Biggest slights of the Oscar nominations...
Paul Wartenberg
1) After all the talk of Jim Carrey missing out last year for the Truman
Show, TPTB gypped him again this year for Man On the Moon. If he goes on
stage for this year, I wouldn't be surprised if it's with both middle
fingers extended...
2) Blair Witch Project not getting nominations in editing and sound
editing. It may have been overhyped, but it was still a good movie and
the ability of that movie to be scary with just noises and no visual
effects should have been recognized...
3) 3 Kings missing out entirely. It was good, dammit!
4) South Park getting only one song nominated (the rather bland "Blame
Canada") and missing Original Score entirely. Uh, guys, it WAS a musical...
5) Still no porno movies nominated for Best Picture.
--
Paul Wartenberg ------------------ | --Chat channels-----
z004...@bc.seflin.org ----------- | --Undernet, #seflin-
-----NEW WEBSITE ----------------- | --Chatnet, #obsse---
http://home1.gte.net/cpq2p4sr/ | --you will know me--
-----X-Files 'Shipper Archives---- | --As roguelibr------
Derek Janssen
>
> Coming out of THE INSIDER in December, I thought that Christopher
> Plummer was a lock for a supporting nom, with a very good chance for a
> win. <sigh>
Same here:
Not to mention, through the "'Shakespeare in Love' Syndrome"'s effect on
why "Green Mile" will never win (ie. the Academy doesn't like to be
*told* which film to vote for six months in advance, and when anyone
does, they all vote for a surprise popcorn favorite instead), I was
ready to put money down on "Topsy Turvy" as winner--
Well, guess that'll just end up helping "Sixth Sense"'s chances, unless
there's a last-minute rally for the "unfairly ignored" Insider...
Derek Janssen (I have a feeling, however, that "Cider House Rules"'s
showing baffles even the voters, as well)
dja...@ultranet.com
Derek Janssen
>
> >> Coming out of THE INSIDER in December, I thought that Christopher
> >> Plummer was a lock for a supporting nom, with a very good chance for a
> >> win. <sigh>
> >
> >Same here:
> >
> >Not to mention, through the "'Shakespeare in Love' Syndrome"'s effect on
> >why "Green Mile" will never win (ie. the Academy doesn't like to be
> >*told* which film to vote for six months in advance, and when anyone
> >does, they all vote for a surprise popcorn favorite instead), I was
> >ready to put money down on "Topsy Turvy" as winner--
> >Well, guess that'll just end up helping "Sixth Sense"'s chances, unless
> >there's a last-minute rally for the "unfairly ignored" Insider...
>
Yeah, I was shocked it got enough votes too, but, face it, you gotta
remember: Those darn LA voters...
Derek Janssen (Jack Nicholson for "As Good As It Gets"...'Nuff said.)
dja...@ultranet.com
Grimfarrow
1. No nomination for Best Cinematography for The Straight Story. Ridiculous.
2. No Best pictures for both Magnolia and Being John Malkovich, both being
about 2 million light years better than The Green Mile, The Sixth Sense and The
Cider House Rules.
3. No nomination for John Malkovich. What assholes.
4. Best director for the Cider House Rules? PLEASE! Either David Lynch or
Paul Thomas Anderson should have been nominated.
5. Best score - none for the Straight Story. This film was snubbed big-time.
The soundtrack is beautiful.
6. Topsy-Turvy. COME ON!! No best actor, best director, best supporting actor?
7. Of course, Jim Carrey. 'Nuff said.
8. Nothing for Three Kings. Nada.
9. Yes, Christopher Plummer hsould have been nominated.
10. The main actress from All About My Mother (forgot her name) should have been
nominated
Okay, enough of my rant.
Grimfarrow
fb1...@webtv.net
films left out.
My favorite film of 1999 was "October Sky" totally shut out.
The male performance of the year was Phillip Seymour Hoffman in
"Flawless"
but not nominated
Reese Witherspoon in "Election" among the missing.
"The Iron Giant" nowhere to be found.
The score for "The Straight Story" which I found to be a very important
element in the film was overlooked.
Guess I don't like winners.
fb
Reagen Sulewski
>Stephen Wellington wrote:
>>
>> Coming out of THE INSIDER in December, I thought that Christopher
>> Plummer was a lock for a supporting nom, with a very good chance for a
>> win. <sigh>
>
>Same here:
>
>Not to mention, through the "'Shakespeare in Love' Syndrome"'s effect on
>why "Green Mile" will never win (ie. the Academy doesn't like to be
>*told* which film to vote for six months in advance, and when anyone
>does, they all vote for a surprise popcorn favorite instead), I was
>ready to put money down on "Topsy Turvy" as winner--
>Well, guess that'll just end up helping "Sixth Sense"'s chances, unless
>there's a last-minute rally for the "unfairly ignored" Insider...
Wait just a damn minute here, Derek. Weren't you calling The Green Mile this year's Beloved? I
call shenanigans on this post.
--
You've touched me deep within my cold, tin heart.
Russel Willoughby
wrote:
>4) South Park getting only one song nominated (the rather bland "Blame
>Canada") and missing Original Score entirely. Uh, guys, it WAS a musical...
It is a small miracle that this film received a nomination at all. I
think "Blame Canada" is a fine choice (I believe it was the only song
submitted by the studio), and I look forward to seeing it performed on
the show.
Of course, it has no chance in hell of winning.
Russel Willoughby
<< rus...@bellsouth.net >>
Bill Binkelman
fb1...@webtv.net wrote:
> There are only 5 slots in each catagory, so there are always worthy
> films left out.
>
> My favorite film of 1999 was "October Sky" totally shut out.
Agreed completely, this is a huge oversight. The male lead (wish I could
remember his name) surely gave one of the best five performances of the
year. The score by Mark Isham was perfect. Cinematography was spot on,
etc etc etc.
>
> The male performance of the year was Phillip Seymour Hoffman in
> "Flawless"
> but not nominated
>
> Reese Witherspoon in "Election" among the missing.
>
> "The Iron Giant" nowhere to be found.
This is wishful thinking, but again, I agree. It was a near perfect film
for everyone. Don't anyone who didn't love it. Lots of critics went nuts
over it, as well.
>
> The score for "The Straight Story" which I found to be a very
important
> element in the film was overlooked.
>
> Guess I don't like winners.
>
> fb
>
Me too.
--
Bill Binkelman
Wind & Wire
New Instrumental Music Reviews
http://www2.bitstream.net/~billb/wandw_home.htm
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Twc6
Canada") and missing Original Score entirely. Uh, guys, it WAS a musical...>>
They already decided not to give out the Original Score (Comedy/Musical) award
this year, due to lack of potential nominees.
damoncide: lots
Paul Wartenberg wrote:
>
> 1) After all the talk of Jim Carrey missing out last year for the Truman
> Show, TPTB gypped him again this year for Man On the Moon. If he goes on
> stage for this year, I wouldn't be surprised if it's with both middle
> fingers extended...
>
> 2) Blair Witch Project not getting nominations in editing and sound
> editing. It may have been overhyped, but it was still a good movie and
> the ability of that movie to be scary with just noises and no visual
> effects should have been recognized...
he absolute worst thing about bwp was its editing.
they made a potentially great movie into a fair one.
> 3) 3 Kings missing out entirely. It was good, dammit!
>
> 4) South Park getting only one song nominated (the rather bland "Blame
> Canada") and missing Original Score entirely. Uh, guys, it WAS a musical...
>
it would havebeen wonderful to nominate a song that theycouldn't
say on air.
--
Those who think we need less government and lower taxes should
learn about lead paint in Baltimore.
Dan Day
>It is a small miracle that this film received a nomination at all. I
>think "Blame Canada" is a fine choice (I believe it was the only song
>submitted by the studio), and I look forward to seeing it performed on
>the show.
What are they going to do with the line, "But now when I see
him he tells me to fuck myself"?
TomRipley
Oh, well. We'd probably be disappointed if there *weren't* some
really big slights on the Academy's part...
Tom
On 15 Feb 2000 23:00:07 GMT, z004...@bc.seflin.org (Paul Wartenberg)
wrote:
>
>1) After all the talk of Jim Carrey missing out last year for the Truman
>Show, TPTB gypped him again this year for Man On the Moon. If he goes on
>stage for this year, I wouldn't be surprised if it's with both middle
>fingers extended...
>
>2) Blair Witch Project not getting nominations in editing and sound
>editing. It may have been overhyped, but it was still a good movie and
>the ability of that movie to be scary with just noises and no visual
>effects should have been recognized...
>
>3) 3 Kings missing out entirely. It was good, dammit!
>
>4) South Park getting only one song nominated (the rather bland "Blame
>Canada") and missing Original Score entirely. Uh, guys, it WAS a musical...
>
Helen & Bob
TomRipley wrote:
> Fight Club. Go. The Iron Giant. eXistenZ.
>
> Oh, well. We'd probably be disappointed if there *weren't* some
> really big slights on the Academy's part...
>
> Tom
>
> If everybody was happy about the nominations, there would be about 20 posts to
> the ng, then nothing for at least a month (unless people posted to complain
> about the previous years nominations.). But hey, isn't the net about pissin'
> and moanin' and complainin'?
Its NOT??
Bob
Evelyn C. Leeper
art design and cinematography. (I also liked the score, for what
that's worth.) But it came out in February, so no one remembered it.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper, http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper
Thanks to words, we have been able to rise above the brutes; and thanks
to words, we have often sunk to the level of demons. -Aldous Huxley
Elaine Butler
rufie
<bill_bi...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <523-38A...@storefull-121.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> fb1...@webtv.net wrote:
> > There are only 5 slots in each catagory, so there are always worthy
> > films left out.
> >
> > My favorite film of 1999 was "October Sky" totally shut out.
>
> Agreed completely, this is a huge oversight. The male lead (wish I could
> remember his name) surely gave one of the best five performances of the
> year. The score by Mark Isham was perfect. Cinematography was spot on,
> etc etc etc.
Damn, that was a great movie........one of the best coming of age films ever.
Election was great too.
the Oscars are so depressing sometimes.....
--
Helen & Bob
five of the year.
Bob
Bill Binkelman wrote:
> In article <523-38A...@storefull-121.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> fb1...@webtv.net wrote:
> > There are only 5 slots in each catagory, so there are always worthy
> > films left out.
> >
> > My favorite film of 1999 was "October Sky" totally shut out.
>
> Agreed completely, this is a huge oversight. The male lead (wish I could
> remember his name) surely gave one of the best five performances of the
> year. The score by Mark Isham was perfect. Cinematography was spot on,
> etc etc etc.
>
> >
Paul Wartenberg
: <<4) South Park getting only one song nominated (the rather bland "Blame
: They already decided not to give out the Original Score (Comedy/Musical) award
: this year, due to lack of potential nominees.
Apparently, South Park was the only one to fit that category,
huh? Damn! Don't you hate it when there's no actual competition?
Still, they could have nominated Jethro Tull...
Paul Wartenberg
: TopTen Biggest slights of the Oscar Noms.
: 1. No nomination for Best Cinematography for The Straight Story. Ridiculous.
I just realized that too. Sad.
: 2. No Best pictures for both Magnolia and Being John Malkovich, both being
: about 2 million light years better than The Green Mile, The Sixth Sense and The
: Cider House Rules.
: 3. No nomination for John Malkovich. What assholes.
They didn't know if they had to nominate him or any of the people
who possessed him during the movie...
: 4. Best director for the Cider House Rules? PLEASE! Either David Lynch or
: Paul Thomas Anderson should have been nominated.
Agreed. The Oscar people just went out and nominated all the
big-studio "artsy" movies.
: 5. Best score - none for the Straight Story. This film was snubbed big-time.
: The soundtrack is beautiful.
: 6. Topsy-Turvy. COME ON!! No best actor, best director, best supporting actor?
: 7. Of course, Jim Carrey. 'Nuff said.
: 8. Nothing for Three Kings. Nada.
: 9. Yes, Christopher Plummer hsould have been nominated.
: 10. The main actress from All About My Mother (forgot her name) should have been
: nominated
: Okay, enough of my rant.
: Grimfarrow
Evelyn C. Leeper
Paul Wartenberg <z004...@bc.seflin.org> wrote:
> Twc6 (tw...@aol.com.org) wrote:
> : <<4) South Park getting only one song nominated (the rather bland "Blame
> : Canada") and missing Original Score entirely. Uh, guys, it WAS a musical...
>
> : They already decided not to give out the Original Score (Comedy/Musical)
> : award this year, due to lack of potential nominees.
>
> Apparently, South Park was the only one to fit that category,
> huh? Damn! Don't you hate it when there's no actual competition?
> Still, they could have nominated Jethro Tull...
TARZAN was also eligible in this category.
But something is wrong here, because people have said these are the
only two eligible films, yet I'm *sure* there were more comedies in
1999 than that.
Checking, I see that the category is actually "Best Original Song
Score," which means this at least makes more sense. Comedies are
combined with dramatic films if they have non-song scores. Similarly,
a dramatic musical (CABARET or FIDDLER ON THE ROOF come to mind) would
be in the "Best Song Score" category.
Clear and Present Dylan
Hopefully they'll just bleep the word, rather than attempt some radical
rethinking of the lyrics. I'm more interested in hearing "...and that bitch
Anne Murray, too." In fact, the whole ceremony will just be building toward
this moment, for me. }:-)
Dylan
fleece
o...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I agree with the both of you. October Sky was most definitely
>in my top five of the year.
>Bob
Really?? I haven't heard one good thing about this
picture....I'll definitley check it out.
As far as Three Kings being robbed....of course it was. It was
the best movie I have seen in years...far too original for the
Oscars to handle.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Larry McGillicuddy
>1) After all the talk of Jim Carrey missing out last year for the Truman
>Show, TPTB gypped him again this year for Man On the Moon. If he goes on
>stage for this year, I wouldn't be surprised if it's with both middle
>fingers extended...
>
Carrey's best move would be to show up on the telecast and be good natured
about his snub, just like he did last year. If he keeps this up, they'll have
to nominate him sooner or later.
>2) Blair Witch Project not getting nominations in editing and sound
>editing. It may have been overhyped, but it was still a good movie and
>the ability of that movie to be scary with just noises and no visual
>effects should have been recognized...
>
Blair Witch was not even a finalist for Sound Editing. I certainly didnt expect
it to receive any nominations.
>3) 3 Kings missing out entirely. It was good, dammit!
I thought it might make it in Screenplay due to it's WGA nomination, but I was
shocked to see it shut out of every technical category.
>
>4) South Park getting only one song nominated (the rather bland "Blame
>Canada") and missing Original Score entirely. Uh, guys, it WAS a musical...
>
This was the only song they submitted. I think this nomination is obviously
honoring *ALL* the songs from South Park. Personally, I think What Would Brian
Bouitano Do? wouldve been a better choice, but I'm not complaining.
>5) Still no porno movies nominated for Best Picture.
Larry McGillicuddy
http://members.xoom.com/lmcgill/movpage.htm
>
>--
>Paul Wartenberg ------------------ | -
delman
<fleeceN...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <38AACF85...@ix.netcom.com>, Helen & Bob <chil-
> o...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >I agree with the both of you. October Sky was most definitely
> >in my top five of the year.
> >Bob
>
> Really?? I haven't heard one good thing about this
> picture....I'll definitley check it out.
>
> As far as Three Kings being robbed....of course it was. It was
> the best movie I have seen in years...far too original for the
> Oscars to handle.
>
I don't know if October Sky is oscar calliber -- it certainly compares
well with those actually nominated -- and the performances were fine.
The Heathen
>> in my top five of the year.
> Really?? I haven't heard one good thing about this
> picture....I'll definitley check it out.
Well then let me be the first to recommend "October Sky" to you. Its
a great film for any audience. You can read more customer reviews of
it at <URL:http://www.amazon.com>.
The Heathen
(hea...@scientist.com)
Chris
me......
lbaum <lba...@tufts.edu> wrote in message news:8EDCD...@130.64.1.18...
> >2) Blair Witch Project not getting nominations in editing and sound
> >editing. It may have been overhyped, but it was still a good movie and
> >the ability of that movie to be scary with just noises and no visual
> >effects should have been recognized...
> I never felt scared while watching BW. It probably didn't help that the
> lighting in the stairs was left up so high that when the screen went blank
> you could see a light gray, empty screen just sitting up there instead
> being plunged into complete darkness- or that people started chuckling
> frequently towards the end.
>
> >4) South Park getting only one song nominated (the rather bland "Blame
> >Canada") and missing Original Score entirely. Uh, guys, it WAS a
> >musical...
> I guess it is just about confirmed now. I'm the only person in the world
> who greatly dislikes South Park. In fact, I may be the only person who
> doesn't love it.
