There are probably websites where you can do that sort of thing

Posted by J (A) on January 21, 2004 at 12:12:16

In Reply to: I'm not having it both ways posted by Troy on January 21, 2004 at 08:08:18:

>Don't be so literal. It can be as simple as not pointing the camera into the sun and putting it on a tripod to avoid movement. Yeah, I know, maybe I'm borderline here. What I really mean to say is that movies create a conscious esthetic, whether pretty or, in this case, ugly, and are therefore inherently cosmetic.

You were the one being literal--'all movies are cosmetic & sugar-coated.' I see yr point, but I see PF being an exception to that rule. There are others. They may be few, but there are certainly more. I mean, it's difficult to say that the Deer Hunter is sugar-coated, to me. Arguing that it's cosmetic because there are some nice scenery touches in the mountains in Pennsylvania don't cut it. I'm just not sure I buy that the conscious aesthetic has to be considered cosmetic in & of itself. If the filmmaker is going for quote-unquote 'reality,' using locations & what passes for a realistic plot with realistic dialogue, then I think it can be argued that either or both of these ingredients are not present.

>Well, if you don't see that as comic relief

Not the point.

>you scare the hell outta me

Good.

>No, it's not sugar coated in the way a Shirley Temple movie is. But in it's own way, PF's outrageous comedy is offset my Divine's saccharine love of his/her mon, Edie and her son. Sarcasm? Then Waters in consciously making fun of the sugar coating in movies, ergo, it IS sugar coated to the extreme . . . intentionally done to make you roll your eyes.

I don't know that this is his intent. I think he was & is just as much about highlighting what he saw in the twisted decadence of suburban Baltimore as he was/is into turning the notion of conventional filmmaking upside down. I also think that giving Divine & his supporting cast (Mink Stole, Edith Massey, et al) prominent roles in an effort to make cult-level anti-stars out of them figured into it just as much. I could be wrong; I'm not an expert on Waters. But that's my take, and I think I've seen all of his movies (might've missed one here or there). I think there were a lot of strange ideas that he incorporated into his movies, but that one of them might've been to inject an anti-sugar coating, which places the movie into the rest of the bin that says that all movies are sugar-coated & inherently cosmetic, on the basis that he's using a reverse tactic, just doesn't quite wash with me. It seems to me that you're saying that, by virtue of being anti-cosmetic & anti-sugar coating, that the film is, like all others, cosmetic & sugar-coated. I don't really agree with that. It's denying the possibility that there can be a movie that is neither--and if there is a film that is neither, to me, it's this one.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - Are all movies inherently cosmetic and sugar coated? - Troy 09:16:17 01/16/04 (29)

Film (American)is in the realm of a toss between PIN BALL AMUSEMENT and PRO WRESTLING! - j.l.guillebeau@att.net 09:41:59 01/22/04 (0)

Would Pink Flamingos qualify as an exception? - J 22:24:52 01/19/04 (6)

Not really - Troy 07:35:46 01/20/04 (4)

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)

The Problem With Pink Flamingos Is . . . - Bob K 03:34:43 01/20/04 (0)

Well, Troy, - tinear 17:46:28 01/17/04 (3)

You misunderstand my position - Troy 09:46:06 01/18/04 (2)

Well, at this point of watering down your position, couldn't you say - tinear 07:54:43 01/19/04 (1)

I don't think I watered it down at all! - Troy 09:00:15 01/19/04 (0)

I think your confusing - mvwine 07:59:42 01/17/04 (4)

Re: I think the whole thing is confusing - Troy 09:54:39 01/18/04 (0)

Re: I think your confusing - patrickU 09:38:30 01/17/04 (2)

Yes, the whole international trend is discouraging - mvwine 19:10:09 01/18/04 (1)

Re: Yes, the whole international trend is discouraging - patrickU 02:07:04 01/19/04 (0)

No... - Victor Khomenko 14:16:28 01/16/04 (5)

Yes - Troy 09:23:01 01/18/04 (0)

Re: No... - patrickU 07:45:51 01/17/04 (3)

Re: No... - Victor Khomenko 10:08:32 01/17/04 (2)

Maybe . . . - Troy 09:28:41 01/18/04 (0)

Re: No... - patrickU 10:19:57 01/17/04 (0)

Have a look at "Kids" (1995), and then come back here and talk about sugarcoating... - orejones 12:28:23 01/16/04 (1)

That was a "rough" film to watch for sure! Didn't do NYC any favors. -n - albee33 18:13:56 01/16/04 (0)

Maybe not "cosmetic and sugar coated", but... - vocalion 09:55:21 01/16/04 (3)

Yes... that is far more like it - Victor Khomenko 10:39:40 01/16/04 (1)

Re: Lumiere and Co. - rico 05:14:12 01/18/04 (0)

Re: Maybe not "cosmetic and sugar coated", but... - patrickU 10:30:05 01/16/04 (0)

Follow Ups

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)

You can not post to an archived thread.