art and music
kiaa
Hello!
Is there anyone who loves art in each of its forms - music, theatre, poetry,
literature, cinema - and is willing to share his/her material or just speak
his/her mind?
Tom Woolery
Art
Consider: music, theatre, poetry, literature and cinema are all that
is left of art; Sculpture, painting, architecture--where are they?
"Artists" such as Christo are dancing a jig on their graves.
Ever see the movie Animal House? You know the part at the end where
they lead the marching band into the alley? And later, as the credits
are still rolling, there they are, still crashing into the end of the
alley?
This is what happened in the Modern Art movement. Duchamp, Miro,
Picasso, Pollack, et al, shredded art, pointed it in upon itself until
only other artists could appreciate it, understand it.
Post Modern is all which is left. Art now refers back to earlier
movements, with nothing new on the horizon. It is an inbred affair,
artists making art for other artists.
Man's Art
40,000 B.C. -1970 A.D.
R.I.P.
It is survived by its' siblings: music, theatre, poetry, literature
and cinema.
Not a tragedy, perhaps. Painting was doomed by the invention of the
Camera Obsura something like 200 years ago. Architecture is still out
there like Col. Kurtz, operating on its own--while most of the army
follows orders like automatons. Sculpture has become the realm of
Nihilists with lawyers who draw up the Federal grant requests for
them. Sculpture's just pissing in a jar these days.
Theatre is musicals--musicals are swallowing up drama. Music and
poetry had a shotgun wedding, and now they can't afford a divorce
lawyer. Music is no longer an abstract art form, poetry is no longer
literary. Literature, on the other hand is still alive and well,
thank you--though dominated by hacks--but then it always was. Cinema
is...well...cinema is still cinema. Keep the story to 90 min, use
beautiful people, and if the story has a death, make it bloody. Focus
group the subject matter before the production crew gets hired. Adjust
the script accordingly. Take a great work of literature and turn it
into a movie; much like adding water to a fine Cognac.
No wonder we have to lock our car doors everywhere we go. No wonder we
can't keep our public restrooms clean. The spirit of mankind seems to
be governed by the laws of entropy like everything else in the
universe. One hopes this isn't a step towards the Dinosaur wing of the
museum.
---
Art
kiaa
As for the rest - I didn't want to express a view of the world. If I had
wanted to, I would have been more complete.
Nevermind.
"Art" <arty_...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:f2998b70.02030...@posting.google.com...
anon...@bogus_address.con
arty_...@yahoo.com (Art) wrote:
Exceptionally well-said, and an extremely accurate insight.
One might speculate that the 'dumbing down' of The Arts is a
merely a reflection of the prevailing social conditions and
culture, but that's a whole 'nuther thread.
> Take a great work of literature and turn it into a movie; much like
> adding water to a fine Cognac.
Even so, watered Cognac is still better than 'Mad Dog 20/20.'
In defense of cinema (and the majority of it is indefensible;
it's 99.9 per cent dross), one =can= -- very occasionally --
find a deserving work.
Two examples from recent decades:
1. 'Housekeeping.' Although the film version couldn't possibly
begin to capture the depth of the original literary work, it
is orders of magnitude better than the usual Hollywood dreck.
Marilynne Robinson's novel, while marvelously insightful, was
fairly convoluted, and actually rather poorly-written (IMHO).
In a minor way, the film version improves on the novel by making
the story line more linear, and therefore more comprehensible.
'Housekeeping' is a rare example of what Hollywood =can= do
when concern for esthetics supplants concern for the 'bottom line.'
2. 'Babette's Feast.' Naturally, it's a foreign (non-U.S.) film.
It remains absolutely true to the author's original outlook and
style, yet the film actually enriches the original Isak Dinesen
story by expanding the character development a bit. A wonderful
and artistic film; an absolute 'must-see' for poets and authors
-- although people under the age of 50 or so might not totally
comprehend all of its ramifications.
Admittedly, films like these are rare gems buried under a seemingly
endless landscape of worthless gravel. But one CAN, on occasion,
still dig one up.
