In Reply to: Not really posted by Troy on January 20, 2004 at 07:35:46:
>Cosmetic means "Something superficial that is used to cover a deficiency or defect". And that's what film is really about about, creating an artificial, controlled world from the real one.So what deficiency or defect is covered in this film? Artificial, yes. Covering a deficiency or defect, I say no.
>Sure, a director with a more documentary style is going to let things fall where they may, leave things ugly and poorly composed, but again, it's a conscious decision done to develop a specific feeling and mood in the viewer.
This doesn't address deficiencies or defects at all.
>Now, on to "sugar coated". Traditionally, film has an idealized, pleasing look.
I say nay on this also. Pink Flamingos sugar coated? Surely you jest.
>movies have had always tended towards a glorification of esthetically pleasing things, much more pleasing than real life.
Come on.
>This also applies to scripts. Think the "good guy" will win?
Or eat a steaming pile of dog shit?
>If it's really bad in real life, you're not going to cut to a flashback love scene or have a secondary character be inserted for comic relief. Virtually ALL films are sugar coated in this way.
Yeah, like the guy trying to have sex with the chicken or jerking off to impregnate the woman who's been kidnapped & sedated. I say this is one example of an exception to yr rule. If you're going to argue otherwise I'd like to hear a better explanation.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- You can't have it both ways - J 13:17:29 01/20/04 (3)
- I'm not having it both ways - Troy 08:08:18 01/21/04 (2)
- There are probably websites where you can do that sort of thing - J 12:12:16 01/21/04 (1)
- I enjoy debating with you. - Troy 12:42:42 01/21/04 (0)