>
Helen & Bob
lbaum wrote:
>
> I guess it is just about confirmed now. I'm the only person in the world
> who greatly dislikes South Park. In fact, I may be the only person who
> doesn't love it.
Uh....no. I finally broke down and rented it at the $1 rental.
Thank whatever deity there is that I did not go to a theater to see this. If
I had popped $15 for admission and $6 for a coke and popcorn, I would have
been livid. I watched the whole damn thing because of the remarks about it on
this and the alt.movies ng, praising it to high heaven. Why was this thing
(aside, of course, to make a buck) ever made? When I was about 15, I would
have thought it was marvelous and daring and just great, because it said that
teachers are dumb and parents are dumb, and the military is dumb, and it had
all those neat words and stuff. as an adult, it is a bore. From opening to
closing, I didn't even get a smile at any time. I really don't care about the
language, hell, I was called worse than that by drill sergeants. this film
must have been extremely cheap to make for an animation film. It is the only
animation I have ever seen that was worse than Hannah Barbera. IMHO, this
thing had no redeeming values. Does that mean BOYCOTT it? Oh, hell no.
Anybody wants to see this, let'em. But you are NOT the only one who dislikes
South Park. And YES, I know everybody else thinks its better than the second
coming, but I don't care.
bob
Helen & Bob
Melville wrote:
> Helen & Bob <chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:38ABBD92...@ix.netcom.com...
> "South Park" was one of the smartest movies to be released by a major studio
> in a long, long time. It questions the very foundation that Hollywood is
> built on and it is incredibly hilarious, as well. I find it hard to believe
> that someone who is at all interested in movies could not understand that
> this is a parody of Hollywood, especially Disney. And the fact that it
> points out that Americans will allow all sorts of violence on their TV and
> film screens, but will force film makers to eliminate 'dirty' words or
> 'naked' people from their films is worth the price of admission alone.
> When will they ever learn?
I didn't say I didn't understand it. I said I didn't enjoy it. Yes, of course
it violated all the rules. OK Big Deal. Very seriously, I don't want every
film I see to sound like my drill sergeant. I have nothing against nudity, but
it doesn't have to be in every film. that, by the way, brings up a question.
When nudity is demanded in every film, what does that do to the actor who
doesn't WANT to be naked on film. Throw them out of the industry? Sorry, but
what you are saying is imposing your morality on filmmaking just as much as
Jerry Foulwell tries to impose his. With all that said, I didn't like the
film. It is my right to not like the film.
Thank you very much.
Bob
Helen & Bob
Julian Lalor wrote:
> "Helen & Bob" <chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:38ABBD92...@ix.netcom.com...
>
> Why was this thing
> > (aside, of course, to make a buck) ever made? When I was about 15, I
> would
> > have thought it was marvelous and daring and just great, because it said
> that
> > teachers are dumb and parents are dumb, and the military is dumb, and it
> had
> > all those neat words and stuff.
>
> Boy, did you miss the point of this film. It had *nothing* to do with the
> above. I just wish a quarter of films made were as smart as this film.
Yes, I am sure. Your explanation of how smart the film is was very
interesting. Wait a minute, I'll find something you said that I wanted to
discuss with you. Now, where did that quote go.
Hmmmmm
bob
McNeeley
<chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>lbaum wrote:
>
>>
>> I guess it is just about confirmed now. I'm the only person in the world
>> who greatly dislikes South Park. In fact, I may be the only person who
>> doesn't love it.
>
>Uh....no. I finally broke down and rented it at the $1 rental.
>Thank whatever deity there is that I did not go to a theater to see this. If
>I had popped $15 for admission and $6 for a coke and popcorn, I would have
>been livid.
Maybe its just me, but I get the idea that the price of admission to a
movie seems to vary wildly depending on when you post and what movie
you are posting about.
>I watched the whole damn thing because of the remarks about it on
>this and the alt.movies ng, praising it to high heaven. Why was this thing
>(aside, of course, to make a buck) ever made? When I was about 15, I would
>have thought it was marvelous and daring and just great, because it said that
>teachers are dumb and parents are dumb, and the military is dumb,
I watched my DVD copy again just a few hours ago, and I don't think it
ever said any of those things, but if it did, there are certainly good
reasons for it to.
Teachers (and my wife is a teacher) are not merit tested in the
country and the quality of service delivered is anything but high in
many areas.
Given the rash of tragedies of late that involve children, and seem to
stem from parental neglect, it would seem that at least some parents
are dumb.
The military is a vital institution, but many times military force is
wielded unjustly and without proper oversight or review. Further,
while many military officers and enlisted men (and women) (and gays
not telling) are of high caliber, there seem to be more than a few who
have given us fiascos like the West Point hazing (was it West Point?)
rituals and the Tailhook incident.
>and it had all those neat words and stuff.
Well, it wasn't for kids.
> as an adult, it is a bore.
I'm 33. That's all I'm saying on that.
>From opening to
>closing, I didn't even get a smile at any time. I really don't care about the
>language, hell, I was called worse than that by drill sergeants. this film
>must have been extremely cheap to make for an animation film. It is the only
>animation I have ever seen that was worse than Hannah Barbera.
That it is simple is part of its charm. I for one, would be far less
interested in South Park if it featured realistic and cutting edge
animation.
>IMHO, this
>thing had no redeeming values. Does that mean BOYCOTT it?
>Oh, hell no.
That might be because you have a healthy respect for the First
Amendment.
>Anybody wants to see this, let'em. But you are NOT the only one who dislikes
>South Park. And YES, I know everybody else thinks its better than the second
>coming, but I don't care.
I'm sorry you didn't like the movie. Aside from being charming and
innocent, it is the finest treatise on the importance of the 1st
Amendment that I have seen in many years.
Further, as a musical, it is many times superior to anything that
hack, Andrew Loyd Webber, ever wrote. In fact, I'd say its almost
Gershwin-esque in quality.
Cheers,
Todd "And Kyle's Mom is a bitch" McNeeley
email: mcneeley at 21stcentury dot net
Helen & Bob
McNeeley wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2000 01:21:22 -0800, Helen & Bob
> <chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >lbaum wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I guess it is just about confirmed now. I'm the only person in the world
> >> who greatly dislikes South Park. In fact, I may be the only person who
> >> doesn't love it.
> >
> >Uh....no. I finally broke down and rented it at the $1 rental.
> >Thank whatever deity there is that I did not go to a theater to see this. If
> >I had popped $15 for admission and $6 for a coke and popcorn, I would have
> >been livid.
>
> Maybe its just me, but I get the idea that the price of admission to a
> movie seems to vary wildly depending on when you post and what movie
> you are posting about.
Regular Movie, $7.50 per person, popcorn and small coke, $6.00
Matinee Movie, 4.50 per person, Popcorn and coke the same
Depending on the theater, I sometimes get Sr. discount, 4.25 per person.
Local cheapie, $1.00 per seat before 5 pm, $1.50 per seat after. (Popcorn and coke,
about a buck less, also)
Regular Movie Rental, H'wood, 3.50, Ralphs market 2.99, Ralphs market, Monday nite,
any movie $1.00. Agreed, there is a variety of pricing available.
> >I watched the whole damn thing because of the remarks about it on
> >this and the alt.movies ng, praising it to high heaven. Why was this thing
> >(aside, of course, to make a buck) ever made? When I was about 15, I would
> >have thought it was marvelous and daring and just great, because it said that
> >teachers are dumb and parents are dumb, and the military is dumb,
>
> I watched my DVD copy again just a few hours ago, and I don't think it
> ever said any of those things, but if it did, there are certainly good
> reasons for it to.
Of course there are. I also find it being said so often in so many movies. Parents
are dolts. All military are stupid. Teachers are stupid. Its in all the "teen"
movies. Look, for instance, at E
"Election" Fun movie. But, all the teachers, etc, were fooled by our heroine, who
actually shows up in politics, showing that all politics are phony. (Well, they're
right there, at least, about politicians, for the most part.)
> Teachers (and my wife is a teacher) are not merit tested in the
> country and the quality of service delivered is anything but high in
> many areas.
When I was in school, there was merit testing, IIRC. With the baby boom after WW2,
teachers were needed so badly that standards were dropped to get bodies. that is a
reason, not an excuse. There should be merit testing. But I also did not see that
discussed in the film, now that you mention it.
> Given the rash of tragedies of late that involve children, and seem to
> stem from parental neglect, it would seem that at least some parents
> are dumb.
Always have been some, always will be some. But NOT ALL of them. Todd, I have no
doubt that when and if you are ever a parent, you will be a damn fine father.
WHY? Because I think you do give a damn. I think you will make the effort with
your kids. Most of the kids I went to Jr. High school with ended up either in
jail, on welfare, or dead on the streets. I did not, because my parents gave a
damn about me. I did not know that when I was a teenager, I thought there were
horrible most of the time. After I grew up and became a parent myself was when I
finally began to understand what they had done. When I was 15 I would have thought
that this film did a great job of presenting how stupid my parents were.
> The military is a vital institution, but many times military force is
> wielded unjustly and without proper oversight or review.
But never by the military. Only upon the order of the civilian leadership. The
Military cannot initiate any action on their own, at least, not legally so. I have
not heard of any legitimate activity initiated by the American military without
civilian authorization. There has been My Lai. but, it was also stopped by
military action. I am amazed, and truly, disgusted, that there were not more courts
martial about that mess. Cally gave illegal orders. the soldiers obeyed illegal
orders. That too is a court martial offense, or at least, it was in '59 and '60.
I have not heard of that rule being changed. Further,
> while many military officers and enlisted men (and women) (and gays
> not telling) are of high caliber, there seem to be more than a few who
> have given us fiascos like the West Point hazing (was it West Point?)
> rituals and the Tailhook incident.
West Point and Annapolis have used hazing for decades as a method of hardening
troops to what could happen to them if captured by an enemy. Hazing is
terrifically unfair. so is being a POW. Being done by people, sometimes it goes
too far. Admitted. sometimes the Srs in charge screw it up. they too are
people. Tailhook. Navy pilots. Todd, have you ever known any fighter pilots?
Especially NAVY pilots? they quite often do damn fool things when they party.
this was one of them. It was also inexcusable. It cost a few people. properly so.
>
>
> >and it had all those neat words and stuff.
>
> Well, it wasn't for kids.
> > as an adult, it is a bore.
>
> I'm 33. That's all I'm saying on that.
I was bored. That is my personal assessment. I wanted to turn it off about 10
minutes into the film. Because of recommendation from the nag, I sat there and
watched every minute. I kept waiting for something funny, something to even get a
chuckle about. didn't happen. My wife was in the next room, on the net, doing her
thing. she could hear the music. Her comment upon it was on the order of "why did
you listen to that crap". Again, personal taste.
>
> >From opening to
> >closing, I didn't even get a smile at any time. I really don't care about the
> >language, hell, I was called worse than that by drill sergeants. this film
> >must have been extremely cheap to make for an animation film. It is the only
> >animation I have ever seen that was worse than Hannah Barbera.
>
> That it is simple is part of its charm. I for one, would be far less
> interested in South Park if it featured realistic and cutting edge
> animation.
Really. I rented Iron Giant based on, again, the nags recommendation. I thought it
far superior, in animation, to anything I had seen science Disney while Walt was
alive. Very, Very good. Again, a bit far fetched, but to me, more enjoyable than
South Park
>IMHO, this
> >thing had no redeeming values. Does that mean BOYCOTT it?
> >Oh, hell no.
>
> That might be because you have a healthy respect for the First
> Amendment.
I don't believe in organized boycotts of any media type event, be it movie, play,
or whatever. If i want to vote with my wallet, that's my business. I will give my
opinion, but I will NOT recommend a boycott. they have the right to make what they
want. I have the right to say if I liked it or not, and why.
> >Anybody wants to see this, let'em. But you are NOT the only one who dislikes
> >South Park. And YES, I know everybody else thinks its better than the second
> >coming, but I don't care.
>
> I'm sorry you didn't like the movie. Aside from being charming and
> innocent, it is the finest treatise on the importance of the 1st
> Amendment that I have seen in many years.
I disagree on the charming and innocent. First amendment. Hmmm. Malcom X.
Roots. (yes, Slavery, Family, etc, but without the first amendment, perhaps never
seen) so many , so very many. "Lenny Bruce". I think I could come up with a few
more.
> Further, as a musical, it is many times superior to anything that
> hack, Andrew Loyd Webber, ever wrote. In fact, I'd say its almost
> Gershwin-esque in quality.
Musically, it is better that a lot of stuff out there. IMHO, not up to Gershwin.
But then, in today's entertainment, nothing is.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Todd "And Kyle's Mom is a bitch" McNeeley
>
> No, she was a STUPID bitch.
But the barfing was a bit much.
Bob
Melville
news:38ABBD92...@ix.netcom.com...
>
>
> lbaum wrote:
>
> >
> > I guess it is just about confirmed now. I'm the only person in the
world
> > who greatly dislikes South Park. In fact, I may be the only person who
> > doesn't love it.
>
> Uh....no. I finally broke down and rented it at the $1 rental.
> Thank whatever deity there is that I did not go to a theater to see this.
If
> I had popped $15 for admission and $6 for a coke and popcorn, I would have
it on
> this and the alt.movies ng, praising it to high heaven. Why was this
thing
> (aside, of course, to make a buck) ever made? When I was about 15, I
would
> have thought it was marvelous and daring and just great, because it said
that
had
> all those neat words and stuff. as an adult, it is a bore. From opening
to
> closing, I didn't even get a smile at any time. I really don't care about
the
> language, hell, I was called worse than that by drill sergeants. this film
> must have been extremely cheap to make for an animation film. It is the
only
> thing had no redeeming values. Does that mean BOYCOTT it? Oh, hell no.
dislikes
> South Park. And YES, I know everybody else thinks its better than the
second
> coming, but I don't care.
Robert Hart
.
.
.
.
.
Julian Lalor <julia...@hotmall.com> wrote:
[snip South Park stuff]
: Boy, did you miss the point of this film. It had *nothing* to do with the
: above. I just wish a quarter of films made were as smart as this film.
Parents brought their kids to see South Park. In the film, kids are
brought to see Terrence and Phillip. Terrence and Phillip start
swearing up a storm. The cartoon parents herd their kids out of
the theater in horror. The real parents herd their kids out of
the theater in horror. Funniest damn thing in the history of
film! :)
-Rob
Reagen Sulewski
<38ACB82F...@ix.netcom.com>:
>I didn't say I didn't understand it. I said I didn't enjoy it. Yes, of
>course it violated all the rules. OK Big Deal. Very seriously, I don't
>want every film I see to sound like my drill sergeant. I have nothing
>against nudity, but it doesn't have to be in every film. that, by the
>way, brings up a question. When nudity is demanded in every film, what
>does that do to the actor who doesn't WANT to be naked on film. Throw
>them out of the industry? Sorry, but what you are saying is imposing
>your morality on filmmaking just as much as Jerry Foulwell tries to
>impose his. With all that said, I didn't like the film. It is my right
>to not like the film. Thank you very much.
>Bob
Cram those words in his mouth a little faster, and they just might take.
And yes, South Park is a very intelligent film. That it is drenched in profanity is merely the
medium in which it operates. It's quite subversive that way.
--
You've touched me deep within my cold, tin heart.
damoncide: lots
Helen & Bob wrote:
>
> lbaum wrote:
>
> >
> > I guess it is just about confirmed now. I'm the only person in the world
> > who greatly dislikes South Park. In fact, I may be the only person who
> > doesn't love it.
>
> Uh....no. I finally broke down and rented it at the $1 rental.
> Thank whatever deity there is that I did not go to a theater to see this. If
> I had popped $15 for admission and $6 for a coke and popcorn, I would have
> been livid. I watched the whole damn thing because of the remarks about it on
> this and the alt.movies ng, praising it to high heaven. Why was this thing
> (aside, of course, to make a buck) ever made? When I was about 15, I would
> have thought it was marvelous and daring and just great, because it said that
> teachers are dumb and parents are dumb, and the military is dumb, and it had
> all those neat words and stuff. as an adult, it is a bore. From opening to
> closing, I didn't even get a smile at any time. I really don't care about the
> language, hell, I was called worse than that by drill sergeants. this film
> must have been extremely cheap to make for an animation film. It is the only
> animation I have ever seen that was worse than Hannah Barbera. IMHO, this
> thing had no redeeming values. Does that mean BOYCOTT it? Oh, hell no.
> Anybody wants to see this, let'em. But you are NOT the only one who dislikes
> South Park. And YES, I know everybody else thinks its better than the second
> coming, but I don't care.
you old fogie.
Julian Lalor
>
>
> Julian Lalor wrote:
>
> > "Helen & Bob" <chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:38ABBD92...@ix.netcom.com...
