Art and Audience

[anduril]

I think it is safe to assume that most users on these forums regard movies as art. I'm sure most would agree that some movies are extremely important because of the messages they communicate and the mirror they hold to society and our human condition. One of the problems, however, is that alot of the movies discussed on this forum are destined to be seen by only a select few. Moreover, directors who make their "art" more palatable are seen as somehow compromising the art form. The question this inevitably raises is what good is art that goes (relatively) unseen or art that is misunderstood.

Perhaps an interesting case in point...

Some of you may know that Stanley Kubrick intended to make a Holocaust movie called "Aryan Papers." This project was shelved when Spielberg started work on "Schindler's List." I, personally, lament the fact that Kubrick's movie was never made; I think it would have been a better, more powerful, less humanistic, more profound account of the Holocaust than Spielberg's admittedly still great movie. Of course, the flip side of the coin is that Kubrick's movie would not have had the same impact as Spielberg's movie has had. Not only did Spielberg's movie receive critical and popular acclaim as well as box office and awards success but Spielberg was able to turn these profits and direct the attention of viewers towards the event in many other ways, including a series of documentaries, the Shoah Film Project, and several other significant public service endeavors. I doubt very much that Kubrick's movie, though almost certainly better craft, would have had the capacity to make such an impact.

So, to cut to the point, what are your thoughts on the interrelationship of art and audience, critical and popular success, and so on?

[JustaFied]

Good question. What is "art"? I'd argue that art is anything that someone has created, regardless of whether it has any merit to you or me. It's a form of expression.

The vast majority of movies being released today I consider "bad art". They're derivative, formulaic, manipulative, and most of all, boring.

To me, "good art" films are ones that at least try to be unique and present a new point of view of some sort. Even if they're not trying to solve all the mysteries of the universe in one film. I love films like "Pulp Fiction", "Bottle Rocket", "Election", and "Nashville" (to name a few) partly because they seem so fresh and unique in the context of other films of their time.

Art certainly has the ability to effect change, or at least to get people to think. Unfortunately, it seems that mainstream success in this regard is often achieved by movies that are dumbed down to some degree. It seems that mainstream audiences like certainty, and they like their themes spelled out for them. It helps to have a "good" guy fighting the "bad" guy. Erin Brokovich was a hero.

You mentioned "Schindler's List". I'll mention another Spielberg film, "Saving Private Ryan". It was much more popular than the other WWII movie that came out that year, "The Thin Red Line". I consider TRL a superior film. It had a bigger impact on me, but "Ryan" surely had a bigger impact on moviegoers as a whole, because more of them saw it.

I'd love to see a really good film be really popular. I thought "American Beauty" was a really good film, and it did pretty well at the box office. I think it had an impact.

[pmw]

Today, we tend to think we are aware of the good art that exists around us and perhaps we are... But as a society of people who feel entitled to art, the criteria are often dumbed down: if it's not accessible it's not relevant art etc. As far as I'm concerned, total BS. I think there are methodologies for at least attempting to evaluate art. Some factors that come to mind: contemporary relevance, stylistic innovation, awareness of precedent etc. These are some things which I think are most often present in what I would call artistically successful films/music/books whatever. Popular acceptance is not really a criteria for me.
P

[oscar jubis]

If you have a big audience you can't really say you respect them -you don't know who they are.
Jean-Luc Godard

Films should be made to divide people. The idea of the masses is an invention of the producers, of the cultural industry. Films that pretend to be made for the masses are really made to keep them in their place, to violate them or to fascinate them. Consequently, they don't give people the liberty to get up and leave.
Jean-Marie Straub

It comes down to filthy lucre. If you could get the profit out of film, you'd be left with people who love it. The other 90% of American directors would say "let's open a shoe factory" or "let's open a disco and sell coke".
Robert Altman

[Johann]

Excellent quotes, oscar.

The movie-going public are largely apathetic. I'm sure of it.

One of the drawbacks of actually leaving the house to see a film is the conversations you hear from other patrons. I've been known to tell people off- ask anduril!- when at the theatre.

People piss me off with the blathering nonsense they usually spew while waiting for the lights to dim.
They don't know art from tupperware. I heard one chick shriek to her "posse" that she forgot to tape "Friends"- at an art house screening of Rivette's Va Savoir!

And what about those keeners that like to whisper to their spouses the intricate plot points and speculations about what direction the action will take? OOOOH does that irk me. And they always seem to sit RIGHT behind you....

I know that there are also true film lovers out there who want to have a great time at the movies AND appreciate a good film. But with the major studios constantly trying to tap into the "youth dollar" by marketing pieces of shit like Torque and 40 Days and 40 Nights (ugh I hate typing those words) we are inundated with pure manufactured garbage. Just like Britney, Justin, Christina, Timmy, Joey, and Sally- the useless, pretentious pop pap that we are beat over the head with daily. When will these people go to OBLIVIONLAND? They've had tickets for years! first class! Get on the bus you phony fucking cocksuckers! Enough already!
I heard Justin Timberlake is making a film. For fuck's sakes.
The guy is about as interesting to me as watching grass grow.
Take your annoying, needs-a-shave peach-fuzz ass and book it to Vanilla Ice-ville.
I've asked chicks what's so great about this loser, and the only response I get is "HE'S HOT!"
That's it? He's "hot". Whoopty-shit.
Yes, I HATE Timberlake. His name sucks, his music sucks, HE sucks. His fame is the most baffling thing I can think of. NO TIMBERLAKE MOVIES! I'm gonna start a petition.

That's the reason audiences are dumb: Britney and Justin.
They've ruined the current movie-making scheme.

[anduril]

Originally posted by pmw
Popular acceptance is not really a criteria for me.
P

I agree that popularity should not be a criteria in deciding what is art and what isn't. What I am asking, however, is whether or to what degree filmmakers ought to strive to make their art accessible, recognizing that this is often necessary to effect change?

[Johann]

As Kubrick said: NO COMPROMISE

[oscar jubis]

The directors I quoted implied a big, resounding NO.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
Excellent quotes, oscar.

J: Quite frankly, your post contradicts the very essence of Oscar's quotes. You express such contempt for popular culture and you strongly suggest that if you could have your way you would want everyone to appreciate movies the way you do. Oscar's quotes, however, stress the value of limited audiences and the importance of differance (to draw a word from Derrida).

Also, why such contempt? Surely there are aspects of culture and society for which you do not have the kind of passion/appreciation that it may deserve. Some people just don't watch movies the way you do; instead, they may read books that way; or they may appreciate stamps that way; or, they may show passion for social justice; etc. etc. I don't think it is fair to show the kind of contempt that you have shown in your post.

[Johann]

In a way I do appreciate the "differences" between art films and pop culture, (it allows me to declare my allegiance to art) but I also have supreme contempt for the aspects of "poop" culture (Justin, Britney, American Idol) that proclaim to be talented, artistic (does anyone besides naive teens actually believe that Britney Spears is talented?) If so, they need professional help.
(OSCAR! can I refer them to your practice?)

[anduril]

Originally posted by oscar jubis
The directors I quoted implied a big, resounding NO.

Yes, they do but I'm not sure they make a convincing argument for why that's the correct answer. Godard may be recognized by a select group of cinemaniacs as a great and influential director but his movies, no matter how smart or how relevant, will never, ever effect the kind of social change that Spielberg accomplishes with his movies. Isn't the purpose of art to stimulate such change? What is the point of a movie, no matter how brilliant, that goes unseen by the "ignorant" people who need to see it most?

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
In a way I do appreciate the "differences" between art films and pop culture, (it allows me to declare my allegiance to art) but I also have supreme contempt for the aspects of "poop" culture (Justin, Britney, American Idol) that proclaim to be talented, artistic (does anyone besides naive teens actually believe that Britney Spears is talented?) If so, they need professional help.
(OSCAR! can I refer them to your practice?)

I sympathize to a large degree... I think that humans exist for far greater purposes than the trash that industry often produces.

However, at the same time, alot of this stuff is escapist entertainment. Some of it appeals to people precisely because it is fluff. Personally, I spend alot of intellectual energies in writing essays and studying the Bible on a professional, academic level... when it's time to sit back and relax, I often don't want to pop into the DVD player something that is intellectually demanding... I want to watch something or listen to music that will not make the kind of demands on me that Godard, Kubrick, Kieslowski, or Scorsese will make.

[Johann]

That's just the kind of thinking that fuels the studios, man.

That's the sad reality: we have to get the word out with websites like this. Otherwise the Spielberg's and Lucas's WILL be considered the social change presidents they claim to be.

It's so frustrating that schools & parents aren't really concerned with the mass marketers, money men and spin doctors who invade our collective consciousness with their questionable "entertainment". Hell, they seem to ACCEPT IT as a fact of life. That's just wrong.

P.S. I've admitted here that I secretly like the Anna Nicole Smith Show- something I like to watch when I don't want to be "intellectually stimulated". But if I was to be bare-soul honest I shouldn't enjoy it. See, the marketers of "reality TV" have even got me! and Trailer Park Boys is fine for "parking your brain" as well. I love Bubbles....

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
That's just the kind of thinking that fuels the studios, man.