Arthur McNutt
In article <Id7i8.6614$%d1.1...@twister2.libero.it>, "kiaa"
<shi...@inwind.it> wrote:
>As for picture, I had simply forgotten it.
>As for the rest - I didn't want to express a view of the world. If I had
>wanted to, I would have been more complete.
>Nevermind.
Oh, the thousand slings and arrows.
Kiaa, you said: "Hello!
Is there anyone who loves art in each of its forms - music, theatre, poetry,
literature, cinema - and is willing to share his/her material or just speak
his/her mind?"
Wasn't this what I attempted to do? And, of course you "forgot picture"
because that branch of art has been dead since 1970. How can we speak of art
and ignore this?
This was my point. And, Kiaa, if a conversation about art doesn't encompass
a view of the world, then you and I must be from different universes.
If you wanted us to respond to your post by saying "Oh yes, I love the
GooGoo Dolls, and I loved Phantom and I love McKuen and my favorite movie is
"Lethal Weapon III" then you should have warned me. I didn't realize I was
calling your bluff.
---
Art
Arthur McNutt
[snip]
>
> Exceptionally well-said, and an extremely accurate insight.
>
> One might speculate that the 'dumbing down' of The Arts is a
> merely a reflection of the prevailing social conditions and
> culture, but that's a whole 'nuther thread.
Tnx and I agree--part of it is the marketing aspect--which has an upside to
it: it brings arts to the masses. Mass produced canned green beans keep the
billions fed, but it comes with 150 mg of salt. It's that kind of thing, and
great art is still out there--it's just hard to find.
>
>> Take a great work of literature and turn it into a movie; much like
>> adding water to a fine Cognac.
>
> Even so, watered Cognac is still better than 'Mad Dog 20/20.'
:-) true.
>
> In defense of cinema (and the majority of it is indefensible;
> it's 99.9 per cent dross), one =can= -- very occasionally --
> find a deserving work.
>
> Two examples from recent decades:
>
> 1. 'Housekeeping.' Although the film version couldn't possibly
> begin to capture the depth of the original literary work, it
> is orders of magnitude better than the usual Hollywood dreck.
> Marilynne Robinson's novel, while marvelously insightful, was
> fairly convoluted, and actually rather poorly-written (IMHO).
> In a minor way, the film version improves on the novel by making
> the story line more linear, and therefore more comprehensible.
> 'Housekeeping' is a rare example of what Hollywood =can= do
> when concern for esthetics supplants concern for the 'bottom line.'
>
> 2. 'Babette's Feast.' Naturally, it's a foreign (non-U.S.) film.
> It remains absolutely true to the author's original outlook and
> style, yet the film actually enriches the original Isak Dinesen
> story by expanding the character development a bit. A wonderful
> and artistic film; an absolute 'must-see' for poets and authors
> -- although people under the age of 50 or so might not totally
> comprehend all of its ramifications.
>
> Admittedly, films like these are rare gems buried under a seemingly
> endless landscape of worthless gravel. But one CAN, on occasion,
> still dig one up.
Cool. I've two films to find now--probably in the $1 rental section, but
I'll find 'em and watch 'em. They sound intriguing.
---
Art
>
anon...@bogus_address.con
On 2002-03-09 amcn...@insightbb.com said:
> > 1. 'Housekeeping'...
> >
> > 2. 'Babette's Feast'...
>
>Cool. I've two films to find now--probably in the $1 rental section,
>but I'll find 'em and watch 'em. They sound intriguing.
If you can find'em, you'll definitely enjoy'em. Finding'em
as rentals will be the tricky part.
'Housekeeping' still pops up on TV cable outlets every now
and then.
Francois Desnoyers
Arthur McNutt wrote:
> In article <Id7i8.6614$%d1.1...@twister2.libero.it>, "kiaa"
> <shi...@inwind.it> wrote:
>
> >As for picture, I had simply forgotten it.
> >As for the rest - I didn't want to express a view of the world. If I had
> >wanted to, I would have been more complete.
> >Nevermind.
>
> Oh, the thousand slings and arrows.
