"Troma's War" versions; UK censorship
Luis Canau
I recently saw a British video edition of "Troma's War" and felt it was very
tame. No big violence, almost no blood, no sex (just a mere 2 or 3 fast breast
shots). A particular shot made me suspect it was censored: a women is shot and
when she reaches her breast blood is about to come out... I saw in slow motion
because it cuts in the moment the liquid is starting to flow. I doubt a Troma
movie would cut here...
Then I noticed that the IMDb mentions two US running times for the movie: 99
and 105 minutes. In Pal it would be around 95 and 101 min. aprox. The tape has
90 minutes only.
Anyone knows about those two versions, and can tell me roughly what the
British tapes left out? Do Troma movies usually suffer a lot at the hands of
British censors? Is there a place on the web listing recent editions and how
they come out from the BBFC and MPAA?
Of course, we all know that somebody should put on the sleeve all the changes
that the movie was submited!
(The movie is rated '18', for adults; what's the point in censoring things for
adults?! )
_____________________________________________________________________
<luis....@mail.EUnot.pt>
(please change EUnot to EUnet/p.f. troque EUnot por EUnet)
HP de Cinema: http://home.EUnet.pt/id005098/cinedie (Portuguese only)
Pro - w i d e s c r e e n
_____________________________________________________________________
Gary Dixon
In article <341d6d8e...@news.telepac.pt>, Luis Canau <Luis.Canau@in
dividual.EUnot.pt> writes
>Anyone knows about those two versions, and can tell me roughly what the
>British tapes left out? Do Troma movies usually suffer a lot at the hands of
>British censors? Is there a place on the web listing recent editions and how
>they come out from the BBFC and MPAA?
Can't help you with what's missing from your video, but I can tell you
that most of Tromas releases seem to suffer from censorship in the UK.
And I'm not talking about a few seconds of cuts either, more like
several minutes. It's the same with almost all horror/gore films over
here, they remove all the bits that make the film worth watching. Try
watching the British release of any of Fulci's films and you'll see what
I mean, There's 13 minutes removed from Zombie Flesh Eaters and 7
minutes from City of the living Dead, that literally removes all the
gore, and his films are hard enough to follow at the best of times but
it's a damn sight harder to work out what's going on when the BBFC has
removed most of the narrative along with the violence.
In short, next time you want to buy a horror video, get it from a
country with a less draconian set of video censorship and obscenity laws
(The US for example).
--
Gary Dixon
Jim McLennan
In article <6BfGsCAN...@wigton.demon.co.uk>
Ga...@wigton.demon.co.uk "Gary Dixon" writes:
> In article <341d6d8e...@news.telepac.pt>, Luis Canau <Luis.Canau@in
> dividual.EUnot.pt> writes
> >Anyone knows about those two versions, and can tell me roughly what the
> >British tapes left out? Do Troma movies usually suffer a lot at the hands of
> >British censors? Is there a place on the web listing recent editions and how
> >they come out from the BBFC and MPAA?
>
> Can't help you with what's missing from your video, but I can tell you
> that most of Tromas releases seem to suffer from censorship in the UK.
Although with respect to the BBFC, they can only cut what they're given,
and if they don't get the uncut copy to begin with...
> And I'm not talking about a few seconds of cuts either, more like
> several minutes. It's the same with almost all horror/gore films over
> here, they remove all the bits that make the film worth watching. Try
> watching the British release of any of Fulci's films and you'll see what
> I mean, There's 13 minutes removed from Zombie Flesh Eaters and 7
> minutes from City of the living Dead,
About another hour from each would probably be an improvement... ;-)
> that literally removes all the
> gore, and his films are hard enough to follow at the best of times but
> it's a damn sight harder to work out what's going on when the BBFC has
> removed most of the narrative along with the violence.
The problem with Fulci's films is that they are seen by the BBFC (and
I agree largely) as nothing more than cheap shock exploitation with no
redeeming features or artistic merit. Compare this to how they have
treated the work of Cronenberg, for example -- he's never had a film
cut by them [though see my first paragraph above]. Fulci is a hack in
comparison and if we're going to see any improvement in the current
climate, we'd better have some FAR more convincing examples!
> In short, next time you want to buy a horror video, get it from a
> country with a less draconian set of video censorship and obscenity laws
> (The US for example).
Though of course you then need a multi-standard VCR...
As for Troma, they suffer the same as Fulci -- you try and talk somone
into the artistic merits of "A Nymphoid Barbarian in Dinosaur Hell"!
But did I hear that the recent re-release of the Toxic Avenger was uncut?
--
Jim McLennan
--- New at TC-Land...300+ reviews, culled from the Trash City archives ---
--- and covering everything from "2000 Maniacs" to "Zombie Oasis". ---
--- Where else to learn about the good, the bad and the obscure but: ---
--- http://www.trshcity.demon.co.uk ---
Gary Dixon
In article <874445...@trashcity.org>, Jim McLennan <jmclennan@SPAMBLO
CKtrashcity.org> writes
>The problem with Fulci's films is that they are seen by the BBFC (and
>I agree largely) as nothing more than cheap shock exploitation with no
>redeeming features or artistic merit. Compare this to how they have
>treated the work of Cronenberg, for example -- he's never had a film
>cut by them [though see my first paragraph above]. Fulci is a hack in
>comparison and if we're going to see any improvement in the current
>climate, we'd better have some FAR more convincing examples!
I happen to really enjoy Fulci's films, although I do agree that some of
them are just made to shock, but what's wrong with a bit of cheap
exploitation every now and again? Films should not be subjected to more
cuts simply because the BBFC considers them to be of no artistic merit,
I happen to think that a lot of Cronenberg's films have little or no
artistic merit, but that's just my opinion and I don't force it upon
other people as the BBFC does. The BBFC censors out material they
consider likely to corrupt the populace, right? Well, how is a person
getting their throat ripped out in one of Romero's zombie films any less
likely to corrupt than in Fulci's Zombie Flesh Eaters? A large
percentage of the people that watch horror films couldn't give a rats
arse about whether Romero's zombie films have any artistic merit or not,
they just watch it for the gore. Therefore they are both as corrupting
as each other, yet Romero's films were released relatively untouched,
while Zombie Flesh Eaters was cut to ribbons. More than just a little
unfair I think.
--
Gary Dixon
Jim McLennan
In article <N6v7iCAM...@wigton.demon.co.uk>
Ga...@wigton.demon.co.uk "Gary Dixon" writes:
> I happen to really enjoy Fulci's films, although I do agree that some of
> them are just made to shock, but what's wrong with a bit of cheap
> exploitation every now and again?
As far as I'm personally concerned, nothing at all. I am acting as
devil's advocate here, I should probably point out! ;-)
> Films should not be subjected to more
> cuts simply because the BBFC considers them to be of no artistic merit,
> I happen to think that a lot of Cronenberg's films have little or no
> artistic merit,
Care to expand on this? What do you mean by "a lot"? And which ones?
> but that's just my opinion and I don't force it upon
> other people as the BBFC does. The BBFC censors out material they
> consider likely to corrupt the populace, right? Well, how is a person
> getting their throat ripped out in one of Romero's zombie films any less
> likely to corrupt than in Fulci's Zombie Flesh Eaters?
Because in the Romero flick, they'll have had to sit through two hours
of tedious dialogue and uninteresting characters first? ;-) [Yep, I
consider Romero vastly over-rated too!]
It's down to the evoked reactions, how the material is presented, even the
expected audience (that's why 'Man Bites Dog' was uncut, while 'Henry'
got shredded -- the former, with its subtitles, was perceived by the BBFC
as appealing to a more discriminating viewer)
> A large
> percentage of the people that watch horror films couldn't give a rats
> arse about whether Romero's zombie films have any artistic merit or not,
> they just watch it for the gore. Therefore they are both as corrupting
> as each other,
Censorship has never been about "a large percentage" [and I'd tend to
disagree with the above statement -- SOME horror films attract a far
higher percentage of gore bores than others, who salivate over Greek
uncut copies or whatever, with 2 microseconds more of the intestine
chomping sequence], it's about the small fraction of people felt to be
at risk. And they DO take on board the context of the images as well
as their pure content -- or so the theory goes...
> yet Romero's films were released relatively untouched,
> while Zombie Flesh Eaters was cut to ribbons. More than just a little
> unfair I think.
You would perhaps prefer them BOTH to be cut? Be _grateful_ for the
concept of artistic licence, otherwise we'd probably never have HEARD
of Peter Jackson...
Luis Canau
jmcl...@SPAMBLOCKtrashcity.org (Jim McLennan) wrote:
[...]
>Although with respect to the BBFC, they can only cut what they're given,
>and if they don't get the uncut copy to begin with...
...they have less to cut?
[...]
>The problem with Fulci's films is that they are seen by the BBFC (and
>I agree largely) as nothing more than cheap shock exploitation with no
>redeeming features or artistic merit. Compare this to how they have
>treated the work of Cronenberg, for example[...]
One thing that always depresses me when we talk about censorship is putting
quality or personal tastes in the middle of it. Don't you think that people
should decide for themselves if the movie is bad ot not? Do you see the BBFC
as an organization of film critics in which you trust completely, and accept
their job of choosing what has 'artistic merit' for you to see?
If a movie is rated '18' it is directed for adults. So why are those movies
cut? What kind of adults need this strange sort of protection? If they found
the movie repulsive wouldn't it be better to force a law which would impose
labeling movies with sentences like "the BBFC considers this movie repulsive",
but letting the movie uncut (and for adults) so that people could make up
their own opinions?
>> In short, next time you want to buy a horror video, get it from a
>> country with a less draconian set of video censorship and obscenity laws
>> (The US for example).
>Though of course you then need a multi-standard VCR...
The new cheapest stereo VCRs (from philips and sony, at least) came with NTSC
reprodution, so that wouldn't be a problem. I would anyway prefer Pal and from
a nearer country, inside the European Union for taxing reasons. There's the UK
with good variety (and many widescreen editions) and there's all the other
countries that dub movies. Knowing the movies that have cuts and the ones that
haven't got cuts would be great. I can't believe that nobody has put up a
webpage with such an usefull content.
>As for Troma, they suffer the same as Fulci -- you try and talk somone
>into the artistic merits of "A Nymphoid Barbarian in Dinosaur Hell"!
>But did I hear that the recent re-release of the Toxic Avenger was uncut?
One Portuguese company released some Troma movies in the past (then
disapeared). The Toxic Avenger was probably uncut (there is no sort of
internal censorship, just stupid distributors from time to time) since it had
some headcrushing scenes.
The US system is also bad and ridicullous, etc. etc. I understand the problem
are distributors and people fearing this or that rating, but at least, as I
understand it, when a movie is rated for adults - NC-17 - the movie is uncut
(in most cases at least, no?). In the UK you may have a rating for adults and
they still treat you as a child. And instead fighting this, people prefer to
say that they cut only "bad" films, and to discuss which chairman (or whatever
those useless people are called) would be better and stuff like that.
<Sigh>
DPEST666
>Subject: Re: "Troma's War" versions; UK censorship
>From: Luis....@individual.EUnot.pt (Luis Canau)
>Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 16:14:41 GMT
>Message-id: <3421279e...@news.telepac.pt>
In the US, hack directors like Wes Craven, regularly sign contracts
that "force" (as they usually say) them to contractually deliver an "R"
rating. When their film is cut (which they knew from the get-go was going
to happen, once they sign on the dotted line). To boost their lams product
they make a hoopla that "the MPAA made me cut this, that, etc..." I AM
AGAINST CENSORSHIP, no bones about that, but here, in the US, some
directors use it to excuse an already bad film, citing the "censorship" of
their film as being the main reason, and hide behind these "battles" with a
sly grin as they use this as a reason to promote their film. People begin
to think "Let's see what's there and figure out what was sonasty..." I AM
TALKING ABOUT THE PIECE-O-SHIT SCREAM. Man was it bad. I snuck into it and
felt like demanding my money back!!!! I think Craven should return to
making porn, something his amply suited for.
- Darryl Pestilence
S.P. Arnold
In article <341d6d8e...@news.telepac.pt>,
Luis Canau <Luis....@individual.EUnot.pt> wrote:
=
=Anyone knows about those two versions, and can tell me roughly what the
=British tapes left out? Do Troma movies usually suffer a lot at the hands of
=British censors? Is there a place on the web listing recent editions and how
=they come out from the BBFC and MPAA?