> >
> > > (aside, of course, to make a buck) ever made? When I was about 15, I
> > would
> > > have thought it was marvelous and daring and just great, because it
said
> > that
> > > teachers are dumb and parents are dumb, and the military is dumb, and
it
> > had
> > > all those neat words and stuff.
> >
the
> > above. I just wish a quarter of films made were as smart as this film.
>
> interesting. Wait a minute, I'll find something you said that I wanted to
> discuss with you. Now, where did that quote go.
> Hmmmmm
> bob
Oh, grow up.
milgra...@my-deja.com
damoncide: lots <dcru...@mdo.net> wrote:
>
>
> Helen & Bob wrote:
> >
> > lbaum wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I guess it is just about confirmed now. I'm the only person in
the world
> > > who greatly dislikes South Park. In fact, I may be the only person
who
> > > doesn't love it.
> >
> > Uh....no. I finally broke down and rented it at the $1 rental.
> > Thank whatever deity there is that I did not go to a theater to see
this. If
> > I had popped $15 for admission and $6 for a coke and popcorn, I
would have
> > been livid. I watched the whole damn thing because of the remarks
about it on
this thing
> > (aside, of course, to make a buck) ever made? When I was about 15,
I would
> > have thought it was marvelous and daring and just great, because it
said that
> > teachers are dumb and parents are dumb, and the military is dumb,
and it had
opening to
> > closing, I didn't even get a smile at any time. I really don't care
about the
> > language, hell, I was called worse than that by drill sergeants.
this film
> > must have been extremely cheap to make for an animation film. It is
the only
> > animation I have ever seen that was worse than Hannah Barbera.
IMHO, this
> > thing had no redeeming values. Does that mean BOYCOTT it? Oh, hell
no.
> > Anybody wants to see this, let'em. But you are NOT the only one who
dislikes
> > South Park. And YES, I know everybody else thinks its better than
the second
> > coming, but I don't care.
>
> you old fogie.
>
statement rather then address the statement itself. Sound reasoning and
articulate expression garner much greater credibility than offhand
comments that fail to resolve the issue or even to express an opinion on
the issue.
One of the facets of film that has not been introduced into this
discussion is the aesthetic of film as art, although Bob touches on this
casually in his reference to the crudity of the animation
of South Park. When evaluating film today most people look first to
entertainment value, then to production value, and finally artistic
value usually as an afterthought, and only if the film has failed to
provide the kind of titillation desired. In my opinion if a film does
not recognize its debt to the tradition and artistic values of film
specifically and culture generally it entirely fails in its role as
a medium of communication. Deft satire and erudite sarcasm are welcome
artistic conventions, but the overt and caustic style of South Park
hardly resembles anything that can be called wit. The musical
compositions are vapid and annoying. The dialogue is crass and
contrived. The aesthetic values of clarity, consonance, and unity are
ignored in favor of what must be termed bathroom humor. That there
is an audience for a series of images slapped together with no
sophistication and called parody is not a surprise. The trend in film
today is to entice large audiences at the expense of artistic value,
under the assumption that the intelligence of the American audience
cannot be underestimated, and this assumption is responsible for much of
the throwaway entertainment that is served up in place of works that are
remarkable for their beauty, style, and excellence.
Few films will achieve a high standard even when attempting to reach
that goal, but when the standard is low and the film even falls below
that it seems likely that the audience has deteriorated, expectations
have dipped, and all judgement is based on preference rather than
informed opinion.
Helen & Bob
Matthew Butcher wrote:
> John Harkness wrote:
> >gyu...@hotmail.com (Sean) wrote:
>
> >>What company is responsible for what happened to Tom&Jerry?
>
> >Tex Avery at MGM
>
> Avery handled the Droopy and Riding Hood cartoons at MGM; the Tom and
> Jerry cartoons were almost entirely from the much-maligned Hanna and
> Barbera up until the sixties, when some other directors (mainly Chuck
> Jones) took over. Hanna-Barbera were actually doing pretty good work
> during this period -- I prefer their Tom and Jerry cartoons to Jones's,
> although of course they can't hold a candle to Jones's earlier work at
> Warner Brothers (or for that matter to Avery's work at MGM).
>
> Contrary to Bob's claim, which he now seems to be backing away from,
> Hanna-Barbera didn't have any involvement with the execrable Road
> Runner cartoons Warner Bros. put out in the mid-sixties. The shoddy
> animation was certainly influenced to a large degree by Hanna-Barbera's
> television work, and some of the characters Warner Bros. came up with
> right before their cartoon division's demise were directly inspired by
> the H-B style -- Cool Cat, Bunny and Claude, etc.
>
> --
> Matthew Butcher |
Matthew, obviously you know more about the history of the cartoons than I
do. I seriously thought that H/B were doing the roadrunner - coyote stuff
because they devolved into the same cheapness as all the others. If they
didn't do it, but were rather imitated, just to drive the cost down, it's
just as bad. Same crime, different perpetrator.
Bob
joshu...@my-deja.com
damoncide: lots
milgra...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <38ACCD3C...@mdo.net>,
> damoncide: lots <dcru...@mdo.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Helen & Bob wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > Uh....no. I finally broke down and rented it at the $1 rental.
> > > Thank whatever deity there is that I did not go to a theater to see
> this. If
> > > I had popped $15 for admission and $6 for a coke and popcorn, I
> would have
> > > been livid. I watched the whole damn thing because of the remarks
> about it on
> > > this and the alt.movies ng, praising it to high heaven. Why was
> this thing
> > > (aside, of course, to make a buck) ever made? When I was about 15,
> I would
> > > have thought it was marvelous and daring and just great, because it
> said that
> > > teachers are dumb and parents are dumb, and the military is dumb,
> and it had
> > > all those neat words and stuff. as an adult, it is a bore.
> >
> > you old fogie.
> >
> I always wonder why people feel the need to insult the source of the
> statement rather then address the statement itself. Sound reasoning and
> articulate expression garner much greater credibility than offhand
> comments that fail to resolve the issue or even to express an opinion on
> the issue.
so, i take it you didn't comprehend my remark was less an insult than
a flippant remark delineating my analysis, based on the remarks
preceeding, the reason why bob didn't enjoy the movie.
> One of the facets of film that has not been introduced into this
> discussion is the aesthetic of film as art, although Bob touches on this
> casually in his reference to the crudity of the animation
> of South Park. When evaluating film today most people look first to
> entertainment value, then to production value, and finally artistic
> value usually as an afterthought, and only if the film has failed to
> provide the kind of titillation desired.
that is because aesthetics are *primarily* informed by perceived
entertainment value by the individual.
In my opinion if a film does
> not recognize its debt to the tradition and artistic values of film
> specifically and culture generally it entirely fails in its role as
> a medium of communication.
and this is plain silly.
your statement essentially declares much of picasso's work as
a failure.
Deft satire and erudite sarcasm are welcome
> artistic conventions, but the overt and caustic style of South Park
> hardly resembles anything that can be called wit.
sez you.
i found it hilarious.
think of oscar wilde on methadrine.
The musical
> compositions are vapid and annoying.
methinks you need to look up the definition of vapid.
The dialogue is crass and
> contrived. The aesthetic values of clarity, consonance, and unity are
> ignored in favor of what must be termed bathroom humor.
i agree.
i find that age often reflects one's appreciation of such humor.
That there
> is an audience for a series of images slapped together with no
> sophistication and called parody is not a surprise. The trend in film
> today is to entice large audiences at the expense of artistic value,
> under the assumption that the intelligence of the American audience
> cannot be underestimated, and this assumption is responsible for much of
> the throwaway entertainment that is served up in place of works that are
> remarkable for their beauty, style, and excellence.
i find this attitude grossly mistaken.
yours being such a blanket statement, i see no need
to expound.
i will say that your mistaken notion os 'artistic value' is
one of the major problems wrt your appreciation of film.
> Few films will achieve a high standard even when attempting to reach
> that goal, but when the standard is low and the film even falls below
> that it seems likely that the audience has deteriorated, expectations
> have dipped, and all judgement is based on preference rather than
> informed opinion.
>
again, this is really stupid.
i'd recommend you read abook called
'zen an the art of motorcycle maintainance, which
only begins to address the problems inherent in your views.
Sean
are the T&J's in which the animation seemed to be made up of all sharp
angles, the action was jacked up to the point of sadism and the
soundtracks were largely screeches and bizarre sound effects.
I always thought that 'Itchy and Scratchy' (Simpsons) was inspired by
these. I despised this version of T&J even as a kid.
I had just assumed a small company got the rights somehow and pumped
out a bunch of crumby T&J's, but Hanna-Barbera?
>John Harkness wrote:
>>gyu...@hotmail.com (Sean) wrote:
>
>>>What company is responsible for what happened to Tom&Jerry?
>
>>Tex Avery at MGM
>
>Avery handled the Droopy and Riding Hood cartoons at MGM; the Tom and
>Jerry cartoons were almost entirely from the much-maligned Hanna and
>Barbera up until the sixties, when some other directors (mainly Chuck
>Jones) took over. Hanna-Barbera were actually doing pretty good work
>during this period -- I prefer their Tom and Jerry cartoons to Jones's,
>although of course they can't hold a candle to Jones's earlier work at
>Warner Brothers (or for that matter to Avery's work at MGM).
>
>Contrary to Bob's claim, which he now seems to be backing away from,
>Hanna-Barbera didn't have any involvement with the execrable Road
>Runner cartoons Warner Bros. put out in the mid-sixties. The shoddy
>animation was certainly influenced to a large degree by Hanna-Barbera's
>television work, and some of the characters Warner Bros. came up with
>right before their cartoon division's demise were directly inspired by
>the H-B style -- Cool Cat, Bunny and Claude, etc.
>
>--
>Matthew Butcher | At my house I've got no shackles; you can come
>but...@math.ubc.ca | and look if you want to. -- Arthur Lee
Sean {Gyu...@hotmail.com}
Melville
>
>
> Melville wrote:
>
> > Helen & Bob <chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:38ABBD92...@ix.netcom.com...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I guess it is just about confirmed now. I'm the only person in the
> > world
> > > > who greatly dislikes South Park. In fact, I may be the only person
who
> > > > doesn't love it.
> > >
> > > Thank whatever deity there is that I did not go to a theater to see
this.
> > If
> > > I had popped $15 for admission and $6 for a coke and popcorn, I would
have
> > > been livid. I watched the whole damn thing because of the remarks
about
> > it on
> > > this and the alt.movies ng, praising it to high heaven. Why was this
> > thing
> > > (aside, of course, to make a buck) ever made? When I was about 15, I
> > would
> > > have thought it was marvelous and daring and just great, because it
said
> > that
> > > teachers are dumb and parents are dumb, and the military is dumb, and
it
> > had
opening
> > to
> > > closing, I didn't even get a smile at any time. I really don't care
about
> > the
> > > language, hell, I was called worse than that by drill sergeants. this
film
> > > must have been extremely cheap to make for an animation film. It is
the
> > only
> > > animation I have ever seen that was worse than Hannah Barbera. IMHO,
this
> > > thing had no redeeming values. Does that mean BOYCOTT it? Oh, hell
no.
> > > Anybody wants to see this, let'em. But you are NOT the only one who
> > dislikes
> > > South Park. And YES, I know everybody else thinks its better than the
> > second
> > > coming, but I don't care.
Could you please explain what the hell you are talking about? How can you
say I am trying to impose my morality on film making? I enjoy all types of
films and enjoy being shocked, but I would never say that every film has to
be like this. Also, where in my response did I say anything about nudity
having to be in every film? That was not my point. No wonder you did not
find "South Park" funny.
Melville
Rev. Jevon den Ridder
<snip>
> Have you considered that I did not find South Park funny because its NOT? It is
> a very preachy film, and every point in it has been said better elsewhere. It
> may be fresh and ground breaking to you, but not to me. I found the film a
> bore. IMHO YMMV
> I'm sorry if my opinion gores your ox, but I am not going to change my opinion
> to please you. Live with it.
> I do not want to discuss this film further, as IMHO it does not deserve the
> attention.
> Bob
IMO, as a juvenile musical trying to piss off everyone, it worked well.
The first 20-30 min. were v. good, but from then on it just got
repetitive.
--
[All humans should be considered as equals, regardless of race, sex,
class, sexual orientation, or political views. Except WebTVers]
AMMM-Lord Jevon den Ridder [Remove NOSPAM for email]
McNeeley
<jd...@NOSPAMcableol.co.uk> wrote:
>IMO, as a juvenile musical trying to piss off everyone, it worked well.
>The first 20-30 min. were v. good, but from then on it just got
>repetitive.
Praise you. :-)
Cheers,
Todd "WebTV never" McNeeley
Melville
> > Could you please explain what the hell you are talking about? How can
you
> > say I am trying to impose my morality on film making? I enjoy all types
of
> > films and enjoy being shocked, but I would never say that every film has
to
> > be like this. Also, where in my response did I say anything about
nudity
> > having to be in every film? That was not my point.
>
I
> object to seem to insist that it bee in all films. In most, its not
needed, nor
> called for, in the story.
A brilliant response. Once again, you have not responded to the point I was
making AND you have managed to do it with a paragraph that makes absolutely
no sense. "I object to seem to insist that it bee in all
films."?????????????
>
> > No wonder you did not
> > find "South Park" funny.
> >
> > Melville
>
> Have you considered that I did not find South Park funny because its NOT?
It is
> a very preachy film, and every point in it has been said better elsewhere.
It
> may be fresh and ground breaking to you, but not to me. I found the film
a
> bore. IMHO YMMV
> I'm sorry if my opinion gores your ox, but I am not going to change my
opinion
> to please you. Live with it.
> I do not want to discuss this film further, as IMHO it does not deserve
the
> attention.
> Bob
>
Your opinion does not "gore my ox". I just wish you would quit trying to
avoid the subject YOU originally raised by placing words into my mouth. And
I would also love you to point out the other HOLLYWOOD films that you claim
make the same points as South Park better. Maybe we could discuss these
instead.
Melville
McNeeley
wrote:
>I needed badly to hear the message that Dina Meyer was physically
>attractive. So I guess that covers (or uncovers) everything.
Just to cover everyone's bases, here is a list of chicks I wanna see
naked:
Martha Stewart
Lisa Nicole Carson (in 3D)
Betty Rubble
Janet Reno (in a film by John Carpenter)
Any babe who posts to r.a.m.c-f (except damon)
Tipper Gore's daughters (dancing in the background of an Ice T video)
Bobbie Batista (I need her breasts to distract me from her eyes)
The Croatian lady that moved into 10G last month
Everyone on Fox
Everyone who wants to marry a millionaire (during the Jell-o Wrestling
competition)
Tammy Faye Baker (just to know how much make-up she really wears)
Rikki Lake (tied to stake and lit on fire)
Rosie O'Donnel (while suffering a worse fate)
>Besides, I don't think showering in the nude fits your description of
>"inexplicable nudity."
Poor choice actually. One can fully explain the nudity. It's the film
that baffles me.
>Michelangelo's David, on the other hand, very definitely falls under the
>category of inexplicable nudity. The young man is, and only could be,
>doing one thing: posing for a drooling sculptor.
Yea... I can see that... (WHAT?)
>(Guess my position on this issue.)
No. If you need me to know, you'll tell me.
Cheers,
Todd "I ain't losing any sleep" McNeeley
damoncide: lots
McNeeley wrote:
>
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 10:02:24 GMT, Strieder <stri...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> >I needed badly to hear the message that Dina Meyer was physically
> >attractive. So I guess that covers (or uncovers) everything.
>
> Just to cover everyone's bases, here is a list of chicks I wanna see
> naked:
>
> Martha Stewart
> Lisa Nicole Carson (in 3D)
> Betty Rubble
> Janet Reno (in a film by John Carpenter)
> Any babe who posts to r.a.m.c-f (except damon)
brandon it is then!
> Tipper Gore's daughters (dancing in the background of an Ice T video)
> Bobbie Batista (I need her breasts to distract me from her eyes)
> The Croatian lady that moved into 10G last month
> Everyone on Fox
> Everyone who wants to marry a millionaire (during the Jell-o Wrestling
>
> competition)
you forgot the 'except damon'.
> Tammy Faye Baker (just to know how much make-up she really wears)
> Rikki Lake (tied to stake and lit on fire)
> Rosie O'Donnel (while suffering a worse fate)
>
> >Besides, I don't think showering in the nude fits your description of
> >"inexplicable nudity."
>
> Poor choice actually. One can fully explain the nudity. It's the film
> that baffles me.
>
> >Michelangelo's David, on the other hand, very definitely falls under the
> >category of inexplicable nudity. The young man is, and only could be,
> >doing one thing: posing for a drooling sculptor.
>
> Yea... I can see that... (WHAT?)
>
> >(Guess my position on this issue.)