>
> Kiaa, you said: "Hello!
> Is there anyone who loves art in each of its forms - music, theatre, poetry,
> literature, cinema - and is willing to share his/her material or just speak
> his/her mind?"
>
> Wasn't this what I attempted to do? And, of course you "forgot picture"
What is "picture"? Painting, drawing or photography?
>
> because that branch of art has been dead since 1970. How can we speak of art
> and ignore this?
The "fact" that the art of "picture" is dead?
Arthur McNutt
----------
In article <3C8BED85...@micro-intel.com>, Francois Desnoyers
<fdesn...@micro-intel.com> wrote:
>
>
> Arthur McNutt wrote:
>
>> In article <Id7i8.6614$%d1.1...@twister2.libero.it>, "kiaa"
>> <shi...@inwind.it> wrote:
>>
>> >As for picture, I had simply forgotten it.
>> >As for the rest - I didn't want to express a view of the world. If I had
>> >wanted to, I would have been more complete.
>> >Nevermind.
>>
>> Oh, the thousand slings and arrows.
>>
>> Kiaa, you said: "Hello!
>> Is there anyone who loves art in each of its forms - music, theatre, poetry,
>> literature, cinema - and is willing to share his/her material or just speak
>> his/her mind?"
>>
>> Wasn't this what I attempted to do? And, of course you "forgot picture"
>
> What is "picture"? Painting, drawing or photography?
I think that Kiaa is bilingual which makes me respect her, and makes me
sorry I misunderstood her. Picture is painting, drawing and photography,
yes.
>
>>
>> because that branch of art has been dead since 1970. How can we speak of art
>> and ignore this?
>
> The "fact" that the art of "picture" is dead?
We have been in what is referred to as "The Post Modern Era" of art
(primarily painting and sculpture) since 1970. 32 years and each "new"
movement of art merely reflects earlier movements in art. This has never
been the case before, especially considering the dynamics of this culture.
Whether this is good or bad, whether this is a permanent condition or not
are debatable issues. But it important to note its truth and meaning.
--
Art
Francois Desnoyers
Rage, rage against the dying of the light...
Really, you guys should get to work. Thought I heard my grand parents talk
about art in the salon! Art is a challenge to the mnd, it makes the spirit
soar. If you remain where you are now feeling sorry for yourself, you'll
never have the happiness art can give.
Furthermore, I dont believe you ever appreciated masters of the past like
Tintoretto, El Greco, Goya, etc. because you never realized that it was the
same thing! Art.
anonymous@bogus_address.con wrote:
>
> arty_...@yahoo.com (Art) wrote:
>
> > Consider: music, theatre, poetry, literature and cinema are all that
> > is left of art; Sculpture, painting, architecture--where are they?
Get off your bum and look around. My God, everything is there. You dont
even have the argument "Chucks, I cant go, it's too far" because there are
plenty of books...
>
> > "Artists" such as Christo are dancing a jig on their graves.
> >
> > Ever see the movie Animal House?
You should try seeing other kinds of movies to eralize that the art of
movie making is alive and well.
> You know the part at the end where
> > they lead the marching band into the alley? And later, as the credits
> > are still rolling, there they are, still crashing into the end of the
> > alley?
> >
> > This is what happened in the Modern Art movement. Duchamp, Miro,
> > Picasso, Pollack, et al, shredded art, pointed it in upon itself until
> > only other artists could appreciate it, understand it.
Dont make me cry. This way of thinking is revolting. Art is there to give
you the oportunity to surpass yourself. Dont give up now!!!
> >
> > Post Modern is all which is left. Art now refers back to earlier
> > movements, with nothing new on the horizon. It is an inbred affair,
> > artists making art for other artists.
If you cant read correctly at least you could look at the paintings. Post
modernism is a thing of the past already.
? I just see frustration at his own incomprehention!
Arthur McNutt
----------
In article <3C8BF129...@micro-intel.com>, Francois Desnoyers
<fdesn...@micro-intel.com> wrote:
> Do not go gentle in that good night
> Rage, rage against the dying of the light...