That's the sad reality: we have to get the word out with websites like this. Otherwise the Spielberg's and Lucas's WILL be considered the social change presidents they claim to be.

It's so frustrating that schools & parents aren't really concerned with the mass marketers, money men and spin doctors who invade our collective consciousness with their questionable "entertainment". Hell, they seem to ACCEPT IT as a fact of life. That's just wrong.

But, you are dealing with real people, J. You often have to meet them where they at: Spielberg excels at this. He understands the limitations of his audience. He understands that many people do not devote their intellectual energies to understand the intricacies and subtleties of French nouvelle cinema or any foreign film for that matter. Most people out there, and yes "most," do not want to make the time to watch Kubrick movies hundreds of times over or watch movies in other languages or see movies that require them to decipher messages in layers of obfuscation... most people devote their lives to other things, some just as valuable or even more valuable than movies. Yet, Spielberg wants to reach these people because they are the people who vote; these are the teachers in our elementary schools; these are the people that can demand change.

[Johann]

Your point is well taken, and yes, Spielberg is a genius at manipulating that demographic.

I guess I'm just bewildered that people won't look deeper.
If your interest or knowledge of the holocaust stops at Schindler's List, Houston we have a problem.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
Your point is well taken, and yes, Spielberg is a genius at manipulating that demographic.

I guess I'm just bewildered that people won't look deeper.
If your interest or knowledge of the holocaust stops at Schindler's List, Houston we have a problem.

That would be true if, e.g., you are a professor in a University, a teacher in a school, or just about any WASP living in urban America. But, if you are a redneck, blue collar farmer who milks cows and slaughters animals, I think Schindler's List is enough. For two hours, this farmer will come to realize that s/he needs to think beyond udders and agriculture. That makes all the difference in the world; it is more than Godard could ever hope to accomplish and perhaps in the long run more profound.

[Johann]

Why would farmers be concerned about the holocaust in the first place? Where would he go to see a film? His livingroom?

And I doubt he would be eager to jump on the social change bandwagon after seeing it, either. What's he gonna do about it?
He may be glad he saw it, but he's got chickens to feed, dammit!

[oscar jubis]

Britney's gone astray. Send her over, J.

On a serious note, my problem with the "commercial mainstream" is not that it exists per se. My problem is that the entertainment conglomerates behave in a violently imperialist way. For instance, it's sad to travel to Europe and Asia and witness the monopoly Hollywood has on what's shown in theatres while national cinemas suffer the consequences. Some countries such as France have passed effective legislation to alleviate the problem, but this is the exception. A Hollywood studio can force a theatre chain to show Torque in order to receive say...LOTR. In journalism, newspaper movie sections full of fluff pieces that belong on Tigerbeat. A great deal of the best cinema is simply not shown in theatres, outside of film festivals and a few traveling retros. Why do you think J hasn't seen a single Hou, and I haven't seen any of the Czech and Central Asian films he's been writing about. I've been waiting for 10 years to watch a film directed by Bela Tarr from Hungary. Finally, looks like this is my year. Guess what, I had to buy a special player because the dvd will only be released in the UK, where the disc format is different. But there are twenty screens in my town showing crap like Bad Boys 2. If people want movies to be like tv with better special effects, fine. I just want access to the best films.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
Why would farmers be concerned about the holocaust in the first place? Where would he go to see a film? His livingroom?

And I doubt he would be eager to jump on the social change bandwagon after seeing it, either. What's he gonna do about it?
He may be glad he saw it, but he's got chickens to feed, dammit!

This is precisely the issue, J. There are more farmers out there than there are cinemaniacs. It is farmers that vote and so it is farmers that you have to reach.

Approaching the next election in the United States, President Bush and his democratic counterpart are going to criss-cross America to try and get votes from Soccer Moms, Nascar Dads, Blue Collar Labour, Farmers, and other average Americans. They are going to talk about Iraq, Afghanistan, Islamic Fundamentalism, the Israeli-Palestinian Problem, the Environment, and so on. Movies, by shaping our thoughts and ideas, can effect our positions on these issues. Movies can help Americans appreciate and realize their place in the world as well as see the need to look beyond local or even national issues and consider the role they play in the rest of the world. Some Americans may wonder why the United States should fight wars in foreign countries and sacrifice sons and daughters: "Saving Private Ryan" and "Schindler's List" are examples of movies that are going to deliver some insight on these issues. Godard, some will say unfortunately, will not shape much public opinion on this issue.

[Johann]

Which only means that these hardworking souls will be muscled into whatever the politicians want them to believe.
That's not social change, that's what you, me and all the other people with a brain DON'T want.

That idea would be awesome if the people reaching out to "the people who vote" were honest and had their concerns at heart.
It's all a steaming pile of BS to me. Pardon me if I think politicians and others in positions of power do things for themselves first.

[anduril]

Originally posted by oscar jubis
On a serious note, my problem with the "commercial mainstream" is not that it exists per se. My problem is that the entertainment conglomerates behave in a violently imperialist way.

I think you make a very good point here, oscar. This year I actually quit my work as a movie critic for a national, bi-weekly newspaper because I was endlessly frustrated by movies being pushed back or not going into wide release, e.g. the Human Stain. In one article at the beginning of 2003, I wrote about three movies I was looking forward to seeing and wanted my readers to see. At least one of them, as I recall, was not given wide release (Heaven) and another did not, to the best of my knowledge, get any North American distribution (Dogville).

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
Which only means that these hardworking souls will be muscled into whatever the politicians want them to believe.
That's not social change, that's what you, me and all the other people with a brain DON'T want.

That idea would be awesome if the people reaching out to "the people who vote" were honest and had their concerns at heart.
It's all a steaming pile of BS to me. Pardon me if I think politicians and others in positions of power do things for themselves first.

That's why movies and other forms of art are important; that's why making art accessible is important. Movies and other art help voters cut through the "steaming pile of BS" and make informed voting decisions. There are honourable men and women, who from time to time seek political office but often they are not recognized because the electorate don't know any better. Whether we recognize it or not, we get the politicians we deserve.

[Johann]

Originally posted by anduril
[BWhether we recognize it or not, we get the politicians we deserve. [/B]

So true my friend- good dialogue here.

We need a revolution in government and a revolution in filmmaking practices. We have so many artists that have to work harder than they should to get their work seen or heard.

[anduril]

Yes, I'm quite surprised by how well this thread caught on... I hope that some of those who posted early on will contribute again... I find this discussion very engaging and very important!!

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann


So true my friend- good dialogue here.

We need a revolution in government and a revolution in filmmaking practices. We have so many artists that have to work harder than they should to get their work seen or heard.

This year's Oscars might be a step in the right direction... four nods for City of God...

[JustaFied]

I'm not quite so cynical as to turn this into a "us" versus "them" argument. It's not that simple. (Of course, I may be one of the ignorant ones myself; I haven't heard of half the movies you guys talk about here!)

Off the bat, we should ignore the Britney, Justin, "Torque" group. It is total BS, we all know it. Ignore it.

But, there remain lots of people out there that are receptive to seeing what they consider to be "good" films. Of course, the problem is that it still needs to conform, in a way, to their pre-conceived expectations. No major surprises, please, and don't be boring.

There are many people who are big fans of the films of M. Knight Shyamalan. They take his films seriously and debate the details. Lots of people liked "Gladiator" and identified with its message. Psychological thrillers like "Memento" and "Usual Suspects" are very popular. I didn't particularly like any of these movies, but I realize that they are still a step above "The Fast and the Furious", and whatever Adam Sandler's putting out. This is the kind of movie that Anduril is talking about here. They're the types of movies that have a chance to have an impact on the larger audience. (And, hopefully, they can act as a kind of "gate way drug", and the next thing you know our audience members will be renting Kubrick!)

I do admire filmmakers that can make a popular film that still retains its integrity. Remember "Three Kings" from a few years ago? It had Clooney, Ice Cube, and Marky Mark in it, and I thought it was really well written and directed. It was a sharp movie, and ended up being pretty critical of U.S. actions in the first Gulf War. And, I mentioned "American Beauty" earlier. Also, I have to admit, I do like "Lost in Translation" this year, which has started to sell some tickets lately.

[JustaFied]

Originally posted by oscar jubis
My problem is that the entertainment conglomerates behave in a violently imperialist way.


Seems it's only going to get worse. Witness Comcast's proposal to merge with Disney: "We have a wonderful opportunity,'' Brian L. Roberts, chief executive of Comcast, wrote in his letter to Disney yesterday, "to create a company that combines distribution and content in a way that is far stronger and more valuable than either Disney or Comcast can be standing alone."

When will enough be enough? Doesn't Wall Street have a conscience? Look at it from a point of view beyond a financial one, please!

[pmw]

Originally posted by JustaFied
When will enough be enough? Doesn't Wall Street have a conscience? Look at it from a point of view beyond a financial one, please!

No conscience. But that's how it's setup. Wall Street by definition has no conscience. The measure of success is growth, size, capital...

People must take it upon themselves to seek out alternatives. Capitalism has no conscience.

What I dislike more than anything is a culture that revels in the box office gross of a film, watching it as a measure of its success. But Im not sure this is a new thing. As long as there has been a way to make a buck someone has been doing it and obfuscating the division of art and commerce for atleast some portion of the public. We need to equip, when at all possible, people with the tools to differentiate.

