 
|
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 |
In Reply to: Re: How about a complete lack of story progress? posted by Victor Khomenko on January 01, 2002 at 08:48:13:
>>> "To say it is DULL is silly, ..." <<<Why? It was dull! I'd sooner watch paint drying than try to sit through Solaris again. BTW, I do owe an apology to those who may have been tempted to see Star Trek: The Motion(less) Picture based on the positive reviews of the new Director's cut and my willingness to give it a second chance. Well, I was okey-doaked by the raves about how the new version had been cleaned up, tightened up and re-edited by Robert Wise. Unfortunately, like Solaris, this "new" version of ST:TMP is still a dreadful bore and hardly changed a whit from it's earlier release. Both of these films should be sued by Sominex for business infringement.
>>> "... and to me the film (Solaris) is riveting." <<<
"Riveting?" Well, that kind of makes sense. If I got stuck watching the interminable Solaris all the way through I might never move from the spot again! ;^)
>>> "So according to you the film must have a 'story' to be good? ..." <<<
Well, it helps. OTOH, I have a certain fondness for old movie serials and those, arguably, don't have stories either.
>>> "... Sure enough that is not a universal notion." <<<
Oh, well who's was it then? MGM's? RKO's? Paramount's? Sorry, I'm just yankin' your chain a bit. :o)
You went on to say that (quote): "It is largely the American one" (unquote) -- Well, I wouldn't be too quick to assign cultural preferences if I were you. FTR, I certainly wasn't questioning international tastes; I was merely expressing my own. Hell, the French apparently love Jerry Lewis, but I can barely stomach the silliness of his films! The bottom line is that one's culture may generally influence what is liked or disliked, but identifying tastes by culture is at the very least presumptuous and at worst stereotypical.
AuPh
Follow Ups:
I really don't care for you playing those stereotypes cards every time you run out of arguments. You alweays have them on the ready and play them willingly, believing they give you some edge. Well, they just make your argument shallow... be it Outside or here. So call me all you want, if that's all you can say.Having dispensed with that "argument" (and OF COURSE there are culturally-based tastes... but save that for another thread), let me assure you that you have an absolute right to dislike any movie you feel like - and Solaris is no exception.
It is perfectly fine just to say "I don't like it" but you tried to provide a reason, and that reason was completely flawed.
Art and story are not in the least related. Art is not about the subject, it is all about the means. There need not be any "story progress" in the piece for it to be artistic and enjoyable.
What is the "story progress" in any of Chardin's paintings?
Truth is, you can show me a thrity second clip from a film and that can often tell me a lot about whether it is an artwork or a mass-culture crap. I would not need to know about the story to feel that.
For a good example take a look at the Wim Wenders' "Lumière et compagnie" - a perfect vehicle. Each dirtector was given less than a minute to make a statement. How much "story progress" can you have diring that short time? Take a look at that Konchalovsky segment - it is breathtaking... and no story.
Well, you can see all the art in those short pieces.
VK wrote:> > Truth is, you can show me a thrity second clip from a film and that
can often tell me a lot about whether it is an artwork or a
mass-culture crap. < <My wife can do the same thing (and I'm getting a clue). She's big on opening sequences
- can usually tell whether the film will be satisfactory within half-a-minute (give or take).When we went to American Beauty she whispered to me within that half-minute: "we're going to buy this one" - meaning it was going to be "A-List" for us.
> > > "I really don't care for you playing those stereotypes cards every time you run out of arguments. You alweays have them on the ready and play them willingly, believing they give you some edge." < < <Funny, but I don't recall posting anything to elicit that sort of defensive posturing from you. I wasn't looking for an "edge" nor was I challenging you to a card game; furthermore, I didn't infer that you were a cutural bigot, racist or any such thing, if that's what you're getting at. I only stated that (quote) "identifying tastes by culture is at the very least presumptuous and at worst stereotypical" (unquote). You were the one who made the statement (quote) "Sure enough that is not a universal notion. It is mostly an American one" (unquote).
> > > "... you have an absolute right to dislike any movie you feel like - and Solaris is no exception." < < <
Thanks, I appreciate that!
> > > "It is perfectly fine just to say "I don't like it" but you tried to provide a reason and that reason, and that reson was completely flawed." < < <
How was it flawed? The subjective comment I made about Solaris being dull was honest and straightforward. Also, the "reason" I provided was logical and observable, not "shallow", for anyone who finds themselves watching this snoozer.
Best,
AuPh
I am not gonna worry about your bigotry nonsense, that is purely Outside stuff.
***How was it flawed? The subjective comment I made about Solaris being dull was honest and straightforward.
I didn't have any problem with that "subjective" part. Your fault came later.