>
> Really, you guys should get to work. Thought I heard my grand parents talk
> about art in the salon! Art is a challenge to the mnd, it makes the spirit
> soar. If you remain where you are now feeling sorry for yourself, you'll
> never have the happiness art can give.
>
> Furthermore, I dont believe you ever appreciated masters of the past like
> Tintoretto, El Greco, Goya, etc. because you never realized that it was the
> same thing! Art.
>
> anonymous@bogus_address.con wrote:
>
>>
>> arty_...@yahoo.com (Art) wrote:
>>
>> > Consider: music, theatre, poetry, literature and cinema are all that
>> > is left of art; Sculpture, painting, architecture--where are they?
>
> Get off your bum and look around. My God, everything is there. You dont
> even have the argument "Chucks, I cant go, it's too far" because there are
> plenty of books...
Recommendations?
>
>>
>> > "Artists" such as Christo are dancing a jig on their graves.
>> >
>> > Ever see the movie Animal House?
>
> You should try seeing other kinds of movies to eralize that the art of
> movie making is alive and well.
Heh. Good one.
>
>> You know the part at the end where
>> > they lead the marching band into the alley? And later, as the credits
>> > are still rolling, there they are, still crashing into the end of the
>> > alley?
>> >
>> > This is what happened in the Modern Art movement. Duchamp, Miro,
>> > Picasso, Pollack, et al, shredded art, pointed it in upon itself until
>> > only other artists could appreciate it, understand it.
>
> Dont make me cry. This way of thinking is revolting. Art is there to give
> you the oportunity to surpass yourself. Dont give up now!!!
Well this thread was started for the very reason that you should speak
up--anonymous did by recommending some movies which transcend themselves
into art. You can claim there is great art being produced--where's the
proof?
Most great music I've heard over the last few decades has been mostly
program music--produced as soundtracks for movies. Some great jazz is still
being written. All popular music, however, denies the purely abstract nature
of music--affectionatos of popular music (I'm one, in my own way, BTW) can't
be certain whether it's the lyrics, or the music, or the genre they like or
hate. My "water in Cognac" line.
As for movies, there are some great ones:
Hitchcock and Capra (Though they're dead) produced art (Hitchcock utilizing
the whole form and power of the cinema, Capra utilizing the power an actor
and the dialogue has in the medium).
Copola (The Conversation and Apocalypse Now)
Alan Rudolf (Trouble in Mind)
And a few others are great--some are true art. I said so, if you'll reread
the post.
Many, many movies, especially American movies, are good--but it is hard to
consider it art when it is focus grouped and blood and naked girls sprinkled
in later.
Phantom and Les Miz are musicals--giving theatre-goers the same dilemma with
the merger of music and content as in pop-music. Name the new Tennessee
Williams or Eugene O'Neill who is having plays produced and successful
enough for me to see out here in the cornfields.
Great literature is still being produced--it's as hard as it ever was to
find it, but I have. Again, I said so in the post before.
>
>> >
>> > Post Modern is all which is left. Art now refers back to earlier
>> > movements, with nothing new on the horizon. It is an inbred affair,
>> > artists making art for other artists.
>
> If you cant read correctly at least you could look at the paintings. Post
> modernism is a thing of the past already.
Yes, but they did this because it was awkward--art critics and historians
were working to change this at least 15 years ago. Kind of like having a
corpse at he dinner table. No body was ever going to be happy with
"post-modern." A Capulet rose was introduced.
--
Art
Chris Keelan
Hash: SHA1
Dateline: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 00:34:45 GMT: laying low until the bleeding
stops, " Arthur McNutt" <amcn...@insightbb.com> transmits:
> Phantom and Les Miz are musicals--giving theatre-goers the same
> dilemma with the merger of music and content as in pop-music. Name
> the new Tennessee Williams or Eugene O'Neill who is having plays
> produced and successful enough for me to see out here in the
> cornfields.
They don't do any Sam Sheppard or David Mamet out where you live?
