'd become the king of the anti-heroes, beginning with his portrayal in Unforgiven.
By "gravitas," I simply meant that Bacon doesn't project, himself not his character, the power to stand up to a Penn. He's a good actor to toy with Tom Cruise, but Penn's another level altogether.
adfgh
It must be terrible to be so sophisticated. Why go to a baseball game when you could go to the art museum? Cretins getting dirty, and all. Try to lighten up and have some fun, Francis.
Good question. You'd save money, be in an air conditioned building out of the way of obnoxious crowds high on vicarious thrills, see cool shit, learn something, and possibly even meet a cute girl.Or you can spend dozens of dollars pretending you have some investment in what a bunch of dolts in costume do on a field you can barely see, and then trudge out with the rest of the cattle feeling sticky and tired, potentially wandering into a riot with packs of drunk, ugly men fighting because their pet gang of criminally overpaid louts didn't win.
No question, really!
______________________________
Stranger than that, we're alive!Whatever you think it's more than that, more than that.
-Incredible String Band
Having been to both, I can say, unequivocally, that I would prefer the baseball game. And the drinks are a heck of a lot cheaper at a ballgame than those at the Met, though the view overlooking central park is better. Your description of a baseball game tells me that the only games you have been to are in New York City. Can't say I have had those experiences. On the other hand, there is very little socializing taking place at a musuem. Meet a cute girl? Sorry, I prefer women who do not dress in black at least one day a week, and can let their hair down and smile once in a while. Women at ballgames are MUCH better looking, and will do more than grace her presence at your local coffee emporium. Everyone looking so serious, so self important, trying to convince everyone that will look that they have culture. Nobody has any fun, with those stern demeanors. Life is too short.
Is there an Original Thought store nearby where you live? Perhaps you should stop by. I live in St. Louis, Missouri, wizard. My only baseball games have been Cardinals games.As for girls at art museums dressing in black, man, I'd take that over the tacky-ass turquoise jumpsuits, inflatable copper hair, and crap jewelry typical midwestern women sport.
But I'm guessing that's your cup of bland Lipton tea, in which case, more power to you...
______________________________
Stranger than that, we're alive!Whatever you think it's more than that, more than that.
-Incredible String Band
St. Louis fans really act that way? I have been to Shea, and seen their fans first hand. Sounded like them. Well, I thought St. Louis baseball fans were more civilized. Guess I was wrong. Thanks for clearing that up.
St. Louis fans apparently do have a reputation for being more civil than most. But baseball fans seem distinctly rowdier than fans of other sports, at least judging from the stories that make the news.I was responding more to the sense that you were citing 'New York City' as the default signifier for some sort of snooty East Coast attitude, which you've referred to elsewhere in the thread. My apologies. I'm just deeply tired of these culture war stereotypes. Sure, museum goers might tend to have a dour expression, but that could just be concentration, not self-seriousness. You're telling me you don't know sports fans who take themselves way too seriously?
Putting it into perspective, maybe it's just as much a cliche to characterize baseball fans as drunken louts (I expect there was some sarcasm to your take on museum-goers as well), but when was the last time you heard about a disagreement at an art museum boiling over into overturned cars and vandalism in the streets...? And, just to take issue with your specific example, Pollock is a much better artist when you just look at the paintings and don't take on the solemnity that the broad cliches present as appropriate to his work. You can't see the joy in those paintings? Try again. The problem is admittedly in the bullshit pseudo-intellectual aura that's been imported into the art. I guarantee you abstract paintings like Pollock's or Rothko's are a pure pleasure to look at if you don't go in like you're entering a church and you don't give creedence to the self-important academic nonsense (for the most part) that attaches itself to the work. Ever wonder what the 'meaning' of a baseball game is? No point in doing so with a Pollock painting. All you need to bring to it is a willingness to let yourself get carried away, just like any game...
Let's shake hands. I'll concede that a baseball game is a fine good time (it is), if you'll concede that not all art lovers are neurotic intellectuals who don't know how to smile...one small step towards peace in these United States...
______________________________
Stranger than that, we're alive!Whatever you think it's more than that, more than that.
-Incredible String Band
I'm not sure in what spirit you wrote this. But if these are assumptions about me, let me elaborate: the aformentioned movies were designed, not necessarily conspiratorilly, but I can imagine some wide-eyed discussions had by their producers, to draw the middle-brow movie goer who holds exactly the kind of dumb notions of sophistication characterized (or caricatured or on display) in your post above. They're for the cultural equivalent of Sunday Christians: they're people who periodically go through the motions as a matter of almost studied dilligence rather than out of genuine interest or desire. "There, I went to church: I am pious" ; "There, I went to this much-lauded movie; and agreeing that it is good, I have participated, self-affrimingly, in a cultural moment that I expect to be reaffirmed (I will tune in and watch with much anticipation) at the upcoming academy awards."I don't happen to like baseball, but I like basketball. Why go to a basketball game when you can go to a museum? Well, you could visit every major museum in New York City for the price of a nosebleader seat at the Garden. And the Knicks suck.
Allow me to pontificate: There are inevitably those film watchers who liken themselves "high-brow." I assume that you are that type of viewer based upon your use of the word "middle-brow", because it is not a complementary term, and I assume you do not put yourself among them. You know, the type that are too smart and intelligent, too experienced to enjoy those things enjoyed by the masses. The masses are too dumb, not smart enough to know what is good and not good, to know what is "art", and what is not "art." If the masses enjoy something, such as Mystic River, then it must not be good because, if they enjoy it, by definition, it is middle-brow. Never mind that it is one of the most celebrated films in the last five years or so, by both patrons and professional critics. It is middle brow precisely because it is enjoyed by so many people.The film industry did not annoint Mystic River anything. If you read anything about Clint Eastwood, you would know that with both Mystic River, and particularly Million Dollar Baby, he largely raised his own funding because the industry did not consider those films marketable. The industry showed no interest in those films. The interest in those films arose because of the many patrons that saw them. Notice how there was very little marketing of Million Dollar Baby. Particularly in comparison of other films, and particularly for an academy award winner.
