 
|
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 |
216.196.209.241
In Reply to: Kieslowski is so tedious posted by Victor Khomenko on March 29, 2005 at 19:48:20:
"The film will tickle the unsophisticated, and irritate the experienced."That statement is so unsubstantiated, preposterous, and without any research as to almost be a joke. Except that Victor does not joke, for such is the folly of the Proletariat. Pray tell, who were the unsophisticated? Roger Ebert? You know, the Pulitzer Prize winning film critic. The critic who teaches a film class at the University of Chicago. The critic who has provided commentary for several notable D.V.D. releases. Or Stephen Holden at the New York times, a writer for one of the most "sophisticated" and respected newspapers in these here United States?
Come on, Victor. Name some names. Who are the unsophisticated? And tell us who are the experienced? You must know. You would never make such a blanket statement without substantiation and corroboration. Every professional critic who has seen the film has recommended it. Are they ALL inexperienced? Are they ALL unsophisticated? Or do you simply write first, think later, or not at all?
And before you drop some bombs my way, I have not seen the film. I simply know a moronic statement when I see it.
Follow Ups:
***I simply know a moronic statement when I see it.Obviously that is not true, or you would never had posted what you did.
I have a news for you - using some "high authorities" as justification for your likes and dislikes smacks of complete immaturity. Especially such authorities as Ebert, for whom I truly have very low respect.
If I was curious about his opinion (and I am decidedly not) I would read his review. I don't come here to see posts of the "So and so love this one... so and so diskiled that" kind. I want to see how people think for themselves... including you. But as your post offered none of that, it was indeed moronic, as you so eloquently put it.
I know many people whose opinion I respect much more than Ebert's. And I wish you could raise above reciting some ctritic and stick to stating your own feelings.
As it is, I stick to my statement, based on my rather extensive experience in front of a movie screen. If you find my opinion wrong, you may always argue, or even - God forbid! - state that you liked it, that will not offend me one bit, but please, no that "my papa is bigger than your papa!" crap.
Obviously, you missed the point of my post. You stated that the film only appeals to the unsophisticated and and does not appeal to the experienced. Modern man has defined those terms. I asked you to provide specific examples. You failed to do so. I gave you two examples of persons who did enjoy the film, and who, under any intelligent analysis, would certainly be considered experienced, significantly more so than you or I. Your failure, which I interpret as inability, to specifically define who you were referring to when you wrote such a statement, undermines your statement. You may not agree with Roger Ebert and Stephen Holden, but they are not inexperienced, no matter how you define that term, which you most certainly called them by writing that experienced people would not enjoy the film, which logically is the same thing as writing that inexperienced people would enjoy the film. You may certainly disagree with their opinions, but calling them inexperienced is incorrect, and your failure to offer any support other than "I say so" belies the shallowness of your opinion.For you to think that the purpose of my citing their names was to support the opinion that the film was a good film demonstrates that you have difficulty in reading what is written rather than what you would like to believe was written. If I was using those critics as authority to support an opinion of the film itself, which I have never done in this asylum, I would have quoted relevant language from their review. Please re-read my post. I did not do so.
Your original statement is akin to me saying "Anyone who enjoys tube amplifiers is unsophisticated and inexperienced." I cannot tell you whether I thought whether the film was good or bad, as, if you would read my post a second time, or how ever many times it will take you to comprehend it, I have not seen the film. Unlike some, I feel that precludes me from offering an opinion (although if you tell me the subject matter, I could probably offer an opinion.)
However, your statement that only inexperienced people could like the film takes not one second of viewing to dispute. I was not disputing your opinion of the film, but rather your blanket, unsupported (still) statement vis a vis experienced viewers. So, here is another opportunity to name names. Who are these inexperienced viewers, and why are they inexperienced? I offered you two names. Ebert and Holden. Without discussing their abilities as critics, how are they inexperienced? Certainly, if I asked you why your amplifiers sound so good, I am sure you could prattle on page after page explaining it to me. So this one should be easy for you.
You are distortng my words. I didn't say it would tickle ONLY the unsophisticated. But in my view some of its expressive means will resonate in that crowd.You can start by saying that the film is very European in its presentation. Which automatically means that certain things would look unusual and interesting to someone not experienced in film world outside the US. But here, what would look fresh to such a viewer would look like a cliche to someone familiar with the French or Polish cinema.
Things tend to become cliche's quickly. Used once they have the bite, the second time around they start to irritate. And that is the impression I am getting watching his films - that those things have been done, and better, before.
To some degree the explanation lies in the cultural isolation the Estern block countries used to have. But in addition, the director is simply unable to grab the viewer, like his more superior brethren could, and why is this happening is hard to explain, but you definitely know when it is happening... and it is not happening here. You view his movie as an outsider, without getting too involved. It doesn't pass my bathroom test - where you don't want to stop it to take a break. With this one, and the next - The Short Film about Killing - that was easy.
In fact, the Killing is a superior film in many respects. For once, the basic theme of killing, either by an individual or the society, is far more important, intriguing, all encompassing than the rather silly superficial affair, no matter how well spruced up.
Ebert is not inexperienced, but his judgement and taste, based on his many writings, is not something I consider worth spendimg much time discussing. He writes well, and we have plenty of overlap in our tastes, but that's about all.
Those who know me, also know that I am not particularly inclined to talk about the sound of our products. Design, features... yes, but the sound I usually leave up to our customers or reviweres to discuss.
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 ]