=
=Of course, we all know that somebody should put on the sleeve all the changes
=that the movie was submited!
=
=(The movie is rated '18', for adults; what's the point in censoring things for
=adults?! )
They released it uncut in Holland.
--
Simon Arnold <sp...@le.ac.uk>
<bx...@freenet.carleton.ca>
S.P. Arnold
In article <874445...@trashcity.org>,
Jim McLennan <jmcl...@SPAMBLOCKtrashcity.org> wrote:
=In article <6BfGsCAN...@wigton.demon.co.uk>
= Ga...@wigton.demon.co.uk "Gary Dixon" writes:
=
=
=The problem with Fulci's films is that they are seen by the BBFC (and
=I agree largely) as nothing more than cheap shock exploitation with no
=redeeming features or artistic merit. Compare this to how they have
=treated the work of Cronenberg, for example -- he's never had a film
=cut by them [though see my first paragraph above]. Fulci is a hack in
=comparison and if we're going to see any improvement in the current
=climate, we'd better have some FAR more convincing examples!
Fulci's films weren't made to win Oscars! They are about enthusiastic use of
make-up and sfx, pounding soundtracks, creeping zombies, and bucketloads of
blood. 90 minutes (or less if you only have access to the UK versions) of sheer
entertainment. And good fun they are too.
Even though Fulci movies have no artistic pretense they do have artistic merit.
Fabio Frizzi's soundtracks and Giannetto de Rossi's make-up sfx are works of art
in their own right, and the latter can only be truely appreciated when shown in
its full entirety.
Even though Cronenberg makes films that are more 'arty', better directed, and
made with higher production values, I still find Fulci's films more entertaining
, well paced, and never boring.
The reason for the differential treatment by Ferman and co. between 'arty' type
films like Cronenberg's, Man Bites Dog etc, and genre movies like Fulci's,
Argento's etc is IMHO due to the (perceived and rather fallacious) difference in
the (stereotype of the) target audience. Films that are shown at art-house
theatres and university film societies, to largely well-educated well-to-do
audiences are OK in the eyes of the BBFC, yet films that are rented out from
video shops on council estates are not.
Gary Dixon
In article <874535...@trashcity.org>, Jim McLennan <jmclennan@SPAMBLO
CKtrashcity.org> writes
>In article <N6v7iCAM...@wigton.demon.co.uk>
> Ga...@wigton.demon.co.uk "Gary Dixon" writes:
>> Films should not be subjected to more
>> cuts simply because the BBFC considers them to be of no artistic merit,
>> I happen to think that a lot of Cronenberg's films have little or no
>> artistic merit,
>
>Care to expand on this? What do you mean by "a lot"? And which ones?
Well, with the exception of Videodrome, which IMO is well presented,
beautifully directed and quite thought provoking, and perhaps Rabid
which although I didn't really enjoy I could see that it was quite
stylishly directed - All of them.
>> yet Romero's films were released relatively untouched,
>> while Zombie Flesh Eaters was cut to ribbons. More than just a little
>> unfair I think.
>
>You would perhaps prefer them BOTH to be cut? Be _grateful_ for the
>concept of artistic licence, otherwise we'd probably never have HEARD
>of Peter Jackson...
Of course I wouldn't prefer both to be cut, I'd just like to see a
little more consistency from the BBFC. I don't believe it's right for
them to decide what does or doesn't have artistic merit as it's such a
subjective thing, one persons view of what has artistic merit may be
very different from anothers (as we have proved by our differing views
on David Cronenberg). Oh and BTW, I'm not saying Fulci's films have much
artistic merit either, but I like them, they help me relax when I'm
wound up. The rest of the time I'm much happier watching a nice Akira
Kurosawa epic or some Sci-Fi anime.
--
Gary Dixon
Phil Martin
In article <3421279e...@news.telepac.pt>
Luis....@individual.EUnot.pt "Luis Canau" writes:
> [snip]
> Knowing the movies that have cuts and the ones that
> haven't got cuts would be great. I can't believe that nobody has put up a
> webpage with such an usefull content.
With regard to UK video releases, you can now find a list of the last 3
years cuts at:
<http://www.dtaylor.demon.co.uk>
and a collection of BBFC related articles at:
<http://www.webcor.demon.co.uk>
"Flip off, ya freakin' melonfarmer!"
--
Phil Martin PGP Key: p...@webcor.demon.co.uk
<http://www.webcor.demon.co.uk/>
"It is so cryptic as to be almost meaningless. If there is a meaning,
it is doubtless objectionable."
Spencer Snowling
>felt like demanding my money back!!!! I think Craven should return to
|
Excuse me? What? -----------------------|
>making porn, something his amply suited for.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spencer Snowling snow...@mcmail.mcmaster.ca
Geol/Geog Dept., McMaster University http://jrk1.geology.mcmaster.ca
Hamilton, Ontario Die-Hard CFL Fan
Jim McLennan
> jmcl...@SPAMBLOCKtrashcity.org (Jim McLennan) wrote:
> [...]
> >Although with respect to the BBFC, they can only cut what they're given,
> >and if they don't get the uncut copy to begin with...
>
> ...they have less to cut?
They can't put stuff back in. If they get given the American 'R' rated
version, for example, as with 'Natural Born Killers', they can't do
any more than passing it "uncut", even though it already had upwards
of 100 cuts made to it.
> >The problem with Fulci's films is that they are seen by the BBFC (and
> >I agree largely) as nothing more than cheap shock exploitation with no
> >redeeming features or artistic merit. Compare this to how they have
> >treated the work of Cronenberg, for example[...]
>
> One thing that always depresses me when we talk about censorship is putting
> quality or personal tastes in the middle of it. Don't you think that people
> should decide for themselves if the movie is bad ot not? Do you see the BBFC
> as an organization of film critics in which you trust completely, and accept
> their job of choosing what has 'artistic merit' for you to see?
This ties in perhaps a little with the current fuss over the Myra Hindley
painting they're hanging at the Royal Academy, which makes an interesting
comparison. [I know of at least one place in London where you can buy art
BY, rather than OF, a serial killer...]
> If a movie is rated '18' it is directed for adults. So why are those movies
> cut? What kind of adults need this strange sort of protection? If they found
> the movie repulsive wouldn't it be better to force a law which would impose
> labeling movies with sentences like "the BBFC considers this movie repulsive",
Oh, yes, that'd be effective...not! ;-) See Channel 4's "Red Triangle"
season, or more recently, the "Lost World" fudge. Such a label would be
completely counter-productive.
> but letting the movie uncut (and for adults) so that people could make up
> their own opinions?
Except, of course, that censorship is not directed at "you", "me" or the
censor. It's directed at susceptible individuals -- for example, those
who believe what they read in the tabloid press. Don't forget that, by
definition, 50% of the population is below average (median) intelligence...
Again, I should stress that I am acting as a devil's advocate here -- my
own personal view is that NO material should be banned. And yes, I am
quite aware of the implications of that statement.
Jim McLennan
In article <Ap1IGQAY...@wigton.demon.co.uk>
ga...@wigton.demon.co.uk "Gary Dixon" writes:
> In article <874535...@trashcity.org>, Jim McLennan <jmclennan@SPAMBLO
> CKtrashcity.org> writes
> >In article <N6v7iCAM...@wigton.demon.co.uk>
> > Ga...@wigton.demon.co.uk "Gary Dixon" writes:
> >> I happen to think that a lot of Cronenberg's films have little or no
> >> artistic merit,
> >
> >Care to expand on this? What do you mean by "a lot"? And which ones?
>
> Well, with the exception of Videodrome, which IMO is well presented,
> beautifully directed and quite thought provoking, and perhaps Rabid
> which although I didn't really enjoy I could see that it was quite
> stylishly directed - All of them.
I am quite gobsmacked by this. The Fly? Dead Ringers? The Brood? If you
think Cronenberg has "little or no artistic merit", I would say it was
very hard to claim ANY horror movies have artistic merit.
Anyone else have any thoughts?
Chad R Hermann
Excerpts from netnews.alt.cult-movies: 19-Sep-97 Cronenberg: "little or
no a.. by Jim McLennan@SPAMBLOCKtr
> think Cronenberg has "little or no artistic merit", I would say it was
> very hard to claim ANY horror movies have artistic merit.
>
> Anyone else have any thoughts?
Amen, Jim!
The films are not for everyone's tastes, but they are, it seems to me,
undeniable works of art.
At the risk of insulting the original poster (but then -- should I
care?), anyone who would even think to suggest that Cronenberg's films
have "little or no artistic merit" wouldn't recognize said merit if it
paraded naked and screaming in front of him. Which, now that I mention
it, is basically what Cronenberg's films do.
DEAD RINGERS especially. An absolute masterpiece of art direction and
cinematography especially. Every single shot in that film is
breathtakingly composed. Beautiful. The camera movements are perfectly
choreographed (which is all the more impressive given the demands of the
twinning process). Not to mention the thematic complexity and brilliant
acting and provocative writing and...
oh hell.
All these points are perfectly self-evident.
Why bother to debate with the ignorant?
Chad
Chad R Hermann
Excerpts from netnews.alt.cult-movies: 20-Sep-97 Re: Cronenberg: "little
or .. by Gary Di...@wigton.demon.
> I didn't like The Fly one little bit, I thought it was a dire update of
> an already poor film, with very few redeeming features.
It is, of course, perfectly possible to dislike something with gobs of
artistic merit. Taste and art do not always coincide.
That said, could you be more specific in your dismissal of THE FLY?
What makes it so dire? What makes it so artless?
Chad
Chad R Hermann
Excerpts from netnews.alt.cult-movies: 20-Sep-97 Re: Cronenberg: "little
or .. by Gary Di...@wigton.demon.
> merit is shown by directors such as Akira Kurosawa or Stephen Spielberg.
Kurosawa, absolutely. Undeniably.
Spielberg? In fits and starts; visually, he's an absolute genius,
though a truly deep or complex thought has never once passed through any
of his films.
> Hell, if you can't have a discussion without reverting to being a school
> kid, you're not even worth me wasting my time on.
First: I doubt a school kid would use the word "ignorant."
Second: if I had called you an ignoramous, that would certainly have
been an insult.
When I suggested that your opinion was ignorant, I did not mean to
insult you. I meant to describe your opnion. And I am confident that
the description fits, whether you like it or not, whether it insults you
or not.
Chad
Mark Entwistle
In article <874705...@trashcity.org>, Jim McLennan <jmclennan@SPAMBLO
CKtrashcity.org> writes
>In article <Ap1IGQAY...@wigton.demon.co.uk>
> ga...@wigton.demon.co.uk "Gary Dixon" writes:
>> Well, with the exception of Videodrome, which IMO is well presented,
>> beautifully directed and quite thought provoking, and perhaps Rabid
>> which although I didn't really enjoy I could see that it was quite
>> stylishly directed - All of them.
>
>think Cronenberg has "little or no artistic merit", I would say it was
>very hard to claim ANY horror movies have artistic merit.
>
>Anyone else have any thoughts?
I don't think this argument necessarily works this way round. I never
liked Cronenberg much, and unless someone tells me what merit his movies
have, I assume they haven't got any.
For the record, I see him as an intellectual-looking bloke who gives
interviews which sound intelligent, and therefore has the respect of
critics. However if you look at his movies, he seems to have said
nothing new for a very long time now, and what he says is generally
ugly. The only movie he made with any warmth was 'The Dead Zone' (and I
know warmth isn't what you go to a Cronenberg movie for), which isn't
regarded as typical Cronenberg in any case. I also find his visual style
to be a bit dull and flat, although I admit I haven't seen 'Crash'. Then
again I like Romero.
Mark Entwistle
Chad R Hermann
Excerpts from netnews.alt.cult-movies: 21-Sep-97 Re: Cronenberg: "little
or .. by Mark Entw...@notlob.de
> You seem to have a problem with other people's opinions. Gary disagrees
> with you elsewhere in this thread, and you call him ignorant. Now I'm
> called foolish for expressing my opinion.
