 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: I only give 8 1/2 a 3 1/2 on my list of great movies, and that's when I'm bored enough to watch posted by Victor Khomenko on November 21, 2002 at 16:54:00:
To say that RAGING BULL is "just another movie about sports and personal struggles" is like saying THE OLD MAN AND THE SEA is a book about a guy who catches a fish...To draw a distinction between "greatest American director" and "greatest director" is to miss a crucial point -- a film may speak equally to the all the world's people through story/emotion (aka Charlie Chaplin's work) or through cinematography, especially black and white cinemagraphy (too many examples to list). With this criteria, RAGING BULL's compelling narrative and striking photography (especially the tightly-edited, surreal fight scenes) qualifies Marty Scorces as one of the world's Marty greatest directors.
IMO Scorces is without doubt the greatest living American director, a title I don't bestow lightly.
Follow Ups:
If the American industry produced 200 films on the same theme, then The Old Man and The Sea would perhaps start blending into that crowd, but not with Tracy's performance, of course.Hundreds of silly films on athletes IS an American tradition, like it or not, like the westerns are. And taken from that perspective the Bull IS formulaic.
I don't think it is wrong to identify the American directors (actors too) as a special category. They do have very distinct flavor (jist like the French or Italian ones), and they do represent the national cinema wich has generally been isolated and lagging in artistic area.
To me again this is like being a US champ, but only an Olympic bronze winner. You can use either title depending upon the context, and both represent different views of the same achievement, allowing you to put it into RIGHT perspective.
It can be said, that it is the inability to see things from the world perspective is what limits the American movie industry acievements.
> > > It can be said, that it is the inability to see things from the world perspective is what limits the American movie industry acievements < < <The Americans DO see the world perspective... it's called MONEY... the US film industry was founded on the premise of delivering technology-driven entertainment to the masses in exchange for the almighty dollar. I think the European countries have always been more concerned with making films that are either purely artistic works or vehicles to examine the human condition for social or political purposes.
Money vs. art..... the eternal struggle goes on.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