>
> No. If you need me to know, you'll tell me.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Todd "I ain't losing any sleep" McNeeley
>
> email: mcneeley at 21stcentury dot net
--
Brandons with candy
<n...@my.com> wrote:
> >Michelangelo's David, on the other hand, very definitely falls under the
> >category of inexplicable nudity. The young man is, and only could be,
> >doing one thing: posing for a drooling sculptor.
Actually no, the reason David is nude is to inspire the city where it
was...erected, via the physcial perfection of the body. I forget the
exact politics of the time, but the statue served as a symbol of pride
for City A and defiance against City B (in who's direction the statue
was looking).
No doubt Michelangelo was drooling
--
-Brandon Blatcher
I just don't sit here all day casting
shadows for your amusement. I'm also a
sidewalk hot dog vendor.
milgra...@my-deja.com
damoncide: lots <dcru...@mdo.net> wrote:
> so, i take it you didn't comprehend my remark was less an insult than
> a flippant remark delineating my analysis, based on the remarks
> preceeding, the reason why bob didn't enjoy the movie.
>
It appeared to me that you judged his opinion on a personal assumption
that because he expressed dislike, his age and attitude must have
limited his ability to appreciate it. Both flippant and insulting.
> > One of the facets of film that has not been introduced into this
> > discussion is the aesthetic of film as art, although Bob touches on
this
> > casually in his reference to the crudity of the animation
> > of South Park. When evaluating film today most people look first to
> > entertainment value, then to production value, and finally artistic
> > value usually as an afterthought, and only if the film has failed to
> > provide the kind of titillation desired.
>
> that is because aesthetics are *primarily* informed by perceived
> entertainment value by the individual.
>
Not entertainment value but beauty, but you are entirely correct that it
is in the eye of the beholder.
> In my opinion if a film does
> > not recognize its debt to the tradition and artistic values of film
> > specifically and culture generally it entirely fails in its role as
> > a medium of communication.
>
> and this is plain silly.
> your statement essentially declares much of picasso's work as
> a failure.
>
So it would seem. I can expound upon the idea if you like, but you are
entirely within your right to differ on this point. I suppose it is
possible to communicate to an audience on some level whether or not a
work embodies artistic value, but such films do not interest me and in
my opinion fail in one of the important areas of expression.
> Deft satire and erudite sarcasm are welcome
> > artistic conventions, but the overt and caustic style of South Park
> > hardly resembles anything that can be called wit.
>
> sez you.
> i found it hilarious.
> think of oscar wilde on methadrine.
>
> The musical
> > compositions are vapid and annoying.
>
> methinks you need to look up the definition of vapid.
>
vapid=insipid, therefore dull.
> The dialogue is crass and
> > contrived. The aesthetic values of clarity, consonance, and unity
are
> > ignored in favor of what must be termed bathroom humor.
>
> i agree.
> i find that age often reflects one's appreciation of such humor.
>
I find it to be a general tendency in film humor today. Bodily functions
are in vogue as subjects of jokes and this is somewhat distant from what
Oscar Wilde viewed as wit.
> That there
> > is an audience for a series of images slapped together with no
> > sophistication and called parody is not a surprise. The trend in
film
> > today is to entice large audiences at the expense of artistic value,
> > under the assumption that the intelligence of the American audience
> > cannot be underestimated, and this assumption is responsible for
much of
> > the throwaway entertainment that is served up in place of works that
are
> > remarkable for their beauty, style, and excellence.
>
> i find this attitude grossly mistaken.
> yours being such a blanket statement, i see no need
> to expound.
> i will say that your mistaken notion os 'artistic value' is
> one of the major problems wrt your appreciation of film.
>
I recognize that not every film is simply a vehicle for profit, but when
films seek blockbuster status, testing and adjusting to audience
reaction, this hardly sems the method to realize artistic vision.
At its best, film can combine visual beauty, masterful performance,
powerful writing, musical eloquence, and dramatic excitement. How many
films today have all these elements in place? How many even attempt to
do anything more than show attractive people in compromising situations?
I do think that criticism should be applied using artistic value as one
of the standards, and the manner in which it should be applied is
specific to the genre. Establish what is the highest level of
achievement within the genre and compare other films with that standard,
element by element. Once that has been done, preferences can be
expressed, for as you have pointed out, aethetic is generated from an
individual perspective.
> > Few films will achieve a high standard even when attempting to reach
> > that goal, but when the standard is low and the film even falls
below
> > that it seems likely that the audience has deteriorated,
expectations
> > have dipped, and all judgement is based on preference rather than
> > informed opinion.
> >
>
> again, this is really stupid.
> i'd recommend you read abook called
> 'zen an the art of motorcycle maintainance, which
> only begins to address the problems inherent in your views.
>
I appreciate your opinion but I believe you would have a very difficult
time proving that the current standard applied in the production of film
resembles anything that can be regarded as elevated. If people are
willing to spend money to see bad films, or even worse, to praise low
level achievement, they can expect reams of drivel for it really is much
easier and cost effective to put out an inferior product.
I do not allow my preferences to succumb to marketing but enable my
opinion by informing it with education, experience, and philosophy.
Obviously you prefer another approach. It is a free country, and by
expressing your views you help me to further refine mine. I do not fear
opposing opinions, but I do stand firm in my belief that art is the
great cultural motivator and we only cheat ourselves and the progess of
our culture by accepting inferior art when it is possible to demand
better.
McNeeley
<nom...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>In article <7ck1bs49vqikq0q62...@4ax.com>, McNeeley
><n...@my.com> wrote:
>
>> >Michelangelo's David, on the other hand, very definitely falls under the
>> >category of inexplicable nudity. The young man is, and only could be,
>> >doing one thing: posing for a drooling sculptor.
>
>Actually no, the reason David is nude is to inspire the city where it
>was...erected, via the physcial perfection of the body. I forget the
>exact politics of the time, but the statue served as a symbol of pride
>for City A and defiance against City B (in who's direction the statue
>was looking).
I didn't write what you've attributed to me...
Cheers,
Todd "quote with care" McNeeley
Laurie D. T. Mann
> Chris Cooper for Best Supporting Actor for October Sky
He was also completely frightening in American Beauty.
I recognized his voice in the movie, but couldn't place
him. When I checked IMDB at home, I was stunned to
see he was the same actor who played the lead as
Kris Kristofferson's son in Lone Star.
Jason Robards was also great last year in Magnolia.
If anything, the supporting actor category for last
year contains a number of Oscar-worthy performances.
--
Laurie D. T. Mann **** Geek Feminist **** lm...@city-net.com
Dead People Server * Trivia Maven * http://dpsinfo.com/index.shtml
(c) 2000 by Laurie D. T. Mann. Permission to publish it in full
and without alteration (Usenet, IMDB, Deja) is granted. Venues
that alter the text in any way (ReMarQ) are denied permission
to publish. http://www.dpsinfo.com/mannschoice/biases.html
Helen & Bob
mcm7...@Rosie.UH.EDU wrote:
> Chris Cooper for Best Supporting Actor for October Sky
> John August for Best Original Scrrenplay for Go
>
> thomas
I can't comment on GO, but I think October Sky could (and should) have
also been in the best picture category. IMHO.
YMMV
Bob
mcm7...@rosie.uh.edu
being damonovich
milgra...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <38AE1AF7...@mdo.net>,
> damoncide: lots <dcru...@mdo.net> wrote:
>
> > so, i take it you didn't comprehend my remark was less an insult than
> > a flippant remark delineating my analysis, based on the remarks
> > preceeding, the reason why bob didn't enjoy the movie.
> >
> It appeared to me that you judged his opinion on a personal assumption
> that because he expressed dislike, his age and attitude must have
> limited his ability to appreciate it. Both flippant and insulting.
then yuo weren't correct.
i judged that because of the WAY he expressed dislike, his age and
attitude
limited his ability to appreciate it.
flippant, yes.
but not insulting.
> > > One of the facets of film that has not been introduced into this
> > > discussion is the aesthetic of film as art, although Bob touches on
> this
> > > casually in his reference to the crudity of the animation
> > > of South Park. When evaluating film today most people look first to
> > > entertainment value, then to production value, and finally artistic
> > > value usually as an afterthought, and only if the film has failed to
> > > provide the kind of titillation desired.
> >
> > that is because aesthetics are *primarily* informed by perceived
> > entertainment value by the individual.
> >
> Not entertainment value but beauty, but you are entirely correct that it
> is in the eye of the beholder.
beauty in the more visceral arts, entertainment in the more cerebral
ones.
> > In my opinion if a film does
> > > not recognize its debt to the tradition and artistic values of film
> > > specifically and culture generally it entirely fails in its role as
> > > a medium of communication.
> >
> > and this is plain silly.
> > your statement essentially declares much of picasso's work as
> > a failure.
> >
> So it would seem. I can expound upon the idea if you like, but you are
> entirely within your right to differ on this point. I suppose it is
> possible to communicate to an audience on some level whether or not a
> work embodies artistic value, but such films do not interest me and in
> my opinion fail in one of the important areas of expression.
okay.
i consider nonconformity and departure from tradition
positive values.
> > Deft satire and erudite sarcasm are welcome
> > > artistic conventions, but the overt and caustic style of South Park
> > > hardly resembles anything that can be called wit.
> >
> > sez you.
> > i found it hilarious.
> > think of oscar wilde on methadrine.
> >
> > The musical
> > > compositions are vapid and annoying.
> >
> > methinks you need to look up the definition of vapid.
> >
> vapid=insipid, therefore dull.
>
different words, different connotations.
> > The dialogue is crass and
> > > contrived. The aesthetic values of clarity, consonance, and unity
> are
> > > ignored in favor of what must be termed bathroom humor.
> >
> > i agree.
> > i find that age often reflects one's appreciation of such humor.
> >
> I find it to be a general tendency in film humor today. Bodily functions
> are in vogue as subjects of jokes and this is somewhat distant from what
> Oscar Wilde viewed as wit.
south park wasn't merely about body functions.
and iirc, wilde appreciated crass comments to undermine stuffiness.
regardless, he certainly appreciated sardonic comments,
which the movie is comprised almost entirely of.
> > That there
> > > is an audience for a series of images slapped together with no
> > > sophistication and called parody is not a surprise. The trend in
> film
> > > today is to entice large audiences at the expense of artistic value,
> > > under the assumption that the intelligence of the American audience
> > > cannot be underestimated, and this assumption is responsible for
> much of
> > > the throwaway entertainment that is served up in place of works that
> are
> > > remarkable for their beauty, style, and excellence.
> >
> > i find this attitude grossly mistaken.
> > yours being such a blanket statement, i see no need
> > to expound.
> > i will say that your mistaken notion os 'artistic value' is
> > one of the major problems wrt your appreciation of film.
> >
> I recognize that not every film is simply a vehicle for profit, but when
> films seek blockbuster status, testing and adjusting to audience
> reaction, this hardly sems the method to realize artistic vision.
did south park adjust to audience reaction?
it seemed to me that it was much too offensive to
have undergone focus group testing.
and i would say that titanic, for all its flaws, had artistic vision.
> At its best, film can combine visual beauty, masterful performance,
> powerful writing, musical eloquence, and dramatic excitement. How many
> films today have all these elements in place? How many even attempt to
> do anything more than show attractive people in compromising situations?
i dunno.
for me, out of the films i saw from 1999 which did all of them-
matrix, fight club,.
that did some of htem- south park, sleepy hollow, run lola run
being john malkovich [a gloriously ugly movie]-
off the top of my head.
tpm was visually splendid but not much else.
bwp was intellectually stimulatingbut not much else.
movies like entrapment or deep blue sea had some redeeming features- in
fact
payback and deep blue sea both were exceptionally
realized films overly constrained by their genres.
> I do think that criticism should be applied using artistic value as one
> of the standards, and the manner in which it should be applied is
> specific to the genre. Establish what is the highest level of
> achievement within the genre and compare other films with that standard,
> element by element. Once that has been done, preferences can be
> expressed, for as you have pointed out, aethetic is generated from an
> individual perspective.
i liked tpm and bwp about the same, for *entirely*
different reasons.
i liked entrapment, a mediocre movie, because i like to
be entertained.
i liked sleepy hollwo for burton's strengths, despite
the factthat taking it event hetinest bit seriously
destroys the movie.
comparing these movies on any specific point abrogates
the holistic value i assign to each.
> > > Few films will achieve a high standard even when attempting to reach
> > > that goal, but when the standard is low and the film even falls
> below
> > > that it seems likely that the audience has deteriorated,
> expectations
> > > have dipped, and all judgement is based on preference rather than
> > > informed opinion.
> > >
> >
> > again, this is really stupid.
> > i'd recommend you read abook called
> > 'zen an the art of motorcycle maintainance, which
> > only begins to address the problems inherent in your views.
> >
> I appreciate your opinion but I believe you would have a very difficult
> time proving that the current standard applied in the production of film
> resembles anything that can be regarded as elevated. If people are
> willing to spend money to see bad films, or even worse, to praise low
> level achievement, they can expect reams of drivel for it really is much
> easier and cost effective to put out an inferior product.
your whole argument falls apart with the term 'bad films'.
is titanic a 'bad' film?
many people love it.
are capra movies 'bad' films?
many others love them.
yet 'artistically', i'd rate cameron as superior to capra.
in fact, i'd rate sorkin's west wing series as the
ultimate capra, above capra himself.
> I do not allow my preferences to succumb to marketing but enable my
> opinion by informing it with education, experience, and philosophy.
> Obviously you prefer another approach.
why obviously?
in fact, that's disengenuous of you, since
prisig's 'zen and the art of' is in part a
philosophy text. okay, maybe i'm being harsh, since perhaps you've
not educated yourself enough to have read thatbook.
It is a free country, and by
> expressing your views you help me to further refine mine. I do not fear
> opposing opinions, but I do stand firm in my belief that art is the
> great cultural motivator and we only cheat ourselves and the progess of
> our culture by accepting inferior art when it is possible to demand
> better.
>
but 'inferior' art is entirely idiosyncratic.
when you rail against 'inferior' art accepted by our culture,
you are merely claiming that your tastes are superior
to the rest of the culture's.
since there is no objective measurement to prove
this, your statement reduces to-
'i'm superior because i like chocolate while
everyone else prefers vanilla.'
--
1992: Bush/Quayle
2000: Bush= Quayle
Mundie Family
Laurie D. T. Mann <lm...@city-net.com> wrote in message
news:38B21199...@city-net.com...
> Jason Robards was also great last year in Magnolia.
>
> If anything, the supporting actor category for last
> year contains a number of Oscar-worthy performances.
>
Wes Bentley (American Beauty) was another I would have loved to see in this
category...
milgra...@my-deja.com
being damonovich <dcru...@mdo.net> wrote:
> flippant, yes.
> but not insulting.
>
A fine line, but since you have expressed your intent I apologize for
misreading your comment.
> beauty in the more visceral arts, entertainment in the more cerebral
> ones.
>
I prefer to evaluate entertainment in terms of emotional and mental
catharsis (the cerebral aspect) and not in terms of beauty although I
am certain there are times when the distinction blurs, specifically
when elements of entertainment contribute to artistic value. But then I
guess that is exactly what I am hoping will happen and am too often
disappointed.
> okay.
> i consider nonconformity and departure from tradition
> positive values.
>
So do I. The recognition of debt to artistic and cultural tradition can
take the form of satire (poking fun at those conventions), parody
(exagerrating them to humorous proportions), or sarcasm (using
juxtaposition and counterpoint to convey their limitations). I believe
that Picasso utilized all these (and even irony) and sometimes in
combination.
The point at which an artist determines to break the rules in order to
make an artistic point, or breaks the rules because he/she doesn't know
them is the issue. And I realize this was barely implicit in my earlier
comment, but short space gives ideas short shrift. The current film
production environment often provides opportunities to individuals who
are ill-prepared for them (and even more often denies opportunities to
those who have proven abilities), and the result is typically light
fare. I suppose it is best that those with limited talent and ability
not reach too far and fail miserably, but all the small failures are no
substitute for the best efforts from the most competent performers.
>>vapid=insipid, therefore dull
> different words, different connotations.
>
It is the meaning I intended, for I found the songs in South Park
lacking in melodic and harmonic content, and although they did have some
fairly clever lyrical devices, the delivery did not do them justice and
so I found them generally boring.
> south park wasn't merely about body functions.
> and iirc, wilde appreciated crass comments to undermine stuffiness.
>
> regardless, he certainly appreciated sardonic comments,
> which the movie is comprised almost entirely of.
>
Fair enough. Wilde might have appreciated South Park more than I did,
but then I am not Wilde and there can be no confusion about that. The
social and political conditions he endured certainly were ripe for his
wit, and ours is no different. Once again, I welcome deft satire,
erudite sarcasm, and rapier wit, I just found them absent (perhaps not
entirely so as there were some inspired moments) from South Park.
