 
|
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 |
69.61.184.159
In Reply to: Would it not be right then to presume... posted by Victor Khomenko on July 15, 2005 at 18:37:59:
If you see every single film to fulfill one purpose, then you are right. The purpose of Election was to comment, in a sarcastic way, suburban, middle class public high school education. It was not to educate you about another culture, such as that high school. It was not to provide you insight into an event, such as a war film may attempt to do.In order to appreciate the humor, you probably have some background. I am sure that you are familiar with engineer jokes that you find funny, because you get the joke, but the rest of us may not understand, and conclude the joke is stupid. All films are not made for all people, just as all jokes are not for all people. It may be you lack of familiarity with the subject matter has caused the humor to elude you. You did find "Office Space" funny, right? I recall that you commented that it was funnier to you because many of the scenes reminded you of your time at Hewlitt-Packard. The same applies here.
Follow Ups:
I think anyone who has worked in most offices can appreciate to some degree what Office Space had to say. And that film holds up to subsequent viewings. Oddly enough Election had a similar kind of feel but from the teacher's office environment and the know it all get ahead kid. I don't think one needs to be a teacher or American to get it. Election IMO is a better overall film than Office Space(which has a few plot inconsistancies and some time fillable strings that don;t leave one totally satisfied). Election loses points to right wingers because there is a Lesbian in the movie and someone smoked some pot. Which means it is immediate Kaka to Anal retentives.
Well, most us who went to high school here, and even college and graduate school, knew students who belonged to everything, tried to be elected to anything, for their resume, college application, or just to feel important. Some of those students went above and beyond what you would believe they would do. To those who did not see that behavior first hand, I suspect that they would have some scepticism. Those of us who saw that behavior would "get" the joke. Which does not necessarily mean that someone who did not go to school in that environment would not get the joke. It is only an explanation as to one possible reason, given the high marks the film received from a variety of sources. Is the problem with the two who did not like it, or the eight who did? I am simply looking for a reason beyond "the two are idiots."The teacher? Well, in graduate school, I recall one student who found it necessary to ask question after question, and after a couple of weeks the teacher became visibly annoyed whenever the student would raise his hand. I likened Broderick's performance to the same motivation, the teacher having gone over the deep end.
I too liked Election better than Office Space. Victor suggested that familiarity with the subject in evaluating a film was "faulty logic." I was simply pointing out that he used the same logic in his comments regarding "Office Space", which, I assume, was not faulty when he employed it.
Sorry I didn't read your exchange with Victor -- he speaks doublespeak and airy fairy stuff with no real content -- just airy stuff like this was good because it spoke the human languange blather blather.Election or Office Space I'm not going to defend to the bitter end -- They were fun laugh at socity and possibly thy self and thy situation you have likely experienced or know of well kind of movies. I think the "kind of" people in Election are "extreme" characatures of students and teachers and people we have gone to school with in any country -- I have been to school in Europe and Australia as well as here in Canada. Office Space is the same kind of deal where the idiot slack ass gets the promotion during the time of lay-offs -- it too is done in an extreme character kind of way. Now some audience memebers may require always "real" vibrant human characters to be able to "go with" a movie.
Neither of the films here remotely attempt to do these things - if you can not accpet what filmmakers are going for in their films then stop watching movies. I go to a horrow movie to jump and have a good time -- not for the acting ability, set design or story. There was a 1980's low budget horror film named Scarecrows with some of the lamest acting I have ever seen, an idiotic plot, and scarecrows killing people. it is one of the best horror films ever made because it created tension and scares -- that is the job of a horror film and it did its job.
Whimsical films like Election and I suppsoe American Beauty are intended to exagerate that with which it is commenting on. American Beauty had so many surface cliche's of suburbia as to be in itself shallow. The tag line of the movie said "look closer" -- if you did you would probably see what they were "really" doing. if you did not "look closer" then you did what most people I know did and walk out of the movie house.
I'm amazed some forumers here seem to hate every movie they see from hollywood that they are STUPID enough to keep watching it. Sorry i don;t like brussel Sprouts I don;t keep ordering plate after plate in the hopes that tomorrow I'm going to like it.
La Grande Illusion is one of the best films I have ever seen --it is in fact in my top ten of all time -- I have Schindler's List ahead of it -- and it is not even close Schindler's list visually is vastly superior in every way, more emotionally wrenching, it is far better acted, has a vastly superior score, is more resonating. There is not a single area of motion picture creation that La Grande Illusion beats Schindler's List. And more people will agree with me than Victor nananananana.