***Also, the "reason" I provided was logical and observable, not "shallow", for anyone who finds themselves watching this snoozer.And I showed to you that that "reason" had nothing to do with art appreciation. To dismiss an artwork because it has no "story progress" - as you DID - is indeed shallow.
As I said before - art has nothing to do with the story or its progress.
You attempted to criticize an artwork through some "objective" lense, and failed to make a convincing case, that's all.
What can I say - I guess the static beauty of Laocoon is not for you.
I think of film as an art form built on story. You obviously don't draw the same distinctions between cinematic art and other forms of art such as painting, sculpture, etc. As a person steeped in the arts myself (i.e., both literally and figuratively), I might be prone to agree with you on some philosophical level that anything defined as "art" may be worthy of appreciation, but the placement of value is highly subjective as you are well aware (see link).Just like "a picture may be worth a thousand words" to the art patron who manages to penetrate the artist's vision, a reel of "pictures" or celluloid images may be worthless to the film enthusiast who can't penetrate the director's vision. This may, in fact, be the gravest weakness of the auteur theory in perceiving the director as sole creator of the final vision. The fact is, celluloid art is a different animal than painting, sculpture and even performance art because it depends upon capturing images of a moment which are entirely at the mercy of outside influences. In other words, like it or not, the director of cinema always works in a co-operative medium rather than one which he single handedly manipulates.
Those avante garde directors who choose to manipulate the medium in a pretensious fashion are often met by an unsympathetic public or accusations of perpetrating a fraud upon the public. The question then becomes is the public the final arbitor of what is or is not art? The answer depends on who you ask.
The link unfortunately doesn't work.I see some of your point and there is no question that cinema is a different form of art. What that means that it is better suited for expressing certain things... or actually, that it is EXPECTED to behave in a particular way that is different from for instance painting. Historically speaking.
However, here we have not as much the limitation of the art form itself, as much as our vision of it, and to certain degree our desire to pigeon-hole things.
One can certainly make the case that the art of cinema has largely evolved into well, "moving picture with story" direction. But "largely" doesn't have the exclusive nature. The incisive, "intravertial" art has always been with us in all forms.
It is also very much local culture dependent, with for instance the Japanese movies gravitating towards the observation far more than the action-driven American counterparts. The Europeans are sort of in the middle.
Again, I never argue against people not liking a particular artwork - that is completely normal. I just thought that assigning a particular expectation regarding well, action, really, to a whole media was somewhat incorrect.
Unfortunately, the second version which I felt expressed my viewpoint more clearly and had the corrected link was lost to the ether. The corrected link is below.
Explain to me how was the quoted text related to our discussion here? I didn't see much of a connection, so help me out.
... and you were behaving somewhat like that nice lady in the museum from Dusseldorf. My comment about the film being DULL was no "sillier" than you saying that Solaris is "riveting." Paintings, like cinematic artworks, tell stories, but as you pointed out so succinctly in the linked post. To wit, ...> > > "No matter what the history behind the work, I tend to draw the line someplace." < < <
Still, the short paragraph which preceeded it is even more to the point since we're discussing cinema as art:
> > > "The big question here is just what determines what is 'substantial'. It is hard to argue that the fashion is often more important than the artistic merit, and that some works that one finds in many modern art galleries SHOULD be questioned." < < <
Substitute the word "films" for "works" and drop "that one finds in many modern art galleries" and your general statement on film appreciation would concur completely with my critique of Solaris.
Respectfully,
AuPh
I think we are losing track of argument, leaving the original disagreement far behind.The line I was talking about is not an objective one - I think we can agree on that. It is there to simply arbitrarily separate the trash from art in one's mind.
However, when I refuse to call something "art" I don't do it based on some measurable criteria - and that was my main point of disagreement with your critique of Solaris.
We have prolifiration ot trash today: a broken snow shovel in the Philadelphia Museum, a bag of doughnuts, a sculpture aptly called "Piece of Plywood", a canvas with three knife holes in it. But I fully understand that someone might like it - after all, people paid huge money for each one. Therefor MY line is not some universal one.
Going back to your main argument - it was the lack of story progress. Here we are entering something objective. Wouldn't that be akin to saying that Franz Klein's works are not art because they lack color?
I actually feel strange arguing this, because I always thought there was plenty of story in Solaris. Maybe because I knew the book very well - one of my favorites during my tender age.
Solaris is not really a meditation in the stone garden, so I am somewhat puzzled by your reaction. It is full of drama and tension, thicker than honey. There are images that absolutely imprint into your memory. Dialogues full of meaning. Sexy interplay between the main characters. Some of the best actors to ever grace this Earth (OK, most of them are completely unknown to the West, but that speaks more of the West than of the actors), and even - bless your heart America - a wet T-shirt...
In our family I am considered action freak... I guess you can now figure out my wife's favorite films. But I would watch Solaris again tonight - no arm twisting required. Just give me a good company.
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 ]
