 
|
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 |
68.37.240.251
In Reply to: O.k., oh time challenged one... posted by jamesgarvin on January 17, 2007 at 07:21:45:
It should be pretty clear that in my one-word mention the word "children" didot really mean children as young audience, it meant the decendants, the future generations of viewers... perhaps if I used the word grand-children it would have been more clear?However, your post, of which you of course only quoted a part (natch!) deals squarely with children, as the young viewing audience.
"I am not sure I would want my children watching the amount of adultery which has come out of French cinema. But then, they are cultured and I am not. I guess I'm just old fashioned that way. And even in their films not involving some level of adultery, I am not sure I'd want my kinds watching most French films.
How many European films are made for children the way Hollywood has produced Toy Story, Bug's Life, etc? The joy and pleasure I felt from watching The Polar Express with my three year old cannot be overstated. I even let him sit in the sweet spot. I have Hollywood to thank for that, not European cinema."
But it is good you limited your response to just a few lines - I honeslty did not have any inclination of chasing you all over your long, tedious and whining post like a mouse with a broom, all over my bedroom.
I appreciate your now standing up in the middle of the said room, like a proud brave mouse!
By now I have already forgotten the focal point of our argument, and frankly, you gave me little incentive to go back and read your ten-page narrations, so if you could state it in less than 100 words, then perhaps we could go back to the argument.
Usually given my work load, I prefer to debate one issue at a time.
Follow Ups:
Language is important. Write what you mean. Do not write in vagaries and then expect the reader to intuit what you meant. Perhaps doing so requires more words, but the trade off is that the reader understands your point. You use inexact and vague words to express your opinion, and then blame the reader for not "reading between the lines."Here is the point: You and Tin bash Hollywood for what it produces. If you reread Tin's original post, and my response, I agreed with his general observations, though I disagreed with the value judgment he made of the observation. You, like a crappie gulping down a minnow, entered the fray with more bashing of Hollywood. I fairly presume you post inviting responses. So I respond that one area of cinema where Hollywood still leads foreign cinema is in their productions for children.
Which, of course, is not to say that Foreign cinema does not produce children's films, as I recently posted on Children of Heaven, a very good children's film from Iran. When you bashed Hollywood films, you did not limit your critism to adult fare. Children's fare being part of Hollywood's output, it was fair for me to draw the conversation to those films. Had you limited your comments to "adult" films from Hollywood, we would not be corresponding about its children's films.
So I write about two such films, which you respond are made for "morons", which include children the world over (I wonder where Patrick is with his complaints about personal attacks), and then claim that there are "no small amount" of children's films making their rounds in Europe. I am not sure why you feel it necessary to call as "morons" children who enjoy those films.
Of course, you fail to name one single such foreign film, which makes your very generalized statement valueless. Second, although you try to backtrack on your "morons" statement, you insult those who like those types of films as being "morons", so I proffer one such person who clearly enjoyed at least one such film, and you fail to respond.
You also fail to respond to the argument that Hollywood still produces better children's films than the rest of the world. Rather than admit that Hollywood produces better children's films almost by default, your retort was to make up a statement that they produce "no small number" of such films.
Why would you make up such statements? Why would you call as "morons" all the people, including Clark, who enjoy such films? I posit these statements are of a person who is pre-disposed to bash Hollywood, particularly in light of the un-rebutted statement, with specifics, that Hollywood produces generally better children's films than the rest of the World. You simply say no, without providing examples.
Rather than admit that there is one area where Hollywood outproduces foreign cinema, your ego drives you to make false claims. Making things up is usually not a good sign of reliability. You win on substance? Provide me the names of the "no small amount" of European films for children. That would be substance. Really, the web has brought the world into our offices. I would think for a man of your advanced intellect and culture, proving your point with facts rather than conjecture would be important to you.
My choice of words was perfect. It was a completely legitimate use of the word "children" (as in, for instance "To leave this planet to our children in good shape"), all your rather tedious nagging notwithstanding. Why do you always enter that mode, BTW? You start bending facts, complain, misrepresent posts... why not just stick to one issue?You went headlong and for no good reason in the children direction - blame yourself only.
Pardon me, but your post makes even less sense now. It desn't even look like you can read English. OK... MY English, if you wish for a cheap way out.
So while the children's films do not really interest me here (inspite of your rather lame misrepresentation of my statements), I see no reason to believe Hollywood does an outstanding job in that category. It is obvious you are not familiar with the chidrens films outside the US, but there is plenty of life there. Like I said, I think I know why they are not being imported here - at my age I had seen many outstanding French, Russian, Japanese children's films, but most of them of course do not meet the US distribution criteria. Main reason, I suspect, is the presumption that children would not tolerate the subtitles. I actually have little argument here.