Art, there are societal powers, which have nothing to do with art and
everything to do with commerce, at work here. Maybe I'm just blessed
to be living in Toronto, but I'm seeing art all around me. Original
theatre, a thriving literary community, an exciting musical scene,
etc. However, if my only connection to that world were through
television and movie theatres, then I'd be hard pressed to assert that
there was *any* art anywhere.
I can't spit in Toronto without hitting some form of art, but it
*never* gets media exposure. Art doesn't scale very well and that's a
problem for media content packagers who need millions of listeners or
viewers in order to generate the advertising revenues, CD sales,
ticket sales, et. al. required to prop up their bloated "industries".
Consider, also, that fewer and fewer entities control more and more of
what we watch, hear, taste, surf and wear. Actually, I think that the
absence of an obvious "movement" in art is not necessarily a sign of
The End[TM]. I just think that, in the midst of all this shouting, we
need to really concentrate to hear the artistic whispers which
permeate the room.
~ C
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.6 and Gnu Privacy Guard
<http://www.gnupg.org/>
iD8DBQE8j/Q7s7Brp8Mn7wcRAuwCAJ9JtLLAsK7KJtw4AtNeXieUBOFwcwCcCCBB
m72En7Qtch7omluhxG9bf7M=
=E5Wn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
anon...@bogus_address.con
On 2002-03-14 amcn...@insightbb.com said:
> [...snip...]
>
>As for movies, there are some great ones:
>
>Copola (The Conversation and Apocalypse Now)
I'd add 'Rumble Fish' to that Coppola list -- though, admittedly, it =is=
a bit pretentiously 'arty' in places, and the story isn't everyone's cup
of tea. BTW, it's another example of a film being significantly better
than the literary work upon which it's based.
Francis Coppola has never made a bad movie. He's made commercially
unsuccessful movies, yes. But even his worst films (which would have to
include 'Finian's Rainbow' and 'Bram Stoker's Dracula') tower above
contemporary Hollywood's usual pygmy efforts.
>Many, many movies, especially American movies, are good...
'Fraid that you and I part company on =this= particular point, Art. ;)
That being said, hafta admit that one of my guilty pleasures is John
Hughes' 'Pretty in Pink.' Hughes is a typical mediocre Hollywood-leftist
teen-sploitation hack, but Molly Ringwald is just SO cute in that film. :)
Arthur McNutt
----------
In article <20020313195307.0...@rogers.com>, Chris Keelan
<rufm...@rogers.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dateline: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 00:34:45 GMT: laying low until the bleeding
> stops, " Arthur McNutt" <amcn...@insightbb.com> transmits:
>
>> Phantom and Les Miz are musicals--giving theatre-goers the same
>> dilemma with the merger of music and content as in pop-music. Name
>> the new Tennessee Williams or Eugene O'Neill who is having plays
>> produced and successful enough for me to see out here in the
>> cornfields.
>
> They don't do any Sam Sheppard or David Mamet out where you live?
>
> Art, there are societal powers, which have nothing to do with art and
> everything to do with commerce, at work here. Maybe I'm just blessed
> to be living in Toronto, but I'm seeing art all around me. Original
> theatre, a thriving literary community, an exciting musical scene,
> etc.
No galleries? That's what--two or three "art lovers" who've totally
forgotten that painting and sculpture exist?
I realize that larger cities are a great place to experience the art
scene--but they are mighty poor places to raise children--at least in my
opinion. So for now, I'll get by on my starvation diet.
> However, if my only connection to that world were through
> television and movie theatres, then I'd be hard pressed to assert that
> there was *any* art anywhere.
Harumph. Listen here, sonny--I may be stuck in the cornfields now, but I've
gotten around in my day ;-)
>
> I can't spit in Toronto without hitting some form of art, but it
> *never* gets media exposure. Art doesn't scale very well and that's a
> problem for media content packagers who need millions of listeners or
> viewers in order to generate the advertising revenues, CD sales,
> ticket sales, et. al. required to prop up their bloated "industries".