No. You're equation of taste in film and artistic merit in film was
called foolish. Which it is. Art, however we define it, rests outside
the realm of mere liking and disliking. At least if we're intellectuall
honest.
I'm no big fan of opera, but I certainly acknowledge its artistic merit.
> You assume (or KNOW) what you like, it's worth nothing. If you were to
>tell me the moon was made of green cheese, I'd be entitled to laugh at
> you until you proved it. The onus would be on you, not me.
Yes. Exactly my point. The onus lies on the one making the claim. And
you (and Gary) were the original claimants. So you need to tell us WHY
Cronenberg's films lack merit, no?
> Sorry, I didn't realise that the degree of Miltonian-ness was
> important.
Cute.
I suspect you get the point but choose to deflect it this way. Fine. I
won't bother explaining it.
And my point is, by the way, that THE FLY is in many ways a warm and
human film. If you don't see or accept that, I'd love to know why. I
suspect that here, as with your opinion of Cronenberg in general, you're
allowing your aesthetic tastes and preferences to color your judgment of
artistic merit. And that, it seems to me, is intellectually dishonest.
> Romero says a lot more than Cronenberg.
Perhaps.
Though I would argue that all three (or four, if you count the remake
screenplay) DEAD films and MARTIN and MONKEY SHINES and THE DARK HALF
tread the same thematic ground, merely at different paces and at
different times. And that's not a criticism. Though you would seem to
think so.
> I'm still waiting for someone to enlighten me
> as to what Cronenberg is saying that he wasn't saying in 'Shivers'.
Again (and I promise I won't disturb you with a repeat of the Milton
analogy), I challenge the necessity of originality in your notion of
artistic merit. Could you explain your thinking?
Chad
Mark Entwistle
In article <Mo94g4C00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Chad R Hermann
<ch...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes
>Excerpts from netnews.alt.cult-movies: 20-Sep-97 Re: Cronenberg: "little
>> liked Cronenberg much, and unless someone tells me what merit his movies
>> have, I assume they haven't got any.
>
>LIKE them doesn't mean they have no artistic merit.
You seem to have a problem with other people's opinions. Gary disagrees
with you elsewhere in this thread, and you call him ignorant. Now I'm
called foolish for expressing my opinion.
Artistic merit doesn't exist outside people's opinions, which is why
censorship on the basis of artistic merit is so ridiculous. Unless we
take the majority opinion as some indicator of artistic merit, which is
patently bollocks. Or unless you've got a monopoly on the truth, which
is even more unlikely given your recent postings.
>And your decree does not hold. Perhaps we shall assume (or more
>accurately KNOW) that his films possess loads of artistic merit unless
>someone tells us why or how they don't.
You assume (or KNOW) what you like, it's worth nothing. If you were to
tell me the moon was made of green cheese, I'd be entitled to laugh at
you until you proved it. The onus would be on you, not me.
>> For the record, I see him as an intellectual-looking bloke who gives
>> interviews which sound intelligent, and therefore has the respect of
>> critics. However if you look at his movies, he seems to have said
>> nothing new for a very long time now, and what he says is generally
>> ugly.
>
>Who says an artist has to say something new every time out? Who says
>that he or she can't visit the same ground over and over again, tilling,
>turning, reworking.
Me. All I ask for is something new once in a while. (Shall we ignore M.
Butterfly?)
> It's said that John Milton merely wrote so many
>versions of the same poem, narrative turns on a thematic phrase, for all
>his major works. And that's meant as a compliment. In that way,
>Cronenberg is a perfectly Miltonian filmmaker. He returns again and
>again to explore his obsessions, riffing in new ways and the same
>familiar notes.
Ah yes. Sorry, I didn't realise that the degree of Miltonian-ness was
important.
>> The only movie he made with any warmth was 'The Dead Zone' (and I
>> know warmth isn't what you go to a Cronenberg movie for), which isn't
>> regarded as typical Cronenberg in any case.
>
>Oh yes. And warm. Art must be warm.
>
>By the way -- Did you see THE FLY?
Yes. And your point is?
>> I also find his visual style
>> to be a bit dull and flat, although I admit I haven't seen 'Crash'.
>
>Dull and flat? Did you see DEAD RINGERS? THE FLY?
That's a familiar question. See above.
>>Then again I like Romero.
>
>And Romero's visual style is chock full of excitement and depth?
Romero's style has evolved over the years. His early movies were shoddy
but had interesting editing and composition. His more recent movies are
remarkably slick given his limited budgets.
>Hell, I love Romero, but his style is remarkably similar to
>Cronenberg's. Both seem to have a real classicist's eye for tradition:
>great framing and composition, minimal camera acrobatics, a wonderful
>propensity for lingering on a disturbing image, great senses of
>leisurely pace and character development, even a willingness to wallow
>in the ugly.
Although I don't agree that Romero's work is in the same style as
Cronenberg's, we're not just talking about style here. Style doesn't
exist in some sort of vacuum, it's a means to an end, and Romero says a
lot more than Cronenberg. I'm still waiting for someone to enlighten me
as to what Cronenberg is saying that he wasn't saying in 'Shivers'.
Mark Entwistle
Lino!!
>--
>
> Simon Arnold <sp...@le.ac.uk>
> <bx...@freenet.carleton.ca>
>
It was also released uncut in the UK, admittedly, it was a cockup with
the duplication company and it was withdrawn about 2 weeks after the
original release....
You'd think that only small labels like Troma would make such
"cockups", but if you're quick, and I mean REALLY quick, and rush down
to your local video retailer, you'll be able to pickup an uncut copy
of Abel Ferrera's Ms .45 which Warners has just rereleased... whoops,
looks like they too accidently had the uncut version duplicated...
it's been spotted and will be withdrawn early next week... of course
if you can't get any joy with your local Blockbuster <sic> I highly
recommend you try Psychotronic Videos in London's Camden Town, they'll
have a few copies of the uncut version avaliable (Please note,
Psychotronic Videos Camden, is in no way associated with Michael
Weldon's excellent US 'zine Psychotronic Video, and makes no claims to
be....)
MovieMail
In article <BWk4ZAAe...@wigton.demon.co.uk>, Gary Dixon
<ga...@wigton.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <874705...@trashcity.org>, Jim McLennan <jmclennan@SPAMBLO
>CKtrashcity.org> writes
>>In article <Ap1IGQAY...@wigton.demon.co.uk>
>> ga...@wigton.demon.co.uk "Gary Dixon" writes:
>>
>>
>>I am quite gobsmacked by this. The Fly? Dead Ringers? The Brood? If you
>>think Cronenberg has "little or no artistic merit", I would say it was
>>very hard to claim ANY horror movies have artistic merit.
>
>
>ever seen The Brood, I'll have to get round to watching it sometime.
>Dead Ringers, hmmm, OK you've got me there, it's a pretty good film
>that's well enough directed - hell, I'd even go so far as to say I
>enjoued it.
I'm not at all sure that you're supposed to *enjoy* Dead Ringers as
such. Though its a fine movie and Jeremy Irons earns his fee with, for
me, one of the most accomplished pieces film acting in recent years.
Alan
--
Movi...@dunaad.co.uk http://www.dunaad.demon.co.uk/MovieMail
+44 1432 262919 fax: +44 1432 262913
PJ O'Reilly
On Sat, 20 Sep 97 16:10:48 GMT, web...@nospam.demon.co.uk (Phil
Martin) wrote:
>In article <5vtp5u$q...@owl.le.ac.uk> sp...@le.ac.uk "S.P. Arnold" writes:
>
>> The reason for the differential treatment by Ferman and co. between 'arty' type
>> films like Cronenberg's, Man Bites Dog etc, and genre movies like Fulci's,
>> Argento's etc is IMHO due to the (perceived and rather fallacious) difference in> the (stereotype of the) target audience. Films that are shown at art-house
>> theatres and university film societies, to largely well-educated well-to-do
>> audiences are OK in the eyes of the BBFC, yet films that are rented out from
>> video shops on council estates are not.
>
>Which is, in essence, the class basis of a lot of censorship. As Jim
>points out in another post, censorship is for "them", not for "us". "Is
>it a book that you would like your wife or servants to read?", a famous
>question that reverberates down the years. This set of attitudes goes
>some way to explaining why (in the UK) there has been no censorship of
>books (apart from the bungled exceptions like Spycatcher) or the
>theatre for a long time now, yet the restrictions on video and films are
>increasing all the time.
>
There are, I think, two other salient points to make here.
Firstly, the BBFC is obviously keen to avoid coming in for too much
criticism from the Daily Mail and its like. The tabloid press, being
philistine, only seems aware of more mainstream films (i.e. English
language, name directors etc.). Witness the tabloid frenzy against
'Crash' & 'NBK' and the lack of any such uproar regarding the release
of 'Man Bites Dog' (for example). The BBFC, as well as having its own
class prejudices, is obliged to allow for the prejudices of the
right-wing media.
Secondly, there is the legal aspect. Rightly or wrongly, English law
now obliges the censor to bear in mind the possible effects that a
video may have on children regardless of whether it has been certified
18 or PG. This supplies the reason (if not the moral justification)
why the BBFC won't pass 18-certificate videos uncut.
Moreover, in cases to do with obscenity, artistic expression is a
legitimate defence in English law. It was the defence in the Lady
Chatterley trial that Phil alludes to above. If a BBFC-certified film
were to be hauled into court for obscenity it would clearly be easier
to defend a Cronenberg film than a Fulci film; not because Cronenberg
is better (tho' I think that's blindingly obvious), but because the
defence could call numerous respected filmmakers and writers to
testify to Cronenberg's quality and point to a history of critical
acclaim. They could not do the same for Fulci. Thus the censor's backs
are covered.
(If a film that had been passed by the BBFC were found to be obscene
or otherwise broke English law, then that would very probably be the
end of that organisation ans would most likely result in direct
political control of the censorship process. Clearly that would be a
worse situation than that which exists now).
>Phil Martin PGP Key: p...@webcor.demon.co.uk
> <http://www.webcor.demon.co.uk/>
> "It is so cryptic as to be almost meaningless. If there is a meaning,
> it is doubtless objectionable."
>
--
Veni. Vidi. Vomui.
Gary Dixon
In article <Io94SxW00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Chad R Hermann
<ch...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes
>> Hell, if you can't have a discussion without reverting to being a school
>> kid, you're not even worth me wasting my time on.
>
>First: I doubt a school kid would use the word "ignorant."
Hmmm, maybe you're not quite as intelligent as you seem to think you are
then. I was using words like ignorant - and ignoramous for that matter
long before I started high school.
>Second: if I had called you an ignoramous, that would certainly have
>been an insult.
>
>When I suggested that your opinion was ignorant, I did not mean to
>insult you. I meant to describe your opnion. And I am confident that
>the description fits, whether you like it or not, whether it insults you
>or not.
Firstly, you said and I quote 'Why bother to debate with the ignorant'.
That is a direct insult aimed at me, NOT at my opinion.
Secondly, on the basis of two postings about one subject, you have
decided that I am ignorant. Jumping the gun a little I would have said.
If the 2 emails I received in my mailbox this morning (one calling you a
dick, one calling you an arrogant arsehole) are anything to go by,
people around here seem to have the same opinion of you.
Finally, you seem to have a problem accepting that everyone elses
opinion is as valid as your own - as far as you're concerned, your
opinion is right and that's that. That's one hell of an ego you've got
there.
Now, I would really appreciate it if you would crawl back under the
stone from whence you came and let me get back to my own nihilistic
existence.
--
Gary Dixon
Pearce Duncan
Chad R Hermann (ch...@andrew.cmu.edu) wrote:
: Spielberg? In fits and starts; visually, he's an absolute genius,
: though a truly deep or complex thought has never once passed through any
: of his films.
Since when did art have to be intellectually deep or complex? Spielberg
is an emotional artist. Criticising the lack of intellectual depth in his
movies is exactly the same as criticising the lack of emotional depth in
Cronenberg's: totally beside the point.
Not to deny that Spielberg has directed some dire movies, but at his peak
he was sensational. It's just a matter of taking something different away
from the movie. With Cronenberg, I like to go away and think about the
movie. With Spielberg, I'm looking to be entertained, which isn't
something to sniff at.
: First: I doubt a school kid would use the word "ignorant."