[JustaFied]

I know, Wall Street is all about the bottom line, that's the nature of the business. But, that's where the regulators come in; they should be on the side of doing what's best for the public as a whole, not for what's best for these big corporations. That's not going to happen under this Administration, unfortunately, or with a Republican controlled Congress.

Good lead editorial on this merger in today's New York Times. Here's a taste:

<Neither the F.C.C. nor the Congress — which currently seem more consumed by Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" than by serious matters of public policy — has shown much appetite for creating new rules to address such dangers in an altered media landscape. The cable industry, the most powerful programming gatekeeper these days, does not face many of the same types of constraints once faced by broadcasters.

Federal regulators could block the Comcast-Disney deal in the absence of any new rules by vaguely declaring it against the "public interest," but the public should be able to rely on a more explicit legal protection of media diversity. Comcast's proposed takeover of Disney, which would take the combined control of content and distribution into unchartered waters, should prompt a thorough debate on the proper limits for media consolidation. >

[oscar jubis]

Great discussion. Allow me to suggest the essay below, an excerp from Jonathan Rosenbaum's "Movie Wars: How Hollywood and the Media Limit What Films We Can See". This excerpt deals with the complicity of the media and the so-called critics.

www.chireader.com/movies/archives/2000/1100/001117.html

[tabuno]

anduril's first post had a hidden agenda and a pre-supposed assumption that "good art" and "societal change" are conflicted because "good art" is not dumbed down enough so that a lot of people see it so as to cause massive societal change. Such a definition of "good art" also assumes that movies have a specific medium or format of "good art" as opposed to music or paintings or sculptures. anduril may be confusing "art" for "political change" as "good art."

I can imagine that there a numerous paintings and selections of music that are considered "good" that are not meant to be part of some "societal revolution." Some works of "good art" and I assume "art movies" included my be defined only in terms of their impact on the person who experiences it. Does it resonant, create some deeply appreciated experience. Does it make a person feel intensely? Does "good art" necessarily have to have some clearly defined meaning, some logical outline for right and wrong? I think not.

"Picnic at Hanging Rock" was an excellent "art film" that required no need for massive large scale audiences. "2001: A Space Odyssey" brought forth a whole new way of looking at outer space...attitudinal shifts. "Jaws" made a whole generation aware of the dangers of the ocean. "ET" and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" presented a benign image of space aliens. There are movies such as "Three Days of Condor" about government conspiracy. "All the President's Men" about Watergate.

There are great movies about love.

What anduril is really look is a subclass or subcategory of good art movies - "good propaganda art films" that seek to influence, to put across certain ideas and beliefs in order to change society.

Documentaries have had some influence towards this goal while other good art films have no goal or objective whatsoever about what anduril seeks. "It's a Wonderful Life" could be considered a classic art film in his ability to both capture the massives, promote the common man against the rich, evil business barons, and its ability to retain its vitality over the years as one of the most satisfying, never dying films made.

Possibly one could create a new definition of a great art movie to consist of being both true to the film-maker's idea of technical, theoretical brilliance AND capturing the imagination of millions of viewers...so that an art movie that fails to capture an audience is not great art but only a sound of a tree falling in a forest with nobody to hear it (it doesn't exist).

[pmw]

Thanks for the link Oscar. I particularly liked this:


Part of the reason is that movies are regarded as a "democratic art," which means that anyone and everyone is entitled to have an opinion about them -- a position I'm not interested in contesting because of my belief in democratic values. But problems begin when opinion becomes confused with expertise -- when individuals are proclaimed experts because they're publicly stating an opinion.

There are so many columnists and critics so full of themselves, and at no point in their writing do they say anything valuable. It's as if having the job is enough. The notion that you'd actually have to be a critical critic never enters their mind or work.

The junket portion of the article is very interesting. I've heard quite a few junket tales. These are so funny. I think the writers should go on the junkets, write whatever they feel like writing and if they never get invited back, so be it. What's amazing to me is that the opportunity to travel somewhere and get herded around is appealing enough to write the fluff pieces.

[anduril]

Originally posted by tabuno
anduril's first post had a hidden agenda and a pre-supposed assumption that "good art" and "societal change" are conflicted because "good art" is not dumbed down enough so that a lot of people see it so as to cause massive societal change. Such a definition of "good art" also assumes that movies have a specific medium or format of "good art" as opposed to music or paintings or sculptures. anduril may be confusing "art" for "political change" as "good art."

I can imagine that there a numerous paintings and selections of music that are considered "good" that are not meant to be part of some "societal revolution." Some works of "good art" and I assume "art movies" included my be defined only in terms of their impact on the person who experiences it. Does it resonant, create some deeply appreciated experience. Does it make a person feel intensely? Does "good art" necessarily have to have some clearly defined meaning, some logical outline for right and wrong? I think not.

"Picnic at Hanging Rock" was an excellent "art film" that required no need for massive large scale audiences. "2001: A Space Odyssey" brought forth a whole new way of looking at outer space...attitudinal shifts. "Jaws" made a whole generation aware of the dangers of the ocean. "ET" and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" presented a benign image of space aliens. There are movies such as "Three Days of Condor" about government conspiracy. "All the President's Men" about Watergate.

There are great movies about love.

What anduril is really look is a subclass or subcategory of good art movies - "good propaganda art films" that seek to influence, to put across certain ideas and beliefs in order to change society.

Documentaries have had some influence towards this goal while other good art films have no goal or objective whatsoever about what anduril seeks. "It's a Wonderful Life" could be considered a classic art film in his ability to both capture the massives, promote the common man against the rich, evil business barons, and its ability to retain its vitality over the years as one of the most satisfying, never dying films made.

Possibly one could create a new definition of a great art movie to consist of being both true to the film-maker's idea of technical, theoretical brilliance AND capturing the imagination of millions of viewers...so that an art movie that fails to capture an audience is not great art but only a sound of a tree falling in a forest with nobody to hear it (it doesn't exist).

Interesting reading of my post... I'm not sure, however, that I can agree with your claim that there are movies that do not seek change or influence. Simply because a subsequent aspect of my discussion, especially with Johann, delved into politics does not mean I limit it to that sphere either nor do I think my initial post belied that limitation. You brought up a fine list of movies that attempt to influence people in alternative, also very important ways. The list only engages and supports my original point, i.e. film needs to be seen; if it isn't seen, what good is it? Can art exist without an audience?

[pmw]

film needs to be seen; if it isn't seen, what good is it? Can art exist without an audience?

Im interested in that Anduril. What are your own thoughts? I think art without an audience tends to be rendered irrelevant, but is fostering an audience the job of the artist or is seeking out the art the job of the audience? I tend to think that it's some combination of the two.
P

[anduril]

I tend to be pretty pragmatic about this in that I think art does need to be seen in order to be art. Though I agree with you that it requires both the artist and the audience working towards that end.

I guess one of the problems I see is that some filmmakers clearly drive the audience away by being unnecessarily esoteric or extreme. This makes me suspect because it seems to me that they are being pretentious ... they give the pretense of being an artist but in actuality they resort to obfuscation or gratuitious violence/sexuality/nudity in order to obscure their own lack of talent, their own inability to say anything truly meaningful. And then, what's worse, cinemaniacs come along to praise these works not because they actually enjoyed them or found them to be truly profound but because it is chic or en vogue to do so. I find this to be much more contemptible then those people whom Johann holds in such contempt in an earlier post in this thread. Why? Because even if the people who love the trash that is produced by industry are not showing any discretion or are allowing their baser instincts to drive what they watch or listen to, at least, they are being in some sense genuine or authentic. Is that always the case... no, of course not... sometimes it's all about peer pressure and popularity there too.

[pmw]

I guess I don't have any more distain for the posers than I do for those who just accept what's fed to them. I mean, neither are really what I would call "interesting".

To bring it back to something tangible, which films were you thinking of specifically? I'd be interested to know.

P

[anduril]

You're calling me out and I fear to take the bait because I know that some of these films/filmmakers are very respected on this forum.

I don't want to lose my audience in this thread by mentioning these titles/names. :-)

[pmw]

No, I was just finding it hard to take the discussion much further without knowing the specifics of the context. I mean, I definitely agree that there are films which pose as art and use certain techniques to obfuscate their shortcomings. I kind of feel like Lost in Translation falls into that category (there's my example). You mention violence. Were you thinking of Invincible? something else? Lars Von Trier? Anyway, just looking for something concrete to respond to. Definitely not trying to set you up to be slammed. Im open to anything (I think...).
P

[anduril]

Okay, but I'm going to get slammed, I know it:

Godard is one the biggest offenders in this regard; some of Bergman's work is very pretentious; Greenaway is beyond gratuitous; Tarkovsky erred towards pretention at times...

Please, bear in mind, I'm not saying these are "bad" directors. In actual fact, I appreciate movies from all four these directors.

[pmw]

Ok, well I'll let someone else do the slamming... and you deserve it. I will say that I don't think that acquiescing to baser instincts is genuine. After all we are all equipped with brains and the ability to think critically. Im not denying that there are pretentious films/filmgoers, but what about industry-trash do you find more compelling...?

