The problem with the scales is that the true masterpieces come along infrequently. So we are used to seeing mediocre stuff, and our sights slide lower and lower, and pretty soon all we see is just the shades of the mediocrity.So we then have "good" mediocrity, then "very good" one, and then even the "great" mediocrity.
Then there is another school of thought. It maintains that what you (say, Patrick) consider good is simply the old classic stuff, antique, so to speak, and today we have different movie art, different requirements, expectations, etc. So no one today makes films that some of you monocle-wearing old farts would love.
All this is of course incorrect. The truth is the great movies are indeed only infrequently made, but that doesn't mean the standards of true quality have declined or even changed.
Consider the "Faithless" and the perfect answer to those sceptics.
Bergman wrote the script, Liv Ullmann directed it, several great actors played and Jörgen Persson provided breathtaking cinematography.
The result is a true masterpiece by ANY standard. And - it was done during our lifetime, during the same era when the American Beauty was produced.
Patrick is right - if we keep calling many current films "good", then there is simply no room left on the scale for the likes of the "Faithless".
While it is true that gems like that don't come along often, we still must reserve the appropriate space for them both in our hearts and on that illusive scale.
Otherwise you get what the audiophiles would rightly call "compression" - or loss of dynamic range.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Topic - Patrick is right - if "Virgin Suicides" is good, then where do we place "Faithless"? - Victor Khomenko 06:51:31 10/07/03 (2)
- Re: To Victor & others - if "Virgin Suicides" is good, then where do we place "Faithless"? - patrickU 05:02:31 10/10/03 (1)
- Re: Faithless... - patrickU 06:12:49 10/10/03 (0)