Your post strikes me as arrogant and snobbish because you set yourself up as the arbiter of what is middle-brow entertainment, which, obviously, cannot be enjoyed by anyone who has developed tastes such as yourself. You know, those rubes who go to a museum once a year to make themselves feel edumacated, to feel like they belong with people like you, and can never appreciate those things reserved for the sophisticated people. Fools, thinking they are culturally literate. Of course, the culturally literate are the same goofballs who proclaimed Jackson Pollock a great artist. I saw his artwork first hand with I visited New York last spring, and no great artist is he.
This attitude seems to pervade the Northeast. I remember a couple of years ago when my brother in law gave me a Nascar video game. I asked him why he would think that I wanted the game. He replied that he thought everyone in the Midwest liked Nascar. Oh well, he spends a lot of time in museums.
Your comment about basketball is ironic, considering how many high brow types go to basketball games to be seen, trying to convince people they are hip. Damn slummers. Me, I would prefer to pay $5.00 for the cheap seats at a baseball game, drink a few suds, hang out with a few friends, rather than go to a museum every week, or however many times you think it is necessary to get into the club. You can go to the museum. I'll have more fun. Oh yea, Mystic River is a very good film, despite it's working class surroundings.
Perhaps, in response, you can specifically address what it is about Mystic River that you disliked, and what so many intelligent people have missed rather than spew forth name calling and insults to the people who actually enjoyed the film. Or is that the style of your ilk.
Allow me to pontificate: There are inevitably those film watchers who liken themselves "high-brow." I assume that you are that type of viewer based upon your use of the word "middle-brow", because it is not a complementary term, and I assume you do not put yourself among them.I don't consider myself high-brow; what I identified as middle-brow were films with a set of cynical features designed, or whose unwitting function is, to appeal to the insecurities, aspirations, and sense of cultural obligations certain people have regarding art.
You know, the type that are too smart and intelligent, too experienced to enjoy those things enjoyed by the masses.
You're being ironic or anti-intellectual (an unintended irony in your intellectual stance here) or both, since otherwise being smart ( and intelligent!) wouldn't be taken as some kind of handicap; and in generalizing that such a person can't enjoy anything enjoyed by the masses you are as snide as you presume your strawman to be.
The masses are too dumb, not smart enough to know what is good and not good, to know what is "art", and what is not "art."
Maybe they are. So what?
If the masses enjoy something, such as Mystic River, then it must not be good because, if they enjoy it, by definition, it is middle-brow.
It follows that something must be bad if the masses like it no more than that the masses must like something if it is bad. "Middle" and "low" brow are not intrinsically bad; nor is so-called "high" brow intrinsically good--I'm not even comfortable with these terms in the present context because I think something becomes low, middle, or high brow as a result of cynical, almost extra-artistic intentions or effects. Art succeeds according to its own terms; it can also fail on its own terms and earn meretritious praise from those predisposed to like it if its primary function is to employ a set of features to flatter or affirm its target audience. This is when something becomes low or middle or high brow. You might have on occassion written a film off as pretentious high-brow trash, because you think it's playing to the egos of its intended audience. I think that's what Mystic River and The English Patient do.
Never mind that it is one of the most celebrated films in the last five years or so, by both patrons and professional critics.
You could say the same of The English Patient and Forest Gump. Care to defend those? So what? A million people can't be wrong, I guess, and on that note you need no specific argument in favor of the film because you have the weight of popular acclaim to decide the case for you. Indeed, why even engage me here? "It is one of the most celebrated films in the last five years or so, by both patrons and professional critics!" Nuff said. I'm a high-brow elitists because I didn't like it, because I thought its patent shortcomings were exactly those things that played to its fans and earned their acclaim; worse, I'm not a professional critic (you seem not be against so-called arbiters of taste--but they must be professionals!)--or have those professional critics who didn't like the film, who think Eastwood is a wildly overrated director (David Edelstein comes to mind), disqualified themselves for agreeing with me and disagreeing with you.
It is middle brow precisely because it is enjoyed by so many people.
It would have been middle brow if it had flopped because of who it targets and, more importantly, how it targets them.
The film industry did not annoint Mystic River anything. If you read anything about Clint Eastwood, you would know that with both Mystic River, and particularly Million Dollar Baby, he largely raised his own funding because the industry did not consider those films marketable. The industry showed no interest in those films. The interest in those films arose because of the many patrons that saw them. Notice how there was very little marketing of Million Dollar Baby. Particularly in comparison of other films, and particularly for an academy award winner.
Well that's interesting to know. How consistent in style is Million Dollar Baby compared with Mystic River? Maybe that's not even an issue. I'm not quite sure what Eastwood's style is: I thought Bird and Unforgiven were pretty good. Whatever the case, maybe the industry will have hipped themselves to the Eastwood magic by now. Between Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby, he's got some cache now. I doubt he'll meet the same resistence to his next film. I wonder how differently a film like Bird would be received were it not made when it was but fell next in Eastwoods canon instead.
Your post strikes me as arrogant and snobbish because you set yourself up as the arbiter of what is middle-brow entertainment, which, obviously, cannot be enjoyed by anyone who has developed tastes such as yourself.
As I've defined it above, indeed I don't think anyone with developed taste can enjoy such entertainment.
You know, those rubes who go to a museum once a year to make themselves feel edumacated, to feel like they belong with people like you, and can never appreciate those things reserved for the sophisticated people.
It's the desire, the sense of social obligation, of people to make themselves feel educated in place of the desire to be educated or always learning that bothers me. And it's "art" that makes people feel educated that bugs me more for encouraging what I deplore.
Fools, thinking they are culturally literate.
And?
Of course, the culturally literate are the same goofballs who proclaimed Jackson Pollock a great artist. I saw his artwork first hand with I visited New York last spring, and no great artist is he.
Yeah, dude. I bet you could have done his shit with, like, your eyes closed when you were in diapers.
Elitism sucks unless it's your own. Now who's the arbiter of taste?
This attitude seems to pervade the Northeast. I remember a couple of years ago when my brother in law gave me a Nascar video game. I asked him why he would think that I wanted the game. He replied that he thought everyone in the Midwest liked Nascar. Oh well, he spends a lot of time in museums.