Maybe not, but I think the point was more to do with your attitude than
your vocabulary. To be honest, I'd tend to agree. The implication was
that your opinion was the right one. That's arrogant, and in a rather
childish way.
: Second: if I had called you an ignoramous, that would certainly have
: been an insult.
: When I suggested that your opinion was ignorant, I did not mean to
: insult you. I meant to describe your opnion. And I am confident that
: the description fits, whether you like it or not, whether it insults you
: or not.
How can an opinion be ignorant if the person holding said opinion isn't?
Actually, how can an opinion be ignorant at all? Don't you mean that it's
an opinion borne of ignorance? Which is most certainly an insult.
Pearce
Pearce Duncan
In which Pearce attempts the impossible and tries to argue about the
movies rather than the opinions of the debaters.
Mark Entwistle (ma...@notlob.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <wo99AE200...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Chad R Hermann
: >And my point is, by the way, that THE FLY is in many ways a warm and
: >human film. If you don't see or accept that, I'd love to know why.
: OK then. It's a movie which sets up a sympathetic character and then
: kills him slowly over a long period. That's not my idea of warm and
: human. I might be in the minority, but at least it's my own opinion.
So any movie about a character who has, for example, cancer or AIDS cannot
possibly be a warm and human film?
The Fly was a tragedy. The mere fact that Brundle was a sympathetic
character helps make it a warm and human film. When he dies, you care.
If you feel miserable that this sympathetic character has died slowly over
a long period (isn't it actually a matter of days? I may be wrong, it's a
while since I saw it) then the movie has done what it set out to do.
"Warm and human" doesn't mean the same thing as "warm and fuzzy." You
seem to be arguing that The Fly is cold because it's about the death of a
sympathitic character. I would tend to believe precisely the opposite.
: Let me make it clear for you. I'm saying that the idea of objective
: artistic merit is nonsense. It's just an opinion I hold which is not the
: same as yours, and I don't expect my level of honesty to be questioned.
: Especially not in a newsgroup dedicated to cult movies where the
: established view of art is worth less than you might expect.
Here, here!
Look, it's this simple: artistic merit is determined by people's
opinions. It's that simple. If noone had an opinion on something, we'd
never ever know whether it had any artistic merit or not.
It's not something inherent to an individual piece of art. That's a daft
concept. It's just what people think about it.
It is true that liking or disliking doesn't mean the same thing as
believing something does or doesn't have artistic merit. There is a
difference. You might call it the difference between candy or sushi, but
then again, what the fuck am I talking about again?
: What I said (in the bit you snipped out) was that I expect some
: variation on the theme from time to time. I would argue that Romero's
: dead movies have similar subject matter, but they all have a radically
: different look and a different subtext. But I won't presume to lecture
: someone from Carnegie Mellon on Romero.
In other words, Russ Meyer's movies become boring after a while because
all they're really about is big tits.
I'm not taking the piss, I'm just putting it into a different perspective.
: Why should I bother with Cronenberg's later movies given that I've seen
: his earlier ones? Is he saying anything now (if he ever did) that is
: worthy of my attention?
It depends on whether you continue to be entertained or not.
I would tend to agree about Cronenberg largely re-stating what he's said
earlier. However, I find his movies consistantly entertaining and
interesting. Dead Ringers didn't really say anything he didn't say
before, really did it? But it was still one hell of a movie, and that's
what counts, to me.
I'm being totally inconsistant with my arguments in an earlier post about
the contrasts between Spielberg and Cronenberg, but what the hell. When I
go to a movie, all I care about is whether I enjoy it or not. If I'm
intellectually stimulated, so much the better; in fact, I consider that to
be entertainment in itself.
To change the subject radically, would you have been happier if Cronenberg
had accepted the assignments to direct, say Beverly Hills Cop, or
Flashdance? They would have been rather different.
Although I can imagine the latter fitting into his ouvre quite nicely, if
twisted in the right direction.
Pearce
Pearce Duncan
Mark Entwistle (ma...@notlob.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: I don't think this argument necessarily works this way round. I never
: liked Cronenberg much, and unless someone tells me what merit his movies
: have, I assume they haven't got any.
Well, personally I find them to be funny and disturbing, which is quite a
difficult balance to pull off. I think that his dialogue is quirky and
interesting, and he's a good director of actors, although his visual style
is hardly striking, which doesn't matter hugely to me; I'd rather a
director had no visual style whatsoever than nothing BUT visual style.
: For the record, I see him as an intellectual-looking bloke who gives
: interviews which sound intelligent, and therefore has the respect of
: critics. However if you look at his movies, he seems to have said
: nothing new for a very long time now, and what he says is generally
: ugly.
Part of the reason that they're said nothing new might be because all of
them since "Videodrome" have been adaptions.
And what's wrong with dwelling on ugliness, anyway? That's a matter of
personal taste, not an example of a lack of merit.
: The only movie he made with any warmth was 'The Dead Zone' (and I
: know warmth isn't what you go to a Cronenberg movie for), which isn't
: regarded as typical Cronenberg in any case. I also find his visual style
: to be a bit dull and flat, although I admit I haven't seen 'Crash'. Then
: again I like Romero.
You're right, warmth isn't the thing. Every Cronenberg movie with the
exception of The Dead Zone and The Fly has been cold. Which is why I find
it rather odd that Cronenberg fans dis M Butterfly for being cold and
emotionless.
I've already mentioned his visual style, of course.
: Mark Entwistle
Pearce
Luis Canau
jmcl...@SPAMBLOCKtrashcity.org (Jim McLennan) wrote:
[...]
>They can't put stuff back in.[...]
I heard of the British 'uncut' NBK. But would a company like Troma submit
movies previously cut?
[...]
>> "the BBFC considers this movie repulsive",
>
>Oh, yes, that'd be effective...not! ;-) See Channel 4's "Red Triangle"
>season, or more recently, the "Lost World" fudge. Such a label would be
>completely counter-productive.
Unfortunately I don't know what you're talking about., but I was trying to
joke. Of course there's wost jokes, and if the idea of the BBFC is to cut
movie ocnsidered by them "repulsive" or with no "artistic merit", then joking
or no joking it would be a more logicall system. But of course, the idea is
also to "protect" from those. So they have to cut.
[...]
>Except, of course, that censorship is not directed at "you", "me" or the
>censor. It's directed at susceptible individuals -- for example, those
>who believe what they read in the tabloid press. Don't forget that, by
>definition, 50% of the population is below average (median) intelligence...
Some people stress the argument of the iliteracy rates to defend dubbing. But
dubbing would be only a way to stimulate the ileteracy rates. I'm sure we will
never have dubbing here except for childrem movies, and even here, it has been
some years that all the movies from Disney have an original subtitled copy
somewhere.
Who are this people you are talking about? Do they need protection? Are they
amongst the 1554 that protested the exhibition of "The Last Temptation..." by
Scorsese, in which 1459 protested before the movie? (I'm quoting Webcor -
http://www.webcor.demon.co.uk ) They know what they don't want to see, but why
do they want to avoid the others to see it?
Are you talking about people who would kill if they saw a "sugestive killing"?
People had murdering other because dogs have told them to do it, and we don't
censor dogs. A kid has commited suicide, if I'm not wrong, leaving a message
related to Disney's "The Lion King", and this movie wasn't censored asked to
be banned. Or was it?
>Again, I should stress that I am acting as a devil's advocate here -- my
>own personal view is that NO material should be banned. And yes, I am
>quite aware of the implications of that statement.
If it's a way of keeping the debate, why not?
-------------------------------------------
"A looking glass is not a world
A painted girl is not a girl
In games there can be no forbidden things
In life remain considerate, in art the Devil's advocate
Why deny that Pegasus has wings
In life remain considerate, in art the Devil incarnate
Why deny the siren when it sings?
In games there must be no forbidden things"
Momus
django
Jim McLennan wrote:
>
> In article <Ap1IGQAY...@wigton.demon.co.uk>
> ga...@wigton.demon.co.uk "Gary Dixon" writes:
>
> > CKtrashcity.org> writes
> > >In article <N6v7iCAM...@wigton.demon.co.uk>
> > > Ga...@wigton.demon.co.uk "Gary Dixon" writes:
> > >> I happen to think that a lot of Cronenberg's films have little or no
> > >> artistic merit,
> > >
> > >Care to expand on this? What do you mean by "a lot"? And which ones?
> >
> > beautifully directed and quite thought provoking, and perhaps Rabid
> > which although I didn't really enjoy I could see that it was quite
> > stylishly directed - All of them.
>
> think Cronenberg has "little or no artistic merit", I would say it was
> very hard to claim ANY horror movies have artistic merit.
>
> Jim McLennan
> --- New at TC-Land...300+ reviews, culled from the Trash City archives ---
> --- and covering everything from "2000 Maniacs" to "Zombie Oasis". ---
> --- Where else to learn about the good, the bad and the obscure but: ---
> --- http://www.trshcity.demon.co.uk ---
EVERY ONE OF HIS FILMS FITS VERY EASILY INTO HIS CONCEPT OF ART. THERE
IS A CONSISTANT THREAD CONECTIONG EVERYONE OF HIS PICS INCLUDING
M.BUTTERFLY AND THE DREADFULL CRASH. YOU MAY NOT LIKE HIS FILMS, BUT
YOU CAN NOT NAME ANOTHER DIRECTOR, ESPECIALLY A HORROR OR GENRE DIR WHO
HAS ANY SENSE OF THEME RUNNING THRU OUT HIS WORK
DJANGO
wehu...@infinet.com
In article <3424F1...@earthlink.net>, alian...@earthlink.net wrote:
> Chad-
>
> First of all, I have to say that I'm on Cronenberg's side. I'm a big fan
> of his films, and I do think they have artistic merit. But the stuff
> you've been spouting is frightening. You sound like a religious zealot,
> attacking these people because their opinion is different than yours,
> which I suppose is the standard MO in these newsgroups.
>
> Mark is right - there is no way to be objective about artistic merit (or
> lack thereof).
Yes, but thereąs no such thing as objectivity anyway, is there? At least,
not is the sense of some absolute perspective from which to view things.
Does this mean then that it all just boils down to opinion vs. opinion,
with no grounds to really agree or disagree . . . hm . . . Iąm not
comfortable with that. I doubt any of us really are. Putting Cronenberg
aside for a moment, I imagine that most of us would be unwilling to accept
a statement like łThe movie ŚBlood Cultą has greater artisitic merit than
the movie ŚGone with the Windą˛ (not the best examples, but you get my
drift). The point is that questions of łobjectivity˛ are misleading--the
real question is whether there is a shared--or at least partially
shared--definition of łartistic merit˛ to work from.
Obviously, in this case, the term needs to be defined more clearly if the
gentlemen in question are going to be able to argue the point civilly and
(possibly) with the hope of coming to some form of understanding with one
another.
Just sticking my nose in where it doesnąt need to be, as ususal.
Bill
P.S. And by the way, I usually run hot and cold on Cronenberg, depending
on the movie in question. Just got my butt kicked by the unexpected łM.
Butterfly˛ tonight. Interesting. Some possible notions, then, toward a
definition of łartistic merit:˛ a certain degree of techincal competence;
a strong grasp of character and the complexieites thereof; a plot in which
action and re-action are clearly motivated, although by no means
necessarily predictable; an ability to understand and play upon the larger
themes suggested by the lives of the characters . . . you know, stuff like
that.
Gary Dixon
In article <3426B2...@execpc.com>, django <dja...@execpc.com> writes
>OUCH. CRON. IS ONE OF THE ONLY DIRECTORS WHO HAS ANY SENSE OF ARTISTRY.
>EVERY ONE OF HIS FILMS FITS VERY EASILY INTO HIS CONCEPT OF ART. THERE
>IS A CONSISTANT THREAD CONECTIONG EVERYONE OF HIS PICS INCLUDING
>M.BUTTERFLY AND THE DREADFULL CRASH. YOU MAY NOT LIKE HIS FILMS, BUT
>YOU CAN NOT NAME ANOTHER DIRECTOR, ESPECIALLY A HORROR OR GENRE DIR WHO
>HAS ANY SENSE OF THEME RUNNING THRU OUT HIS WORK
No, Cronenberg's films easily fit into YOUR concept of art, not into
mine. As we have stated many times during this thread, artistic merit
only exists within one's opinion, what may have artistic merit for you
may not have artistic merit for the next person and vice versa. I can
name a great many directors whose work I consider to have artistic merit
- Kurosawa being the best example, but you wouldn't necessarily agree
with me. It's just my opinion.