Well, at least there are marketers who have figured out a way to get it out
there--during art's great past, it was as reading was during the Dark Ages;
only available to a relative few. Which is better? Who knows? What does get
produced for the masses is pretty watered down and generic--but who'd expect
otherwise?
>
> Consider, also, that fewer and fewer entities control more and more of
> what we watch, hear, taste, surf and wear.
Generally this is a benefit, though I'm a dirty capitalistic bastard.
> Actually, I think that the
> absence of an obvious "movement" in art is not necessarily a sign of
> The End[TM]. I just think that, in the midst of all this shouting, we
> need to really concentrate to hear the artistic whispers which
> permeate the room.
Well said.
See--I was farming for recommendations and you've given me two more; Mamet
and Sheppard--I'll prob never be able to see them as all I have close by is
Summer Stock and while it is rather good--it is almost exclusively
musicals--so I'll find the plays and read them. No promises that I'll find
them great art--Theater has gone through the same shredding of rationality
and convention painting and sculpture did as with Albee, Stoppard, et al.
But I'll give 'em a try.
Something else I was farming for--was a protest to the idea that art is
dead. It's good to get that response from the few people who've stuck their
oars in here.
---
Art (the person; not the abstract field of endeavor)
Arthur McNutt
----------
In article <u90in0r...@corp.supernews.com>, anonymous@bogus_address.con
wrote:
>
> On 2002-03-14 amcn...@insightbb.com said:
>
> > [...snip...]
> >
> >As for movies, there are some great ones:
> >
> >Copola (The Conversation and Apocalypse Now)
>
> I'd add 'Rumble Fish' to that Coppola list -- though, admittedly, it =is=
> a bit pretentiously 'arty' in places, and the story isn't everyone's cup
> of tea. BTW, it's another example of a film being significantly better
> than the literary work upon which it's based.
Yes. Rumblefish was an engaging, haunting movie that sticks with you. I've
never read Henton (sp?) but my wife has read all her books and assures me it
IS better than the book, though the book was quite good in her estimation.
>
> Francis Coppola has never made a bad movie. He's made commercially
> unsuccessful movies, yes. But even his worst films (which would have to
> include 'Finian's Rainbow' and 'Bram Stoker's Dracula') tower above
> contemporary Hollywood's usual pygmy efforts.
>
> >Many, many movies, especially American movies, are good...
>
> 'Fraid that you and I part company on =this= particular point, Art. ;)
Well, maybe I should have said slick and well made--good photography--artful
special effects--adequate acting---fast paced and entertaining plots. But
you're right--I find myself occasionally looking at my watch even during
movies destined for the Oscars. Good prob isn't the word I was looking for.
>
> That being said, hafta admit that one of my guilty pleasures is John
> Hughes' 'Pretty in Pink.' Hughes is a typical mediocre Hollywood-leftist
> teen-sploitation hack, but Molly Ringwald is just SO cute in that film. :)
>
No argument from me! I'm not sure it was a Hughes film, but Some Kind of
Wonderful seemed just a cut above the typical Hughes film--mostly because of
the wide range and depth of characterization. The plot was fairly
predictable, but nothing about the characters or what they did or said
was--nothing. No Molly, though.
You know, Capra was a socialist too. But he loved people so much, and
understood so much about them, that his movies all seem to overpower his
politics. Meet John Doe, It Happened One Night, Mister Smith goes to
Washington, You Can't Take it With You all have so much wonderful stuff
going on, they are so layered, and he got so much out of his actors that one
really didn't see too much of what he was trying to say about Socialism.
They all tended to be more like It's a Wonderful Life than I think he meant
for them to be--Potter is not an allegory for capitalistic greed in other
words--he was a particular personality, an individual--and so well presented
in the movie and so well acted that the allegory was completely lost--the
individual character of Potter was so finely drawn that one saw him as an
individual and not an archetype.
Hughes loves his subject as well. Mediocre in a lot of ways, he did remind
me of some of the best and worst of those God-awful high school days, the
poetic truth of them, as few teen-sploitation movies before him did.
