Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by jamesgarvin (A) on June 28, 2005 at 09:03:24

In Reply to: Re: I don't get your analogy posted by Bulkington on June 28, 2005 at 07:18:42:

"Like what other epic fantasy might that be? If there were no other epic fantasy he liked, what would that prove?"

Well, it would indicate that the genre is not to his taste. Which is fine. But it certainly skews his credibility, as to LOTR. Answer me this: Critic says upfront that he does not like the sound of turntables? Would you trust his critism/review of a turntable? Critic states he has never heard a solid state amplifier that he has liked? Trust his review of a solid state amplifier? As an editor of a magazine, would you assign that reviewer a solid state amplifier to review? Well, maybe Victor's obvious dislike of the genre, despite protestations to the contrary, explains the much used "kaka" method of reviewing. As others have written, no analysis is supplied. Your retort, if I may call it one, is twofold: look it up, and, supporters, where is YOUR analysis.

To which I respond: Victor started this thread, perhaps he should look up the prior posts, read them, and move on, as you suggest. Because he started the thread, made a conclusion, presumably for comment (there are easier ways to talk to yourself), it is only fair for him to provide the analysis, which then allows others to comment to specific points. But kaka is difficult to respond to with something other than "it is not kaka." Or don't your comments apply to those you agree with?

"Where do you get this notion that the films' detractors are a bunch of frowning grumps?"

Well, I am here most every day. I see the films that most posters post about. I suspect that most posters post on movies that they appreciated. And while I agree with most of Victor's and other's comments about "serious" films, as I too see them, there is very little posting on films that are made to strictly entertain, rather than to educate, to generate serious thought, such as looking for symbolism to learn the point of a film. Which leads me to believe that they do not see them, or if they do see them, it is merely to tell us how bad the film was. Which leads to "it was kaka." Um, okay.

"I don't see the LoTR films as the Beatle's to some imagined alternate version as Bach. I see them more as, I don't know."

Fair enough. But when the analysis is limited to "kaka", it is difficult to respond, because those of us who enjoyed the films strictly as entertainment are left guessing as to the poster's frame of mind in criticising the film, such whether LOTR was compared to an artier film that was more appreciated by Victor and his supporters, or was compared to another fantasy film. Films, and music, do not exist in a vacuum. People make judgments about them because there are other comparisons. Why does Victor think the film is "kaka?" He does not say. But certainly his opinions were derived because of comparisons with other films that he does not think were "kaka." Nothing is good or bad. It is only good or bad to someone, based upon comparisons of other things that are good and bad to that person. If LOTR were the only film ever made, it would be neither good, or bad. Only there.

I must presume these facts because Victor did not state them. Which is why I used the Beatles. Are the Beatles good or bad? Well, the first question is, compared to what? Compared the Slim Whitman? Yes. Compared to Bach? Some classical diehards would say no.

"What do you think I wish it had delivered instead? "

I do not know. Maybe you should provide some information and analysis as to why it fell short of being a good film, what it should have done, comments subject to public comment rather than merely telling those of us who enjoyed the film "it was kaka."