I don't know, after that Pollock comment, I might have considered buying you that game, then thought better so's not to encourage you.
Your comment about basketball is ironic, considering how many high brow types go to basketball games to be seen, trying to convince people they are hip. Damn slummers.
There's truth here--basketball is all the more ironic for being as expensive as it is to attend while also appealing so strongly to poor black urban youth. Baseball is more solidly populist; basketball tries to get it both ways by being glamorous and elite and gheto at once.
Me, I would prefer to pay $5.00 for the cheap seats at a baseball game, drink a few suds, hang out with a few friends, rather than go to a museum every week, or however many times you think it is necessary to get into the club.
The club? If you have to ask you can't join. . . .
You can go to the museum. I'll have more fun. Oh yea, Mystic River is a very good film, despite it's working class surroundings.
Perhaps, in response, you can specifically address what it is about Mystic River that you disliked, and what so many intelligent people have missed rather than spew forth name calling and insults to the people who actually enjoyed the film. Or is that the style of your ilk.
As for a specific argument against the film, I'll have to admit, it's not so fresh now. Maybe later. You might do a search in this forum and look at the arguments there. But in response to your "despite its working class surroundings" jab: are you actually working class? Do you know anyone who might be so classed? Because Mystic River was anything but: its depiction of working class life, its dialogue, its presentation of values, was so this-is-what- they're -like. That's partly what's so middle-brow about it: it convinces the suburban middle class that they've somehow been offered a window into this rough, streetwise world. It's hollow melodramtic bullshit.
"I don't consider myself high-brow; what I identified as middle-brow were films with a set of cynical features designed, or whose unwitting function is, to appeal to the insecurities, aspirations, and sense of cultural obligations certain people have regarding art."Well, that is a conclusion. The meat on the plate is providing specific examples in the film that demonstrate your argument. That is called analysis. You appear to regard films as something more than what they are, and at the end of the day, they are really entertainment. A method for the storyteller to tell a story. Two hundred years ago, the same thing was accomplished exclusively by books, music, or stories passed from generation to generation. If you learn something, that is a bonus. And anyone who watches a movie to learn about life, art, or anything else, needs to get out of the house. Your arrogance is in assuming that people who watch the film are doing so to learn. If you left your ivory tower, you would find that not to be the case.
What insecurities are you referring to? Aspirations? Cultural obligations? Films are designed to entertain. Some people, present company included, feel some need to seek more than entertainment in the films they watch. They seem to feel that if the film does nothing more than entertain, then it lacking in some way. This is arrogance because you define the intrinsic value of something according to your own value system, and insult those who enjoy a film for it's simple entertainment or story telling. 'This film is designed for you dolts to feel like to are actually attuned to the artistic world of me and my class.' Well, no, a, well, we just thought it was good entertainment, not a mechanism to change the world, or to feel smart, or "artsy." Or to be educated.
"You're being ironic or anti-intellectual (an unintended irony in your intellectual stance here) or both, since otherwise being smart (and intelligent!) wouldn't be taken as some kind of handicap; and in generalizing that such a person can't enjoy anything enjoyed by the masses you are as snide as you presume your strawman to be."
You miss my point. It is not to insult intelligent people. Or smart people. I never wrote that those things were a handicap. Well, not always. And cetainly, smart and intelligent people can enjoy things that the masses enjoy. My point was that there are a group of people that think because they are smart and intelligent, they cannot enjoy what the masses enjoy, because if the masses enjoy something, and they are not as smart, it must be without merit. Your original post, by implication, argues that you have "found" the insult which the film perpetrates against the viewers, leading them to believe that they are witnessing art. The real insult is that you believe that the common viewer not capable of that which you are capable. Perhaps the average viewer looks at Mystic River an entertainment, and not some form of high art. Perhaps the average viewer understands that that those are the terms under which the film was made. Is it barely possible that the average viewer understands the purpose of the film, and what it seeks to accomplish, whereas you, with your notion that films must be "art", have missed. Alas, your arrogance prevents you from entertaining that possibility.
Intelligence and being smart can be a handicap if you allow those things to cloud the view. Placing more significance in a film than is intended. I remember a music course in college when the instructor played a portion of a symphony (time does not permit me to remember the title), and analyzed it according to the "symetry", or some other nonsense. I am thinking, just listen to the freakin' beauty. He was so smart, he never listened to what the composer intended because he was too busy analysing.
"As I've defined it above, indeed I don't think anyone with developed taste can enjoy such entertainment."
Well, the first thing you have to do is define middle-brown entertainment. Which, if I understand your posts, Mystic River, in your opinion, qualifies, because it attempts to acheive some fraud on the filmgoer. You failed to see the purpose of the film, but rather judged it based upon your erroneous understanding. The purpose of the film is merely to entertain, and tell a story, nothing more, nothing less, then your definition is incorrect. And what is developed taste? Who defined that term? You? At least have the backbone to admit that you are arrogant and/or a snob.
"It's the desire, the sense of social obligation, of people to make themselves feel educated in place of the desire to be educated or always learning that bothers me. And it's "art" that makes people feel educated that bugs me more for encouraging what I deplore."
I know what you mean here, but am not sure how that applies to Mystic River. You seem to be of the opinion that being educated in the things that you think are important is of great importance. How does "art" make people feel educated. When Rembrandt was painting, who was he trying to educate? When Bach was composing, who was he trying to educate? When Shakespeare was writing, who was he trying to educate? Even with your blinders on, do you really think that Eastwood was trying to create some "art", similar to these gentlemen?
This notion that one must have some level of education to appreciate "art", and that "art" educates is, again, elitist pap. I have never heard an actual creator utter such statements. You know, the person who was actually involved in the creation, to which you fawn. It is always the patron, the person who sat on the sideline. Some patrons have some need to separate themselves from the herd. You do not have the education to appreciate our art. We define the value of your "art" by our education. And, as a bonus, we define your entertainment according to our notion of art.
"Yeah, dude. I bet you could have done his shit with, like, your eyes closed when you were in diapers.