BTW, I'd pay a damn sight more attention to your comments if you would
stop SHOUTING at me.
--
Gary Dixon
Chad R Hermann
Excerpts from netnews.alt.cult-movies: 21-Sep-97 Re: Cronenberg: "little> You're hiding behind semantics, but at least you didn't lie about the
> original text the same way you did with Gary. You can't throw words like
> 'ignorant' and 'foolish' around without someone feeling insulted, and no
> amount of weaselling will change that.
That's funny.
So someone who writes with and demands precision of the language is
"hiding behind semantics" and "weaselling"? Wonderful. This all the
more proves my response to your next question.
> So now I'm intellectually dishonest as well?
As you argue here, in my opinion, yes. Absolutely.
> >I'm no big fan of opera, but I certainly acknowledge its artistic merit.
> Well I don't. Have you got some basis for this, or are you just assuming
> that it must have some merit because other people tell you so? Would you
> not prefer to decide for yourself what has merit and what doesn't?
Well, good for you.
I have plenty of basis for this. I recognize the beauty of the music
and the vocal performance, the high (melo?)drama, the emotional impact,
the power it so obviously works on some audiences. I recognize the
sheer and rare talent it takes to write, to play, to produce, to sing
opera. I don't seek it out, but I certainly respect it.
And thus, yes, thanks, I DO decide for myself what has merit and what
doesn't. And I can't help but laugh at someone who has not yet defended
-- much less substantively defended -- a single one of his opinions
about artistic merit or the lack thereof in any of his posts, yet feels
perfectly free to condescend to me here with these comments.
Oh yes, you're intellectually honest. You're above insult.Excerpts from
netnews.alt.cult-movies: 21-Sep-97 Re:
> The onus lies on the one making the claim. And
> >you (and Gary) were the original claimants. So you need to tell us WHY
> >Cronenberg's films lack merit, no?
>
> No, you're confusing the people with the issues again. Let's forget who
> said what, and concentrate on the issue. If I understand you correctly,
> you automatically assume that something is true unless proved otherwise.
> Is that really what you're saying?
Huh?
I turned on the example to make a point. You didn't follow me back, but
agreed nonetheless. You declared to me -- and rightly so -- that the
onus for proof lies on the one who makes the claim.
And, as I said before, you and Gary made the initial claim here -- that
Cronenberg's work lacks artistic merit. So, according to my logic AND
YOURS, the onus of proof lies with you and him.
I hope we don't have to go over this again.
> It's a movie which sets up a sympathetic character and then
> kills him slowly over a long period. That's not my idea of warm and
> human.
Well, that's life. And that's the point of the film: some of us are
sympathetic characters, smart, nice, loving, slightly screwed up, who
spend most of our time dying. Our bodies fall apart. We lose the ones
we love.
That may not be warm, but it sure is human.
And the warmth comes along the way in the love between Seth and
Veronica, in the slowly rising sympathetic nature of Stathis Borans.
This warmth goes cold eventually, but again, that IS the point.
> Why should I bother with Cronenberg's later movies given that I've seen
> his earlier ones? Is he saying anything now (if he ever did) that is
> worthy of my attention?
Given your philosophies and prejudices, at least as they're presented
here, I would guess they're not worthy of your attention. As I asked a
few times before, have you seen DEAD RINGERS?
I would guess that, though it's pure Cronenberg, this film would come as
close to "saying something new" for him as you're likely to get. Or
maybe CRASH, though I'm not terribly fond of the movie.
> Let me make it clear for you. I'm saying that the idea of objective
> artistic merit is nonsense.
Then I suppose you might have qualified your declaration that
Cronenberg's films lack any artistic merit. That surely sounds
objective to me.
And then I suppose for you the idea of art itself is nonsense. Or is
art pure subjectivity? Doesn't that entirely defeat the purpose of the
word? Of the designation?
I certainly wouldn't want to argue that artistic merit is purely
objective. But without some reasonable -- albeit open to interpretation
-- criteria, with what are we left?
To each his own art? Then why even bother with the concept. Then we
can all retire to our rooms and say that PARADISE LOST is the same as
HUSTLER MAGAZINE is the same as BAYWATCH is the same as MOBY-DICK is the
same as MOZART is the same as SPICE GIRLS.
And I'm just not willing to accept that.
Chad
DJANGO
is lower case that much easier for you?
Okay buddy, lets be friendly now k?
I actually think Kuosawa is the greatest living director alongside
Kubric so we have something to agree on. Artistic merit is not based on
taste. Like and dislike is. You may not like Cronen. but never the
less he has sustained a thematic string thru out his carrer from
student/indie days to his horrible CRASH.
You may think, like I do, that Andy Wrhl was an idiot hack and yet he
WAS an artist and had merit. Mostly because of his purity of vision and
THEME. If you dig deep enuf you can find (or create theme) in any body
of work, but in certain director/artist's work THEME is obvious.
I am not trying to make a big deal out of the classic calibre of
Cronen... I am mearly saying that I have always been very impressed and
enamoured of his purity of theme. And that is artistic merit.
django speaking softly.
suspiria
Eric Smith wrote:
>
> In article <3426B2...@execpc.com>, dja...@execpc.com says...
>
> > YOU CAN NOT NAME ANOTHER DIRECTOR, ESPECIALLY A HORROR OR GENRE DIR WHO
> > HAS ANY SENSE OF THEME RUNNING THRU OUT HIS WORK
>
how does big trouble in little china relate directly to village of the
damned or escape from new york? All great films but not thematically
linked. you missed DJANGO's point completely.
Romero is a bit closer, the theme being man is mans worst enemy even in
a world of zombies but what about martin or jack's wife? The crazies
fit but not two evil eyes for instance. A great dir but not thematicly
pure
Eric Smith
Gary Dixon
In article <342804...@nero.com>, DJANGO <fra...@nero.com> writes
>Gary Dixon wrote:
>>
>> In article <3426B2...@execpc.com>, django <dja...@execpc.com> writes
>> >OUCH. CRON. IS ONE OF THE ONLY DIRECTORS WHO HAS ANY SENSE OF ARTISTRY.
>> >EVERY ONE OF HIS FILMS FITS VERY EASILY INTO HIS CONCEPT OF ART. THERE
>> >IS A CONSISTANT THREAD CONECTIONG EVERYONE OF HIS PICS INCLUDING
>> >M.BUTTERFLY AND THE DREADFULL CRASH. YOU MAY NOT LIKE HIS FILMS, BUT
>> >HAS ANY SENSE OF THEME RUNNING THRU OUT HIS WORK
>>
You're never going to get me to agree with you. What is it with you lot,
can't you accept that we have differing opinions on what has artistic
merit and leave it at that? There are people out there who are willing
to pay tens of thousands of pounds/dollars for a painting made up of cat
paw prints or human faeces, Just because they regard it as art doesn't
mean the rest of us have to. And I don't buy into this 'Cronenberg's
films have a theme running through them, therefore they must be art'
theory. Jesus, Russ Meyer had a theme running through all his films and
I'd hardly call him an artist. BTW, I agree with you on Kubrick and
Warhol, and thanks for typing lower case - I'ts so much easier on the
eyes.
--
Gary Dixon
William E Ryan
On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Eric Smith wrote:
> In article <3426B2...@execpc.com>, dja...@execpc.com says...
>
>
> > YOU CAN NOT NAME ANOTHER DIRECTOR, ESPECIALLY A HORROR OR GENRE DIR WHO
> > HAS ANY SENSE OF THEME RUNNING THRU OUT HIS WORK
>
> Easy. John Carpenter and George Romero, for starters.
>
>
Or Martin Scorsese. Or Stanley Kubrick. Or Werner Herzog. Or Ingmar
Bergman. Or Steven Spielberg. Or Alfred Hitchcock. Or...
Bill
P Giles
DJANGO <fra...@nero.com> wrote in article <342804...@nero.com>.
> Artistic merit is not based on
> taste. Like and dislike is. You may not like Cronen. but never the
> less he has sustained a thematic string thru out his carrer from
> student/indie days to his horrible CRASH.
> You may think, like I do, that Andy Wrhl was an idiot hack and yet he
> WAS an artist and had merit. Mostly because of his purity of vision and
> THEME. If you dig deep enuf you can find (or create theme) in any body
> of work, but in certain director/artist's work THEME is obvious.
> I am not trying to make a big deal out of the classic calibre of
> Cronen... I am mearly saying that I have always been very impressed and
> enamoured of his purity of theme. And that is artistic merit.
While I'm not going to enter into this heated debate on the merits of
Cronenberg (though I should mention that I'm a fan), I would like to add my
two cents worth about artistic merit.
I agree that it is not based on taste, but I doubt very much that we can
separate the artistic from the ordinary simply by following a central theme
through an artist's work. There are many directors who shoot only one type
of work, never straying from their same tired themes, mass producing these
works over the course of their careers. While they show a certain
diligence, and the films may be quite watchable, they are not neccesarily
artistic. The potential exists from the most lowly of hacks to the most
accomplished of directors to pick a theme and stick with it.
Its always easier to determine the artistic merit of films that have been a
few decades removed from our culture. Many would say that this is because
you need the passage of time to be objective. I think instead that we judge
which films are artistic by their impact on the filmakers that follow them:
Artists judging and responding to other artists through their medium.
This is the reason that people like Warhol are considered artists. Entire
artistic movements have grown up around and after them.
When we deem films artistic that have just been released, before seeing
what kind of impact that they have, we are essentially saying which films
that we think are going to important; what styles, themes, techniques and
innovations were introduced that we think or perhaps hope will be around a
while.
Arguements based on artistic merit should be kept at this level. That said,
whether or not you like an artistic film is simply a matter of taste. I
can't stand Godard or Jarmusch but I would never deny their inflence and
artistic merit.
Chad R Hermann
Excerpts from netnews.alt.cult-movies: 24-Sep-97 Re: Cronenberg: "little
or .. by Gary Di...@wigton.demon.
> films have a theme running through them, therefore they must be art'
> theory. Jesus, Russ Meyer had a theme running through all his films and
> I'd hardly call him an artist.
But someone could, right?
In someone else's unsupported and unreasoned opinion, Meyer's films
could be the most quintessential example of high cinematic ARTISTIC
MERIT the world ever has or ever will see, and he (I'm guessing that
wouldn't be a she...) would be right. And you couldn't disagree with
him or argue with him or think he was on the far side of nuts.
Right?
According to your line of reasoning?
Right?
Chad
Chad R Hermann
Excerpts from netnews.alt.cult-movies: 21-Sep-97 Re: Cronenberg: "little
or .. by Ph...@earthlink.net
> But the stuff
> you've been spouting is frightening. You sound like a religious zealot,
> attacking these people because their opinion is different than yours,
> which I suppose is the standard MO in these newsgroups.
I sound like a religious zealot because I suggest there's a difference
between John Milton and John Grisham? Because I suggest that some
notions of artistic merit can be universally recongized?
Well, then I suppose I am a zealot. So be it. Proud of it.
Of course, if you accept that metaphor, then those who disagree are (to
appropriate both your metaphor and the rhetoric of those to which you
compare me) clearly Satanists: you believe only in yourselves and your
own interpretations and interests, believing that no tradition or
interpretation or law should ever take precedence, that only what you
like is good and right.
And that's NOT fanaticism?
> Mark is right - there is no way to be objective about artistic merit (or
> lack thereof).
So you're saying that MOZART and SPICE GIRLS are equivalent? How about
BEETHOVEN and MILLI VANILLI? Or AKIRA KUROSAWA's films are on par with
the films of PAULY SHORE?
That no one can objective declare differences in artistic merit between
these pairings?
Not taste. Not preference.
Merit. Artistic merit. You can't characterize one over the other?
At the risk of resorting to zealotry yet again...
I think that's utter artistic, critical, and intellectually blasphemy.