> did south park adjust to audience reaction?
> it seemed to me that it was much too offensive to
> have undergone focus group testing.
They have a ready made testing ground on television, and the film medium
allowed them to carry the offensive elements to greater extreme.
> and i would say that titanic, for all its flaws, had artistic vision.
I don't recall taking Titanic to task, but I guess it is guilt by
association for using audience testing to refine the film. If I may
express my humble opinion, Titanic was a vehicle for special effects and
filled this role admirably. On a lesser scale it was also a vehicle for
its stars, and performed well in this area. As far as realizing an
artistic vision it appeared that this was an area that was compromised.
It would have been improved by a more ambitious level of character
development, a more judicious hand at the editors block, as well as a
little flair in the dialog. Had these elements been given the same
attention to detail that was devoted to making the sinking of the ship
realistic I would raise my estimation regarding the film's achievement
of artistic vision.
> > At its best, film can combine visual beauty, masterful performance,
> > powerful writing, musical eloquence, and dramatic excitement. How
many
> > films today have all these elements in place? How many even attempt
to
> > do anything more than show attractive people in compromising
situations?
>
> i dunno.
> for me, out of the films i saw from 1999 which did all of them-
> matrix, fight club,.
> that did some of htem- south park, sleepy hollow, run lola run
> being john malkovich [a gloriously ugly movie]-
> off the top of my head.
I did enjoy the Matrix, but it definitely was an exercise in preference
over criticism that led to that response. Fight Club is a very
intriguing film and I will need to see it again. I definitely feel that
Being John Malkovich has an intense and uncompromising drive to realize
an artistic vision and I was sincerely impressed.
> tpm was visually splendid but not much else.
> bwp was intellectually stimulatingbut not much else.
>
> movies like entrapment or deep blue sea had some redeeming features-
in
> fact
> payback and deep blue sea both were exceptionally
> realized films overly constrained by their genres.
>
I agree.
>
> i liked tpm and bwp about the same, for *entirely*
> different reasons.
>
> i liked entrapment, a mediocre movie, because i like to
> be entertained.
>
> i liked sleepy hollwo for burton's strengths, despite
> the factthat taking it event hetinest bit seriously
> destroys the movie.
>
> comparing these movies on any specific point abrogates
> the holistic value i assign to each.
>
I understand your concept of holistic value, and if my approach seems
too reductionist I defend it by pointing out that the elements that go
into making a film are delegated to different individuals, each with
their strengths and weaknesses. It is the responsibility of the director
and finally the editor to weave these elements into the whole that you
see. They are limited by the talent, skill, and effort that was
expended, and ultimately by the producer and the funds made available
for the project. If the whole is greater than the sum of its parts then
they were succesful and the audience is rewarded; if the whole fails
because of one or more of those parts then the flaw(s) should be
identified and understood if only to steer future efforts away from such
pitfalls.
> your whole argument falls apart with the term 'bad films'.
>
> is titanic a 'bad' film?
> many people love it.
>
Many people enjoy movies that are not necessarily good by critical
standards. I only suggest that it is appropriate to apply standards at a
very high level in hopes that the general quality of films will improve.
> are capra movies 'bad' films?
>
> many others love them.
> yet 'artistically', i'd rate cameron as superior to capra.
>
Capra never had the resources ($200 million or the equivalent dollars)
or the kind of technology available to Cameron. In spite of this, Mr.
Smith Goes to Washington is a superior artistic achievement and employs
characterization, plot development, performances, and directorial
techniques (especially in managing a cast) that Cameron has yet to
develop.
> in fact, i'd rate sorkin's west wing series as the
> ultimate capra, above capra himself.
>
How could anyone be more Capra than Capra? Do you mean Capraesque?
> > I do not allow my preferences to succumb to marketing but enable my
> > opinion by informing it with education, experience, and philosophy.
> > Obviously you prefer another approach.
>
> why obviously?
A terrible assumption on my part. You have informed your opinion also
and that is what is obvious. I apologize, and recognize that our
differences are based more on personal perspective then method.
> in fact, that's disengenuous of you, since
> prisig's 'zen and the art of' is in part a
> philosophy text. okay, maybe i'm being harsh, since perhaps you've
> not educated yourself enough to have read thatbook.
You assume too much. His name is Robert Pirsig and it was required
reading at my high school. It has some valuable insights but fails from
being a comprehensive philosophical treatise. In fact I don't think such
a comprehensive treatise exists (can't blame Aquinas, Kant, or Russell
for trying) so I am inclined to draw ideas from many sources and
syncretize them into a functional philosophy with utilitarian leanings,
but now we stray away from the subject of film as art.
<snip> we only cheat ourselves and the progess
of
> > our culture by accepting inferior art when it is possible to demand
> > better.
> >
>
> but 'inferior' art is entirely idiosyncratic.
>
> when you rail against 'inferior' art accepted by our culture,
> you are merely claiming that your tastes are superior
> to the rest of the culture's.
>
> since there is no objective measurement to prove
> this, your statement reduces to-
> 'i'm superior because i like chocolate while
> everyone else prefers vanilla.'
>
I have already offered the criteria; best achievement within a genre,
compared element by element, perhaps not entirely objective, but
certainly not a standard based on my tastes. A survey of top critics
and/or film art teachers would do far better than anything I could come
up with.
As far as art goes there will always be a range of talent and effort. I
recognize this, but know that we are entirely justified in applying a
standard and comparing works to it. A high standard means that many
works will suffer by comparison, but if we all set our standards high,
then the level of work might improve.
In my mind it is very well-defined; if artists combine talent, skill,
and effort with opportunity we are certain to have a large output of
well-realized artistic works. If we allow mediocre talents to be
successful with a wink and a smile then we will get a slew of tripe,
with only the occasional gem because fortune can strike even when talent
and skill fails. Of course you may be satisfied with the state of the
art as it is in which case my remarks must seem clearly inappropriate,
but even so I have enjoyed this discussion and the opportunity to
express my thoughts no matter how silly or stupid they appear to be.
Russel Willoughby
>Sorry but I'm still a bit confused; The toons I refer to specifically
>are the T&J's in which the animation seemed to be made up of all sharp
>angles, the action was jacked up to the point of sadism and the
>soundtracks were largely screeches and bizarre sound effects.
Sounds like you're talking about the later Tom & Jerry series of
cartoons made by Chuck Jones, and then by a couple of other directors.
I believe they were released by MGM in the 1960s. They are immediately
distinguishable from the more "gentle" T&J cartoons from the '40s and
'50s, directed by Hanna and Barbera before they started their own
studio. (These early T&J cartoons were also released by MGM.)
I have all the respect in the world for Chuck Jones; his Warner Bros.
cartoons are among the best short animated films ever made. But even
though he put a lot of creativity into his T&J cartoons, they just
didn't work all that well. I think the characters clashed with Jones'
sensibilites, and the end result was more headache-inducing than
anything else.
Russel Willoughby
<< rus...@bellsouth.net >>
Russel Willoughby
<chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>But you brought up the subject of nudity, etc. I do not object to nudity. I
>object to seem to insist that it bee in all films. In most, its not needed, nor
>called for, in the story.
The amount of nudity in mainstream movies seems to be pretty small
these days. I can't really think of any recent examples of major
motion pictures with unnecessary nudity in them.
Russel Willoughby
<< rus...@bellsouth.net >>
Dawn Taylor
Willoughby) wrote:
>The amount of nudity in mainstream movies seems to be pretty small
>these days. I can't really think of any recent examples of major
>motion pictures with unnecessary nudity in them.
Well, unless Julianne Moore is in it. I think it's in her contract
that she has to get naked in every other film she makes.
Dawn
(you know ... like Bruce Willis)
----------------
"I love to smoke. I love to eat red meat. I'll only eat red meat
that comes from cows who smoke, ok!? Special cows they grow in
Virginia with voice boxes in their necks." -- Denis Leary
Russel Willoughby
>I do not allow my preferences to succumb to marketing but enable my
>opinion by informing it with education, experience, and philosophy.
>Obviously you prefer another approach. It is a free country, and by
>expressing your views you help me to further refine mine. I do not fear
>opposing opinions, but I do stand firm in my belief that art is the
>great cultural motivator and we only cheat ourselves and the progess of
>our culture by accepting inferior art when it is possible to demand
>better.
I agree with this view of art, and I wish that more people looked at
movies as art rather than just entertainment.
For me, the "South Park" movie did what any great work of comedy ought
to do: It made me laugh uncontrollably for extended periods of time. I
was absolutely helpless. In fact, I think I laughed more often and
more deeply than I have at any other movie.
This is a bold and fearless movie that does NOT take the easy,
predictable route to big box-office. Love it or hate it, any rational
observer ought to agree that it's a one-of-a-kind film that doesn't
recycle a proven formula. I truly believe that Trey Parker's
motivation in making this movie was simply to make the funniest movie
he could possibly make, for people whose share his sense of what's
funny. Obviously, this group does not include everyone.
Humor is incredibly subjective. If those people who didn't find the
"South Park" movie funny would just say "I didn't get it" instead of
saying "it is a bad movie", I wouldn't be angered at all.
Russel Willoughby
<< rus...@bellsouth.net >>
Sean
clearing it up though.
Sean {Gyu...@freewwweb.com}
being damonovich
milgra...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <38B230F2...@mdo.net>,
> being damonovich <dcru...@mdo.net> wrote:
>
> > flippant, yes.
> > but not insulting.
> >
> A fine line, but since you have expressed your intent I apologize for
> misreading your comment.
>
> > beauty in the more visceral arts, entertainment in the more cerebral
> > ones.
> >
> I prefer to evaluate entertainment in terms of emotional and mental
> catharsis (the cerebral aspect) and not in terms of beauty although I
> am certain there are times when the distinction blurs, specifically
> when elements of entertainment contribute to artistic value. But then I
> guess that is exactly what I am hoping will happen and am too often
> disappointed.
i evaulate everything on its own terms, and mine.
some movies, like deep blue sea, are good, in that they are perfectly
realized expressions of a flawed genre.
> > okay.
> > i consider nonconformity and departure from tradition
> > positive values.
> >
> So do I. The recognition of debt to artistic and cultural tradition can
> take the form of satire (poking fun at those conventions), parody
> (exagerrating them to humorous proportions), or sarcasm (using
> juxtaposition and counterpoint to convey their limitations). I believe
> that Picasso utilized all these (and even irony) and sometimes in
> combination.
>
> The point at which an artist determines to break the rules in order to
> make an artistic point, or breaks the rules because he/she doesn't know
> them is the issue. And I realize this was barely implicit in my earlier
> comment, but short space gives ideas short shrift. The current film
> production environment often provides opportunities to individuals who
> are ill-prepared for them (and even more often denies opportunities to
> those who have proven abilities), and the result is typically light
> fare. I suppose it is best that those with limited talent and ability
> not reach too far and fail miserably, but all the small failures are no
> substitute for the best efforts from the most competent performers.
your mistake is in thinking lighte fare is bad, or
not a worthy goal.
for all of its sound and fury, shakespeare in love
[indeed, a lot of shakepeare itself] is light fare,
but excellently realized and highly valued light fare.
> >>vapid=insipid, therefore dull
> > different words, different connotations.
> >
> It is the meaning I intended, for I found the songs in South Park
> lacking in melodic and harmonic content, and although they did have some
> fairly clever lyrical devices, the delivery did not do them justice and
> so I found them generally boring.
the word 'vapid' connotes a lack of intellectual elements,
which you acknowledge it has.
and i'd be amazed if they could have added melodic aspects considering
the voices singing.
> > south park wasn't merely about body functions.
> > and iirc, wilde appreciated crass comments to undermine stuffiness.
> >
> > regardless, he certainly appreciated sardonic comments,
> > which the movie is comprised almost entirely of.
> >
> Fair enough. Wilde might have appreciated South Park more than I did,
> but then I am not Wilde and there can be no confusion about that. The
> social and political conditions he endured certainly were ripe for his
> wit, and ours is no different. Once again, I welcome deft satire,
> erudite sarcasm, and rapier wit, I just found them absent (perhaps not
> entirely so as there were some inspired moments) from South Park.
this argument boils down 'the humor failed me'.
that's fine.
but that's hardly grounds to criticze it artistically-
your failure to be engaged by the movie biases you against it,
or verse visa.
> > did south park adjust to audience reaction?
> > it seemed to me that it was much too offensive to
> > have undergone focus group testing.
>
> They have a ready made testing ground on television, and the film medium
> allowed them to carry the offensive elements to greater extreme.
maybe.
the film is much much more offensive than the series.
> > and i would say that titanic, for all its flaws, had artistic vision.
>
> I don't recall taking Titanic to task, but I guess it is guilt by
> association for using audience testing to refine the film. If I may
> express my humble opinion, Titanic was a vehicle for special effects and
> filled this role admirably. On a lesser scale it was also a vehicle for
> its stars, and performed well in this area. As far as realizing an
> artistic vision it appeared that this was an area that was compromised.
> It would have been improved by a more ambitious level of character
> development, a more judicious hand at the editors block, as well as a
> little flair in the dialog. Had these elements been given the same
> attention to detail that was devoted to making the sinking of the ship
> realistic I would raise my estimation regarding the film's achievement
> of artistic vision.
cameron wanted to humanize and accurately reproduce the sinking.
he achieved that aspectacularly with a large segment of the audience.
so you're wrong there, even though i'd agree with your assessment.
> > > At its best, film can combine visual beauty, masterful performance,
> > > powerful writing, musical eloquence, and dramatic excitement. How
> many
> > > films today have all these elements in place? How many even attempt
> to
> > > do anything more than show attractive people in compromising
> situations?
> >
> > i dunno.
> > for me, out of the films i saw from 1999 which did all of them-
> > matrix, fight club,.
> > that did some of htem- south park, sleepy hollow, run lola run
> > being john malkovich [a gloriously ugly movie]-
> > off the top of my head.
>
> I did enjoy the Matrix, but it definitely was an exercise in preference
> over criticism that led to that response. Fight Club is a very
> intriguing film and I will need to see it again. I definitely feel that
> Being John Malkovich has an intense and uncompromising drive to realize
> an artistic vision and I was sincerely impressed.
okay, but it was horrendously ugly, which is my point.
every single star was uglified. they flopped out covered in mud,
for goodness sake.
so it did not contain ALL of the elements you claimed should be
present.
......
> > your whole argument falls apart with the term 'bad films'.
> >
> > is titanic a 'bad' film?
>
> > many people love it.
> >
> Many people enjoy movies that are not necessarily good by critical
> standards. I only suggest that it is appropriate to apply standards at a
> very high level in hopes that the general quality of films will improve.
but what are 'critical standards'?
this is my point.
'critical standards' are preferences by critics.
critics are merely people.
they aren't smarter than others. moslty, they've just seen more films,
and perhaps have sound background in film theory.
*i* have some education in film theory.
i disagree with most critics.
> > are capra movies 'bad' films?
> >
> > many others love them.
> > yet 'artistically', i'd rate cameron as superior to capra.
> >
> Capra never had the resources ($200 million or the equivalent dollars)
> or the kind of technology available to Cameron. In spite of this, Mr.
> Smith Goes to Washington is a superior artistic achievement and employs
> characterization, plot development, performances, and directorial
> techniques (especially in managing a cast) that Cameron has yet to
> develop.
i disagree wholeheartedly.
capra's '..washington' has a ham handed and treacly plot,
stock characters except for the assistant and the nemesis
[both of who undergo obvious and cliched transitions
toward the end], and virtually no directorial techniques.
there are two techniques in the film that stood out to me, and
they're worth mentioning- the photo montage as smith tours
washington, with the patriotic music- this was *extremely* obvious
and poorly directed, with the crescendo so cloying as to be offputting.
the second is when he goes to meet the senator's daughter,
and we see a 30 second tracking shot of his hat during the conversation.
this is HORRIBLE directing, since it calls extra attention to something
that would have been themostobvious screen element in a wider shot.
THEN, the daughter calls attention to the hat in the conversation.
ugh.
> > in fact, i'd rate sorkin's west wing series as the
> > ultimate capra, above capra himself.
> >
> How could anyone be more Capra than Capra? Do you mean Capraesque?
sorry, yes.
capraesque.
sorkin manages to catch the earnest transcendent joy of life
and love of america that so infuses the capra i've seen,
but does it more realistically and intelligently.
> > in fact, that's disengenuous of you, since
> > prisig's 'zen and the art of' is in part a
> > philosophy text. okay, maybe i'm being harsh, since perhaps you've
> > not educated yourself enough to have read thatbook.