Elitism sucks unless it's your own. Now who's the arbiter of taste?"
The last deperate attempt: rewrite what I actually wrote. I never wrote that Pollock was without talent. Or that I could have done his "shit" (I see your vocabulary is middle-brow) when I was in diapers. I believe he had talent. I think that lifetime minor league baseball players have talent. I could never play minor league baseball. But I do not try to convince myself, or others, that a lifetime minor league baseball player can play in the major leagues. Pollock started out as a traditional artist. What prices do those paintings command? How many of them are in museums? He had talent, but he was a minor league baseball player. The fact that he failed as a traditional painter is not my opinion. But fact.
"There's truth here--basketball is all the more ironic for being as expensive as it is to attend while also appealing so strongly to poor black urban youth. Baseball is more solidly populist; basketball tries to get it both ways by being glamorous and elite and gheto at once."
Your elitism is fully evident here. Basketball is popular in the inner city NOT because of the N.B.A. It is popular in the inner city because it requires no more equipment than a ball. And you can play it by yourself, with two people, three people, etc. Can't do that with baseball or football. But then, inner city youth are not educated to appreciate art, so why bother with them? Those dolts.
"The club? If you have to ask you can't join. . . ."
I never asked to join. But thanks, if I need to feel self-important, I know where to go.
"As for a specific argument against the film, I'll have to admit, it's not so fresh now. Maybe later."
Not a surprise. Much easier to state conclusions and generalize. Ask for particulars, well, I'll get back to you. MESSAGE: DO NOT LET FACTS GET IN THE WAY OF YOUR OPINION. The only thing that is important is if Eastwood is popular, well, then bash him.
"But in response to your "despite its working class surroundings" jab: are you actually working class? Do you know anyone who might be so classed?"
Well, I must admit that I am not working class. And the Federal Government, for what that is worth, would not consider me working class. My professional colleagues are not working class, but most, though not all, of my social contacts are.
"Because Mystic River was anything but: its depiction of working class life, its dialogue, its presentation of values, was so this-is-what-they're-like. That's partly what's so middle-brow about it: it convinces the suburban middle class that they've somehow been offered a window into this rough, streetwise world. It's hollow melodramtic bullshit."
Really? Please provide me your curriculum vitae of the streetwise world. You do not know why inner city kids play basketball, so I suspect that your streetwise credentials are probably lacking. Do you know if Eastwood visited the locations he filmed? Talked with people there? Studied anyone?
Presentation of values? Such as? Bacon has a daughter and estranged wife that he cares about. Penn loves his family, particularly his daughter, and works hard. Robbins was raped and has experienced torment since that day. Okay, which of those values is out of place in the "streetwise" world? Or are they only interested in fighting, drugs, promiscuous sex?
Your arrogance suggests to you, and in turn, to everyone else, that the purpose for the film was to provide a "window" into the streetwise world. That is not the purpose of the film. It is not a documentary. The film could just as easily taken place in silicon valley. The purpose of the film is to entertain. To tell a story. The backdrop is a working class neighborhood. That does not mean that Eastwood is trying to provide you a window into a working class neighborhood anymore than he was providing a window into the old west in Unforgiven, or he was providing a window into space in Space Cowboys. Instead of looking at a film for what you THINK it is trying to accomplish, take off the blinders to look to what it is really trying to accomplish.
Well, that is a conclusion. The meat on the plate is providing specific examples in the film that demonstrate your argument. That is called analysis.Well, no shit. Perhaps I'll netflix it and offer up some kind of dissertation sometime soon. Until then, search out past conversations had when the film was in theaters. I may be mistaking private e-mail discussions with this forum, I don't know. Rhizo has pretty well captured my response to the film, however.
You appear to regard films as something more than what they are, and at the end of the day, they are really entertainment.
What a cop out. You want me to provide examples, analysis, and then trot out this criticism-obviating cliche. All art, at the end of the day, is entertainment.
And anyone who watches a movie to learn about life, art, or anything else, needs to get out of the house.
If art is so bottomlessly frivolous to you, why dwell so much in the house of even step into a theater in the first place? Again, if all films for you are at bottom merely entertainment, what's the point of analysis or criticism, professional or otherwise? All we need to hear is the democratic voice of the people as expressed through ticket sales.
Your arrogance is in assuming that people who watch the film are doing so to learn. If you left your ivory tower, you would find that not to be the case.
No, I know that's not the case and I think it's unfortunate.
What insecurities are you referring to? Aspirations? Cultural obligations? Films are designed to entertain. Some people, present company included, feel some need to seek more than entertainment in the films they watch. They seem to feel that if the film does nothing more than entertain, then it lacking in some way. This is arrogance because you define the intrinsic value of something according to your own value system, and insult those who enjoy a film for it's simple entertainment or story telling. 'This film is designed for you dolts to feel like to are actually attuned to the artistic world of me and my class.' Well, no, a, well, we just thought it was good entertainment, not a mechanism to change the world, or to feel smart, or "artsy." Or to be educated.
And yet any critique you're going to find of this or any other film is going to be centered on it's success as entertainment and story telling. A mechanism to change the world? Why resort to hyperbole? Who expects that of any film. A mechanism to change an individual through profound if imperceptible ways? Sure. Arrogant to judge something according to my own value system? Maybe--to the extent that's unavoidable. After all, from what, if not from your own values, does your exception to my criticism proceed?
My point was that there are a group of people that think because they are smart and intelligent, they cannot enjoy what the masses enjoy, because if the masses enjoy something, and they are not as smart, it must be without merit.
Likewise, there are people who believe that what "smart" and "intelligent" people enjoy cannot be enjoyed by them. Both kinds of people are depriving themselves of the broadest range of possible artistic experience.
Your original post, by implication, argues that you have "found" the insult which the film perpetrates against the viewers, leading them to believe that they are witnessing art.
And, short of a scene-by-scene analysis, I think Rhizo's general remarks will suffice to this great "discovery," which took little effort to find, being the big circus elephant in the room that it is.
The real insult is that you believe that the common viewer not capable of that which you are capable.