Now Molly is/was very cute. But, if ya wanna talk screen goddesses, no one
compares to Catherine Deneuve. I will sit through any un-translated
un-subtitled movie with her in it. I even sat through an entire movie with
her and David Bowie, for crying out loud--and, yes, even Burt Reynolds.
;-)
Now you make me think of what my own guilty favorites would be--for comic
book-like movies I have a long list--some of Carpenter's--especially the
Thing--The first Terminator--Army of Darkness. I read too many comic books
during my misspent youth, I guess. These capture the inherent nihilistic
atmosphere and the tongue-in-cheek essence I loved as a boy. And, dare I say
it? The unashamed masculinity.
Ah, but the discussion was about great art, wasn't it?
---
Art
anon...@bogus_address.con
On 2002-03-15 amcn...@insightbb.com said:
>Yes. Rumblefish was an engaging, haunting movie that sticks with
>you. I've never read Henton (sp?) but my wife has read all her
>books and assures me it IS better than the book...
Ah! Your bride is obviously a smart lady. :)
And 'Rumble Fish' is so marvelously atmospheric. Coppola 'borrowed'
the time-lapse cloud effect from the 1933 film version of Somerset
Maugham's 'Rain' (with Joan Crawford and Walter Huston).
If you've never seen it before (and if you can ever find a copy),
'Rain' would be another good one to watch. The acting is pretty
abysmal except for Crawford and Huston -- but from the standpoint
of technique and content, the film was a ground-breaker.
>You know, Capra was a socialist too. But he loved people so much,
>and understood so much about them, that his movies all seem to
>overpower his politics. Meet John Doe, It Happened One Night,
>Mister Smith goes to Washington, You Can't Take it With You all
>have so much wonderful stuff going on, they are so layered, and he
>got so much out of his actors that one really didn't see too much
>of what he was trying to say about Socialism. They all tended to be
>more like It's a Wonderful Life than I think he meant for them to
>be--Potter is not an allegory for capitalistic greed in other
>words--he was a particular personality, an individual--and so well
>presented in the movie and so well acted that the allegory was
>completely lost--the individual character of Potter was so finely
>drawn that one saw him as an individual and not an archetype.
Dunno; I don't share your enthusiasm for Capra's work. His films
are certainly well-written and well-crafted, but the underlying
messages are decidely unpalatable -- even if they were sincerely
well-intentioned (and that's a big 'if').
Most of the films you mentioned used the same emotion-based manipu-
lative techniques that the left is still using today (although they
did so in a slightly more tasteful and low-key manner than our
collectivist friends seem capable of anymore). I =did= interpret
the Potter character as a leftist-perceived archetype. And 'Meet
John Doe' and 'Mr. Smith Goes To Washington' are bald-faced socialist
polemics, IMHO.
Admittedly, Capra was a crafty sonnuvvabitch. He was a cinematic
propaganda pioneer. His subtle method of pushing a political
philosophy through a story about an 'individual' was brilliantly
disingenuous. He definitely set a standard.
Another media practitioner of this method was Edward R. Murrow,
with his European 'war reports' during World War II. Walter
Cronkite was cut from this same bolt of cloth, as well.
If we have to watch political propaganda in a movie, I'd prefer the
original 'Invasion Of The Body Snatchers' ANY day. ;)
>Now Molly is/was very cute. But, if ya wanna talk screen goddesses,
>no one compares to Catherine Deneuve.
Heh! Yeah. But of course, here we're comparing a Big Mac with a
filet minon. :)
>Now you make me think of what my own guilty favorites would be--for
>comic book-like movies I have a long list--some of
>Carpenter's--especially the Thing--The first Terminator--Army of
>Darkness. I read too many comic books during my misspent youth, I
>guess. These capture the inherent nihilistic atmosphere and the
>tongue-in-cheek essence I loved as a boy. And, dare I say it? The
>unashamed masculinity.
In this category, I cast a vote for 'Rambo: First Blood Part 2.' <g>
>Ah, but the discussion was about great art, wasn't it?
Well, 'Art' can assume many guises. ;)
Will Dockery
I wonder whatever happened to Art McNut?
Richard Oakley
Will Dockery
:)