>
> You assume too much. His name is Robert Pirsig and it was required
> reading at my high school. It has some valuable insights but fails from
> being a comprehensive philosophical treatise. In fact I don't think such
> a comprehensive treatise exists (can't blame Aquinas, Kant, or Russell
> for trying) so I am inclined to draw ideas from many sources and
> syncretize them into a functional philosophy with utilitarian leanings,
> but now we stray away from the subject of film as art.
i didn't say it was comprehensive.
it is a book that works on many levels, and so perforce cannot
be comprehensive in its philosophical explorations.
regardless, he decontructs a lot of previous philosophical thought
wrt 'quality' which is what you're really speaking of.
the major flaw in his thinking is that he winds
up accepting objective qulaity as a notion even though
all objective evidence contradicts it.
> <snip> we only cheat ourselves and the progess
> of
> > > our culture by accepting inferior art when it is possible to demand
> > > better.
> > >
> >
> > but 'inferior' art is entirely idiosyncratic.
> >
> > when you rail against 'inferior' art accepted by our culture,
> > you are merely claiming that your tastes are superior
> > to the rest of the culture's.
> >
> > since there is no objective measurement to prove
> > this, your statement reduces to-
> > 'i'm superior because i like chocolate while
> > everyone else prefers vanilla.'
> >
> I have already offered the criteria; best achievement within a genre,
> compared element by element, perhaps not entirely objective, but
> certainly not a standard based on my tastes. A survey of top critics
> and/or film art teachers would do far better than anything I could come
> up with.
goes to my point-
there may be a loose consensus among top critics or
film/art teachers, but it's not unanimous. hecne there
preferences reduce to personal taste also.
> As far as art goes there will always be a range of talent and effort. I
> recognize this, but know that we are entirely justified in applying a
> standard and comparing works to it. A high standard means that many
> works will suffer by comparison, but if we all set our standards high,
> then the level of work might improve.
bah. humbug.
there's enough transcendant art out there now.
i'd say more, but this post is long.
> In my mind it is very well-defined; if artists combine talent, skill,
> and effort with opportunity we are certain to have a large output of
> well-realized artistic works. If we allow mediocre talents to be
> successful with a wink and a smile then we will get a slew of tripe,
> with only the occasional gem because fortune can strike even when talent
> and skill fails.
we aren't ALLOWING mediocre works to be successful.
they are successful because they contain aspects which people enjoy.
you are insulting people who like those films as either stupid
or ignorant, and are presuming that, were they better educated,
they wouldn't enjoy these movies.
i disprove this notion.
being damonovich
Dawn Taylor wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 03:16:52 GMT, rus...@bellsouth.net (Russel
> Willoughby) wrote:
>
> >The amount of nudity in mainstream movies seems to be pretty small
> >these days. I can't really think of any recent examples of major
> >motion pictures with unnecessary nudity in them.
>
> Well, unless Julianne Moore is in it. I think it's in her contract
> that she has to get naked in every other film she makes.
>
> Dawn
> (you know ... like Bruce Willis)
ewan macgregor.
Helen & Bob
Russel Willoughby wrote:
>
> Humor is incredibly subjective. If those people who didn't find the
> "South Park" movie funny would just say "I didn't get it" instead of
> saying "it is a bad movie", I wouldn't be angered at all.
>
> Russel Willoughby
> << rus...@bellsouth.net >>
Russel, I got it. I got it. I got it. TO ME, it wasn't funny. I found
the animation style to be grating, not admirable. I found the music to be
unfunny. I have no objections on moral grounds to the lyrics, I have no
objection to Satan being the most sympathetic character in the film. I
simply sat there, watched the film, at times struggled to stay awake, and
was bored. The message of the film is not difficult. WHY should I say "I
didn't Get IT? I suppose I could also say "I'm such a fuckin dolt, I cu'nt
unnerstan dat fukin flick fer shit" . Would that make the fans of the film
any happier? It certainly puts the comment closer to the level of the film.
Bob
milgra...@my-deja.com
education of the audience. I am promoting artistic excellence as the
fundamental motivation for the creation of films as opposed to financial
success. I am criticizing the current film production environment
because it compromises artistic quality in order to enhance profits. I
am suggesting the method to achieve change is to raise the standard by
which films are evaluated and to do so based on the collective opinion
of the best critics, and inform individual taste with that collective
opinion.
I must differ with you on the reasons why films are successful (on a
viewership basis). The vast majority of films live and die on the amount
of promotion devoted to them and not because of their entertainment
value. You are right in pointing out there are aspects of the average
film product that most people enjoy; were this not true there would be
no audience at all. But it is no small issue that many films that are
artistically successful have very small audiences. I am suggesting that
there is a way to raise the correspondence between audience size,
financial success, and artistic quality.
Why would we prefer it to be otherwise? Is there any reason why it is
better to not worry about the artistic quality, or even the overall
excellence of film? Is there something to be gained in denying the
validity of critical standards, and accepting marketing ploys in
exchange for good work delivered well? Are we better served as viewers
by leaving our minds at home, just going for the ride, and forgetting
about it afterward? I know it is not as black and white as I make it
sound by asking these questions, but they do appear to be the current
status quo.
rpg
--
Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums
Talkway - http://www.talkway.com - Talk more ways (sm)
milgra...@my-deja.com
rus...@bellsouth.net (Russel Willoughby) wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:21:26 GMT, milgra...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >opinion by informing it with education, experience, and philosophy.
> >Obviously you prefer another approach. It is a free country, and by
> >expressing your views you help me to further refine mine. I do not
fear
> >opposing opinions, but I do stand firm in my belief that art is the
> >great cultural motivator and we only cheat ourselves and the progess
of
> >our culture by accepting inferior art when it is possible to demand
> >better.
>
> movies as art rather than just entertainment.
>
> For me, the "South Park" movie did what any great work of comedy ought
> to do: It made me laugh uncontrollably for extended periods of time. I
> was absolutely helpless. In fact, I think I laughed more often and
> more deeply than I have at any other movie.
>
> This is a bold and fearless movie that does NOT take the easy,
> predictable route to big box-office. Love it or hate it, any rational
> observer ought to agree that it's a one-of-a-kind film that doesn't
> recycle a proven formula. I truly believe that Trey Parker's
> motivation in making this movie was simply to make the funniest movie
> he could possibly make, for people whose share his sense of what's
> funny. Obviously, this group does not include everyone.
>
> "South Park" movie funny would just say "I didn't get it" instead of
> saying "it is a bad movie", I wouldn't be angered at all.
>
> Russel Willoughby
> << rus...@bellsouth.net >>
>
definitely a sense of humor about the film, and although it didn't
appeal to mine, I can see what people think is funny about the movie. I
found it crass and sloppily made. The animation is primitive, the voice
characterizations are crude, the dialog is offensive, the music is
simplistic and underproduced. This is intentional; it exagerrates bad
taste for effect. You are helping me to rethink my opinion, not about
the film but about the ability of the audience to filter through the
dross and find what is good about it (sometimes this is a Herculean
task, and not always rewarded), at least in terms of how it relates to
them, their perspective, and their personal sensibilities. I am thankful
for the opportunity to learn...
being damonovich
Helen & Bob wrote:
>
> Russel Willoughby wrote:
>
> >
> > Humor is incredibly subjective. If those people who didn't find the
> > "South Park" movie funny would just say "I didn't get it" instead of
> > saying "it is a bad movie", I wouldn't be angered at all.
> >
> > Russel Willoughby
> > << rus...@bellsouth.net >>
>
> Russel, I got it. I got it. I got it. TO ME, it wasn't funny. I found
> the animation style to be grating, not admirable. I found the music to be
> unfunny. I have no objections on moral grounds to the lyrics, I have no
> objection to Satan being the most sympathetic character in the film.
doofus.
that would be kenny.
I
> simply sat there, watched the film, at times struggled to stay awake, and
> was bored. The message of the film is not difficult. WHY should I say "I
> didn't Get IT? I suppose I could also say "I'm such a fuckin dolt, I cu'nt
> unnerstan dat fukin flick fer shit" . Would that make the fans of the film
> any happier? It certainly puts the comment closer to the level of the film.
it was a great level.
being damonovich
milgra...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <38B36EE0...@mdo.net>,
> You mistake my zeal for excellence as casting aspersions on the
> education of the audience. I am promoting artistic excellence as the
> fundamental motivation for the creation of films as opposed to financial
> success.
often, it is.
not always.
I am criticizing the current film production environment
> because it compromises artistic quality in order to enhance profits. I
> am suggesting the method to achieve change is to raise the standard by
> which films are evaluated and to do so based on the collective opinion
> of the best critics, and inform individual taste with that collective
> opinion.
and this is wonky idealism.
it's like suggesting world peace would be best achieved if
pacifists ran everything.
but just put a gun in a pacifist's hands and see what
happens.
> I must differ with you on the reasons why films are successful (on a
> viewership basis). The vast majority of films live and die on the amount
> of promotion devoted to them and not because of their entertainment
> value.
that's part of it.
but not all of it.
in fact, there is no predictor of what makes a film successful.
> Why would we prefer it to be otherwise? Is there any reason why it is
> better to not worry about the artistic quality, or even the overall
> excellence of film? Is there something to be gained in denying the
> validity of critical standards, and accepting marketing ploys in
> exchange for good work delivered well? Are we better served as viewers
> by leaving our minds at home, just going for the ride, and forgetting
> about it afterward? I know it is not as black and white as I make it
> sound by asking these questions, but they do appear to be the current
> status quo.
and i disagree with this-
fight club, being john malkovich, run lola run,
matrix, blair withc project- just among films *i* have seen,
are not those types of films.
there's enough good stuff out there.
Dawn Taylor
> Russel, I got it. I got it. I got it. TO ME, it wasn't funny. I found
> the animation style to be grating, not admirable. I found the music to be
> unfunny. I have no objections on moral grounds to the lyrics, I have no
> objection to Satan being the most sympathetic character in the film. I
> simply sat there, watched the film, at times struggled to stay awake, and
> was bored. The message of the film is not difficult. WHY should I say "I
> didn't Get IT? I suppose I could also say "I'm such a fuckin dolt, I cu'nt
> unnerstan dat fukin flick fer shit" . Would that make the fans of the film
> any happier? It certainly puts the comment closer to the level of the film.
Humor *is* extremely subjective. I laughed more at the South Park film
than at any comedy I've seen in years, and admired it on several
levels, including the brilliant songs.
But I have friends who don't think South Park - TV show or film - is
funny in the least. <shrug> And they often think things are funny that
leave me utterly cold. One friend keeps saying, "Well, I have no sense
of humor" because she doesn't like Monty Python or South Park or,
basically, any of the movies most of us (her husband, friends, etc.)
go into convulsions over. But she does have a sense of humor - it's
just that her taste in comedy differs from ours.
I've gotten looks of incredulity from various folks when I've said
that "Something About Mary" and the other Farrelly Brothers movies
didn't really do anything for me (in fact, I was baffled by all the
acclaim "Mary" received - and I'm a huge fan of Ben Stiller). But two
days after I saw "Something About Mary" my husband and I rented
"BASEketball" and thought it was the funniest movie we'd seen in
years.
As my mother said, ad nauseum, 'That's what makes horse races."
Dawn
----------
When Brian Boitano was in the Alps fighting grizzly bears,
he used his magical firebreath and saved the maidens fair.
Helen & Bob
Dawn Taylor wrote:
>
>
> As my mother said, ad nauseum, 'That's what makes horse races."
>
> Dawn
>
Well, that kills another perfectly good web fight with logic, reason, and common
sense. Dammit, Dawn, I've told you about that. You and mcNeeley. Damn.
How did you like Galaxy Quest?
By the way. Exactly. Humor is personal. You didn't like it? shrug, OK . No
problem with that . You didn't like it? You dumb shit. thems fightin words.
Bob
milgra...@my-deja.com
being damonovich <dcru...@mdo.net> wrote:
> I am criticizing the current film production environment
> > because it compromises artistic quality in order to enhance profits.
I
> > am suggesting the method to achieve change is to raise the standard
by
> > which films are evaluated and to do so based on the collective
opinion
> > of the best critics, and inform individual taste with that
collective
> > opinion.
>
> and this is wonky idealism.
> it's like suggesting world peace would be best achieved if
> pacifists ran everything.
> but just put a gun in a pacifist's hands and see what
> happens.
>
to be forced to use it; a killer with a gun in hand is a danger to be
feared. I never said it would be easy, but I do have an outline of some
steps that could be taken to achieve the goal if people are interested
in it. But I am not going too spend to much time developing a plan no
one is interested in.
> > I must differ with you on the reasons why films are successful (on a
> > viewership basis). The vast majority of films live and die on the
amount
> > of promotion devoted to them and not because of their entertainment
> > value.
>
> that's part of it.
> but not all of it.
> in fact, there is no predictor of what makes a film successful.
>
I believe we are talking about financial success here and films
have several opportunities to realize a return on investment:
1)Box Office Receipts (Domestic)
2)Box Office Receipts (Foreign)
3)Pay per view fees
4)Cable Television fees
5)Broadcast Television fees
6)Video and DVD Sales
7)Tax credits
Any film that wants to make big money prepares itself to generate income
from as many sources as possible. This is what promotion is about. In
the final accounting it is desirable to reflect a film as breaking even
or showing a loss for tax purposes so if you look at the financial
statement of any particular project you will not be able to tell how
much money was made.
Based on these points I think it is erroneous to dispute that the
economics of film drives their production. You can dispute the broad
statement that the vast majority of films are successful because of the
amount of promotion put into them, and leave the burden of proof to the
claimant, and since the data I got from AFMA and MPAA is so generalized,
I can't use it to support the statement.
> > Why would we prefer it to be otherwise? Is there any reason why it
is
> > better to not worry about the artistic quality, or even the overall
> > excellence of film? Is there something to be gained in denying the
> > validity of critical standards, and accepting marketing ploys in
> > exchange for good work delivered well? Are we better served as
viewers
> > by leaving our minds at home, just going for the ride, and
forgetting
> > about it afterward? I know it is not as black and white as I make it
> > sound by asking these questions, but they do appear to be the
current
> > status quo.
>
> and i disagree with this-
You don't think that a majority of film goers prefer entertainment and
production values over artistic content?
You don't think that people reject critical analysis of film and readily
accept hype from reviewers who receive incentives from film marketers?
You don't think that the majority of film goers want a movie that puts
most of the action and activity on the surface and does not require
reflection in order to extract the greater depth of meaning?
Here are the top 10 All Time Box Office Champs (courtesy of the Internet
Movie Data Base):
Titanic
Starwars
The Phantom Menace
ET
Jurassic Park
Forrest Gump
The Lion King
Return of the Jedi
Independence Day
The Empire Strikes Back
Keep going down the list until you find a movie that emphasis art over
entertainment: http://us.imdb.com/Charts/usatopmovies
> fight club, being john malkovich, run lola run,
> matrix, blair withc project- just among films *i* have seen,
> are not those types of films.
>
Here we differ again. A handful of films satisfies you, and surprisingly
you did not include South Park on this short list. When you expressed
your opinion about what is arguably one of the top 100 films of all time
(Mr. Smith Goes to Washington appears on several critics list), pointed
out flaws that you cited as examples of incompetent direction, formulaic
exposition, and hackneyed performance, and determined that these flaws
compromised its artistic value, it led me to believe you would observe
the existing flaws in these films also, and have difficulty using them
in defense of the current quality of films. Am I incorrect in pointing
out this inconsistency? Or are the flaws of Blair Witch Project (which I
will be happy to list if you wish) of no note in comparison with its
artistic achievements?
Film is a commercial enterprise and I know that if we threaten the
financial opportunity of the enterprise that not only will we not get
better art, we may not get any film at all. So once again I say gather
the critics and teachers, get a consensus of what is good, develop the
critical standards, publish them on the internet, and invite everyone to
participate in learning them and applying them. Maybe it won't have any
effect at all, maybe it will form the basis of the cirriculum for a few
film art schools, maybe intelligent individuals will use it as a tool to
inform their tastes and viewing habits. Who knows?
Dawn Taylor
>> As my mother said, ad nauseum, 'That's what makes horse races."
>
>Well, that kills another perfectly good web fight with logic, reason, and common
>sense. Dammit, Dawn, I've told you about that. You and mcNeeley. Damn.
From now on I'll try to pepper my remarks with more phrases like "you
dumbhead looser" and "bite me, nimrod".
>How did you like Galaxy Quest?
I loved Galaxy Quest. I saw it twice. God, did I laugh. Tony Shaloub
is a genius, and Enrico Colantoni as Malthazar ... I mean, I watch
"Just Shoot Me" fairly regularly, and didn't even recognize him.
What a wonderful, good-hearted, funy movie. We were quoting it for
weeks. "We've gotta get out of here before one of those things kills
Guy!" ... "Awwww - that's just wrong."
>By the way. Exactly. Humor is personal. You didn't like it? shrug, OK . No
>problem with that . You didn't like it? You dumb shit. thems fightin words.