I don't believe that at all. I believe them exactly as capable; there would be no justification for being so exacting otherwise.
Perhaps the average viewer looks at Mystic River an entertainment, and not some form of high art.
What is this "high art" you're referring to? What is its function? What are its conventions? How is it subject to standards of, say, story-telling, characterization, logical consistency, any differently than, what?, the somewhere-below-high-art of Mystic River? Low art, high art; low, middle, and high-brow: I'll have to give this more thought, but I think these are categories in which a work situates itself only by virtue of a cynical appeal to a particular audience: it's a function of a work's concern for its marketing over the concerns most proper to it as art--story-telling, characterization, logical consistency, yes, entertainment.
Intelligence and being smart can be a handicap if you allow those things to cloud the view.
How can such things cloed one's view?
Placing more significance in a film than is intended.
Except that Mystic River intends a degree of significance it just doesn't bear. That part of the point.
I remember a music course in college when the instructor played a portion of a symphony (time does not permit me to remember the title), and analyzed it according to the "symetry", or some other nonsense. I am thinking, just listen to the freakin' beauty. He was so smart, he never listened to what the composer intended because he was too busy analysing.
Good God, man. You think this instructor hadn't devoted a good piece of his life to that recording? You think his analysis of symetry wasn't something arrived at after a long and deep acquaintance with this piece of music and that it wasn't motivated by his initial apprehension of its beauty? When, after respond negatively or positively to a work of art, we ask why and turn to the work to find out how it achieves of fails at bringing off its effects, that is criticism. It's not stolid academization--it can be in isolation, if studied only as the mechanics behind the effects instead of in conjunction with them--it's enriching. Poetry for example--or, better, verse. Learn a thing or two about meter and form and you haven't reduced poetry to mere mechanics, you've become more acquainted with its language and with half the field (formerly concealed to those not hipped to it) on which the poet works his art.
Well, the first thing you have to do is define middle-brown entertainment. Which, if I understand your posts, Mystic River, in your opinion, qualifies, because it attempts to acheive some fraud on the filmgoer. You failed to see the purpose of the film, but rather judged it based upon your erroneous understanding. The purpose of the film is merely to entertain, and tell a story, nothing more, nothing less, then your definition is incorrect.
Whatever I may have failed in, you've not pointed it out here. The film does perpetrate of fraud on its audience, and it does so exactly through those things it employs to entertain its audience.
And what is developed taste? Who defined that term? You? At least have the backbone to admit that you are arrogant and/or a snob.
Why should I admit to such a thing? Why can't there be developed taste or knowledge vis-a-vis art as this is in any other profession? There are limits to subjectivity. That we've having this conversation in which we fully expect to be understood (nevermind that we both probably feel ourselves to be talking past each other) demonstrates that to an extent. Someone watched and liked Mystic River: theirs is a valid to response to the film as they perceived it. I'd argue, though, that they've missed a thing or two, and if they weren't so on the defensive against someone for presuming to know more than they--and here anti-intellectualism exposes itself as fundamentally defensive in nature--they might learn a thing or two. (Admittedly, strong negative responses to things we like tend to do that to all of us, though--passions run high, don't they?) But whether a convincing analysis could be produced or not often matters little, since, if such an analysis is even asked for, it's likely done perfunctorily with little expectation that it could possibly be convincing. "Yeah, whatever, I know what I know."
I know what you mean here, but am not sure how that applies to Mystic River. You seem to be of the opinion that being educated in the things that you think are important is of great importance. How does "art" make people feel educated. When Rembrandt was painting, who was he trying to educate? When Bach was composing, who was he trying to educate? When Shakespeare was writing, who was he trying to educate? Even with your blinders on, do you really think that Eastwood was trying to create some "art", similar to these gentlemen?
You're using "educate" in a parochial sense I neither expect nor want of art. And, yes, I think Eastwood was trying to make something profound and enduring. I think he failed. Why wouldn't I be miffed at and baffled by its success?
This notion that one must have some level of education to appreciate "art", and that "art" educates is, again, elitist pap.
I agree to an extent. On the other side, your statement is populist, complacent, anti-intellectual pap.
I have never heard an actual creator utter such statements. You know, the person who was actually involved in the creation, to which you fawn. It is always the patron, the person who sat on the sideline. Some patrons have some need to separate themselves from the herd. You do not have the education to appreciate our art. We define the value of your "art" by our education. And, as a bonus, we define your entertainment according to our notion of art.
You're talking to a strawman again.
The last deperate attempt: rewrite what I actually wrote. I never wrote that Pollock was without talent. Or that I could have done his "shit" (I see your vocabulary is middle-brow) when I was in diapers. I believe he had talent. I think that lifetime minor league baseball players have talent. I could never play minor league baseball. But I do not try to convince myself, or others, that a lifetime minor league baseball player can play in the major leagues. Pollock started out as a traditional artist. What prices do those paintings command? How many of them are in museums? He had talent, but he was a minor league baseball player. The fact that he failed as a traditional painter is not my opinion. But fact.
Really? A fact?
Your elitism is fully evident here. Basketball is popular in the inner city NOT because of the N.B.A. It is popular in the inner city because it requires no more equipment than a ball. And you can play it by yourself, with two people, three people, etc. Can't do that with baseball or football. But then, inner city youth are not educated to appreciate art, so why bother with them? Those dolts.
Please, dude. Innercity, high-school, and college basketball, beyond the intinsic interest in the sport (it's really fun) and the fact that the little space and equipment it requires makes it much more accessible than other sports, are driven by the NBA Dream. Don't be naive.
Education and intelligence are two different things in my mind. If inercity kids aren't educated in art, that's a tragedy. That doesn't make them dolts.
Not a surprise. Much easier to state conclusions and generalize. Ask for particulars, well, I'll get back to you. MESSAGE: DO NOT LET FACTS GET IN THE WAY OF YOUR OPINION. The only thing that is important is if Eastwood is popular, well, then bash him.
How lame. When was the film in theaters? Obviously I didn't love it so much I bought the DVD for repeated viewing. Take it easy, dude. You've got the masses behind you. And you're not interested in particulars anyway, as you've demonstrated they can't possibly make any difference.