Chad
Chad R Hermann
Excerpts from netnews.alt.cult-movies: 24-Sep-97 Re: Cronenberg: "little
or .. by Eric Sm...@oswego.edu
> > YOU CAN NOT NAME ANOTHER DIRECTOR, ESPECIALLY A HORROR OR GENRE DIR WHO
> > HAS ANY SENSE OF THEME RUNNING THRU OUT HIS WORK
>
> Easy. John Carpenter and George Romero, for starters.
George Romero -- absolutely.
Care to defend or explain John Carpenter?
I enjoy his work, but I sure don`t see thematic unity.
Chad
William E Ryan
On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Chad R Hermann wrote:
> Excerpts from netnews.alt.cult-movies: 24-Sep-97 Re: Cronenberg: "little
Oh, I beg to differ. I didn't make the initial point about
Meyer/Cronenberg, but if someone told me they thought that Russ Meyer was
the greatest artist in cinematic history, I could absolutely say they were
wrong. Someone like that would have a very vague, shallow, and
uninteresting view of art, and I wouldn't think twice about discounting
their opinion as complete garbage. Because, you see, that person would be
stupid.
Bill
wehu...@infinet.com
In article <Pine.OSF.3.95q.97092...@osf1.gmu.edu>,
William E Ryan <wry...@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote:
> >
> Oh, I beg to differ. I didn't make the initial point about
> Meyer/Cronenberg, but if someone told me they thought that Russ Meyer was
> the greatest artist in cinematic history, I could absolutely say they were
> wrong. Someone like that would have a very vague, shallow, and
> uninteresting view of art, and I wouldn't think twice about discounting
> their opinion as complete garbage. Because, you see, that person would be
> stupid.
>
> Bill
I happen to think that Russ Meyer零 films are pretty good, myself. NO, of
course he零 not the greatest artist in cinematic history--but he零 one
heck of an entertainer/showman.
A different Bill
P.S. Blanket statements abou intellegence based on a single point of
taste are rather sweeping, aren靖 they? I have a passle of college
degrees and a genius-level IQ, believe it or not.
django
Chad R Hermann wrote:
>
> Excerpts from netnews.alt.cult-movies: 24-Sep-97 Re: Cronenberg: "little
> or .. by Gary Di...@wigton.demon.
> > And I don't buy into this 'Cronenberg's
> > films have a theme running through them, therefore they must be art'
> > theory. Jesus, Russ Meyer had a theme running through all his films and
> > I'd hardly call him an artist.
>
> But someone could, right?
>
> In someone else's unsupported and unreasoned opinion, Meyer's films
> could be the most quintessential example of high cinematic ARTISTIC
> MERIT the world ever has or ever will see, and he (I'm guessing that
> wouldn't be a she...) would be right. And you couldn't disagree with
> him or argue with him or think he was on the far side of nuts.
>
> Right?
>
> According to your line of reasoning?
>
> Right?
>
> Chad
T&A director of all- he definately has a full body of work (ouch) and a
bit of a theme... that is why he is respected above the hacks.
django
django
Eric Smith wrote:
>
> In article <0o_IMH_00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, ch...@andrew.cmu.edu
> says...
> > Excerpts from netnews.alt.cult-movies: 24-Sep-97 Re: Cronenberg: "little
> > >
> > > > YOU CAN NOT NAME ANOTHER DIRECTOR, ESPECIALLY A HORROR OR GENRE DIR WHO
> > > > HAS ANY SENSE OF THEME RUNNING THRU OUT HIS WORK
> > >
> > > Easy. John Carpenter and George Romero, for starters.
> >
> > George Romero -- absolutely.
> >
> > Care to defend or explain John Carpenter?
> >
> > I enjoy his work, but I sure don`t see thematic unity.
>
> theme: _Dark Star_, _The Thing_, _Starman_, _Prince of Darkness_, _They
> Live_, and _Village of the Damned_.
I can see that, but it could be said of 90% of all movies. What about
Aslt on Prnct 13? Or Big Trouble in Little China?
Those are two of my favorite movies, but strictly talking Theme I don't
see it. At least not at the level and purity of Cronenb.
django
William E Ryan wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Eric Smith wrote:
>
> > In article <3426B2...@execpc.com>, dja...@execpc.com says...
> >
> >
> > > YOU CAN NOT NAME ANOTHER DIRECTOR, ESPECIALLY A HORROR OR GENRE DIR WHO
> > > HAS ANY SENSE OF THEME RUNNING THRU OUT HIS WORK
> >
> > Easy. John Carpenter and George Romero, for starters.
> >
> >
> Bergman. Or Steven Spielberg. Or Alfred Hitchcock. Or...
>
> Bill
The whole point of the argument was to say Cronenb has brought a higher
(artistic) vision to the 'low' realm of cult/horror/genre films.
django
django
I agree with you completely. The theme issue was brought up initially
because I feel it is the most unique aspect of Cronen's work. It is
comparable to what you expect to find in 'artistic' films.
It was a single example that was drawn out by micro-arguments.
It was not the simple existance of a theme- but the strength and purity
of theme within Cronon's entire filmography that I used as an example.
I think you have managed to sum it up where I failed. I am not sure how
a Cronenb film fits into 'art' but I strongly believe he has brought an
artistic influence to the 'low' film genres.
django
Eric Smith
In article <0o_IMH_00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, ch...@andrew.cmu.edu
says...
> Excerpts from netnews.alt.cult-movies: 24-Sep-97 Re: Cronenberg: "little
> or .. by Eric Sm...@oswego.edu
> >
> > > HAS ANY SENSE OF THEME RUNNING THRU OUT HIS WORK
> >
> > Easy. John Carpenter and George Romero, for starters.
>
Pearce Duncan
wehu...@infinet.com wrote:
: I happen to think that Russ Meyeršs films are pretty good, myself. NO, of
: course hešs not the greatest artist in cinematic history--but hešs one
: heck of an entertainer/showman.
I believe I was the one who dragged Russ Meyer into this argument
originally, and I'd have to agree - he is (or was) one of the most
inventive and proficient of all low-budget filmmakers. The problem is
that all his movies are about is big tits. Sure, they're funny and
well-made and all very obviously the work of their director - but after
seeing 3 or 4, they start getting samey and boring.
This seems to be the problem that some people have with Cronenberg - he's
really been covering much of the same ground obsessively all through his
career, with just a couple of exceptions ("The Dead Zone" and "Fast
Company" are, I think, the only ones - unless you wanna count his episode
of the "Friday the 13th" TV series).
There's another similarity, too - their respective obsessions are based
around sex and sexuality.
Personally, I'd say that art is where you find it.
: P.S. Blanket statements abou intellegence based on a single point of
: taste are rather sweeping, arenšt they? I have a passle of college
: degrees and a genius-level IQ, believe it or not.
Apart from the fact that IQ tests are notoriously suspect (I have a
measured IQ of 150 for example) I'd agree with you. Some people would
have you believe that the movies smart folks like and the movie dumb folks
like are totally different, but I don't believe that there is any
quanitfiable correlation between taste and intelligence. The only reason
some smart people like smarter movies is because they're more equipped to
understand them - and that has more to do with education than base
intelligence anyhow.
As artistically valid and highbrow as Kurosawa movies may be, I'd often
rather watch "Blood Feast" than "Kagemusha".
Pearce
William E Ryan
On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, django wrote:
> William E Ryan wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Eric Smith wrote:
> >
> > > In article <3426B2...@execpc.com>, dja...@execpc.com says...
> > >
> > >
> > > > YOU CAN NOT NAME ANOTHER DIRECTOR, ESPECIALLY A HORROR OR GENRE DIR WHO
> > > > HAS ANY SENSE OF THEME RUNNING THRU OUT HIS WORK
> > >
> > > Easy. John Carpenter and George Romero, for starters.
> > >
> > >
> > Or Martin Scorsese. Or Stanley Kubrick. Or Werner Herzog. Or Ingmar
> > Bergman. Or Steven Spielberg. Or Alfred Hitchcock. Or...
> >
> > Bill
> Those directors are not Horror directors nor genre...
> The whole point of the argument was to say Cronenb has brought a higher
> (artistic) vision to the 'low' realm of cult/horror/genre films.
>
> django
>
>
Steven Spielberg and Alfred Hitchcock are absolutely genre directors.
Both have worked outside of their chosen genre, but so has Cronenberg.
And anyway, you originally said, "You cannot name another director,
ESPECIALLY a horror or genre director..." etc. But your initial comment
was, there are no other directors, genre or otherwise, who have thematic
unity running through their works.
Oh, and Terry Gilliam is another genre director with thematic unity.
Bill
William E Ryan
On Wed, 24 Sep 1997 wehu...@infinet.com wrote:
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.95q.97092...@osf1.gmu.edu>,
> William E Ryan <wry...@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote:
>=20
>=20
> > >=20
> > Oh, I beg to differ. I didn't make the initial point about
> > Meyer/Cronenberg, but if someone told me they thought that Russ Meyer w=
as
> > the greatest artist in cinematic history, I could absolutely say they w=
ere
> > wrong. Someone like that would have a very vague, shallow, and
> > uninteresting view of art, and I wouldn't think twice about discounting
> > their opinion as complete garbage. Because, you see, that person would=
be
> > stupid.
> >=20
> > Bill
>=20
> I happen to think that Russ Meyer=B9s films are pretty good, myself. NO,=
of
> course he=B9s not the greatest artist in cinematic history--but he=B9s on=
e
> heck of an entertainer/showman. =20
>=20
> A different Bill=20
Oh, thank God. I thought I was contradicting myself.
>=20
> P.S. Blanket statements abou intellegence based on a single point of
> taste are rather sweeping, aren=B9t they? I have a passle of college
> degrees and a genius-level IQ, believe it or not.
>=20
>=20
Well, I'm just thrilled about all your college degrees and your staggering
IQ level, but remember, you said "NO, of course [Russ Meyer isn't] the
greatest artist in cinematic history". You say that as if such a
statement was ridiculous (which it is). I never said people who LIKED
Russ Meyer were stupid--I happen to very much enjoy looking at naked
ladies--I simply said that anyone who thought he was the greatest artist,
and so on, was a complete idiot. From the phrasing of your message, you
seem to agree with me.
The first Bill
Alric Knebel
>esm...@oswego.edu (Eric Smith) wrote:
>In a general sense, "What it means to be human" seems to be a recurring
>theme: _Dark Star_, _The Thing_, _Starman_, _Prince of Darkness_, _They
>Live_, and _Village of the Damned_.
I don't think that "what it means to be human" can be identifiied as
the theme for THEY LIVE or PRINCE OF DARKNESS. I think a couple of
the other films you listed are a stretch, too. THEY LIVE is about
betrayal for the sake of wealth. More simply: Greed. Along with this
theme is an ancilliary theme, about need for clearer perception, and
the unwillingness of some people to see the truth. Since awareness of
evil requires action from anyone with any claim of integrity, it would
be easier to feign blindness than to admit cowardice in the face of
adversity. More specifically (and less my opinion), this movie was
about the unfettered greed of the Reagan years. Before you rush in
and tell me that this is only MY interpretation, hold it a moment: I
saw an interview with Carpenter when THEY LIVE was released and HE
said it was an indictment of the Reagan years. So it is not about
"what it means to be human."
Of course, you can rush in with the argument that in a very roundabout
way it is about the meaning of being human, but if you take that line
of arguement, almost EVERY movie can be tagged with that theme. But
that would be over-simplification.
_____________________________________________
Alric Knebel
al...@datasync.com
_____________________________________________
William E Ryan
On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, django wrote:
> William E Ryan wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Eric Smith wrote:
> >
> > > In article <3426B2...@execpc.com>, dja...@execpc.com says...
> > >
> > >
> > > > YOU CAN NOT NAME ANOTHER DIRECTOR, ESPECIALLY A HORROR OR GENRE DIR WHO
> > > > HAS ANY SENSE OF THEME RUNNING THRU OUT HIS WORK
> > >
> > > Easy. John Carpenter and George Romero, for starters.
> > >
> > >
> > Or Martin Scorsese. Or Stanley Kubrick. Or Werner Herzog. Or Ingmar
> > Bergman. Or Steven Spielberg. Or Alfred Hitchcock. Or...
> >
> > Bill
> Those directors are not Horror directors nor genre...
> The whole point of the argument was to say Cronenb has brought a higher
> (artistic) vision to the 'low' realm of cult/horror/genre films.
