Posted by Bill Van Dyk on 09/27/05 17:34

And how do you separate a genuine artist from the hoards of slavish
followers who all think that by copying the end result of an original
artistic process that they too look like artists?

I am reminded of the poet who dresses all in black, because he doesn't
for one moment have enough faith in his own poetry to believe that the
audience won't immediately detect the charlatan that he is. And the
professional athlete who surrounds himself with bodyguards. And the
preacher who claims Satan is attacking his ministry with those scabrous
claims of infidelity and extravagance...

Anyway, I really believe that some current stylistics tricks are just
"affectations", and not genuinely called for by the substance of the
scene. There were several scenes in "Constant Gardener" for example, in
which the handheld, shakey camera was gratuitous and pointless. On the
other hand, Lars Von Trier, love him or hate him, takes genuine risks
and creates genuinely interesting films. Gus Van Zant likewise.
Richard Linklater.

Most of the other directors lift techniques and strategies from the
genuine innovators.

I will admit that it can be very, very difficult to separate the poseurs
from the real thing, though. It's the difference between "The Pianist"
and "Schindler's List" or "Cool Hand Luke" and "Shawshank Redemption",
or "Blade Runner" and "I, Robot". The one is jazz, the other is pop.

Specs wrote:

> What's blatantly obvious from your answer is that you either haven't seen
> the programme or you have not understood how the film sequences are being
> used in the programme. Its not simply to separate one show from another
> there is more to it than that. I suggest you take another look at the
> programme.
>
> If you've spent 30 years in the business and you still don't understand the
> use of different visual aesthetics and their affect on the audience then
> shame on you.
>
>
>

[Back to original message]