Really? Please provide me your curriculum vitae of the streetwise world. You do not know why inner city kids play basketball, so I suspect that your streetwise credentials are probably lacking. Do you know if Eastwood visited the locations he filmed? Talked with people there? Studied anyone?
C'mon, dawg, I got tons of street cred. Just ask. . . . I see, Eastwood interviewed a bunch of walking cliches and put their likeness up on the screen?
Presentation of values? Such as? Bacon has a daughter and estranged wife that he cares about.
Yeah, I remember the lips.
Penn loves his family, particularly his daughter, and works hard.
The daughter who was easily mistaken as a love-interest when she was introduced and who put on the laughable teens-gone-wild routine at the bar before she was killed.
Robbins was raped and has experienced torment since that day.
Contrary to much of the criticism of the film, I think Robbins put in perhaps the best performance.
Okay, which of those values is out of place in the "streetwise" world? Or are they only interested in fighting, drugs, promiscuous sex?
You're so bent on seeing me as some kind of prude. Hilarious.
The film could just as easily taken place in silicon valley.
And with its red-herring sexual abuse backdrop, general humorlessness, flat and overwraught dialogue, and BIG, BIG ACTING, it may well have come off as all the more absurd.
The purpose of the film is to entertain. To tell a story. The backdrop is a working class neighborhood. That does not mean that Eastwood is trying to provide you a window into a working class neighborhood anymore than he was providing a window into the old west in Unforgiven, or he was providing a window into space in Space Cowboys. Instead of looking at a film for what you THINK it is trying to accomplish, take off the blinders to look to what it is really trying to accomplish.
Well, obviously it failed to entertain me. I think it failed to tell its story. The backdrop was wholly unconvincing, and if it's true he wasn't trying to provide me this window, that might explain the failure. No, the stage isn't the point of his films and shouldn't be in any film: but the stage is essential, esp. when the film clearly pretends to a certain level of realism and human significance.
I've added Mystic River to my queue. I'll get back to you.
You're brimming with good points today!Here's the problems with Mystic River:
1. Every single aspect of it is strenuously overwrought.
2. Every single aspect of it is strenuously overwrought to achieve a cheap set of emotions.
You missed the point of the post, but whatever, why argue, you've tipped your hand as someone who has gleefully embraced the terms of the Mediocre Revolution which is sweeping America. Hey, you folks won, why bitch?
Populism is the dullest kind of elitism, not least for its obvliousness to its own prejudice. 'Mystic River' isn't middlebrow "becaue" the masses like it, it's middlebrow because it strives so hard to appear highbrow--it hits you over the head at pretty much every single edit with how SERIOUS it is. It's sooooooo serious. Have you not noticed how serious what's going on is? Here, let me BLUDGEON YOU TO DEATH with history's most egregious film score. Still not convinced of how Transformatively Serious what is going on is? Will a Sweeping Crane Shot convince you? Can't you see how grim everyone is? What is your problem, man, this is like WAY serious...maybe a few overlong monologues will do the trick? You did get that, like, child sexual abuse is behind all of this, right? That's some serious stuff. Except, WHOAH!, it isn't behind it, because check out this totally-unforeseen set of plot twists! Isn't that seriously tragic, what just happened?
No, it's a great film, you're right. How can anything so incredibly--and I do mean incredibly --serious not be high art?
Me, I would prefer to pay $5.00, sips some suds, and watch some Bunuel, rather than have some mutli-multi-millionaire shake his well-endowed finger at me for 2 1/2 hours. You can go see Clint Eastwood's latest harangue. I'll have more fun.
______________________________
Stranger than that, we're alive!Whatever you think it's more than that, more than that.
-Incredible String Band
"No, it's a great film, you're right. How can anything so incredibly--and I do mean incredibly--serious not be high art."Please, direct me to where I wrote that Mystic River is high art. Or that I thought it attempted to be so. The arguments against it go as follows: It attempts to be high art, but it is not high art, and is therefore middle-brow.
The fatal flaw in this logic is the belief that it attempts to be high art. Has Eastwood ever said that? Anyone associated with the film? I suspect that Eastwood would simply say that he attempted to entertain the viewer, and tell a good story. But high art? YOU said that he attempted high art. Well, it seems to me the only sources for such a statement would be either Eastwood himself, or something within the film. Please direct me to something in the film which supports your thesis. Being "serious" does not equate to an attempt to be high art. Many films are serious, but have no pretentions to be high art.
d
I don't know what the fixation on the truth-value of the word 'high' is here. All that means to me is that it achieves an exceptional standard of quality relative to other works, such that it may be called exemplary--or 'high.' Isn't that the argument being made here, that Mystic River so excels?So what's the problem? I don't think Mystic River is exceptional. I think it pretends to be the sort of movie that should be exceptional by dressing itself in all manner of affected gravitas. What is not to understand about that? Why are you both hung up on this term in exclusion to the rest of the argument?
______________________________
Stranger than that, we're alive!Whatever you think it's more than that, more than that.
-Incredible String Band
...(essentially) -- SO BLAME THE BOOK! Or Dennis Lehane. Why Eastwood?clark
Because I picked it up and flipped through it and I must say, the movie is a definite improvement on the book. Maybe the overall story is compelling, but the guy cannot write a decent sentence to save his life...and I'm not asking for Chandler here, just something that gets above a fourth grade composition assignment.I guess I'm 'blaming' Eastwood because the movie feels so self-indulgently ponderous. I think it probably could have been a much better movie, actually, with the exact same cast even, if it hadn't been for the leaden hand of its director, who, like I've said, seemed to be very concerned that the weightiness of the situation might escape us...
______________________________
Stranger than that, we're alive!Whatever you think it's more than that, more than that.