>
> django
>
>
You said, "You cannot name another director, ESPECIALLY a horror or genre
director who has any sense of theme..." You opened the challenge up to
all directors. If you didn't mean all directors, you should have simply
said, "You cannot name another genre director..." etc. And anyway,
Spielberg and Hitchcock are absolutely genre directors. Both have worked
outside of their chosen genre, but so has Cronenberg ("M. Butterfly").
Oh, and Terry Gilliam is another genre director with a sense of thematic
unity.
Bill
django
William E Ryan wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, django wrote:
>
> > William E Ryan wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Eric Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <3426B2...@execpc.com>, dja...@execpc.com says...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > YOU CAN NOT NAME ANOTHER DIRECTOR, ESPECIALLY A HORROR OR GENRE DIR WHO
> > > > > HAS ANY SENSE OF THEME RUNNING THRU OUT HIS WORK
> > > >
> > > > Easy. John Carpenter and George Romero, for starters.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Or Martin Scorsese. Or Stanley Kubrick. Or Werner Herzog. Or Ingmar
> > > Bergman. Or Steven Spielberg. Or Alfred Hitchcock. Or...
> > >
> > > Bill
> > Those directors are not Horror directors nor genre...
> > The whole point of the argument was to say Cronenb has brought a higher
> > (artistic) vision to the 'low' realm of cult/horror/genre films.
> >
> > django
> >
> >
> Both have worked outside of their chosen genre, but so has Cronenberg.
> And anyway, you originally said, "You cannot name another director,
> ESPECIALLY a horror or genre director..." etc. But your initial comment
> was, there are no other directors, genre or otherwise, who have thematic
> unity running through their works.
>
> Bill
I don't know how to break this to you but Spielberg in not a genre
director. He has directed subjects considered genre but Mr Hollywood
himself is exactly what I am NOT talking about. Hitchcock could be a
better argument, but in his time he was excluded from the mainstream
either. I will give you Gilliam, that is a good example (but to split
hairs- his 'theme' is a visual one only).
django
Phil
William E Ryan wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, django wrote:
>
> > William E Ryan wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Eric Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <3426B2...@execpc.com>, dja...@execpc.com says...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > YOU CAN NOT NAME ANOTHER DIRECTOR, ESPECIALLY A HORROR OR GENRE DIR WHO
> > > > > HAS ANY SENSE OF THEME RUNNING THRU OUT HIS WORK
> > > >
> > > > Easy. John Carpenter and George Romero, for starters.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Or Martin Scorsese. Or Stanley Kubrick. Or Werner Herzog. Or Ingmar
> > > Bergman. Or Steven Spielberg. Or Alfred Hitchcock. Or...
> > >
> > > Bill
> > Those directors are not Horror directors nor genre...
> > The whole point of the argument was to say Cronenb has brought a higher
> > (artistic) vision to the 'low' realm of cult/horror/genre films.
> >
> > django
> >
> >
> director who has any sense of theme..." You opened the challenge up to
> all directors. If you didn't mean all directors, you should have simply
> said, "You cannot name another genre director..." etc. And anyway,
> outside of their chosen genre, but so has Cronenberg ("M. Butterfly")
Don't forget Fast Company
.
Nathan Smith
On Mon, 22 Sep 1997 22:08:40 -0600, wehu...@infinet.com wrote:
>In article <3424F1...@earthlink.net>, alian...@earthlink.net wrote:
>> Mark is right - there is no way to be objective about artistic merit (or
>> lack thereof).
>Yes, but there零 no such thing as objectivity anyway, is there? At least,
>not is the sense of some absolute perspective from which to view things.
>Does this mean then that it all just boils down to opinion vs. opinion,
Yes.
>with no grounds to really agree or disagree . . . hm . . . I雋 not
>comfortable with that.
Too bad. There is no scale by which to judge art. People form
opinions and they are entitled to them and don't have to explain them
to you or anybody else. That's one of the great things about freedom
of thought.
n.
Nathan Smith
>I sound like a religious zealot because I suggest there's a difference
>between John Milton and John Grisham? Because I suggest that some
>notions of artistic merit can be universally recongized?
Notice the words 'I suggest'. Nobody else has any obligation to
follow your suggestion, or in other words, your opinion.
>> Mark is right - there is no way to be objective about artistic merit (or
>> lack thereof).
>So you're saying that MOZART and SPICE GIRLS are equivalent?
If someone thinks so, then yes, same for your other statements along
this line. There is nothing objective about Mozart that makes his
work more artistic than that of the Spice Girls.
>That no one can objective declare differences in artistic merit between
>these pairings?
>Not taste. Not preference.
>Merit. Artistic merit. You can't characterize one over the other?
No, you can't. Merit is subjective. Unless you come up with a
concrete mathematical proof of merit, this argument is a waste of
time.
>I think that's utter artistic, critical, and intellectually blasphemy.
I think that it is great that this world let's you think that. It is
also great that I can disagree totally with you.
And we're both right.
n.
DPEST666
>Subject: Re: Cronenberg: "little or no artistic merit" [was "Troma's War"
>versions]
>From: Chad R Hermann <ch...@andrew.cmu.edu>
>Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 12:55:47 -0400
>Message-id: <0o_IMH_00...@andrew.cmu.edu>
>
>Excerpts from netnews.alt.cult-movies: 24-Sep-97 Re: Cronenberg: "little
>or .. by Eric Sm...@oswego.edu
>>
>> > HAS ANY SENSE OF THEME RUNNING THRU OUT HIS WORK
>>
>> Easy. John Carpenter and George Romero, for starters.
>
>
>Care to defend or explain John Carpenter?
>
>I enjoy his work, but I sure don`t see thematic unity.
>
>
>
In all of Carpenter's work there are two universal "Carpenter
signatures," and that is there is one important character who does not
trust authority. The degree of distrust fluxuates from film-to-film, but
it's there. Also, his films, in a basic, primal outline, have the
protagonists running for their lives for one reason or another (sure, all
horror films tend to have that, but not all of Carpenter's films are Horror
films) - this includes his Elvis tv movie too.- Darryl Pestilence
Eric Smith
In article <60eip1$m...@osh2.datasync.com>, al...@datasync.com says...
> >esm...@oswego.edu (Eric Smith) wrote:
> >In a general sense, "What it means to be human" seems to be a recurring
> >theme: _Dark Star_, _The Thing_, _Starman_, _Prince of Darkness_, _They
> >Live_, and _Village of the Damned_.
>
> I don't think that "what it means to be human" can be identifiied as
> the theme for THEY LIVE or PRINCE OF DARKNESS.
<rest snipped>
If I had PoD playing right in front of me, there's one line of dialogue
spoken by the lead (towards the finale) that perfectly backs up my
position.
theWorld'sAngriestDog
>> Mark is right - there is no way to be objective about artistic merit (or
>> lack thereof).
>So you're saying that MOZART and SPICE GIRLS are equivalent? How about
>BEETHOVEN and MILLI VANILLI? Or AKIRA KUROSAWA's films are on par with
>the films of PAULY SHORE?
No, not to me. But if someone really likes the Spice Girls and makes
an emotional connection to their music than that is by definition
"good art".
Good Art is any art that causes a deep and bonding emotional reaction.
Even if it makes you SICK with it's content, it's still doing it's
job.
>That no one can objective declare differences in artistic merit between
>these pairings?
Not without resorting to culturalism or classism
>I think that's utter artistic, critical, and intellectually blasphemy.
I think you're really stuck in a western philosophical paradigm to
have such condemnation for anything....
>Chad
Alric Knebel
>greg wrote:
>AND, even though I haven't seen it in a while, THEY LIVE is about losing
>humanity to consumerism, etc. Therefore, it's about "what it means to be human"
>as well.
Consumerism was NOT the theme of THEY LIVE. Like I said in my other
post, you can interpret ANY movie as having that theme, if you're
willing to stretch and pull your points and you don't care about the
accuracy of your interpretation.
Eric Smith
In article <60hpbr$9...@osh2.datasync.com>, al...@datasync.com says...
> >greg wrote:
>
> >AND, even though I haven't seen it in a while, THEY LIVE is about losing
> >humanity to consumerism, etc. Therefore, it's about "what it means to be human"
> >as well.
>
> Consumerism was NOT the theme of THEY LIVE. Like I said in my other
> post, you can interpret ANY movie as having that theme, if you're
> willing to stretch and pull your points and you don't care about the
> accuracy of your interpretation.
Okay, then: tell us all about how _Mary Poppins_ has a theme of
consumerism.
Alric Knebel
>esm...@oswego.edu (Eric Smith) wrote:
>Alric wrote:
>> Consumerism was NOT the theme of THEY LIVE. Like I said in my other
>> post, you can interpret ANY movie as having that theme, if you're
>> willing to stretch and pull your points and you don't care about the
>> accuracy of your interpretation.
>Okay, then: tell us all about how _Mary Poppins_ has a theme of
>consumerism.
My mistake, Eric, for not being clearer. What I meant was that any
movie could be interpreted as pondering what it means to be human.
When I mentioned a previous post of mine in this thread, I was
referring to my comment (in that other post) about interpreting ALL
movies as pondering the attributes of humanity. THEY LIVE was about
insiders and outsiders, and specifically about the morally unhindered
chase for wealth during the Reagan years. It is not about
consumerism, nor does it ponder the question of what it means to be
human. HOWEVER, I think John Carpenter does good work, and I don't
think his work requires a single theme to make it valid.
MFaust1071
>I think that's utter artistic, critical, and intellectually blasphemy.
These are mutually exclusive terms.
M.
MFaust1071
Consumerism may not have been THE theme of THEY LIVE, but it was
certainly, obviously and undeniably A theme.
Michael
a...@datasync.com
esm...@oswego.edu (Eric Smith) wrote:
>Okay, then: tell us all about how _Mary Poppins_ has a theme of
>consumerism.
what about that song that instructs one to consume a sweet crystalline
or powdered substance with every small quantity of an orally
administered drug? ("just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go
down")
aileen (a...@datasync.com)
"Be sure to remove tongue from cheek before attempting to ingest any
pharmaceutical product."
Zachary Houle
Chad R Hermann (ch...@andrew.cmu.edu) wrote:
> So you're saying that MOZART and SPICE GIRLS are equivalent? How about
> BEETHOVEN and MILLI VANILLI? Or AKIRA KUROSAWA's films are on par with
> the films of PAULY SHORE?
Isn't this why someone came up with the concept of the "auteur
theory"?
Zachary Houle -- Journalism IV: The Final Conflict
Carleton University Email address: zho...@chat.carleton.ca
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Great nations write their autobiographies in three manuscripts: the book
of their deeds, the book of their words and the book of their art. Not one
of these books can be understood unless we read the two others, but of the
three, the only trustworthy one is the last." -- John Ruskin
Chad R Hermann
Excerpts from netnews.alt.cult-movies: 26-Sep-97 Re: Cronenberg: "little
or .. by theWorld'sAngriestDo@hot
> an emotional connection to their music than that is by definition
> "good art".
Huh?
By whose definition?
There are scores of sickos out there who make emotional connections to
the most base, aesthetic-less child pornography photos.
Which, by the definition you posit here, makes those photos art.
I'm not terribly sure about that.
> >That no one can objective declare differences in artistic merit between
> >these pairings?
>
> Not without resorting to culturalism or classism
Oh please.
Spare me the whining of the radical left.
I think that's an offensive cop-out non-answer.
> I think you're really stuck in a western philosophical paradigm to
> have such condemnation for anything....
Oh yes. Even more.
Dismissive dispensations from the truly enlightened.
Thanks so much.
I suppose I could respond that you're really stuck in a hopelessly
shallow, intellectually dishonest, moral/aesthetic relativism...
But I won't.
Oops.
Chad
Chad
Alric Knebel
Very good, Ms. Aileen. You helped me make my point even better than
if I'd argued in all seriousness. Just as the other post says (not
Eric's, but the other one who says that THEY LIVE has something to say
about consumerism), there are scenes in THEY LIVE that shows people
buying things, therefore the movie touches on consumerism. No, I
don't think so.
