In Reply to: :-) posted by sjb on March 19, 2007 at 08:28:45:
That's an important and accurate observation, I believe. Some offhand thoughts:Film is art. In all its elements. But, as I briefly argued with tinear (Brando v Neuman), I really wonder how important it is for a particular viewer to be able to read deeply into the "art" of it to derive great enjoyment, or even inspiration.
Did Bergman or anyone associated with him set out to make great art, to make films filled with particular nuance. I really doubt it. I think he is inspired by an idea, and then he improvises using the resources available; imaginatively, intuitively. The result is so personal, so representative of his idosyncratic make up as to evade analysis or criticism, initially, by its very nature.
Artists labor to "discover" their creations, and as often as not are as surprised as the observer when they read the content. Greatness comes when excellence for its own sake is pursued and revealed. In a moment or over a career.
I believe the primary purpose of film - of art - is to appeal to the senses. I think the artist knows and intends this. On balance this appeal must be sympathetic, otherwise one walks away. Only after the fact should one -artist or observer - legitimately wish to ascribe deeper significance.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- "post facto ascribed subtexts" - afilado 11:30:00 03/19/07 (4)
- phenterine - phenterine 07:15:31 04/27/07 (0)
- "Did [Beethoven]... set out to make great art?" Certainly not *lasting* art; he had no concept. (But Mahler did...) nt - clarkjohnsen 10:54:51 03/20/07 (1)
- Beethoven had no concept of lasting art? What's scary is that you mean it. nt - tinear 16:56:31 03/20/07 (0)
- Re: "post facto ascribed subtexts" - sjb 17:18:52 03/19/07 (0)