-Incredible String Band
Who said that, anyway? Kubrick? Was he dissing on Stephen King and Thackeray?
the arguments against it go as follows: it makes an implicit claim on being 'profound.' The critics almost universally treated it as some grand statement on the meaning of violence, and made these ridiculous claims that Eastwood was "confronting his past" and suchlike. But it is overbearing, and being overbearing scuttles efforts at profundity. Your argument was against the idea of 'highbrow' elitism. I don't like the term 'highbrow,' but I think a fair amount of objects that fall under that banner are wonderful fun. And that's my point, that these arguments against 'highbrow' culture presume that critics of low- or middle-brow culture aren't satisfied because the products referred to basically aren't depressing enough. 'Highbrow' culture is used as a synonym for an overseriousness. And Eastwood's film, in my opinion, makes a claim on being deeper than it actually is--and was treated as such by the critics--just because it is crushingly serious everywhere and at every level. Like 'The House of Sand and Fog,' which is probably a better example of what I'm talking about, being the only movie I've ever seen in which there is literally not a single moment of levity.My impression was that you were turning your nose up at the supposed 'elitism' of 'highbrow' culture because its products supposedly eschew basic values of entertainment. And maybe you just thought Mystic River was wonderfully entertaining, but its treatment in the media has been to canonize it as a Major Statement. Whereas I think plenty of 'highbrow' art--Ulysses, Bunuel's films, too many painters and sculptors to mention--are joyously entertaining, as well as being genuinely profound. Eastwood seems to think that in order to make a serious work of art you have to make a serious work of art. And the function of his films in popular culture is to serve as a reference to hold against other supposedly 'highbrow' pieces of art, as has been done in this thread, as a way in which something can be 'crowdpleasing' and still profound. And I don't think it's either. And I do think it's possible to do both, but most people have subscribed to a sort of reverse elitism where they dismiss 'highbrow' art as being on principle overly self-important and dour.
Dig?
______________________________
Stranger than that, we're alive!Whatever you think it's more than that, more than that.
-Incredible String Band
Well, no. I think the problem here is that you criticize Eastwood for what others have written. "The critics almost universally treated it as some grand statement on the meaning of violence, and made these ridiculous claims that Eastwood was "confronting his past" and suchlike." The few professional reviews I have read did not include these statements. I am not sure where they came from. They certainly did not come from Eastwood.Your next statement relative to Eastwood and the film is "And Eastwood's film, in my opinion, makes a claim on being deeper than it actually is--and was treated as such by the critics--just because it is crushingly serious everywhere and at every level." The problem, of course, is that the unnamed critics were the source of this "grand statement", which you then attributed to Eastwood's intentions. Eastwood made no such statements. The film makes a claim is the same thing as saying Eastwood makes a claim, as it is his film, and the film is his means of expression. But, where is evidence that he made such a claim? And where is the evidence that any artists makes such a claim?
You then write "but its treatment in the media has been to canonize it as a Major Statement." Maybe, but unless Eastwood controls the media, it is again unfair to attribute such thoughts to Eastwood.
You further write "Eastwood seems to think that in order to make a serious work of art you have to make a serious work of art. And the function of his films in popular culture is to serve as a reference to hold against other supposedly 'highbrow' pieces of art..." Really? You know what he thinks? I don't. Maybe he does think this. But it is not fair to assume he does, then pass off your assumption as fact.
You conclude with "And the function of his films in popular culture is to serve as a reference to hold against other supposedly 'highbrow' pieces of art..." Who said that was his function? You? I have never heard him say such a thing. I have never read any critic saying such a thing. Again, it is not fair to attribute intentions to Eastwood, or anyone else, and then criticize their work based on those assumptions. Which is precisely what is taking place here.
The analysis goes something like this: Mystic River is so serious. Because it is serious, it intends to be high art, and to convince it's audience that it is high art. Because it is not high art, it therefore perpetrates a fraud on it's audience. It is therefore middle-brow.
The problem with this analysis is that something can be serious because of the subject matter without aspirations of being anything more than about the subject matter, telling a story, or entertaining. Mystic River is about a murder, and the chain of events that are set in motion by that murder. That is serious. It is not funny material. Would you expect a few jokes to lighten up the material? Some levity? But because it is about a serious subject matter, that does not mean that Eastwood intended anything more than to tell a story. You may not enjoy the subject matter, but that does not mean you should ascribe more to it than it asks. You conclude that it is middle-brow because of some intentions unstated by anyone associated with the film. You think that is fair? Well, is it okay for reporters to misquote in order to get the "feeling" of the piece?
"...but most people have subscribed to a sort of reverse elitism where they dismiss 'highbrow' art as being on principle overly self-important and dour." I do not know "most people." As I wrote in another portion of this thread, most of my social contacts are among "working class" folks. I have never heard this as a topic of conversation. I think where "most people" might take offense is when patrons of what you refer to as highbrow art denigrate a form of entertainment enjoyed by those people which aspires, but falls short, of highbrow's ideal.
When I watched Mystic River, I did not think about the artwork I saw at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. I never asked myself how I would compare that film to those pieces. I never compared it to any other film, from any other director. I suspect that if you asked Eastwood, he would probably tell you that he would never compare any of his works to that of any other artist, entertainer, etc. Look at it on it's own merit. The problem is that you do not criticize the film. Rather, you criticize what you assume the film hopes to acheive, and then state it fails. When I go to an art museum or look at the paintings in my house (for reference, I own three oil on boards, and twelve oil on canvas), I do not compare one to the another. I look at each painting as an individual piece, and value only the joy, entertainment, whatever you want to call it, that it gives me. I do not enjoy one any less or more because of how it compares to another painting. Likewise with music. Last night it was Tal Farlow, tonight probably Lee Ritenour. I like them both, and value each accordingly.
I think that this was the point I was making about Pollock. I probably could have better expressed my point. I'll try again. Many people consider Pollock high-art. But then, there are many people who may be fans of Renoir, Botticelli, etc. and say that if you compare Pollock to their works, he fails by comparison. Your analysis followed to it's conclusion would go something like this: Pollock attempted to make high-art, in comparison with his contemporaries. His work fails to accomplish that level of skill, education, etc., and therefore is perpetrating a fraud in the public, and therefore is middlebrow. Listen to many art experts. That is precisely what they day about Pollock. Just as some say about Eastwood. If someone says that Pollock is a genius, I say, that person is entitled to their opinion. Art is subjective. I would not suggest that Pollock perpetrated a fraud on anyone, or tried to convince anyone he was something he was not. That is an insult. But the sin here is that Eastwood's bashers do not stop there. They attribute some mens rea to him, claim some fraud. That is an insult to him, and his audience. I think it ironic that someone could be insulted by my suggestions of Pollock being less of an artist for the same reasons, then use the same arguments to bash Eastwood. I was not insulting Pollock. I baited the hook, as I knew what the response would be.
