In Reply to: Movies: story vs. art posted by Victor Khomenko on July 28, 2000 at 08:56:50:
Victor, you're a much more sophisticated observer than I am. But I must disagree a bit here. It's true that if a story is not well portrayed by the actors and director, then it's not impressive. However, the story is really the subtance and all the actors and director do is to illustrate it just right, no more or less. Over(under) acting, over(under) camera works would only take away from the story.I can understand why one might rather see a well-excuted film than a badly portrayed story. However, a well executed film without a story to tell is at most interesting. A great movie, such as Dr. Zhivago, is one with a great story to tell; and it's told well. Taking away the story from it, i'm not so sure if it's still as good.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Movies: story vs. art - caa 20:23:47 07/28/00 (8)
- Re: Movies: story vs. art - Victor Khomenko 06:23:28 07/29/00 (7)
- homesick? - Mart 07:43:38 07/29/00 (6)
- Only when I travel abroad - Victor Khomenko 07:52:56 07/29/00 (5)
- DAMN ... - Mart 08:13:50 07/29/00 (4)
- Re: DAMN ... - Victor Khomenko 10:54:42 07/29/00 (1)
- ROTFLOL!!!!!!! <nt> - Mart 11:08:08 07/29/00 (0)
- Re: DAMN ... - Ran 10:05:01 07/29/00 (1)
- how brave of you <nt> - Mart 13:29:00 07/29/00 (0)