In Reply to: The masses are too dumb, not smart enough to know what is good and not good. posted by rhizomatic on March 16, 2005 at 13:31:03:
"No, it's a great film, you're right. How can anything so incredibly--and I do mean incredibly--serious not be high art."Please, direct me to where I wrote that Mystic River is high art. Or that I thought it attempted to be so. The arguments against it go as follows: It attempts to be high art, but it is not high art, and is therefore middle-brow.
The fatal flaw in this logic is the belief that it attempts to be high art. Has Eastwood ever said that? Anyone associated with the film? I suspect that Eastwood would simply say that he attempted to entertain the viewer, and tell a good story. But high art? YOU said that he attempted high art. Well, it seems to me the only sources for such a statement would be either Eastwood himself, or something within the film. Please direct me to something in the film which supports your thesis. Being "serious" does not equate to an attempt to be high art. Many films are serious, but have no pretentions to be high art.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: The masses are too dumb, not smart enough to know what is good and not good. - jamesgarvin 15:55:18 03/16/05 (12)
- Don't you get it? Sean Penn, Tim Robbins and Kevin Bacon practically *stink* of high art... ;-) ... nt - clarkjohnsen 11:20:36 03/17/05 (4)
- Hung up on the term? - rhizomatic 11:35:22 03/17/05 (3)
- 'Scuse me, not my term. I repeated it in jest. Lighten up. And as I said elsewhere... - clarkjohnsen 11:42:12 03/17/05 (2)
- Did you like the book? - rhizomatic 11:49:55 03/17/05 (1)
- I thought it was supposed to be easier to make good movies out of bad books - Bulkington 12:24:15 03/17/05 (0)
- Well, no... - rhizomatic 17:34:57 03/16/05 (6)
- Re: Well, no... - jamesgarvin 09:26:56 03/17/05 (5)
- And let us not forget, it's scripted from a frikkin' BOOK by a frikkin' MYSTERY writer. How much higher can art go? nt - clarkjohnsen 11:24:18 03/17/05 (0)
- You don't think that intentions are *implicit* to works of art? - rhizomatic 10:25:44 03/17/05 (3)
- Re: You don't think that intentions are *implicit* to works of art? - jamesgarvin 13:09:47 03/17/05 (1)
- But I'm not judging Eastwood. - rhizomatic 13:54:02 03/17/05 (0)
- Oh, by 'supplementary baggage' here, - rhizomatic 10:27:05 03/17/05 (0)