Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by jamesgarvin (A) on March 17, 2005 at 09:26:56

In Reply to: Well, no... posted by rhizomatic on March 16, 2005 at 17:34:57:

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.