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by anduril
some filmmakers clearly drive the audience away by being unnecessarily esoteric or extreme. This makes me suspect because it seems to me that they are being pretentious ... . And then, what's worse, cinemaniacs come along to praise these works not because they actually enjoyed them or found them to be truly profound but because it is chic or en vogue to do so.

"Esoteric" and "extreme" are particularly subjective terms. Definitions would vary according to each person's level of experience with similar art. Appreciating cinema, like any other art, involves a learning process. It need not be academic and elitist. It can be experiential and self-directed. Overtime, you may find yourself , if not enjoying these artists you call "pretentious", at least acknowledging that others sincerely enjoy them and find them profound. It's presumptuous to assume otherwise.

The fact that I have difficulty with Ulysses doesn't mean James Joyce is pretentious and his fans fakers and posers.

[anduril]

PMW: I never said I found industry trash more compelling because I don't... Personally, I find pretentious crap more compelling than industry trash... What I said is that I find more contemptible those cinemaniacs who will laud praises on filmmakers simply because it is chic or en vogue to do so than I find common people contemptible who take superficial joy out of listening to industry trash.

[anduril]

Originally posted by oscar jubis
"Esoteric" and "extreme" are particularly subjective terms. Definitions would vary according to each person's level of experience with similar art. Appreciating cinema, like any other art, involves a learning process. It need not be academic and elitist. It can be experiential and self-directed. Overtime, you may find yourself , if not enjoying these artists you call "pretentious", at least acknowledging that others sincerely enjoy them and find them profound. It's presumptuous to assume otherwise.

The fact that I have difficulty with Ulysses doesn't mean James Joyce is pretentious and his fans fakers and posers.

To a degree, I agree. However, some stuff just is what it is. For instance, I see no way not to call Greenaway extreme in his depiction of nudity and violence. Sure, I can accept that Greenaway may have something to say underneath it all or that his technique is innovative maybe even brilliant, but in many movies he has chosen a way of delivering his art that it alienates 99% of the moviegoing audience. And, in doing so, his message goes unheard... it seems a filthy waste of his talent to me.

I don't think there's enough of sufficient relevance or resonance behind the eye-catching images and bizarre conceits.
-- Oscar Jubis, Film Critic Extraordinaire.

Furthermore, consider for a moment, Godard's "Hail Mary". This movie is replete with inexplicable jump cuts to open fields. Whatever the craft involved in Godard's filmmaking, these jump cuts are meaningless nonsense trying to pass for profoundity. It's not profound and again, perhaps I'm assuming too much, but who can defend these techniques as anything but?

I'm not a dollard writing about something I haven't seen... I know these filmmakers because I've watched at least some of their movies.

[oscar jubis]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by anduril
I don't think there's enough of sufficient relevance or resonance behind the eye-catching images and bizarre conceits.
-- Oscar Jubis

Indeed, not enough to compare Greenaway with Tarkovsky, Ozu and Bresson, as Johann did. Which is quite different than labeling Greenaway among those "who give the pretense of being an artist" and implying Johann loves him because "it is chic or in vogue to do so".
I prefer it when you call Greenaway "extreme in his depiction of sex and violence". It's a value statement. It's perfectly valid to find the values conveyed by a director, be it explicitly or implicitly, contrary to your own values. It's an integral part of who you are that permeates your artistic judgement as well as everything else. Asking myself what is it in me that reacts in a particular way to a film has been a growth experience. It's not a bad idea to look at things from a different angle. For instance, I seem to be more perturbed by films that romanticize and glorify violence and films that promote nationalism than most people, and less perturbed than most by nudity and sexuality.

[Johann]

Greenaway may alienate 99% of his audience, but that's the AUDIENCE'S fault, not his.
He makes his art. He has said "think of what a work of art demands of it's audience". If I could hand that phrase out on a slip of paper to everyone entering multiplexes THAT might affect social change. They might drop their bag of popcorn and say "That dude is right: fuck Torque".

I just saw a documentary at the Alberta College of Art called Stupidity. It outlines the major movie studios, government & corporations that have a deathly fear of alienating the masses.
They have to hold the attention of a society whose actual attention span is 3 seconds.

If you're not titillated, shocked or bizarrely interested in the program, you'll change the channel. The doc clearly pointed out that being intelligent is not cool. Nobody encourages anybody to become smarter, read Balzac, watch FUCKING GREENAWAY or concentrate on writing a poem. We've been dumbed down. We
have access to more information and art and have the freedom to do almost anything we want, yet we choose stupidity.
I say "we" because I'm dumb too- I watch the Anna Nicole Smith Show. We choose Jerry Springer and Maury Povich and Britney.
We are a society of idiots. Plain and simple. We know war is stupid. We know driving drunk is stupid. We still do it.
Einstein said: "The universe and stupidity are infinite. But I'm not certain about the former".

"Art and Audience" is at best wishful thinking.

Greenaway belongs in the pantheon. Put that on my grave.

[anduril]

Originally posted by oscar jubis
... implying Johann loves him because "it is chic or in vogue to do so".

That you said "implying" makes this a fair but still inaccurate statement... I don't think Johann likes Greenaway because it is chic or en vogue to do so. Knowing Johann personally, I think Johann genuinely likes and appreciates Greenaway, though this is in large part because Johann, quite frankly, is a bit of a disturbed personality...

J: I mean that in the best possible way...

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
Greenaway may alienate 99% of his audience, but that's the AUDIENCE'S fault, not his.

I completely disagree and, quite frankly, I'm very glad that Greenaway's art alienates me... I'd have a problem with myself if it didn't...

Greenaway chooses to use his talents to frame and film bizarre and excessive scenes in ways that simply put are not redeeming. It is the degradation of the medium... and it only makes it worse that, in this case, we have a talented filmmaker at work.

[Johann]

That's your taste.
As Dylan said "I don't owe my listeners anything".

The directors I admire the most are the ones who say "Here's my work bitch. Hopefully you'll see my world".

Kubrick
Greenaway
Herzog
Fellini
Godard
The Bros. Quay
Tarkovsky
Russell
Bergman
Cassavetes
Scorsese
Jarmusch
Cocteau
Brakhage
Eisenstein
Resnais
Gallo
Strohiem
Lynch
Tarantino
Trier
etc
etc
etc

[anduril]

I don't think that some of those directors are as honest as you make them out to be.

[Johann]

Who said anything about honesty? Fellini said he's a BORN LIAR!
Trier says he's a "masturbator of the screen".

These directors made films that changed my life-simply because I came to the art on it's own terms.

I must state E.J. Obert's quote again:
To be in the cinema and experience a world that others have created *with wide open senses* and receive a gift in return, is one of the most vital experiences one can have. An experience perhaps more vital than love"

Your senses are closed off to Greenaway and Godard. You see the pretention, not the real intent- which is exploration of the medium. I have read a lot on Greenaway. He is the first champion of the medium. Great directors love the medium and what it can do. All the ones I've listed LOVE THE MEDIUM. Therefore they are the most worthy. You may call them exploitive and non-redeeming, but the truth is you will not come to the work. You demand the director to at least meet you halfway.

I say that a director is allowed to ask his audience to accept his work as is IF he gives you something in return equal to your attention to it. If not, then he's a hack wasting everybody's time.

Meaning: You will be rewarded if you accept these directors'
"worlds". If you're not rewarded, then your senses are not wide open.
You admitted you have seen "some" of these directors works. I think you haven't assessed their work properly. Seeing them isn't enough. But you have also said you don't have the time.

Argument over.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
You're senses are closed off to Greenaway and Godard. You see the pretention, not the real intent- which is exloration of the medium. I have read a lot on Greenaway. He is the first champion of the medium. Great directors love the medium and what it can do. All the ones I've listed LOVE THE MEDIUM. Therefore they are the most worthy. You may call them exploitive and non-redeeming, but the truth is you will not come to the work. You demand the director to at least meet you halfway.

I say that a director is allowed to order his audience to accept his work as is IF he gives you something in return equal to your "attention" to it.

You, knowing me, should know that you are being completely unfair to me here.

First, I appreciate the craft of filmmaking at work in directors such as Greenaway and Godard. You know this. Hell, for one, we watched "Pillow Book" together and discussed it at quite some length. Also, my website promotes "Hail Mary" in the section of my website devoted to Bible and Film.

Second, my point is that neither Greenaway or Godard, aside from their expertise in craft, deliver on your "IF" in at least some cases.

Third, art ought to be redeeming, especially if we want to see our society evolve into something more than the "society of idiots" you claim us to be. Showing someone pissing for longer than anyone needs to see is not "redeeming" nor is having your actors/actresses engage in bizarre perversions to no particular thematic end nor is passing off random jump cuts as profoundity.

Note: By redeeming, I'm not suggesting that every movie ought to be Mary Poppins. Rather I am saying that artists are compelled by their own craft and their gift in filmmaking (or music, painting, etc.) to communicate Truth... the failure to do so is a travesty against themselves and their audience!

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
Who said anything about honesty?

I was referring to your statement to describe the ethos of the directors in your list: "Here's my work bitch. Hopefully you'll see my world."

[Johann]

I do know you personally, and you've been known to dismiss great films because they didn't "deliver".
Last Tango in Paris & Ed Wood for example.

