Films/DVD Asylum Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ] [ Edit ] [ Delete ]

---

Re:It ain't yer commas, Victor, it's yer apostrophes!

207.81.84.149

Posted by RGA on May 30, 2005 at 22:12:32

In Reply to: Re:It ain't yer commas, Victor, it's yer apostrophes! posted by Gee LP on May 30, 2005 at 21:57:04:

First let's discuss what stands the test of time. Who decides? I am sick of reading people on forums say their little seen movie as standing the test of time. A small minority of self proclaimed experts (only similar thinking people agree) will call some unknown movie as standing the test of time. Well guess what, every movie that is on a recorded medium 'stands the test of time" because eventually somebody is going to see it in 2005 when it was made in 1935.

This is the same argument that is found in English Literature and what I wrote about on Death of a Salesman , which I never said was "based on the great American novel"). I'd like to see this since you have direct quotes around it. A select group of people decide what is to be canonized as great literature or in this case great film art. And there seems to be a direct correlation that if it’s popular then it must automatically be terrible and if it loses piles of money then it must be something wondrous. That is of course unless it is made in the United States and is funded by any sort of major studio.

I can make the proclamation that JAWS has stood the test of time if we consider 30 years to be a reasonable number. Yes Jaws the big summer blockbuster by Steven Spielberg (yes he’s a Jew and we know how many hate to give them any credit) but please all the art-house folks please argue that this film has not stood the test of time! The criteria is not that it needs to be re-released in order to have stood the test of time but that it had stood it’s own time or ANY time. The Age of Innocence tanked then it is forgotten now and sure to Tinnear and the great minority who liked this film to THEM it may stand up well. I suppose the real question is what the hell are they talking about when they say it stands the test of time?

“And what is wrong with "deep thinking film criticism in little one line snippet comments"? Pauline Kael got started doing the same thing”

No there is no deeper thinking – if one can succinctly come up with something truly pithy that is one thing but in case you have not noticed Tinear and Victor are not Pauline Kael.

Well when we get into issues of grammar, punctuation, and spelling then I know how little the other side has to offer. Typing is not my forte.

I am not in film school. Film is far too low an art form to be considered worthy of my time. That is another argument for another time I suppose.

I don’t really care how one judges a film to be quite honest. I suggest that many older films do not ‘translate” well with today’s viewers. This is not the filmmaker’s fault as there were many rules that they had to follow to be allowed to show their movie. A lot of stupid things like if you have a love scene the woman on a bed had to keep a foot on the floor and other things that an audience today would not necessarily know and when viewing the movie might find it silly. Much of the acting, due to the style most actors were following also seems incredibly stilted to an 18 year old who has just seen Pulp Fiction. The context approach would be a good idea and I’m not saying that it must be followed or that it is even correct. A lot of older film critics lived in a different time and what is a pivotal very personal and emotionally wrenching film to 60+ year old Roger Ebert may play very differently to 30+ year old RGA or someone in their teens.

There are some people who rabidly hold onto their past and when younger are more impressionable. The film that made me love movies in the beginning I may hold onto for 40 years. There is absolutely nothing visually spectacular at all about Citizen Kane by today’s standards. Nothing! Sure if we put a qualifier like “it was a revelation of its day” or “it set a visual standard of such and such that many films have followed” but it certainly NEEDS this qualifier. In the “out of time” objective world its visuals would be laughed off the screen by some mediocre movie like the Matrix. And then we get some lame comeback that well Tarrantino is no good because he copied everyone that came before him. So, anyone who uses the word “THE” is copying the guy who came up with the word “THE”.

When I say judging a film on its merits I mean judging the film on what the filmmaker is attempting to attain. I find it totally asinine to compare most unlike films. There is a tier system to the whole thing that reminds me of Racial Eugenics. Drama is above Horror, character studies above comedy, Science fiction is beneath the lot and on and on.

Judging “Raiders of the Lost Ark” an action adventure based on old pulp novels which is comic book inspired was an idea of the Director who when growing up loved these stories. Now this is an example and not to be side-tracked into a review of this film’s merits. Most would agree that on the film’s terms it’s been done to brilliance (I respect that some will disagree but also respect that the vast majority and even pro-critics do agree on this film). Either way I am using it for the sake of argument. Now, enter a film like John Carpenter’s Halloween, or Blatty’s the Exorcist. Here are films that have zero in common with Raiders. These films were meant to scare and or disturb us. Once again, most people/critics felt they did a great job at doing exactly what the filmmaker set out to do.

No it is merely people pontificating that because they didn’t “like” a film or a filmmaker’s body of work then that film and or filmmaker is weak. There is no objective truth to any of this. Slick action films like “The Rock” serve a purpose and while not terribly deep or at all deep does this genre of action packed spew one liners as well or better than most.

I may like “2001: A Space Odyssey” or whatever art-house flick the art-house crowd thinks is great more because I find it might stimulate my intellect more, but better does not it make.

People get trapped into definitions and begin to hold very narrow views on art. On the music forum you have posters like Soundmind who holds a very narrow view of what good music is to a breakdown of superior instruments to the least useful. Funny, I don’t think my liver is necessarily more or less important than my pancreas but to each their own.

And since if I like Death of a Salesman as a commentary on the American Dream being a mirage for most and call it a modern tragedy I can back it up with babble written by a bunch of PHDs, well this will get me my A+ thank you very much. Am I right? Of course not, but wrong I can tell you I am not.

I was not attempting to attack tinear - I just unfortunately dumped it on him a long time dissatisfaction with self-proclaimed experts of SUBJECTIVE things like ART.

I am puzzled by your comment on Star Wars or ET. If you have a case to make against them or Jaws of standing the test of time then make it. Again, I hope not to read another self-proclaimed expert commentary that says something along the lines that “the dialog is goofy or the story is thin.” I agree on both counts but that won’t necessarily hinder it from lasting. After all Shakespeare was not incredibly deep and he’s managed to stay with us.

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

VH Audio

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---