 
|
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: Simple, quet life in Evertville posted by Victor Khomenko on April 1, 2005 at 09:25:02:
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.
Follow Ups:
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 ]