So tin made a very reasonable statement of his opinion and position. That did not sit well with you and your Corsican Brother Scott. You came out like bats from hell and both made little sense. You are making even less now.
What you childishly call "Hollywood Bashing" is basically just an observation, and I have really no sympathy for your position that one should post here some sort of non-existent "facts" - as I tried to state several times, in art there are no objective facts, there are only opinions. Your liking of Hollywood is just an opinion, and so is tin's or mine. While you gladly take your right to do so, you seem to refuse the others the same right.
You caught me on my lunch break, so you got more than 100 words... most likely not the words you would like, but hey, unlike you I do not state them "facts" - so pay whatever you want for this.
Opinion: I do not like Hollywood films.Fact: There are many children's films from Europe.
Opinion. Cannot be proven or disproven. Opinion: Your amp sounds great. Fact. Can be verified, proven. You say THD in your amp is .05%. You make a statement which can be supported with facts - you can show me the measurement.
Fact: You say there are many European children's films. I say provide examples to support your statement. You cannot. Facts. I am not asking your opinion of their quality. I am simply asking you to support a factually based statement which can be proven. (100 words)
Fact: Your attacks do not disguise that fact that you still cannot support your statements. Try again? (17 words)
I had a hard day today, james... maybe you wanna state your point clearly? What was wrong with tin's post?
I reviewed my notes on the last 242 films I have watched, 50 of which were foreign films. I agree that as a general rule, they do not use music to heighten suspense, actors act and appear more "normal", etc. I disagreed that those things necessarily make for a better film. I agree that I like a greater percentage of foreign films I see to domestic films I see. The conclusion Tin draws is that foreign films are therefore better. Neither he, nor anyone domiciled in the U.S. cannot drawn that conclusion because there is undoubtedly many bad foreign films that never make it here, and unless one is exposed to the junk in Europe, for example, as they are here to the junk here, one cannot conclude that foreign films are better than those made in Hollywood.I do not eat the same foods everyday, and doubt I could watch the same types of films everyday. Movie such as Pirates of the Caribbean and, say, Seaside, a French film I recently watched, satisfies different hungers. You or Tin may not have the hunger or desire to see Pirates, but that does not make it any less of a film. Or Seaside any more or less of a film. I would not expect the same acting techniques employed from one to the other, or the same musical score, anymore than I would expect Johnny Depp to act the same in another film, or a person in real life to act the same when walking down the street as they would if they saw their child in a burning building. Essentially, Tin concludes that because Seaside may have one set of attributes, it is therefore superior. When I watched Seaside, I preferred it. When I watched Pirates, I preferred it.
I am not sure calling people who are simply looking to be entertained morons, or worse, advances the debate. As someone who enjoys all types of films, of those fifty films, having seen films from Japan, China, Germany, Denmark, Thailand, Iran, Australia, Great Britain, Italy, South Korea, Brazil, Sweden, Israel, Netherlands, France, Spain, Czechoslovakia, Venezuela, and South Africa, each offers something of value, and are not bad, or good, merely because of their country of origin. Likewise, I believe that it is not fair to dismiss films from Hollywood, merely because they are from Hollywood, and merely because they may be made for no other purpose than to provide escapist entertainment.
Sort of like a die hard tube amplifier reviewer making his or her monthly disparaging solid state amplifier comments, then calling you and asking you to send a solid state amp his way for review. My guess is you would probably defer. I am not sure how dismissing Hollywood films out of hand is any different.
Your first paragraph simply states the viewpoint, not fact, which is fine with me. How does one make a judgement which country produces higher percentage of good films? Strictly speaking that is impossible. We all do it by sense, by feel. For instance, every time I go to Russia I sample their films. Much of them are pure trash, yet my gut feel, not based in any hard numbers, is telling me the percentage of those deserving my attention is higher than in the US.Patrick has good handle on French and German crap, living there, so you might want to ask his impression... he is a very objective guy.
Notice, none of us really has a dog in that fight - none of us stands to gain anything from our conclusions, we all just state as we see it, including you.
When I watch films I do not watch a Hollywood film, a French one... it is later, when I think about it, I put it in a bin. I do see a very large number of US films, so I am quite aware of what's going on here. The Pirates satisfied my hunger for killing two hours, I'll be frank with you. Except for the scenes in the sword shop the rest was a big snoozer for me, but I will give you that - something might be wrong with me, not the movie.