I must say that I don't really know what your taste is, man.
You worship Star Wars, love The Man From Snowy River and can't get enough of The West Wing, yet you acknowledge Kubrick and Fellini.

And you say I'm a disturbed personality....

Also, the "ethos" I stated refers to the possibility of a cinematic gift of art & new perspectives, not "honesty", "truth", "purity" or any other moral claptrap. (Although they may contain such things)

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
I must say that I don't really know what your taste is, man.
You worship Star Wars, love The Man From Snowy River and can't get enough of The West Wing, yet you acknowledge Kubrick and Fellini.

And you say I'm a disturbed personality....

First, I don't worship Star Wars but I do think it excels at what it is. There are not many movies in this world that can generate such a wonderful world of pure childhood escapism like the original Star Wars trilogy. I detest Lucas's latest Star Wars films.

Second, I love Man from Snowy River not as film but because it reflects my passion for horses, my passion for the outback, and evokes many memories for me. Incidentally, I don't think it is all that bad a movie either. Kirk Douglas, in particular, does a great job playing two engaging characters.

Third, I can get enough of West Wing. I stopped watching this season... the writing dried up into Josh Lyman constantly yelling, "Donnaaaa...." or spouting off some incoherent Democratic propaganda.

Fourth, in any case, I'm not sure how any of these interests would classify me as disturbed...

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
I do know you personally, and you've been known to dismiss great films because they didn't "deliver".
Last Tango in Paris & Ed Wood for example.

I'm not going to pander to what I'm "supposed" to think is great film. "Last Tango in Paris" is not only crude but also a complete bore. The only thing I enjoyed was seeing Paris. As for "Ed Wood," Tim Burton is just not my filmmaker. This is just about personal taste for me. The only movie of Burton's that even remotely engaged me was "Sleepy Hollow."

[Johann]

Does anybody think anduril and I would be better than Siskel and Ebert?

We need to get an agent, Kenneth...

[anduril]

I second that motion.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
These directors made films that changed my life-simply because I came to the art on it's own terms.

This is something I'd like to hear more about... how has Greenaway changed your life, J?

[Johann]

Once I started really looking at the complete canon of Greenaway it dawned on me that filmmaking is more (or can be more) than "actors", "sets", "scripts" and "props".

It can be a living, breathing fantasia of tableaux- tableaux that needn't be held down by conventions or criteria. It creates it's own rules and makes sense by it's own accord.

You can create your own cinema without worrying about whether or not people will "like it". If people are open enough, they'll "get it". That is tremendously exciting to me. Greenaway's cinema is not a cinema of plot- it is a cinema of ideas, images, juxtaposition.

People see no plot and are immediately disinterested. Too bad.
They say "it's boring" or "it's indulgent trash". An egomaniac is behind the camera. Nothing could be further from the truth.
He's a genius-possibly more cinematically acute than Kubrick. Yes, I'm serious. Greenaway is on a level that people can't handle.

There's no doubt he's an intellectual. He's misunderstood as an elitist snob who rubs the layman's nose in his "pretentious high art". If a guy like me can see that (and I only graduated high school, what does that say about the "educated people" who write him off as a bore?) there's a big problem.

They haven't assimilated cinema history. (And they haven't dared to go where no movie-goer has gone before).
I have, and I can say with all honesty that I feel sad yet oddly joyful that I understand Greenaway while everyone else scoffs.

I also feel like I'm very alone in my opinions, but I don't care. I've read the books, watched the films and objectively ruminated on the man for years. My authority on the subject trounces the naysayers. I wish Greenaway himself could post here to back me up, because I don't feel my pontificating and "penchant for over-reaction" is going to convince anyone.

Am I right? Damn straight.

[Johann]

I think Johann genuinely likes and appreciates Greenaway, though this is in large part because Johann, quite frankly, is a bit of a disturbed personality...

J: I mean that in the best possible way... [/B]


After reading this again I feel this is one of the most insulting things you've ever said.

"In large part because I'm a disturbed personality?"
Thanks.

To set the record straight, I'll have you know my appreciation of Greenaway is based solely on appreciation of creative genius.
A skill I hone everyday, every hour.

Try it. It's a great feeling.

[pmw]

Originally posted by anduril
PMW: I never said I found industry trash more compelling because I don't... Personally, I find pretentious crap more compelling than industry trash... What I said is that I find more contemptible those cinemaniacs who will laud praises on filmmakers simply because it is chic or en vogue to do so than I find common people contemptible who take superficial joy out of listening to industry trash.

You're right, you didn't say that. On review, that was a bit of a leap.

I'm a fan of "the common man" if there is such a term. I just feel like there are plenty of options for he who diggeth deeply. And I don't think the prevailing motive for 99.9% of the people who choose them is pretension or to be en vogue. I feel like there are a lot more lazy thinkers than pretentious film snobs. In any case, I think we can both agree that both exist.

[tabuno]

I never did get an answer from anduril on whether or not "good art" must lead to "societal change." Can "good art" simply create in a viewer a strong, impression of emotional feeling just a "Mona Lisa" might or "The Blue Danube" used in "2001: A Space Odyssey?"

[anduril]

First, you've taken what I've said about being "a disturbed personality" the wrong way if you consider it an insult... it's nothing you yourself have not claimed about yourself.

Second, nothing in what you have written about Greenaway reveals a significant change in your life. It only shows that you learnt something new about cinema; Greenaway did that much for me, too. But then, so have so many other directors...

Third, I have never denied the man's cinematic craft behind the camera. Greenaway has innovation maybe even brilliance (to paraphrase my own words). What I question is the uses to which these talents are put... you have not presented any compelling reason why the grotesque and the bizarre are images that every person ought to indulge themselves in.

[anduril]

Originally posted by pmw
You're right, you didn't say that. On review, that was a bit of a leap.

I'm a fan of "the common man" if there is such a term. I just feel like there are plenty of options for he who diggeth deeply. And I don't think the prevailing motive for 99.9% of the people who choose them is pretension or to be en vogue.

I don't think I gave such a large percentage, did I? I've tried to qualify everything I've written... where I haven't, it has been a slip up.

I'm simply frustrated when film buffs lord over people directors and films that are "alledgedly" brilliant, when in actual fact it is nothing more than pretension and style used to cover up the absence of content. Furthermore, I also find tragic that there are directors of such great gifts who have chosen to make their work so inaccessible and/or degrading. Godard is sometimes an example of the former while Greenaway is sometimes an example of the latter.

[anduril]

Originally posted by tabuno
I never did get an answer from anduril on whether or not "good art" must lead to "societal change." Can "good art" simply create in a viewer a strong, impression of emotional feeling just a "Mona Lisa" might or "The Blue Danube" used in "2001: A Space Odyssey?"

Actually, tabuno, I did feel I answered this question when I wrote: "I'm not sure, however, that I can agree with your claim that there are movies that do not seek change or influence. Simply because a subsequent aspect of my discussion, especially with Johann, delved into politics does not mean I limit it to that sphere either nor do I think my initial post belied that limitation. You brought up a fine list of movies that attempt to influence people in alternative, also very important ways. The list only engages and supports my original point, i.e. film needs to be seen; if it isn't seen, what good is it?"

In other words, all art attempts to influence people's perceptions and in this way tries to effect change... this is inevitably a type of social change. Good art, in this process, must communicate Truth. As I stated before, "artists are compelled by their own craft and their gift in filmmaking (or music, painting, etc.) to communicate Truth... the failure to do so is a travesty against themselves and their audience!"

[Johann]

I didn't take it the wrong way- I'm all for self-deprecation, I get insulted with "in large part" and the implication that I am bizarre because I see Greenaway for what he is.

You have proven beyond a doubt that you've only given Greenaway a glib cursory look if your argument is rooted in "long peeing", "grotesque & bizarre images". That's what every ignorant filmgoer points to.

You're frustrated with my lording over Greenaway? I call it deep appreciation. If receiving and understanding a man's art on it's own terms (which you have not done) delivers me to a new perspective- ONE I CALL LIFE-CHANGING-then call me a LORD.

I'm willing to bet that you haven't seen any Greenaway film more than once. I'm willing to bet you can't remember the ending to The Pillow Book. You are in no way qualified to say that Greenaway has nothing more to give a viewer than grotesque images.

But I forgive you Ken-you know not what you do.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
I didn't take it the wrong way- I'm all for self-deprecation, I get insulted with "in large part" and the implication that I am bizarre because I see Greenaway for what he is.

You have proven beyond a doubt that you've only given Greenaway a glib cursory look if your argument is rooted in "long peeing", "grotesque & bizarre images". That's what every ignorant filmgoer points to.

You're frustrated with my lording over Greenaway? I call it deep appreciation. If receiving and understanding a man's art on it's own terms (which you have not done) delivers me to a new perspective- ONE I CALL LIFE-CHANGING-then call me a LORD.

I'm willing to bet that you haven't seen any Greenaway film more than once. I'm willing to bet you can't remember the ending to The Pillow Book. You are in no way qualified to say that Greenaway is a has nothing more to give a viewer than grotesque images.

But I forgive you Ken-you know not what you do.

Now, that's pretension!

