In Reply to: I admire Steven Speilberg... posted by mvwine on November 25, 2002 at 08:46:59:
...that seems to be the question here. His movies are very entertaining. Are they "art." Don't know - don't care. It's the difference between Stephen King and James Joyce (or any of the "classic" authors).King's pretty much entertainment and not art. On the other hand, "Ulysses" is a fairly difficult read, and I'm not sure, at the end of the wade through the words, it was all that entertaining.
Or, the difference between a Big Mac, and a buffaloe steak filet served with raspberry chipotle sauce and blanched asparagus spears. I don't go to a fast food place looking or expecting the gourmet meal.
Why do you expect "art" or something that truly "moves you" (whatever that means or is) from Spielberg? He is obviously there to dish up entertainment - and there's nothing wrong with that.
If you can't get into a dinosaur stomping an attorney sitting on a toilet - well, then you apparently just can't be entertained.
I'd suggest you watch "Citizen Kane" for the 43rd time...
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Art or entertainment.... - Fang 06:40:57 11/27/02 (8)
- Nothing against entertainment - mvwine 07:10:42 11/27/02 (7)
- Re: Nothing against entertainment - Fang 09:16:00 11/27/02 (6)
- He, he ... just the word - mvwine 09:44:30 11/27/02 (5)
- let me ask a few questions... - Fang 10:45:41 11/27/02 (4)
- Different kinds of art - mvwine 11:15:01 11/27/02 (3)
- Re: Different kinds of art - caa 15:17:35 11/28/02 (0)
- Re: Different kinds of art - TA 12:27:15 11/27/02 (1)
- And again, - mvwine 12:51:50 11/27/02 (0)