I suspect that we may enjoy these things we generically refer to as art more if we spent less time comparing this to that and instead valued these things on their own merit, and not ascribe any motives or intentions to the creators.
a
Regardless of what 'level' the work is at, I think it's the work itself that makes a claim on its status as art. All of the supplementary baggage plays a role, but the role the supplementary baggage plays devolves upon a consensual undertanding that the work itself makes some claim upon judgment. I don't doubt that you weren't sitting in your chair keeping a running tab on the relationship between Mystic River and other films or other works of art, but I don't believe that you're sitting there understanding that film, or anything else, as some sui generis experience that's incomparable to any other film or work of art. We understand things only through reference to other things, implicitly or explicitly. The very tone that Mystic River takes comes equipped with historical baggage. Film is as historically bound a medium as anything else, and there's certainly nothing in Mystic River that is genuinely original (in the sense of technique or plot development, characterization, etc.), as I think even its strongest defender would concede. So never mind Eastwood's 'motives' as something independent of the film. The film situates itself relative to other films via its aesthetic choices; those choices make some claim on a status relative to the cinematic tradition. Agreed?Maybe you're right and I'm wrong about its pretensions to high art, and maybe that's the wrong way to frame what I'm trying to say. My problem with the film is its overseriousness, on the one hand, and then an issue that may be extrinsic to the film itself: the idea that overseriousness is supposed to be the province of 'high art,' and that's what legitimates popular disdain of high art...
Er, I've gotta go to lunch but I'd be happy to continue this discussion, as I think it's interesting and you've made good points.
______________________________
Stranger than that, we're alive!Whatever you think it's more than that, more than that.
-Incredible String Band
"Regardless of what 'level' the work is at, I think it's the work itself that makes a claim on its status as art."I guess this is where we agree to disagree. I do not see any creative product, whether you call it art, entertainment, etc., in any media, that makes a "claim" for anything. I think the work is an extention of the creator of that work, particularly in a medium such as film. If Eastwood says that his work is designed to accomplish some ideal, then he should be judged accordingly. Unless he holds his work out as an example of something, then who are we to tell him that his work stands for some idea, theory, what have you, that he never intended, and we would judge his work according to whether his work accomplishes our idea of what he was trying to do. I suspect that in two hundred years we will not be making these judgments about Eastwood's films (if that is what we are doing) just the same as I do try to attribute "claims" made by painters who painted six hundred years ago.
I never asserted that Eastwood's motives were independent of the film. Only that I do not know what his motives were, and I would not presume to guess what his motives were by the tone of the film. Nothing I have seen posted attempts to provide anything more than fact masquerading as conjecture. I know the motives of Unforgiven, because Eastwood told the public what he hoped to accomplish. Therefore, it is fair to judge him accordingly.
Maybe if we just threw out those terms like "high art", "middle-brow", etc., we could do away with what they are supposed to represent, and instead deal with the merits of the film. Or lack thereof.
I am judging the film. I'm not judging what I think Eastwood's motives originally were, I'm making judgments about the effects made by the film. You seem to be assuming that an artist has total control over his/her product, and that an artwork is a transparent window onto his/her intentions. I don't buy that. The film itself makes demands upon its audience, and it situates itself in the course of a tradition. Once a piece of work is out in the world, it 'belongs' to the audience, not its author, and it's up to them to figure out how it fails or succeeds. And the primary relationship which defines its function in a society is not a three-way relationship between author, work, and public, but between the work itself, other works, and the public.But, whatever. Very basic disagreements here, no point in our waging a war of deliberative attrition, I think we each know where the other is coming from. I'm just glad we steered the conversation back towards cordiality and substance. Nice talking to you.
______________________________
Stranger than that, we're alive!Whatever you think it's more than that, more than that.
-Incredible String Band
I mean both critics' opinions and whatever we can say that Eastwood's 'intentions' may have been.
______________________________
Stranger than that, we're alive!Whatever you think it's more than that, more than that.
-Incredible String Band
Most guys set themselves up as arbiters of the high-brow. You nailed him good.
Your points about funding are spot-on as well, to which I'll add that Mel Gibson experienced the same cold shoulders when he pitched what became the highest-grossing film of the year.
For what it's worth, I enjoy watching Renoir, film noir, romantic comedies and cartoons -- if they're good. The standards one judges various types of movies by must be on a sliding scale I think, and perhaps that's why Duncan gets so much gaff. And by the way, the more my friends know about film, the more they agreed with his analysis. On the other hand, I really, really liked Mystic River.
clark
commercial publication. I also thought many of his points were irrelevant and self-important. I like MDB a lot, BTW. Measured by how effectively it succeeds at what it tries to do, it is as good as any film made, IMO.
It's a freebie paper distributed to convenience stores, etc. here in the San Diego area. It consists largely of car stereo, plastic surgery and tattoo parlor ads plus personals of every possible persuasion. They also dabble in muckraking-I remember one issue in which the cover story alleged mob ties to former San Diego Padres president Larry Lucchino. What the story ended up revealing is that Lucchino once had lunch in an Italian restaurant with the 3rd cousin of someone married to someone else with mob ties.The Reader is proof positive of the old maxim-you really do get what you pay for!
...audio nuts in the area. It was excellent! How easily we forget...And are you setting the you-must-pay Union Tribune up as a standard-bearer of newspapers?
clark
"If Duncan can't see the commercialization and cliché in MDB, he has problems far beyond his writing---and that ain't good for a self-styled critic of any medium"You have just concluded that most critics have problems with their writing. I am curious, you do what for a living?
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 ]