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
You have proven beyond a doubt that you've only given Greenaway a glib cursory look if your argument is rooted in "long peeing", "grotesque & bizarre images". That's what every ignorant filmgoer points to.

You haven't read my posts very well if you think that is the extent of my argument.

Also, there is nothing wrong with pointing to the content of a movie in order to assess its contribution...

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
II'm willing to bet that you haven't seen any Greenaway film more than once.

You are right... I have not watched any Greenaway movie more than once... But, you are wrong if you think that means that that makes me unqualified to give my opinion on it.

If the number of times you watch a movie or the completeness of your movie repertoire is the sole criteria of whether an informed opinion can be offered on a subject, you would not have been able to start the thread on Scorsese, what with you not even having seen Kundun at the time you started writing... for shame, especially seeing as you watch movies in almost every free moment of your life.

[Johann]

Now that's pretention? No, that's hitting you where it hurts.

What else do you have to say about Greenaway?
I have read your posts- they gleem with ignorance.

Just because you've acknowledged "craft" doesn't mean shit.
Greenaway is way more than that- I can't convey it in fucking words! You won't see the films, so what am I to do?

I've done my best to tell them, Lord, but they still don't get it...

How can you acknowledge craftsmanship on the director's part but in the same breath say he degrades the medium?
Being challenged morally is wonderful! Few directors do it with as much visual pizazz as PG.

[anduril]

In a sense Godard destroyed everything
-- Peter Greenaway, Director.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
Now that's pretention? No, that's hitting you where it hurts.

Really? I hadn't experienced the pain, sorry man.


Originally posted by Johann
You won't see the films, so what am I to do.

When have I ever refused to watch Greenaway?


Originally posted by Johann
I've done me my best to tell them, Lord, but they still don't get it...

Paraphrasing Christ... oh if only you were that humble...

[Johann]

You didn't feel the pain because ignorance is bliss.

You haven't refused, but you're not eager- same thing to me.

Mama! I don't eat humble pie....

[Johann]

Anyone reading your quote will be led to believe that Greenaway has something against Godard.

HE DOESN'T FOLKS- read the books. Context is paramount. Something anduril is lacking at the moment.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
Anyone reading your quote will be led to believe that Greenaway has something against Godard.

HE DOESN'T FOLKS- read the books. Context is paramount. Something anduril is lacking at the moment.

And, if you had been reading my posts, you'd also know that though I have criticized both Godard and Greenaway, I also respect them as filmmakers.

Greenaway, of course, respects Godard. In fact, Greenaway regards Godard, alongside Eisenstein and Welles, as the greatest filmmakers in the history of film. He calls Eisenstein the inventor of the language, Welles the perfector of the language, and Godard the destroyer of the language. But, here is the point, Greenaway is not so flush with Godard that he doesn't recognize the consequences of Godard's unintelligibility.

If there is anything I am not, J, it is uneducated...

[Johann]

It is a pleasure to argue with you.

[anduril]

Greenaway, Godard, and to a lesser extent, Bergman and Tarkovsky are like the post-structuralist intelligentsia that dominated French University thinking since the 1970s and which finally infiltrated the American University system in force by the 1990s. They, like their philosopher counterparts, are extremely erudite, talented, and gifted individuals. As an intellectual enterprise, they have sought to reinvent their respective fields by subverting and deconstructing everything in it. But, in my opinion, while they have certainly influenced the craft, their intellectual enterprise has ultimately failed because, when it comes right down to it, its foundation is intellectually and also morally bankrupt.

J: You attack me as ignorant... can you name some of the French post-structuralists that I have in mind? How about their major works? Can you explain to me what post-structuralism or deconstruction is? When I used the word "differance" in a previous post and attributed it to Derrida, did you know what I was referring to? Can you cite the source? Did you realize that I misused the word to a certain extent? Do you know what the word "differance" implies? If you don't know these things, then your understanding of cinema lacks a considerable intellectual framework which contextualizes and gives it broader social meaning.

But then, as you say, ignorance is bliss, right?

[Johann]

My "lacking intellectual framework" does not require knowledge of post-structuralists or Derrida to know what Greenaway stands for. (It could help, tho)

As Tarantino said: I didn't go to filmschool. I went to films.

A far better education than any fucking school- it's all there on screen. How much interest do you have in what you are watching? That's the only thing holding you back.

That's "freedom of information" in the finest, grandest, most luscious sense. If you're open enough, your life will change.
Subtly, profoundly, spiritually and overwhelmingly emotionally.

[Johann]

Also, if my understanding of cinema lacks anything, it's the time and money to delve deeper into the history of the medium- which is more vast than a million middle earths.

If I had the time and money, I'd have an intellectual foundation in cinema that could not be penetrated.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
But I can say that my "lacking intellectual framework" does not require knowledge of post-structuralists or Derrida to know what Greenaway stands for.

"Require"... no, you are right (at least to a certain extent)... but, what this does show is that there are different ways to gain expertise on film... I understand things about Greenaway, Godard, and others that you do not understand... and vice versa. We, therefore, bring different qualifications to the critique and you should perhaps open your mind to allow for the fact that people who don't watch films over and over again can actually still be informed participants in the debate regarding such movies.

Incidentally, having an understanding of post-structuralism and the thinking it produces would certainly help you. Tarantino and you may not be University educated or interested in University education but I guarantee you that virtually all European filmmakers have been effected by this intellectual climate. It has even clearly effected some North American directors.

No discipline exists in isolation... those who want to understand their discipline more comprehensively must be able to cross disciplines.

[anduril]

Derrida said "The image always has the last word," but did he go far enough? Did the delight of his wit spoil the continuation of his logic? The word is after all an image.
-- Peter Greenaway, Director

[anduril]

It seems Greenaway thinks Derrida is worth reading and understanding.

Want a primer on the intersection of film and philosophy, visit http://www.film-philosophy.com/portal/writings/. Though, bear in mind, most of these articles presume knowledge of major works in philosophy.

[Johann]

Keep reading the words and wisdom of Greenaway and you might eventually arrive to the meaning of what I've been talking about all this time.

You don't respond to his work as I do, so why even talk about it.
This site is about mutual discussion of movies- you are holding firm on moral, personal ground that isn't taking into account the type of filmmakers Greenaway and Godard are: provocative alternatives to what the masses would call "good art".
You don't appreciate the two- don't claim you respect them if you say ultimately that they fail. It insults them and the people who say they succeed.

I firmly believe you don't really know what you are talking about. And I also believe a cursory viewing of a film disqualifies you from discussing it in detail. I would love to see all films at least 5 times to understand them completely and be able to make my arguments sound. That's not practical in my world.
I try my best.

You said your dislike of said directors just a personal opinion, and I'll respect that. But don't say they fail when you don't even know what they are attempting to do.

I can't drag people into my world of cinematic joy.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
You don't appreciate Godard or Greenaway-don't claim you respect them if you say ultimately that they fail. It insults them and the people who say they succeed.

I appreciate them. You worship them. Big difference and that's the reason you are insulted by my critique.

Perhaps a better illustration... I appreciate Napoleon's contributions to history but I can still say he ultimately failed.

[tabuno]

originally quoted from anduril In other words, all art attempts to influence people's perceptions and in this way tries to effect change... this is inevitably a type of social change. Good art, in this process, must communicate Truth. As I stated before, "artists are compelled by their own craft and their gift in filmmaking (or music, painting, etc.) to communicate Truth... the failure to do so is a travesty against themselves and their audience!"

If good art is communication of truth, must good art necessarily be based on quantity or quality. In other words, can good art be good if it communicates the truth that connects with only one person or must it communicate with everyone?

[Johann]

Originally posted by anduril
I appreciate Napoleon's contributions to history but I can still say he ultimately failed.

Bad example. Napoleon DID fail- that's undisputed history. He was a psychopath who ruined millions of lives-like Hitler.

Greenaway and Godard didn't fail- they didn't harm anyone.
They simply made astounding art for an apathetic public who still hold them in contempt for daring to "shake up the system".
How can you live with yourself if you appreciate avant-garde art yet take the moral high road?

I take back my accusations of your hypocrisy. It's not quite that clear yet....

[anduril]

Originally posted by tabuno
If good art is communication of truth, must good art necessarily be based on quantity or quality. In other words, can good art be good if it communicates the truth that connects with only one person or must it communicate with everyone?

You'll notice I say "communicate Truth" whereas you've written "communicate truth." The difference is subtle but significant. I accept the existence of universal/absolute Truth; this is what the capital "T" signifies. Of course, not everyone accepts this... but I believe most, if not all, of humanity's worthwhile endeavours involve the pursuit of this Truth, consciously or unconsciously. When directors make films, they go in pursuit of this Truth and it is the responsibility of the audience to dialogue with that director and decide whether this pursuit has, at least in some sense, been fulfilled. This can start with just the director and one other person but ultimately, if that Truth is present, it will have a ripple effect that can and should resonate with a greater audience.

But often in film as in other any other discipline, the ivory tower effect sets in... that is, the purveyors of the discipline become elitists who purposefully obfuscate and hide meaning because of an unspoken contempt for the "common people." What's more, some people attempt to gain access to this ivory tower but they are frauds who have mastered the style of the discourse but not the actual content... this becomes a self-perpetuating cycle that eventually corrupts the ivory tower itself and further alienates the "common people" from the elitists.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
Bad example. Napoleon DID fail- he was psychopath.