Now, some movies really do suck out loud. Batman & Robin and The
Messenger come immediately to mind. I can't be impersonal about 'em -
no, it wasn't just my taste, they were HORRIBLE and I'll defend that
opinion to the death <g> But generally, with comedy, it does come down
to personal taste.
Dawn
(but that's just my opinion)
-----------------
"One should respect public opinion insofar as is necessary to avoid
starvation and to keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond
this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny, and is
likely to interfere with happiness in all kinds of ways."
- Bertrand Russell
Fawlty
news:38c19a3f....@news.pacifier.com...
> I loved Galaxy Quest. I saw it twice. God, did I laugh.
> weeks. "We've gotta get out of here before one of those things kills
> Guy!" ... "Awwww - that's just wrong."
My favorite was "I think we're the green thingie". Tony Shalhoub was
hilarious in his (too) small role, but all the actors were great. I'm so
happy to see that this movie is still hanging in there at the box-office.
/Mike
Norman Wilner
news:Jqht4.3688$YG.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Those poor people."
Can't wait for the DVD; it's been announced with optional Thermian-language
audio.
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine
Helen & Bob
Fawlty wrote:
> Dawn Taylor <dawn...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
> news:38c19a3f....@news.pacifier.com...
> > I loved Galaxy Quest. I saw it twice. God, did I laugh.
> > What a wonderful, good-hearted, funy movie. We were quoting it for
> > weeks. "We've gotta get out of here before one of those things kills
> > Guy!" ... "Awwww - that's just wrong."
>
> My favorite was "I think we're the green thingie". Tony Shalhoub was
> hilarious in his (too) small role, but all the actors were great. I'm so
> happy to see that this movie is still hanging in there at the box-office.
>
> /Mike
Dammit, Mike, here we are agreeing again. We've got to have a conference and
straighten this out.
:-)
Bob
Helen & Bob
Dawn Taylor wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:45:44 -0800, Helen & Bob
> <chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
>
>
> >How did you like Galaxy Quest?
>
> I loved Galaxy Quest. I saw it twice. God, did I laugh. Tony Shaloub
> is a genius, and Enrico Colantoni as Malthazar ... I mean, I watch
> "Just Shoot Me" fairly regularly, and didn't even recognize him.
>
> What a wonderful, good-hearted, funy movie. We were quoting it for
> weeks. "We've gotta get out of here before one of those things kills
> Guy!" ... "Awwww - that's just wrong."
>
> Yes, me too. It's the only think I have seen Tim Allen in that I really liked. To
> me, the best films of '99 were GQ and "October Sky". Everything else was "so-so".
> Oh, I sure there are some others I could mention, or agree about if I thought about
> it for a while, but those are the two that stick out in my mind.
Bob
Bob Curtin
You're so right. I also loved BASEketball and thought it was hilarious.
But I also liked Happy Gilmore (I LMAO over the fist fight between Sandler and
Bob Barker) and most of my friends stare at me (with that puzzled look usually
reserved for babbling fools) when I start in on how I like South Park.
Dawn Taylor wrote:
> Humor *is* extremely subjective. I laughed more at the South Park film
> than at any comedy I've seen in years, and admired it on several
> levels, including the brilliant songs.
>
> But I have friends who don't think South Park - TV show or film - is
> funny in the least. <shrug> And they often think things are funny that
> leave me utterly cold. One friend keeps saying, "Well, I have no sense
> of humor" because she doesn't like Monty Python or South Park or,
> basically, any of the movies most of us (her husband, friends, etc.)
> go into convulsions over. But she does have a sense of humor - it's
> just that her taste in comedy differs from ours.
>
> I've gotten looks of incredulity from various folks when I've said
> that "Something About Mary" and the other Farrelly Brothers movies
> didn't really do anything for me (in fact, I was baffled by all the
> acclaim "Mary" received - and I'm a huge fan of Ben Stiller). But two
> days after I saw "Something About Mary" my husband and I rented
> "BASEketball" and thought it was the funniest movie we'd seen in
> years.
>
> As my mother said, ad nauseum, 'That's what makes horse races."
>
> Dawn
>
--
Bob Curtin
Worcester Area Strategy & Tactics Exchange
http://www.tiac.net/users/ten10ths/
"If God had intended men to join the Army he would have given us green, baggy
skin"
Geoff
>>I believe we are talking about financial success here and films
>>have several opportunities to realize a return on investment:
>>
>>1)Box Office Receipts (Domestic)
>>2)Box Office Receipts (Foreign)
>>3)Pay per view fees
>>4)Cable Television fees
>>5)Broadcast Television fees
>>6)Video and DVD Sales
>>7)Tax credits
Don't forget ancillary rights.
>>You don't think that a majority of film goers prefer entertainment and
>>production values over artistic content?
>>You don't think that people reject critical analysis of film and readily
>>accept hype from reviewers who receive incentives from film marketers?
>>You don't think that the majority of film goers want a movie that puts
>>most of the action and activity on the surface and does not require
>>reflection in order to extract the greater depth of meaning?
I admire your train of thought.
>> Or are the flaws of Blair Witch Project (which I
>>will be happy to list if you wish) of no note in comparison with its
>>artistic achievements?
I don't know about damon, but I'd like to see them.
Regards,
Geoff "I really missed out on the Blair Witch Project action figures."
"It's all right--I'm demonstrating the misuse of
free speech. To prove that it exists."
--Rosencrantz, in Tom Stoppard's "Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead"
Dawn Taylor
wrote:
>You're so right. I also loved BASEketball and thought it was hilarious.
>
>But I also liked Happy Gilmore (I LMAO over the fist fight between Sandler and
>Bob Barker) and most of my friends stare at me (with that puzzled look usually
>reserved for babbling fools) when I start in on how I like South Park.
I almost had to duct tape my husband to the couch to get him to watch
Happy Gilmore ("An Adam Sandler movie? You're kidding, right?
...right?"). I kept insisting that yes, I know I know, but it's
freakin' hilarious. He saw it and was convinced.
Dawn
being damonovich
milgra...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <38B4C7A8...@mdo.net>,
> being damonovich <dcru...@mdo.net> wrote:
> > I am criticizing the current film production environment
> > > because it compromises artistic quality in order to enhance profits.
> I
> > > am suggesting the method to achieve change is to raise the standard
> by
> > > which films are evaluated and to do so based on the collective
> opinion
> > > of the best critics, and inform individual taste with that
> collective
> > > opinion.
> >
> > and this is wonky idealism.
> > it's like suggesting world peace would be best achieved if
> > pacifists ran everything.
> > but just put a gun in a pacifist's hands and see what
> > happens.
> >
> And that is wonky realism. A pacifist with a gun in his hand would have
> to be forced to use it; a killer with a gun in hand is a danger to be
> feared. I never said it would be easy, but I do have an outline of some
> steps that could be taken to achieve the goal if people are interested
> in it.
okay.
imo you're tilting at windmills, but
there's worse and less substantial windmills.
okay- titanic wasn't driven by economic considerations.
it was at first, but cameron wound up spending 200 million
or so on it, FAR beyond the amount the studios
wanted and the amount that he needed to make the story
popular. the rest wetn to his artistic vision.
meanwhile, movies like godzilla and last action hero
and ishtar all bombed despite heavy promotion.
meanwhile, fincher gets a wad of cash and brad pitt and
makes a movie so iconoclastic that no one wanted to see it
[even though most who did see it loved it].
i could go on.
i'm just poiting out that- there is no real predictor of
success, and nor is there a single method of making movies.
lucas made a hollwood style movie that was entirely self financed
[iirc]- the studios didn't make his movie bad, he did.
> > > Why would we prefer it to be otherwise? Is there any reason why it
> is
> > > better to not worry about the artistic quality, or even the overall
> > > excellence of film? Is there something to be gained in denying the
> > > validity of critical standards, and accepting marketing ploys in
> > > exchange for good work delivered well? Are we better served as
> viewers
> > > by leaving our minds at home, just going for the ride, and
> forgetting
> > > about it afterward? I know it is not as black and white as I make it
> > > sound by asking these questions, but they do appear to be the
> current
> > > status quo.
> >
> > and i disagree with this-
>
> You don't think that a majority of film goers prefer entertainment and
> production values over artistic content?
i think entertainment and production values are PART OF
artistic content. they ARE aesthetics.
> You don't think that people reject critical analysis of film and readily
> accept hype from reviewers who receive incentives from film marketers?
yes. i think they also accept hype from other film critics.
i think we should do away with all film critics.
slowly and gleefully. but john can stay.
> You don't think that the majority of film goers want a movie that puts
> most of the action and activity on the surface and does not require
> reflection in order to extract the greater depth of meaning?
does this matter?
superficial does not mean artistically bereft.
i like deep movies and fluffy movies.
i think the best are those that combine form And style.
> > fight club, being john malkovich, run lola run,
> > matrix, blair withc project- just among films *i* have seen,
> > are not those types of films.
> >
> Here we differ again. A handful of films satisfies you, and surprisingly
> you did not include South Park on this short list.
i liked south park a lot.
it would make my top ten this year
which so far would be-
matrix, fight club.
bjm, south park, sleepy hollow, run lola.
maybe payback.
it will change as i see more 99 films.
When you expressed
> your opinion about what is arguably one of the top 100 films of all time
> (Mr. Smith Goes to Washington appears on several critics list),
this is why i don't like critics.
i think mr. smith is highly regarded because it's old.
pointed
> out flaws that you cited as examples of incompetent direction, formulaic
> exposition, and hackneyed performance, and determined that these flaws
> compromised its artistic value, it led me to believe you would observe
> the existing flaws in these films also, and have difficulty using them
> in defense of the current quality of films. Am I incorrect in pointing
> out this inconsistency? Or are the flaws of Blair Witch Project (which I
> will be happy to list if you wish) of no note in comparison with its
> artistic achievements?
you're right. bwp is an excellent example.
i rather enjoyed it, but i'd only give it a 6 or 7 out of ten.
it had huge flaws, and the onlyreason i enjoyed it
overall was because i thought the ending made up for many of the flaws.
did these flaws compromise its 'artistic value'?
i suppose, if i were willing to ue that term.
but there's still things i enjoyed about it.
i AM curious, though, as to what actions you would
hypothetically enact to increase its 'artistic value'
considering that the movie is as unhollywood as you can
possibly get. would you merelydeny its distribution?
hell, it made several critics' year end top lists, didn't it?
> Film is a commercial enterprise and I know that if we threaten the
> financial opportunity of the enterprise that not only will we not get
> better art, we may not get any film at all. So once again I say gather
> the critics and teachers, get a consensus of what is good, develop the
> critical standards, publish them on the internet, and invite everyone to
> participate in learning them and applying them.
this is horrible.
first, i doubt there will be a consensus.
second, i can imagine those standards-
"Good, intriuging, original plot".
wow. that would change *everything*!
Maybe it won't have any
> effect at all, maybe it will form the basis of the cirriculum for a few
> film art schools, maybe intelligent individuals will use it as a tool to
> inform their tastes and viewing habits.
i hope not.
people should view what THEY want, not what others htink they should
view.
Russel Willoughby
<chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Russel, I got it. I got it. I got it. TO ME, it wasn't funny. I found
>the animation style to be grating, not admirable. I found the music to be
>unfunny. I have no objections on moral grounds to the lyrics, I have no
>objection to Satan being the most sympathetic character in the film. I
>simply sat there, watched the film, at times struggled to stay awake, and
>was bored. The message of the film is not difficult. WHY should I say "I
>didn't Get IT? I suppose I could also say "I'm such a fuckin dolt, I cu'nt
>unnerstan dat fukin flick fer shit" . Would that make the fans of the film
>any happier? It certainly puts the comment closer to the level of the film.
Now, now. You seem to be implying that fans of "South Park" are
illiterate morons so desensitized by the profanity and violence in
modern entertainment that they can't successfully participate in
intelligent, respectful discourse.
While this may be true of some "South Park" fans, it most certainly is
not true of all of them. The series, and especially the film, have
proven themselves to be enormously funny to some highly intelligent,
reasonably well-educated people.
The primary message of the film--that parents are often incapable of
accepting responsibility for their children's actions--may seem
obvious to us, but it is not to everyone. This is an issue that is, at
heart, enormously disturbing to me, which is probably why I laughed so
deeply at "South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut". Laughing and crying
are two sides of the same coin, after all.
Anyway, I don't bear any grudge against you for not finding this movie
funny. Here's hoping that some movie in last year made you laugh as
hard as "South Park" made me laugh.
Russel Willoughby
<< rus...@bellsouth.net >>
Helen & Bob
Russel Willoughby wrote:
Thank you. I think you are the first to say that.
> Here's hoping that some movie in last year made you laugh as
> hard as "South Park" made me laugh.
>
> Russel Willoughby
> << rus...@bellsouth.net >>
Oh yes. Galaxy Quest. My sides hurt, I was laughing so hard.
Bob
Ranman
>
> Dawn,
>
> You're so right. I also loved BASEketball and thought it was hilarious.
>
Have you seen Orgazmo? Funny stuff, especially the opening comic book
sequence with "Now You're a Man" by Parker's band, DVDA.
milgra...@my-deja.com
being damonovich <dcru...@mdo.net> wrote:
> okay.
> imo you're tilting at windmills, but
> there's worse and less substantial windmills.
>
On that account you are most likely correct. I don't mind filling the
role of gadfly, though I know it is unpopular.
> okay- titanic wasn't driven by economic considerations.
> it was at first, but cameron wound up spending 200 million
> or so on it, FAR beyond the amount the studios
> wanted and the amount that he needed to make the story
> popular. the rest wetn to his artistic vision.
> meanwhile, movies like godzilla and last action hero
> and ishtar all bombed despite heavy promotion.
>
> meanwhile, fincher gets a wad of cash and brad pitt and
> makes a movie so iconoclastic that no one wanted to see it
> [even though most who did see it loved it].
>
> i could go on.
> i'm just poiting out that- there is no real predictor of
> success, and nor is there a single method of making movies.
>
And I think we get a false impression of the success of a movie based on
its initial release. Investors are willing to bank films based on
potential return on investment. This can come from many different
sources. Bombing at the box office does not mean an unsuccessful
project, it just means it takes longer to start paying the dividend.
> lucas made a hollwood style movie that was entirely self financed
> [iirc]- the studios didn't make his movie bad, he did.
>
He probably considers it a success, and the numbers don't lie.
> > > and i disagree with this-
> >
> > You don't think that a majority of film goers prefer entertainment
and
> > production values over artistic content?
>
> i think entertainment and production values are PART OF
> artistic content. they ARE aesthetics.
>
Explain that to me sometime. The analytical function of my brain tells
me there are elements of a film. The production values consist of sets,
costumes, locations, and budgetary concerns. The entertainment values
consist of star appeal, cultural references, editing techniques, in
short the style as opposed to the substance. The artistic content
consists of character development, plot exposition, performance, scene
composition, cinematic prosody (the seredipitous combination of images,
music, dialog, and performance) and the visual qualities defined by
camera type and placement (and this is a grey area because this
contributes also to the style). I find this a useful way to view film
because it gives one the ability to recognize how the elements are
joined to become a whole.
> > You don't think that people reject critical analysis of film and
readily
> > accept hype from reviewers who receive incentives from film
marketers?
>
> yes. i think they also accept hype from other film critics.
> i think we should do away with all film critics.
> slowly and gleefully. but john can stay.
>
I think we should rein them in by creating a consensus standard, but all
the reviewers should be required to preface their reviews with the
phrase, "The following review makes no claims to assess the quality of
the film reviewed, and is intended solely for the purpose of increasing
readership and improving relations between the various groups of the
corporate media giant who controls us all".
> > You don't think that the majority of film goers want a movie that
puts
> > most of the action and activity on the surface and does not require
> > reflection in order to extract the greater depth of meaning?
>
> does this matter?
> superficial does not mean artistically bereft.
> i like deep movies and fluffy movies.
> i think the best are those that combine form And style.
>
One of the good things about quality art is its ability to provoke
thought, communicate ideas, express emotions, and reflect or even
sometimes presage (dare I say incite) cultural development. I am
entirely in agreement with you that the best combine form and style, in
that not only are they able to make us laugh, cry, and experience
vicariously the portrayed events, they can also expose the deeper
meaning of the experience, show how it effects change in the individual
and perspective, and in so doing illuminate our own lives and choices.
There will be levels of achievement; some are going to be better than
others. But when the original intent is not to make something good, but
to turn a quick buck, it is our dollar that they are taking. That is why
it matters. We can be an audience that serves a purpose, to line the
wallets of those who invest and participate in the film industry, or we
can be an audience who is served by an industry providing both style and
substance to enrich our lives. I would like to swing the pendulum a
little closer to the second option.
