|
|
Posted by Temsonic on 02/22/06 20:29
"Gunther Gloop" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:463gj1F8spoiU1@individual.net...
> Temsonic wrote:
>> 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'm aware of your liking for Kubrick, that's why I specifically used him as
an example :) As tastes change with time I may well have a conversion and
get into Kubrick, but for now I have plenty of other things to be
discovering.
> 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.
I haven't seen that film, but I recently got a similar kind of thing
regarding the Korean film Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter. There's a point
where the main protagonist does something so awful that you just can't
'root' for him any longer, it completely confused what my expectations of
the film were and I finished the film thinking I didn't like it. I realised
the problem was I'd expected the film to be about something different and
when it didn't match what I wanted to project onto it I'd basically shut
myself to what it was actually doing. I watched it again _the next day_ and
loved it.
> 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'
>> 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.
I partly had Michael Moore in mind when I said I think it's ok for art to
have a viewpoint as long as it's honest about that viewpoint. Michael Moore
did openly say that he wanted to use Farenheit 911 as a campaign against
Bush in 2004 election - it was total propaganda. True, it partially failed
because it was so imbalanced, hopefully Moore will have learnt from that. I
was also thinking about e.g. politically motivated/protest songs. Totally
valid art forms as long as they're appreciated in context.
Richard
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|