Greenaway and Godard didn't fail- they didn't harm anyone.


The example suits the purpose to which it was used. The point of comparison was not about the harm that was done to human beings... the point of comparison was on their intellectual enterprises.

Greenaway and Godard have, at times, failed. They have also succeeded.


Originally posted by Johann
How can you live with yourself if you appreciate avant-garde art yet take the moral high road?

I just realized that you have more hypocritcism in you than anyone I've ever met...

I'm not sure I understand the logic of your criticism here. Could you please elaborate...

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
Keep reading the words and wisdom of Greenaway and you might eventually arrive to the meaning of what I've been talking about all this time.

You've just been cursing, swearing, running people down, misreading my posts/criticisms, and then saying that you "can't convey it in fucking words!" So, exactly what meaning am I supposed to come to...

I've gone to read at least some of what Greenaway reads... I'd venture to guess I have a better understanding of the meaning of Greenaway's movies than you do; at least from the stand point of philosophy. At the very least, I do have words with which I could debate Greenaway on his philosophical arguments.

PS. This being said, I readily acknowledge you know more about the craft involved than I do; and I also know that you could almost certainly contextualize his work within the history of cinema better than I could.

[pmw]

Originally posted by anduril
can you name some of the French post-structuralists that I have in mind? How about their major works? Can you explain to me what post-structuralism or deconstruction is? When I used the word "differance" in a previous post and attributed it to Derrida, did you know what I was referring to? Can you cite the source? Did you realize that I misused the word to a certain extent? Do you know what the word "differance" implies?

Speaking of pretension... :>

PS this thread now has more views than all but 2:
Ebert and Roepperts best of 2002 &
Redheads in Film
Pretty good company.

[anduril]

Originally posted by pmw


Speaking of pretension... :>

How so? I asked questions of J. I asked if he knew about some things that are relevant to the topic. Seriously, explain to me how that is pretension... I am making no claims, except to defend my ability to offer an informed opinion on this topic... while J is paraphrasing the words of Christ, for pete's sake...

Would you like me to answer those questions myself, pmw, to prove there is no pretense on my part?

Also, remember the context in which those questions are being asked... I'm being accused of ignorance, pmw.

[Johann]

Back to the most read thread on the boards (I just got off work)

anduril and I go back a ways and we know what pushes each others' buttons.

He can get me riled up pretty quick and I assume I do the same.
Look forward to more word wars, people!

The great thing is we don't take it personally. (at least I don't)
The mud-slinging is fun for me- who can resist the Jesus paraphrases when you're talking to a devout Christian?
He's more apt to up the ante when you blaspheme!
But Ken ain't no dummy and he's much sharper here than in person. I should tread lightly from now on- that "understanding of cinema lacks framework" bit hurt man...

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
The great thing is we don't take it personally. (at least I don't)
Ditto for me. We would have stopped talking to each other a very long time ago if we did take it personally... I remember some very long, very bitter face-to-face arguments in your Edmonton years...


Originally posted by Johann
he's much sharper here than in person.
I'm not sure what to make of that... you've got me laughing with this one... I come across dull in person??


Originally posted by Johann
I should tread lightly from now on- that "understanding of cinema is lacks framework" bit hurt man...
Hey, my intent is not to hurt, J. Like I said elsewhere in a few different places in a few different ways, when it comes to cinema, I readily acknowledge your expertise... problem is, when I disagree with you, you typically try to "pull rank on me" and I don't think that's fair, especially given my knowledge in several areas very closely related to the movies that we discuss.

BTW, have you checked out the link I provided to Film-Philosophy Online?

[Johann]

Hey, I only "pull rank" when I feel you've missed the boat on certain things. e.g Greenaway

And no, you're not dull in person. I guess I mean that you seem more "scholarly" than usual. But I haven't been hanging out lately, have I?
I'll be in Ed soon, we can be bitter again, face to face, just like old times...

But back to Art and Audience: who is truly qualified to call art "good?" Chris Knipp would say Russian Ark is boring, yet I say it's genius. He's a PhD- he could argue my ass into the ground about why he's "right". But I would remain loyal to Sokurov.
Why?

We all respond to art in different ways. I may seem more agressive with my responses, but I can't help it. I LOVE ART

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
But back to Art and Audience: who is truly qualified to call art "good?" Chris Knipp would say Russian Ark is boring, yet I say it's genius. He's a PhD- he could argue my ass into the ground about why he's "right". But I would remain loyal to Sokurov.
Why?

We all respond to art in different ways. I may seem more agressive with my responses, but I can't help it.

The "audience" and the director in dialogue are qualified. This is the point of discussion. Is my opinion authoritative, of course not... but neither is yours, or Ebert's, or Knipp's... it is our collective interaction that ultimately will decide what is "good art" and what isn't... What I've attempted to do here in a couple of my posts is define the meaning of "good art"... I've also brought in some criticism of Greenaway and Godard because I do not feel that these are perfect directors... in fact, I think their work has flaws and that needs to be discussed just as much as their technical brilliance and innovation.

[Johann]

How can we be sure that our collective interaction is always the highest good?

Should we use the oscars as a barometer? Spielberg? Box office?

Are you saying that the de facto definition of good film art today is Finding Nemo, Titanic and Schindler's List?

Give us an example of your "good art" ideal

[anduril]

It takes time... lots of time for "good art" to settle... and sometimes we still get it wrong... the point is the debate and being open to the debate is what helps us collectively interpret what is good art... as individuals, we all take something different from that debate and end up with our own subjective ideas... but as long as we continue to allow these ideas to be tested then we are always open to improving our understanding and collectively getting closer to knowing what is "good art"... it is something we grasp at but also something never fully grasped... the grasping is worth it, though, I think...

[Johann]

I groc grasping.

[pmw]

No, you should absolutely be allowed to defend yourself, Anduril. Especially when being accused of ignorance (which Im sure youre not).

So I'll agree to disagree for the moment. I am having trouble finding a substantial argument to support this:


I find this to be much more contemptible then those people whom Johann holds in such contempt in an earlier post in this thread. Why? Because even if the people who love the trash that is produced by industry are not showing any discretion or are allowing their baser instincts to drive what they watch or listen to, at least, they are being in some sense genuine or authentic.

Much more contemptible than lazy thinking? I don't blame the audience per say, but I don't have less contempt for lazy thinking than for artistic endeavor (even when it tends towards pretension). Why more contempt? That's really my only question.

[anduril]

Originally posted by pmw
Much more contemptible than lazy thinking? I don't blame the audience per say, but I don't have less contempt for lazy thinking than for artistic endeavor (even when it tends towards pretension). Why more contempt? That's really my only question.

Well, let me be clear first that I'm talking about the audience not the purveyors...

The reason is that more often than not the lazy thinker just hasn't been exposed to anything better... or they have never been taught to think critically about things and so they don't even know how to appreciate something else... while on the other hand, the socialite or elitist should know exactly what it is s/he is watching but instead chooses to be a hypocrite and sing the praises of something simply because it is chic and en vogue to do it. More than in movies, I have to imagine this happens alot in fashion. Now, it's true, I'm largely ignorant of the fashion industry but the clothing worn in those fashion shows is sometimes preposterous... and then you get some typical fashion socialite spitting out cliched praises... it's very tiresome and strikes me as a fraud... but the same thing also happens with movies too. In the end that bothers me more than some teenager who loves Britney Spears because he thinks she's HOT. At least, that's genuine to me... it might be ignorant or base... but, it's more or less genuine.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
I groc grasping.

"groc"?

[oscar jubis]

Basically, whoever likes what you don't like is dishonest, fake, or disturbed. Any director not seeking The Truth, as you define it, is a waste of talent. Prospects for learning from others with contrasting points of view: Poor.

[anduril]

Originally posted by oscar jubis
Basically, whoever likes what you don't like is dishonest, fake, or disturbed. Any director not seeking The Truth, as you define it, is a waste of talent. Prospects for learning from others with contrasting points of view: Poor.
Not at all... There is alot of stuff that subjectively I don't particularly enjoy but others do and I'm completely fine with that... all I've said is I find pretension more irritating than ignorance as well as asserted what I believe is an appropriate definition of good art.

My life has been spent learning from others... and, I've also shown on this forum and in this thread my willingness to learn from others... e.g. I readily acknowledge my debt to Johann for teaching me much about film and the history of cinema.

I do, however, find deeply troubling that aside from tabuno and parts of the discussion with you, pmw, and Johann, I've had to spend most of my time responding to ad hominen attacks rather than a true debate of the topic of this forum, especially after I dared to suggest that Greenaway, Godard, and others aren't perfect (oh, God forbid!)... No one learns from anybody when the discussion is simply insults, false assumptions, and personal attacks. I've made one swipe... it was directed against Johann and it was more of a jest (as he is aware) than anything else.

BTW, I have not defined the Truth... I've only said that I think it exists (and even then I noted that not everybody would agree with me).

[JustaFied]

You seen the Preston Sturges classic film Sullivan's Travels?

The main character is a screen writer who sets out on a journey to capture the essence of the human experience, so that he can put it into his screenplay. He wants to write a movie that really matters, not just one that entertains.