>a...@datasync.com (a...@datasync.com) wrote:
>esm...@oswego.edu (Eric Smith) wrote:
Michael Snider
Ga001ry Dixon wrote:
>
> In article <342804...@nero.com>, DJANGO <fra...@nero.com> writes
> >Gary Dixon wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3426B2...@execpc.com>, django <dja...@execpc.com> writes
> >> >OUCH. CRON. IS ONE OF THE ONLY DIRECTORS WHO HAS ANY SENSE OF ARTISTRY.
> >> >EVERY ONE OF HIS FILMS FITS VERY EASILY INTO HIS CONCEPT OF ART. THERE
> >> >IS A CONSISTANT THREAD CONECTIONG EVERYONE OF HIS PICS INCLUDING
> >> >M.BUTTERFLY AND THE DREADFULL CRASH.
CRASH dreadful ? It certainly it is not for all tastes, and to me came
closest to actual porn of any so-called " mainstream " film - I hate to
use that word but I can't think of a better one - since 9 1/2 WEEKS,
although it is certainly better than that film. However, CRASH is more
than just softcore porn, which it would have been considered to be had
it come out in the seventies. It certainly has artistic merit, and works
on a great deal of levels. Certainly it is thematically related to
Cronenberg's preoccupations that he has had ever since his avant garde
experimental days.
YOU MAY NOT LIKE HIS FILMS, BUT
> >> >YOU CAN NOT NAME ANOTHER DIRECTOR, ESPECIALLY A HORROR OR GENRE DIR WHO
> >> >HAS ANY SENSE OF THEME RUNNING THRU OUT HIS WORK
I can even think of modern SF/fantasy directors who have sense of theme
running through their work, other than Cronenberg. However that does not
reduce the power of his vision.
> >> No, Cronenberg's films easily fit into YOUR concept of art, not into
> >> mine. As we have stated many times during this thread, artistic merit
> >> only exists within one's opinion, what may have artistic merit for you
> >> may not have artistic merit for the next person and vice versa. I can
> >> name a great many directors whose work I consider to have artistic merit
> >> - Kurosawa being the best example, but you wouldn't necessarily agree
> >> with me. It's just my opinion.
I would say that Kurosawa is considered to have artistic merit by any
serious film lover. I cannot think of a single picture of his that does
not.
> >> BTW, I'd pay a damn sight more attention to your comments if you would
> >> stop SHOUTING at me.
> >> --
> >> Gary Dixon
> >
> >is lower case that much easier for you?
> >Okay buddy, lets be friendly now k?
> >I actually think Kuosawa is the greatest living director alongside
> >Kubric so we have something to agree on. Artistic merit is not based on
> >taste. Like and dislike is. You may not like Cronen. but never the
> >less he has sustained a thematic string thru out his carrer from
> >student/indie days to his horrible CRASH.
I personally love Cronenberg's work. He is an antidote to the dumbing
down and blanding out of H'wood, while at the same time actually showing
a concern for his craft unlike for example David Lynch, a truly bankrupt
talent.
> >You may think, like I do, that Andy Wrhl was an idiot hack and yet he
> >WAS an artist and had merit.
Warhol was definately not an idiot hack ! Warhol was certainly as much
of a symbol of the 1960s as he was an actual artist. He came to
symbolize a whole era, but beyond that certainly symbolized an aesthetic
and a way of looking at the world. He was a true multitalent, a larger
than life figure. As a filmmaker he had problems telling stories until
he met up with Paul Morrissey, who enabled Warhol to make real films. By
any means Warhol is one of the major figures in the arts of the second
half of the twentieth century.
Mostly because of his purity of vision and
> >THEME. If you dig deep enuf you can find (or create theme) in any body
> >of work, but in certain director/artist's work THEME is obvious.
> >I am not trying to make a big deal out of the classic calibre of
> >Cronen... I am mearly saying that I have always been very impressed and
> >enamoured of his purity of theme. And that is artistic merit.
> >
> >django speaking softly.
>
> You're never going to get me to agree with you. What is it with you lot,
> can't you accept that we have differing opinions on what has artistic
> merit and leave it at that? There are people out there who are willing
> to pay tens of thousands of pounds/dollars for a painting made up of cat
> paw prints or human faeces, Just because they regard it as art doesn't
> mean the rest of us have to. And I don't buy into this 'Cronenberg's
> films have a theme running through them, therefore they must be art'
> theory. Jesus, Russ Meyer had a theme running through all his films and
> I'd hardly call him an artist.
I would certainly call Meyer an artist. Meyer shows a unique worldview,
and also is a great social satirist. He is an incredibly underrated
director.
BTW, I agree with you on Kubrick and
> Warhol, and thanks for typing lower case - I'ts so much easier on the
> eyes.
Warhol I talked about. Kubrick I do agree with. Meyer certainly was an
artist - he was an auteur with his own take on Americana and sexuality,
who knew how to tell a story with dynamic characters. Meyer is an artist
in the primitive sense, a primitive geniusUnfortunately today he does
not see a place for his work , although cable and video tapes seem to
provide a decent spot for his work.
Jim McLennan
Coming back to find this the biggest thread on a.c-m, I feel kinda guilty,
having initiated it, then pissed off on holiday for a fortnight! ;-)
In article <Pine.OSF.3.95q.97092...@osf1.gmu.edu>
wry...@osf1.gmu.edu "William E Ryan" writes:
> Spielberg and Hitchcock are absolutely genre directors. Both have worked
> outside of their chosen genre, but so has Cronenberg ("M. Butterfly").
I regard 'M.Butterfly' as batting very solidly down Cronenberg's 'Body
Horror' line. There are a number of scenes in there which I (as a VERY
straight male!) found squirm-inducing to watch, not least because John
Lone is a thoroughly unconvincing woman. There can be few prospects more
horrific for heterosexual men than discovering your wife is a bloke. It's
genre, IMHO, more so than 'Naked Lunch'.
--
Jim McLennan
--- New at TC-Land...300+ reviews, culled from the Trash City archives ---
--- and covering everything from "2000 Maniacs" to "Zombie Oasis". ---
--- Where else to learn about the good, the bad and the obscure but: ---
--- http://www.trshcity.demon.co.uk ---
Jim McLennan
In article <0o=gShO00W...@andrew.cmu.edu>
ch...@andrew.cmu.edu "Chad R Hermann" writes:
> There are scores of sickos out there who make emotional connections to
> the most base, aesthetic-less child pornography photos.
>
> Which, by the definition you posit here, makes those photos art.
>
> I'm not terribly sure about that.
...and indeed, similar material HAS been exhibited in art galleries.
I think MOST people make emotional connections of SOME sort to such
material -- revulsion is a perfectly valid artistic response, as any
horror movie fan should be aware.
Jim McLennan
In article <3426d3d1...@news.telepac.pt>
Luis....@individual.EUnot.pt "Luis Canau" writes:
> I heard of the British 'uncut' NBK. But would a company like Troma submit
> movies previously cut?
Quite possibly the same thing. 'Rabid Grannies' here was certai shredded,
but I haven't bothered to check and see if it was the same as the American
R-rated version -- stick to the Dutch unrated print!
> Who are this people you are talking about? Do they need protection? Are they
> amongst the 1554 that protested the exhibition of "The Last Temptation..." by
> Scorsese, in which 1459 protested before the movie? (I'm quoting Webcor -
> http://www.webcor.demon.co.uk ) They know what they don't want to see, but why
> do they want to avoid the others to see it?
Damned if I know. I've never met anyone whom I would say had been corrupted
by movies. Personally, I think films can colour actions i.e. if you watch
Clockwork Orange, you might think it's cool to dress up in bowler hats, etc
and beat people up -- but only if you'd have beaten people up anyway. It is
virtually a definition of sanity that you can tell the difference between
reality and fantasy, and if you can't, there's little hope for you.
> Are you talking about people who would kill if they saw a "sugestive killing"?
> People had murdering other because dogs have told them to do it, and we don't
> censor dogs. A kid has commited suicide, if I'm not wrong, leaving a message
> related to Disney's "The Lion King", and this movie wasn't censored asked to
> be banned. Or was it?
S'funny how no-one mentions that serial killer Fred West was apparently
a big fan of Disney. But we can all guess what would have happened if he
had liked horror movies...
mikej
On 6 Oct 1997, S.P. Arnold wrote:
> => Are you talking about people who would kill if they saw a "sugestive killing"?
> => People had murdering other because dogs have told them to do it, and we don't
> => censor dogs. A kid has commited suicide, if I'm not wrong, leaving a message
> => related to Disney's "The Lion King", and this movie wasn't censored asked to
> => be banned. Or was it?
> =
> =S'funny how no-one mentions that serial killer Fred West was apparently
> =a big fan of Disney. But we can all guess what would have happened if he
> =had liked horror movies...
One could be cynical and suggest that such details were not mentioned as
the newspapers did not want to jeopardise all the advertising that Disney
provides them with ;-)
> One can't help notice that whenever there is a major tragedy involving a lone
> multiple murderer, the media always try to find some connection, however vague,
> with movies. Like Michael Ryan, who never actually owned a VCR but still movies
The ironic thing I felt about the coverage of the Ryan case was that all
the media immediately compared him to Rambo, and I only wish someone had
pointed out to them the hypocrisy of condeming films for
glamourising violence on the one hand and then making out that Ryan was
some kind of patriotic superhero fighting the forces of communist
oppression on the other!!!
> were blamed, and the awful killing of Jamie Bulger, where one of the kids dads
> had rented a copy of Child's Play 3. Even after the Dunblane massacre, there
> was shit on the TV about so-called video nasties, even though the killer had
> probably never seen a video nasty in his life.
Unfortunately according to the TV and the Altonites especially, one gets
the impression that any horror film (and for some MP's) any adult film
in general at all counts as a "video nasty".
I think Ben Elton summed it up best - what sells more papers: endless
facts about deaths from asbestos or piccies of Sharon Stone and The
Godfather (though of course this did not stop him from joining in the
"public hanging" of Natural Born Killers - strange, given that without
this he would not have been able to make a killing with Popcorn)
> Simon
>
> --
>
> Simon Arnold <sp...@le.ac.uk>
> <bx...@freenet.carleton.ca>
>
>
>
Michael Brooke
mikej <mi...@dcs.napier.ac.uk> wrote:
> One could be cynical and suggest that such details were not mentioned as
> the newspapers did not want to jeopardise all the advertising that Disney
> provides them with ;-)
Actually, though I can think of a lot of cases where your cynicism would
be completely justified, I think in this case it was because absolutely
everyone - even the Altonites - realised that banning 'The Lion King' or
any other Disney film on those grounds would be totally deranged.
> The ironic thing I felt about the coverage of the Ryan case was that all
> the media immediately compared him to Rambo, and I only wish someone had
> pointed out to them the hypocrisy of condeming films for
> glamourising violence on the one hand and then making out that Ryan was
> some kind of patriotic superhero fighting the forces of communist
> oppression on the other!!!
Well, you get the same kind of ludicrous double standards all the time.
Just look at the Daily Mail - on the one hand condemning 'Crash' for
fetishising car crashes, on the other hand devoting millions of words to
fetishising the Diana car crash to an extent that Cronenberg could never
have dreamt of, without the slightest hint of irony.
> Unfortunately according to the TV and the Altonites especially, one gets
> the impression that any horror film (and for some MP's) any adult film
> in general at all counts as a "video nasty".
Indeed. And, though I don't know what the situation in Finland is like
now, I distinctly recall a letter in Sight & Sound about a decade ago
bemoaning the fact that they had the same legislation that Alton was
threatening - namely, banning all 18-certificate (or the Finnish
equivalent) films from video release - including 'The Godfather'!
> I think Ben Elton summed it up best - what sells more papers: endless
> facts about deaths from asbestos or piccies of Sharon Stone and The
> Godfather (though of course this did not stop him from joining in the
> "public hanging" of Natural Born Killers - strange, given that without
> this he would not have been able to make a killing with Popcorn)
My all-time favourite inane 'Natural Born Killers' comment was our
sadly-departed Prime Minister John Major's immortal "I have not seen
'Natural Born Killers', but everything I have heard about it suggests
that it is distasteful". The fact that maybe - just maybe - Oliver
Stone *intended* the film to be distasteful, and that being distasteful
is a valid artistic choice, presumably never occurred to him.
Michael