Posted by Moving Vision on 09/27/05 18:10

In article <qNKdnfdPQoqxHqTeRVn-iQ@golden.net>, Bill Van Dyk
<trash@christian-horizons.org> writes
>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.


Hey, that's an excellent post Mr Van Dyk
--
John Lubran

[Back to original message]