 
|
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 |
68.98.175.238
In Reply to: Re: Citizen Kane, Rashomon: am I missing something? posted by RGA on December 14, 2005 at 19:19:13:
"Film art, like any other art...""Viscerally it MUST engage you, pure and simple."
"The bottom line is the result."
These are quite simple-minded generalizations. What does the third one mean, if anything? You imply the only legitimate result is for a film to be immediately and completely comprehensible on a purely visceral level...even if there are other vague ideas hoving in the vicinity. You reduce thousands of years of varied creative work to a few astonisingly thin principles.
Your post is essentially an ad hominem attack asserting that "most posters" simply regurgitate ideas they get from others. This rejects what they say without having to engage it in any substantive way.
I suppose your "evidence" comes down to the fact that they don't agree with you; the only available explanation for such a horrifying fact is that the ideas they put forth aren't their ideas at all.
Weird post!
eb
Follow Ups:
No I have posted here many times in the past and ask for more than the usual Victor and peter response of one sentence It stunk or it was great without any real argument to support the case.I posted something on the Constant Gardner and corrected someone who obviosly missed some of the points of the film and the response was to stop critiquing the films on these boards?
Shakespeare is timeless on a visceral level -- one does not need to know anything about Shakespeare or his time beyond an elemntary level to get and appreciate his themes.
And please do not invent my arguments by creating a strawman. A horror movies job (aside from Romero like horror movies) are supposed to scare you pure an simple -- if it does that it did it's job and on that level it will get a high mark from me.
Clearly films have different purposes -- film for eye candy entertainment and film as art.
My contention is that eye candy entertainment such as Raiders of the Lost Ark is the best film of its genre that I have seen therefore for its genre it gets a top mark. Where one ranks that genre in the bigger schema of the entire filmography will be up to the critic, movie goer. Film Art for me is less impressive compared to the stage or literature and so films made to be "arthouse" don't impress me as much unless they also entertain. That is a big problem because it is now in the world of the subjective. If Kane creates a truly cathartic experience for a person then by all means I won't debate whether you should have it high on your list -- I think a piece of art should move you to your soul. If Kane GENUINELY does that (without needing to be told by a professor what to feel and what to think) then I take no issue - how can I since it is totally subjective.
But just like English Literature - what is great may be canonized by a minority body of slef appointed lit experts but objective it ain't - beowolf is great because it's old -- but really let's be honest it's a pretty lame ass written story - but it's a relic and therefore overblown to something it just isn't -- great literature.
I think I'll stop here on this thread...Too much work for too little reward.
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 ]