I see you took my morons statement extremely personally... I would need to re-read it again, but surely what I mean by those were the mindless hordes of idiots watching the horrible, horrible films and liking them, not someone like you... not that I need to earn your love, really. I do watch many such films on my cable, just to know what's happening there, and I stand by my word - only morons would go and pay for many of them. And I actually have enjoyed many Hollywood movies - they are always extremely professionally made and many serve as good fun viewing. I usually not post on them because I think this forum should be mostly about a bit more unusual, unique, interesting, funny. I must have seen Die Hard ten times or more, but I see no reason to post on it.
But we are making circles producing no new ideas. It interests me, however, to dig deeper into your rather inriguing statement about the adultorous French films. I would like to know what caused you to make that statement.
In general, it is not the nature of event itself that we should find objectionable, but rather the gratuitous nature of its employment. Adultery - or I would rather call it love affairs, falling in love, etc. - is a part of our lives. It is something that always produces strong emotions. And when I mentally look at many French films that I love, it doesn't seem to be present there in any gratuitous form.
However, the fact primitive sex and violence do figure very prominently in American films hardly needs any proof, and yet you let it slide for some reason.
I would submit to you that your children are hurt much harder by watching the endless parade of idiots and deviants outdoing each other in mutilation and brutal sex than by observing Depardieu falling in love with his neighbor.
Are you sure you have your priorities in right places?
"However, the fact primitive sex and violence do figure very prominently in American films hardly needs any proof, and yet you let it slide for some reason."Not at all. Had the topic been sex in American cinema, my rants would have been longer. I'll save you the time of a search. In another thread, moons ago, I posted that I felt that Foreign films are much more mature relative to sex than American films. For example, I cannot recall seeing what I would call gratuitous sex or nudity in a Foreign film. I recall a French film, the name escapes me, which was entirely about the filming of a sex scene in a movie. The film was very contemplative of the subject, not made to stimulate the audience. I shudder to think what that movie would have been had it come from Hollywood. Foreign films I have seen generally treat sex with more maturity than American films.
"I would submit to you that your children are hurt much harder by watching the endless parade of idiots and deviants outdoing each other in mutilation and brutal sex than by observing Depardieu falling in love with his neighbor."
I would never let my kids watch those films. My original point was if not for Hollywood and it's willingness to release films like Toy Story, Nemo, et al., then my son and I would not watch films together. I think there is value in that, regardless of the ultimate merit of the film itself. As I wrote in another thread, I recently watched Children of Heaven, a subtitled Iranian film. As I was watching, he came down to the basement to play, stopped in front of the television and watched with me. He cannot read subtitles. But the concept of watching kids agonize over shoes, together with the beautiful imagery, drew him to the film. I think that Children of Heaven is probably, on a critical level, better than any children's film coming from Hollywood. But those films are few and far between, and I thank Hollywood for producing those types of films.
Adultery in French films. Perhaps an overstatement. What I have noticed is that adultery seems to be treated as a lifestyle choice, rather than potentially destroying a family, particularly with kids involved. That is fine for me. I know better, so I can get past that issue and enjoy the film. But my kids are still learning. Which is why they do not see the litany of violence and sex that comes from Hollywood.
***Not at all. Had the topic been sex in American cinema, my rants would have been longer. I'll save you the time of a search. In another thread, moons ago, I posted that I felt that Foreign films are much more mature relative to sex than American films. For example, I cannot recall seeing what I would call gratuitous sex or nudity in a Foreign film. I recall a French film, the name escapes me, which was entirely about the filming of a sex scene in a movie. The film was very contemplative of the subject, not made to stimulate the audience. I shudder to think what that movie would have been had it come from Hollywood. Foreign films I have seen generally treat sex with more maturity than American films.You have my strong agreement here. But your last paragraph is a dream. It sounds like your child is still quite young, but believe me (or don't, if you wish) that as he gets older, it will be more and more difficult to control his access - after all at school there will be endless discussions of the latest crap chidren watched, and he will resent being an outsider... plus at all those sleep-over parties... only Devil himself knows what kids do there. Some watch porn and do oral sex - there was that story about very young kids having such parties.
Bottom line - sooner or later you WILL have to let him come in touch with the ugly cesspool reality.
"Bottom line - sooner or later you WILL have to let him come in touch with the ugly cesspool reality."No doubt. I only want a crack at him first before "they" do.
It is a hard one. I know.. we went down that path. Our daughter read at 3, and at 4 she read serious adult books. For long time her TV time was controlled and we did our best to make her love classical culture, good literature, music, etc.But I am telling ya... at some point it all just falls apart. The allure of pop culture and peer pressure are things you can't really fight. So she still has some of what we gave her, but she definitely went in her own direction.
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 ]