In the end, he stumbles into a room where a group of men are enjoying a light-hearted comedy film, and he watches in awe at the simple joy they get from just being able to laugh for a while. In a world full of pain and misery and frustration, what's so wrong with a little bit of light-hearted escapism? Why must every film necessarily be ponderous?

The film he initially set out to write was to be called O' Brother Where Art Thou?.

[anduril]

Oh sure, of course, though it might be better to refer to that as entertainment and not art per se; although who said art can't be light-hearted and fun, right. But, even at that, I'd still say that entertainment/art, even at its most light-hearted and fun, has an obligation to be honest and truthful in what it communicates philosophically... because everything speaks messages.

[Johann]

My last post in this thread. I have more over-reacting to do in other threads :)

Here's a question for you Ken: You talk about the AUDIENCE and director working in dialogue. Fine.
Well what about an audience of one?
One who doesn't require anything from the director?
One who comes to the work with no assumptions (or at leasts tries to)
One who pays attention to the film instead of trying to figure out a way to put his arm around his date?

What if the one who does that gets the intent of the director all by his lonesome and feels blessed? Does he have to vote? Should he vote? He doesn't give a shit about social change.
He gives a shit about cinema.

What do you do with a guy like that?
How come collective interaction is so important?

What about isolated interaction?
I dwell there quite happily my good man...

[anduril]

I'm exhausted...

[cinemabon]

Whew! I feel like I just watched Dempsy vs Tunney!

So, I thought after the dust cleared I would add my two cents, for whatever they are worth.

The last time I checked, film was an industry, and more so, a business. I believe filmmakers are in the storytelling business. The whole idea of the industry was to sell tickets and make money. You can create art all day and if no one comes to it, you have some very expensive and worthless art. Just walk through any art school and you'll see piles of art lying around taking up valuable space. Oh, much of it is beautiful and quite profound, but without a gallery to show it, you might as well have piles of dirt.

I think it is laudable to believe, with a slight naivete, that there are filmmakers whose sole purpose is to impart meaning. However, even the "artsy" crowd has to put food on the table, too. So, stories, no matter how truthful they made be, must also be entertaining. They must twist emotion out of the audience and involve them in the scene, so that when the lights come up at the end, they will feel they will have gone someplace and gotten their $7.00 worth.

Many people in the 1960's went to films by Andy Warhol. One film he made was of a man sleeping. Many people went to it and called it art. I've heard very little of his films since that era has passed. The reason? They are crap! There is nothing wrong with a film having commercial potential if it also has a certain "touch" by its primary filmmaker. Sometimes that "touch" comes from the director. Sometimes the producer. Sometimes the principle star. They never ever have anything to do with critics, but make a good film, or even a great film has a lot to do with the audience. Without the audience, you have a tree falling in a forest with no one to hear it. Did it make a sound? You bet! BUT! Did it pay? Don't plan on the sequel.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by cinemabon

Many people in the 1960's went to films by Andy Warhol.
Many, but not really that many. His films never went into wide distribution. But I believe they had an impact, culturally, regardless of the size of the audience.

One film he made was of a man sleeping. Many people went to it and called it art.
Sleep and Blow Job are not my idea of fun or great art, cinemabon. I believe though that these early Warhol films opened up creative space for others as far as treatment of taboo subject matter and use of "real time".

I've heard very little of his films since that era has passed. The reason? They are crap!
Not all of them. I really enjoy The Chelsea Girls and films that Warhol produced for Morrisey like Trash, a counterculture alternative to An American Family.

[cinemabon]

Warhol, like his paintings, was a metaphor.

[pmw]

Actually, Im kind of fascinated by Warhol films. Who he was, who's in them, how the films relate to more conventional canvas art, the total disregard for conventional films make them really interesting to me.

[cinemabon]

Andy was there, in Los Angeles, with his entire New York entourage en tow; Joe was there, the whole gang. It was the premiere of "Frankenstein" in 3D, including Kleig lights, the whole schmere. Lowly me, I had to sit to the side, but I watched with facination as the theater slowly began to thin while the film progressed. There we sat, with these silly 3D glasses on, and the most gorey-looking scenes just repeated themselves over and over, in your face, in 3D!

It was awful, simply put, just awful. I thought Warhol was going to get up and apologize at the end, but they whisked him out a side door or something. It was the trash talk of the town for days! I can't imagine it in 2D, at least in 3D it had its funny moments; like "...you haven't lived until you've f**ked somebody in the spleen!" (spoken with a phoney German accent!)

Andy Warhol was a filmmaking joke. I don't care what anyone says, I went to many of his films while I was in film school, and there is much better stuff out there to waste away our dwindling times as humans on this hurry up and die planet.

[oscar jubis]

Wide range of responses to this film. So much so that I plan to watch it, if only to have an opinion (hope I find a copy to rent). I do anticipate to agree with you that "there is much better stuff out there".
I write to clarify that all Warhol did was lend his name for commercial purposes. This is Morrisey's film. Incidentally, made entirely in Italy with a "giallo" crew. The title that stuck is Flesh For Frankenstein rather than the inaccurate "Andy Warhol's Frankenstein".

[Johann]

RE: "I GROC GRASPING"

I meant to say I Grok Grasping.

many apologies...

[anduril]

I still don't get it? "Grok"? What's that mean? I'm missing something?

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
My last post in this thread. I have more over-reacting to do in other threads :)

Here's a question for you Ken: You talk about the AUDIENCE and director working in dialogue. Fine.
Well what about an audience of one?
One who doesn't require anything from the director?
One who comes to the work with no assumptions (or at leasts tries to)
One who pays attention to the film instead of trying to figure out a way to put his arm around his date?

Here's what I say: This still doesn't relieve the director of his/her ethical responsibilities to promote good cinema.


Originally posted by Johann
What if the one who does that gets the intent of the director all by his lonesome and feels blessed? Does he have to vote? Should he vote? He doesn't give a shit about social change.
He gives a shit about cinema.

What do you do with a guy like that?
How come collective interaction is so important?

What about isolated interaction?
I dwell there quite happily my good man...

Nobody lives in isolation... not even you man.

[Johann]

Look up grok on dictionary.com


And you call youself educated and a Star Trek fan...

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
Look up grok on dictionary.com


And you call youself educated and a Star Trek fan...

I'm not worthy... I now Grok too!

[Johann]

You've never heard the phrase "I Grok Spock"?

[anduril]

Actually, no.

[Johann]

Originally posted by anduril
Nobody lives in isolation... not even you man.

I'm not talking about living in isolation. I'm talking about seeing a film in isolation. I prefer to see films alone. No talking, no "pass me some M&M's", no distractions.

People think you have to go to the movies with someone else or it's just no fun. I say bollocks to that. While I appreciate company, I would rather be alone (like Garbo!) when seeing films.

I saw almost 80 films at the cinematheque in the last 6 months and I saw almost all of them alone. That's what I mean by isolation. But I wasn't truly alone- I was with the films. I was committed to the films. Discussion of movies is fine AFTERWARDS.

To me when the lights dim, it's magic time. Magic prefers focus.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
I'm not talking about living in isolation. I'm talking about seeing a film in isolation. I prefer to see films alone. No talking, no "pass me some M&M's", no distractions.

People think you have to go to the movies with someone else or it's just no fun. I say bollocks to that. While I appreciate company, I would rather be alone (like Garbo!) when seeing films.

I saw almost 80 films at the cinematheque in the last 6 months and I saw almost all of them alone. That's what I mean by isolation. But I wasn't truly alone- I was with the films. I was committed to the films. Discussion of movies is fine AFTERWARDS.

To me when the lights dim, it's magic time. Magic prefers focus.

That's not what you described in your initial post on this... but, in any case, my answer is still the same answer.

[Johann]

Originally posted by anduril
That's not what you described in your initial post on this

Uh, yes it is.

"What about isolated interaction" was what I said. Do you not know what isolated interaction is?

In case you don't, it means paying attention to the film while alone-in isolation, solo, uno mano, singulo, lono, BY YOURSELF.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann


Uh, yes it is.

"What about isolated interaction" was what I said. Do you not know what isolated interaction is?

In case you don't, it means paying attention to the film while alone-in isolation, solo, uno mano, singulo, lono, BY YOURSELF.

Of course, I know what you mean... but the very fact that you discuss your movies in a place like this one already proves my initial point. That you watch them alone only affects the quality of your viewing experience...

[Johann]

Yes, you are correct.

But notice I don't discuss movies anywhere else. (Except in person). This site has procured some real movie lovers who express themselves wonderfully. A great thing. I'm clearly addicted to this on-line exchanging of perspectives.
I learn a lot about others and myself....tremendous thanks to pmw for inviting me.

[pmw]

Originally posted by Johann
Yes, you are correct.

But notice I don't discuss movies anywhere else. (Except in person). This site has procured some real movie lovers who express themselves wonderfully. A great thing. I'm clearly addicted to this on-line exchanging of perspectives.
I learn a lot about others and myself....tremendous thanks to pmw for inviting me.

No problem, and not to fear, with a little technology we'll all be watching/discussing movies in the same theater... I'd say 5 years or so. Weird....
P