|
Films/DVD Asylum Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star. |
|
|
|
Films/DVD Asylum Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star. |
|
In Reply to: Interesting. . . . posted by Tyson on October 25, 2000 at 01:14:23:
Tyson, first let me say that the one-liners like that "Yawn" do have place in the discussion forums, especially after the subject has already been beat to near death many times over. But I understand that it can cause strong negative reaction in someone.So going over some of your points...
***I don't really think you can divorce the story from the means of telling that story.
But you can. This is the crust of the argument and it is never going to be resolved, so we shall spend just a bit of time here.
I always say that the art is not about the subject, it is about the means. To me work of art can be built on ANY subject, however insignificant, and I tried to demonstrate this with few examples - things like the tired servant women in many Dutch paintings, for example. Or simply a flower or a tree.
I agree that it doesn't have to be that way, and if the subject is of great interest in itself, this is not necessarily a detriment, but it CAN be, when the subject matter is so provocative, so strong that it dominates and therefore obstructs our ability to see beyond that. In some way it is like a very bright light beam that prevents us from seeing the subtle vibrant colors. Example? Take that famous photo of an arm inserted in the anus. To the great majority of people this is the instant show stopper, invoking the emotions so strong and so different from what was intended, that any artistic merit of such work is lost hopelessly.
Story and means can be intertwined. There was a tremendous storyteller in Russia called Irakly Andronnikov. An extremely smart, educated and talented man. His delivery was mesmerizing and riveting. But was that the result of the story lines? Hardly. Once stripped of his artistic proves, they would become perhaps curious little bits, but not much more. If told by me - there would not be any audience. Here we have an example of how the story IS important, for he needed a story to tell, but only as a foundation.
His example is different, because in his case his means were words, and words can't exist without a story.
Images are different.
Movies have more in common with paintings than with novels. By many accounts the movie art is all about images. While the paintings can not deal with certain emotions due to their frozen image nature. According to Gessing, the portrayal of the strongest, the highest emotions can not and should not be attempted by sculpture or painting for the simple reason that if lasting forever, they lose their poignancy. The suffering of Laocoon doesn't touch us as much because in real life such pain can not be anything other than very brief. The challenge of the painter or a sculptor is, therefore, in finding more indirect ways of relaying such strong emotions.
There is no such limitation on movie art. There the artist has absolute right to go for the strongest emotional impact, and often as direct as he wishes. But what about the story in all of that?
I remember when the Tarkovsky's Mirror came out. I was grasped by the incredibly powerful images in that film and I could not sleep without seeing them again, and again, every one exploding in a sequence of thousand of follow-up images, all invoked by the artist's mastery of such manipulation. None of them was direct. Story? I don't think there was any.
Of course, that movie had produced an avalanche of discussions among the intelligencia. As you can probably guess, 99% of them centered on "Was that woman indeed his mother? And if yes, doesn't that mean scene A happened before B, or vice versa?" It was all done at strictly intellectual level, and apparently there was enough food for such discussion in that movie.
Me? I did not participate in these. I just sat there, for frozen in my memory was the face of Solonytsyn, stepping over the fence and wiping that drop of blood off his cheek. I the decades of going to the movies, that image remains one of the strongest ever, carved into my memory. Is there a story behind it? I really don't know.
***Taken together, these two elements are what make a film great, or not. Obviously you can break the 2 apart for reasons of analysis, but in the end, the movie must be judged as a whole, as a union of all its parts. I personally thought all of the elements that went in to EWS were strong.I am somewhat losing track of the EWS now. It has been long time since I saw it and since it did not create any strong emotions, I am less equipped to talk about it now.
***You did not like the story, or the particular way it was presented. Okay, fine, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. My opinion of the story and the way it was told is quite different. I was enthralled by the story & at many times I was literally on the edge of my seat. To each their own, no need for everyone to agree. My analysis of EWS above was meant to point out what I found interesting and great about the film, nothing more. When I see something I think highly of attacked over and over for being "boring, too long, with no point or plot",You need to be fair here - I never said THAT. I don't even know what the "plot" of the "Wild Strawberries" was.
***I felt a reasoned response was called for pointing out specifically why I disagreed with people who thought it was boring, etc. . . But art is so highly personal, that I realize the futility of any effort to "change people's minds" - I mean, if you don't like Beethoven's music no ammount of analysis or explanation of why it is great music will ever change your mind. In fact, my response was really written for those people that DID like EWS, rather than as a pure rebuttal for those that did not. I know they are out there and I was hoping my response might initiate a dialogue on the movie. In esssence, I wanted to say, "I did not find the movie boring, etc. . . because of the following reasons, are there others out there that also liked the movie & what did you like about it". That is why I invited other "serious interpretations of the movie". Hell, even a well reasoned analysis of why the movie was not good would be ok with me, but to dismiss it with *Yawn* is just not a criticism I can take seriously. Later on you had more thoughfull criticisms, and I respect that completely, but I still disagree with you.I usually don't set the goal of converting people. This forum is just for expressing opinions, and you are doing just fine with that. So thank you for interesting discussion. Time to do some soldering.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Interesting. . . . - Victor Khomenko 06:06:32 10/25/00 (1)
- Ooops... It is Lessing, not Gessing. - Victor Khomenko 14:33:51 10/25/00 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