***La Grande Illusion is one of the best films I have ever seenSounds good, until I recall that just a few months ago you had not seen a single Fellini film and didn't know who he was... so I am just not sure what that "one of the best" means in your case.
that's irrelevant I have seen 81/2 --- All it takes is to see the two movies I mentioned. I rate the film on its merrit not on a PRE-CCONCEIVED expectation of the director. I try to be objective and rate the film on its merrit alone.
Listen, I'll give you two things.One - you can write well. Hopefully with time, as you get more and broader experience, the content will also start making more sense.
Two - I applaud you for making that admission. Most pople would simply dodge the question.
But you are way too quick to judge someone of Fellini's stature based on your assuredly limited familiarity with his work. Fellini is too complex to be judged that way - he is like the life itself. You witnessed one day... there's plenty more to come. His art is broad and multi-faceted.
If someone quite familiar with his work said he disliked him, I would not have much issue with that. But based on one film only? And even that film in the context of still limited experience?
We are not talking about toppling the pre-conceived notions here, as that should ideally be done based on deep understanding.
I think you are taking the idea of familiar experiences WAY too far. While it usually adds to the overall film impression, that element alone is never sufficient to elevate a bad movie much. In case of the Office Space it didn't, it simply made it slightly more enjoyable.Truth is you can find things that are familiar and dear to you in virtually any grade movie - even in a complete trash.
However, when evaluating movies there are other things that are far more important than familiar situation and subjects. As I mentioned, the Grand Illusion (I wrote Rules of the Game by mistake) is a perfect example how we, without any first hand experience in the events depicted, can easily see its value and beauty.
I keep mentioning the common human language, the language that has not changed much in centuries, and that is the fundamental part of our appreciation of things like movies. So a Virgin Spring can talk to you just as nicely as a movie about modern day office life.
I never wrote that familiarity with the subject matter is essential to enjoying a movie. Please re-read my posts. Only that it may help, and may explain your ambivalence to what is generally regarded, by many people of many backgrounds, as a pretty good film. I enjoy westerns, having never ridden a horse or shot at someone. Because the filmmakers are not making those films for people who have, because it is unlikely that anyone in modern day society has lived the life of a gunslinger. On the other hand, million of filmgoers in the United States have attended a school similar to that depicted in Election, and knew the types of people therein. Is it a caricature? Sure. That is what makes it funny. I am sure there were many people who saw the film and liked it not being familiar with the subject. But the filmmakers were pretty spot on in their depictions, and, using a little analysis (using the brain the look below the surface), conclude that they were filming about people they knew.I am curious. I read your posts every day. I cannot recall you writing about a comedy you enjoyed. Perhaps laughter is not your strong suit. Perhaps laughter is overrated. Maybe you could provide a list of comedies that you enjoyed. Perhaps your dislike of Election has less to do with the content than with an aversion to cracking a smile. What is that old saying? Everyone thinks they have a sense of humor, particularly those that do not have one.
Silly is is defending one's own sense of humor, so I am not gonna do that. I do love comedies, but I also do not segregate the films into categories. You have not seen me comment on comedies perhaps because you are a newcomer here. As I did a search on "comedy" under my name, or "commedy" as I sometimes misspell it, I found quite a few great hits.I simply comment on films as they come. The films I have not yet seen are pulled semi-randomly based on recommendations, etc. - my wife manages our Netflix account. I don't have any idea whether the next one will be a comedy or a disaster movie.
A different question might be - what is the proportion of comedies in films we consider great? I would admit it is not large, IMO.
I came up with fourteen films, however many hits there may have been, since January, 2000. Not too many. Many great comedies? Probably not. I have read comments from director, writers, and actors that good comedy is harder to do than any other genre of film, as the subject matter is generally more restrictive. Is it fair to compare a comedy with a drama, and conclude that one is better than the other? Well, the director intended you to laugh in the comedy, and if you found it funny, then it has succeeded. If the director of the drama intended you to cry, but you did not cry, although you may feel it better technically, is the drama better than the comedy? Or is the comedy better because it acheived the director/writer's purpose?Would you equate n A in a four credit hour upper tier engineering course the same as an A in a four credit hour home economics course? Most graduate schools do not. Well, that is what you are suggesting in your film analogy: A good film is a good film, regardless of the genre. Well, an A is an A, regardless of the course's subject. You seem comfortable taking out any appreciation of the director's intentions, the difficulty of the subject matter, and the fact that certain subjects are harder to film and write well than others. And letting your wife pick the movies? I knew this kid when I was growing up who loved to play with girl's dolls. Not a good outcome.
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 ]
