|
|
Posted by Gunther Gloop on 02/22/06 16:07
Temsonic wrote:
> "Gunther Gloop" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> But I hate movies/books, etc. that deliberately preach a particular
>> viewpoint and show people with opposing viewpoints as stupid/
>> backward/ facistic/ childish/ etc. while it "teaches us all the
>> error of our ways". So I didn't like Pleasantville, Cider House Rules,
>> Amelie and others
>> mainly for that reason. It's nothing to do with my own opinion of
>> what they were 'preaching', or what anyone else liked or disliked
>> about them. I think it's wrong for "art" to have a set-viewpoint.
>> That should be left up to the viewer/listener to decide.
>
> I agree to a certain extent, though I think we can sometimes impose
> that on a film ourselves. E.g. If a film has the two main male
> protagonists falling in love it's obviously going to upset some of
> the characters around them in the film, and if we care at all about
> those protagonists by that point, then we're likely to see any
> prejudiced charater's words and actions towards them as hurtful and
> 'bad' - unless of course you're homophobic in which case you may well
> take the other side. Essentially, your own reaction to what you see
> as being 'preached' (and I use that word in the loosest possible
> sense) from opinions and values you already have can easily colour
> your view of the film.
Yes. There is a way to do it "right", which is why I was asking about this
movie. I think Pleasantville for instance had a brilliant premise (colour
comes to a black and white 50s town and causes confusion and resentment,
etc.). That could have been a great movie.
....But it did it _wrong_.
It began nailing its premise to the door and the window and the inside of
the screen by around the halfway mark. Then it basically descended into
pointing fingers and calling names for the rest of the movie.
> Maybe that's just me, I don't like 'observing' films clinically, I
> enjoy a film more if I can understand the characters and can at least
> feel some kind of empathy with what I'm watching. I think that's why
> I'm not (yet) a big fan of directors like Kubrick.
>
There's the difference right there. I wouldn't call it "clinical
observation", but I credit Stanley Kubrick for "waking me up" to how things
_should_ be done. Of course that's just my opinion and other opinions are no
more right nor wrong. It's funny that you mention him though -I do consider
all of his movies to be more or less "perfect films".
I also think the relatively-recent movie HAPPINESS (only 8 years old)
caused a viewpoint-shift in my mind. I can't recall another (single) movie
that changed the way I look at movies in itself.
I _hated_ that film first time around. I had to force myself to sit through
it again some months later (mainly because I was getting confusing good/bad
memories of what I thought of it) and I _loved_ it second time around. It
got better with repeated viewings.
I think the problem for me was that I was conditioned to root for the
protagonists -'subconsciously' I was looking for the heroes and villains-
because that's exactly how most stuff is made. Good quality movies/ books/
pictures/ shoes on the whole can and do say wildly different things to just
about everyone.
A friend of mine thought Monster's Ball was a disgraceful, disgusting movie
with absolutely no qualities that should have caused it to ever be made. I
watched it and was lost for a reason why it was so bad. I didn't think it
was brilliant, but certainly not any of that.
After seeing it, I asked him to clarify his opinion some more. He made it
clear that he took it that the film was siding with all the ("negative")
viewpoints of Billy Bob and his (worse) father.
That just isn't true -the movie has characters that are toughened and "bad",
but the same characters can and do have "good" characteristics. That's not
to say the movie is justifying them -it's just making them more real and
is a more-honest telling. Not enough movies do that.
I can't even sit through movies by Michael Moore, with whom I would
possibly/probably agree with more than 90% of the time. I hate his movies. I
think they adopt the same tactics that makes his "opposition" so distasteful
to me. He cheapens the argument and leaves no room for any other
perspective. The fact that he makes documentaries and not fiction makes no
difference really. He preaches... I don't like tha'
....Oh... must mention another favourite movie for no reason other than I
just thought of it... Affliction (Nick Nolte/ James Coburn). That too
"suffers" if the viewer carries too much baggage going in. Characters are
"unsympathetic" to the majority of viewers, but the story is beautiful.
Good movies can _seem_ to be a polemic, but only if you allow your own
prejudices blind you to other ways to see it.
I do not like movies that _do_ deliberately manipulate the viewer into
"agreeing with" the viewpoint presented.
....And I have (or had) no idea _if_ Brokeback Mountain has such a "static
viewpoint", which (I hope is now clear), is why I asked about this movie. It
wasn't a call to arms or a declaration of any kind.
> I don't think you can categorically state it's wrong for art to have
> a set viewpoint, but I do think that the art/artist should be open
> and honest about that viewpoint and not present it as the objective
> true and correct viewpoint.
It might not be "wrong" but I can't think of an exception to cause me to
change my opinion -not to say there isn't one.
> Just out of interest, what was Amelie
> preaching to me? Whatever it was was lost on me!
>
It's a while since I saw it, but from what I recall, Amelie (the character)
is too nose-pokery for my liking. She "fixes" what's wrong with everybody
else's life before she can find the right life for herself.
That would be fine if the movie allowed for at least some of the people
being happy in their "misery" or any other view other than hers. But
instead, everyone was enriched by following Amelie's direction.
It's too preachy and one-sided... but very well made (as usual by Juenet)
and not as 'bad' as the others I mentioned. ...I'd have to watch it again to
say any more on it.
>> I really enjoyed Y Tu Mama too. Very sexy and crude and
>> thought-provoking I thought. Must watch again sometime. I was very
>> surprised when the director was 'chosen' to make that Harry Potter
>> movie (must watch that some time too. Probably).
>
> I think JK Rowling possibly had something to do with it. In her
> interview on the Prisoner of Azkaban DVD she says that she loved Y Tu
> Mama Tambien and approved the choice of Alfonso Cuaron because 'he
> really understands teenage boys'. Prisoner of Azkaban is by far the
> best of the HP series. It's a wonderfully directed film and has
> currently made it's way to the top of my rewatchable feelgood film
> list.
I didn't see any of them so far, but I read 2.5 of the books, so I'll
probably see that one first.
>> From what I now know of Brokeback Mountain, it seems like a close
>> comparison might be Bridges of Madison County.
>> ...I have yet to watch that movie too. ...It's "on the list", but not a
>> priority.
>
>Never seen Bridges of Madison County though I know roughly what it's about.
>I was thinking something along the lines of In The Mood For Love (though
>probably not half as stylish) - again the general forbidden love angle
>rather than two hours of shirtlifting in a field full of sheep ;)
>
Well Bridges seems to have similar scenery -and also features a forbidden
love (Meryl is married to another man as far as I know). It also features
Clint Eastwood crying, which possibly moves it closer to the term "gay
cowboy" in many people's minds, than the two shepherds in Ang Lee's movie.
;)
-Kevin.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|