>
> i liked south park a lot.
> it would make my top ten this year
> which so far would be-
> matrix, fight club.
> bjm, south park, sleepy hollow, run lola.
> maybe payback.
>
> it will change as i see more 99 films.
>
> When you expressed
> > your opinion about what is arguably one of the top 100 films of all
time
> > (Mr. Smith Goes to Washington appears on several critics list),
>
> this is why i don't like critics.
> i think mr. smith is highly regarded because it's old.
>
Perhaps it has become venerable through age. I do not endorse all
critics, but the critical process is absolutely necessary. Without it
you have a lot of people just winging it instead of calculated and
studious efforts.
> pointed
> > out flaws that you cited as examples of incompetent direction,
formulaic
> > exposition, and hackneyed performance, and determined that these
flaws
> > compromised its artistic value, it led me to believe you would
observe
> > the existing flaws in these films also, and have difficulty using
them
> > in defense of the current quality of films. Am I incorrect in
pointing
> > out this inconsistency? Or are the flaws of Blair Witch Project
(which I
> > will be happy to list if you wish) of no note in comparison with its
> > artistic achievements?
>
> you're right. bwp is an excellent example.
> i rather enjoyed it, but i'd only give it a 6 or 7 out of ten.
> it had huge flaws, and the onlyreason i enjoyed it
> overall was because i thought the ending made up for many of the
flaws.
>
> did these flaws compromise its 'artistic value'?
> i suppose, if i were willing to ue that term.
>
Absolutely. And in my opinion compromised its entertainment value also.
I was unable to reconcile the fundamental concept of the production (a
hand held camera capturing three people in conflict with the
supernatural forces of nature) with the reality of how people would
react to the situation (that camera would have become far too cumbersome
in the moments of danger and would have been uncermoniously dumped).
> but there's still things i enjoyed about it.
> i AM curious, though, as to what actions you would
> hypothetically enact to increase its 'artistic value'
> considering that the movie is as unhollywood as you can
> possibly get. would you merelydeny its distribution?
>
Not at all. I would first work on the script. The clumsy attempt at
realistic dialog could be radically improved. I would love to make at
least one character a bit more sympathetic, and/or resourceful. This
wouldn't have cost a lot of money and would have greatly improved the
artistic value and even the entertainment value. The manner in which the
deterioration of the characters in the face of unremitting fear was
portrayed conveyed an all or nothing at all attitude. I think a deft
touch of gradually showing the deterioration at different stages for
each character would help, once again not a big cost impact but definite
artistic implications. The best thing that the movie has going for it is
the sense of mystery of the unknown forces at work. I would increase the
intensity and confusion related to this factor by having the characters
recognize and discuss their frustrations (less the curses or at least
use them for effect instead of affect) with their inability to cope with
the situation, and suggest manifestations from their deeper fear of the
dark, the unknown, and evil. These suggested manifestations could be
perceptual changes, dissociations, personality and mood shifts, passive
agressive behavior, and even cinematography.
Yes I am also suggesting a third person perspective, used minimally, in
those situations where it would present the opportunity of greatest
gains, specifically when people would be too scared to carry a camera,
when cinematic technique could enhance the terror and mystery, and when
a larger panorama could break the boredom of the shaky hand held camera.
The end result would be a better realized exploration of the
deterioration of character, an increase of the mystery of the
supernatural, a decrease in the annoyance caused by the whining and
cursing, some audience sympathy for the intelligence and resourcefulness
of the characters, and more opportunity for thought about what you would
do if you were in the same situation.
> hell, it made several critics' year end top lists, didn't it?
>
Critics or reviewers? Yes it did, and for the elements we have just
explored all of which could have been enhanced. But I know there were
extreme budgetary limitations, and I think half of the praise is regard
for getting so much out of so little.
> > Film is a commercial enterprise and I know that if we threaten the
> > financial opportunity of the enterprise that not only will we not
get
> > better art, we may not get any film at all. So once again I say
gather
> > the critics and teachers, get a consensus of what is good, develop
the
> > critical standards, publish them on the internet, and invite
everyone to
> > participate in learning them and applying them.
>
> this is horrible.
> first, i doubt there will be a consensus.
> second, i can imagine those standards-
> "Good, intriuging, original plot".
>
As opposed to bad, contrived, completely borrowed or stolen from someone
else's idea, a sequel to a work of no great worth, or better yet a
remake of an old TV show! Exactly what we need more of. I never cease to
be amazed at the kind of stories that get made into movies. Sure it is
fantasy, but does it have to defy all known logic to be made into a
film? Take for instance Runaway Bride, the 'not a sequel' sequel. Do we
really need to see our stars making fools of themselves to gratify
someone's idea of what people want to see?
Now maybe if we had a standard that told us to look for films that
embodied originality, enough people would say no to Runaway Bride to
discourage future embarassments (I'm sorry I haven't seen the movie,
just a few seconds of the trailer was more than enough for me. For all I
know it could be a lot of fun, but I found just the concept insulting.)
> Maybe it won't have any
> > effect at all, maybe it will form the basis of the cirriculum for a
few
> > film art schools, maybe intelligent individuals will use it as a
tool to
> > inform their tastes and viewing habits.
>
> i hope not.
> people should view what THEY want, not what others htink they should
> view.
A standard is a guideline not a commandment, especially in a creative
field. It is merely a basis for comparison, and defines what a level of
achievement is. When based on a deliberated and consensus opinion of
the most informed and educated individuals available it teaches at the
same time that it provides a method of analysis.
I used to manage a video store (I managed 5 different stores in varying
locations in the Bay Area while I put myself through college). I learned
a lot about people's tastes in the process of helping them select movies
to watch. At first they would ask me what I liked, and I would steer
them to the back catalog where there was a wealth of good work with high
entertainment value. It didn't take long (one day) to find out that
those movies were 'old' and that new releases were popular. They would
sign up on a waiting list to see the newest Corey Haim movie rather than
pick something that they had never seen, was well received critically,
and popular in its day.
I believe this is because of marketing and not any indication of the
relative taste of the audience. If they saw the commercial for the older
film it might pique their curiousity enough to see it, and this was
proven over and over as the older movies were trotted out to fill TV air
time and a sudden rush was on to rent it.
The day when more people can see the ad and think about it, refer to the
standard, and make an evaluation, rather then acting on its message is
the day when the movie companies won't be able to sell a bad product but
will be required to return value for the dollar spent (is it over $8.00
in your area too?). At the bottom line this is what I am driving at, but
I prefer to think about it in terms of art as opposed to dollar value
because that reinforces my personal philosophy.
milgra...@my-deja.com
gbur...@erinet.com (Geoff) wrote:
> Don't forget ancillary rights.
>
Thanks for reminding me.
> I admire your train of thought.
>
I applaud your powers of discernment.
> >> Or are the flaws of Blair Witch Project (which I
> >>will be happy to list if you wish) of no note in comparison with its
> >>artistic achievements?
>
> I don't know about damon, but I'd like to see them.
>
Here is a critique I wrote in an earlier thread, and it does express
some of my thoughts on the flaws of the movie although it is not scene
specific:
Production Values: Bare minimum, low budget by necessity. No major
studio would finance the concept.
Screenplay: A melange of screams, arguments, and curses strung together
with a complete lack of skill. There was not a memorable line in the
lot. I suppose this is somebody's idea of authentic dialogue so we will
give marks for the attempt at realism, but the exposition is so poorly
realized that those marks are offset.
Performances: Annoying. There is some good work offered in the
deterioration of character as a result of unremitting fear and terror,
but it was difficult to empathize with individuals so lacking in
redeeming qualities or to sympathize with their situation since the
script did not provide them with an opportunity to exhibit any
resourcefulness or even resignation.
Direction: Marks for pulling together the one note concept and squeezing
minor performances from low level talent. The hand held camera idea was
illogical at times (I mean do you carry your camera everywhere? Was this
supposed to be some sort of cinematic bravado on the part of Heather?
Forget the women and children, video camera and tape first!)
Score/Soundtrack: No score, truly awful soundtrack. Volume level all
over the place, distorted, aggravating, and it really disturbed me as I
was watching it.
Cinematography: Intentionally mediocre.
So when viewed in terms of utilizing the elements of the medium this
film scores very poorly. Did it develop its theme(s)? I had difficulty
discerning what exactly they were trying to accomplish other than to
slap together a low budget horror movie. Was this an examination of the
psychological impact of fear and terror? If that was their intent they
did accomplish it to a certain extent but it has been done before and in
better fashion in films like The Exorcist and The Haunting (not the
remake). Was it a multi-level exploration of man/woman in confrontation
with nature? This is your suggestion (in the thread that I posted this
in the previous poster cited this as a theme of the film) but this has
also been done before and in much better fashion in films like
Deliverance and Walkabout.
The supernatural element they introduced did have great impact because
of it ominous ubiquity and mystery. If it was a moral statement on
invasion of holy ground and retaliation by nature then it left far too
much unexplained. As an overall evaluation I would say that the movie
deserves to be relegated to the upper echelons of low budget efforts
because they were able to make a viable product with so very little
money (and even less talent). But calling it a classic before it has
stood the test of time is pure hyperbole, and after all is said about
the film this was its greatest achievement: it set a new standard for
hype.
> Regards,
> Geoff "I really missed out on the Blair Witch Project action figures."
Me too, but maybe there will be a sequel.
Helen & Bob
milgra...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <38B61386...@mdo.net>,
> being damonovich <dcru...@mdo.net> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > When you expressed
> > > your opinion about what is arguably one of the top 100 films of all
> time
> > > (Mr. Smith Goes to Washington appears on several critics list),
> >
> > this is why i don't like critics.
> > i think mr. smith is highly regarded because it's old.
Damon. If that were the case, then ALL the movies that old would be on the
list. Mr. Smith is there, not because its old, not because it's
representational, but because it's great. It is your loss, not the films,
if you do not see that.
Bob
milgra...@my-deja.com
> >>have several opportunities to realize a return on investment:
> >>
> >>1)Box Office Receipts (Domestic)
> >>2)Box Office Receipts (Foreign)
> >>3)Pay per view fees
> >>4)Cable Television fees
> >>5)Broadcast Television fees
> >>6)Video and DVD Sales
> >>7)Tax credits
>
>
and
> >>production values over artistic content?
> >>You don't think that people reject critical analysis of film and
readily
> >>accept hype from reviewers who receive incentives from film
marketers?
> >>You don't think that the majority of film goers want a movie that
puts
> >>most of the action and activity on the surface and does not require
> >>reflection in order to extract the greater depth of meaning?
>
>
> >>will be happy to list if you wish) of no note in comparison with its
> >>artistic achievements?
>
>
From an earlier post I made to the thread "Blair Witch will remain a
classic":
Production Values: Bare minimum, low budget by necessity. No major
studio would finance the concept.
Screenplay: A melange of screams, arguments, and curses strung together
with a complete lack of skill. Not a memorable line in the lot. I
Cinematography: Intentionally mediocre.
much better fashion in films like The Exorcist and The Haunting (not the
remake). Was it a multi-level exploration of man/woman in confrontation
with nature? This is your suggestion (the poster prior to me in the
thread made this insinuation) but this has also been done before and in
much better fashion in films like Deliverance and Walkabout.
The supernatural element they introduced did have great impact because
of it ominous ubiquity and mystery. If it was a moral statement on
invasion of holy ground and retaliation by nature then it left far too
much unexplained. As an overall evaluation I would say that the movie
deserves to be relegated to the upper echelons of low budget efforts
because they were able to make a viable product with so very little
money (and even less talent). But calling it a classic before it has
stood the test of time is pure hyperbole, and after all is said about
the film this was its greatest achievement: it set a new standard for
hype.
> Regards,
> Geoff "I really missed out on the Blair Witch Project action figures."
>
Don't give up yet, there may be a sequel...
Rick Kahn
this because of Hanks, the magic that film can instill, or the fact that
voters didnt realise till recently that Shaw Shank Redemption was one of
their most memorable favorites. They give Norman Jewison a lifetime
achievement (Thalburg) award last year, and snub him the next. Cider House
Rules is another anomoly choice. What's worse is the fact that I even give
a damn about the Oscars. I have to get out more.
being damonovich
Helen & Bob wrote:
>
> Russel Willoughby wrote:
>
>l.
> >
> > Anyway, I don't bear any grudge against you for not finding this movie
> > funny.
>
> Thank you. I think you are the first to say that.
>
but i do.
i hate you with a fervent passion now.
being damonovich
milgra...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <38B61386...@mdo.net>,
> being damonovich <dcru...@mdo.net> wrote:
> >
> > i could go on.
> > i'm just pointing out that- there is no real predictor of
> > success, and nor is there a single method of making movies.
> >
> And I think we get a false impression of the success of a movie based on
> its initial release. Investors are willing to bank films based on
> potential return on investment. This can come from many different
> sources. Bombing at the box office does not mean an unsuccessful
> project, it just means it takes longer to start paying the dividend.
i think iwrt that, most every movie is eventually profitable.
but i'd also say that wild wild west was
financed primarily because
the producers/studio expected it to make money in theatres.
> > lucas made a hollwood style movie that was entirely self financed
> > [iirc]- the studios didn't make his movie bad, he did.
> >
> He probably considers it a success, and the numbers don't lie.
the numbers suggest that lots of people found it
extremely appealing.
which almost turned mcneeley into a serial killer.
> > > > and i disagree with this-
> > >
> > > You don't think that a majority of film goers prefer entertainment
> and
> > > production values over artistic content?
> >
> > i think entertainment and production values are PART OF
> > artistic content. they ARE aesthetics.
> >
> Explain that to me sometime. The analytical function of my brain tells
> me there are elements of a film. The production values consist of sets,
> costumes, locations, and budgetary concerns. The entertainment values
> consist of star appeal, cultural references, editing techniques, in
> short the style as opposed to the substance. The artistic content
> consists of character development, plot exposition, performance, scene
> composition, cinematic prosody (the seredipitous combination of images,
> music, dialog, and performance) and the visual qualities defined by
> camera type and placement (and this is a grey area because this
> contributes also to the style). I find this a useful way to view film
> because it gives one the ability to recognize how the elements are
> joined to become a whole.
prosody.
learn something enrw every day.
this will be long and rambling, but i'm speaking of things
i don't have terminology for.
'aesthetics', or 'art' [i view the two as interchangable terms]
are *primarily* emotional reactions [with an intellectual component].
these emotional reactions are distinguished [semantically, if
in no other way] by that which they are reacting to.
to reduce it-
'art' is what people find moving.
this statement is of course absurdly reductionist.
however, it is the soul of the matter.
when people speak highly of an artistic work, they call
it transcendent- a visceral stimulation that contains in it
some -THING- which [for the truly transcendent] "envelops"
the brain, or penetrates every cognitive aspect- the emotional
and the mental.
*however*, the *primary* aspect of this experience is still emotional.
it is still visceral. one can see this demonstrated in
blues music, whihc is extremely simplistic but still
found to be transcendant by many, but the
particular combination fo elements, while not complex or intellectual,
is still moving.
wrt film, i can explain this best by two of my
favorite movie moments-
[1] the end of harold and maude, wherein we see a moment
of pure bliss combined with a simple melody that is
allegorical to the movie's theme.
[the director, whose name i also forget, is very good
at those simple moments, because he achived the same effect in his
other film, being there]
[2] the shipwrecked scene in joe vs the volcano, wherein
a beleaguered tom hanks, on the verge of breakdown and death,
managed to catch a whiff of melody on a small radio,
and does a wonderful simple dance of joy-
i'ts a zen thing- an allegory wrapped in simplicity.
now, i say all of this to explain what i meant above when i said-
i think entertainment and production values are PART OF
> > artistic content. they ARE aesthetics.
'entertainment' is another word which reduces to- 'that which moves us'
[digression- my dictionary lists it as that which amuses us, which is
not
the current colloqiual definition. i point this out because
*i* see no meaningful disntnction between art and entertainment.
especially since i don't see any meaningful definition of art.
my point here is that every characteristic applied to the term
'art' is equally valid when applied to the term 'entertainment'.
there IS a colloqiual distinction, which in effect relies on
the intention of the creator. i think that's a dicey proposition
to rely on]
now, were we to rely on the colloquial usage of 'entertainment'
[which i presume to be- 'that which is meant to viscerally amuse us,
as opposed to move us with profundity, or communicate
some worthy ideal], then any work of art which
seeks to both move us and communicate to us
[virtually all of them, i'd warrant] can be split into]
the visceral and the intellectual.
the visceral aspects, these 'entertainment' aspects,
are 'what moves us'. these aspects INCLUDE production values.
hence, my lumping them in.
i hope this makes sense- i think i progressed nicely toward
my ultimate argument, but fizzled at the end, because
my end arguments are just restatements of the previous
points i was making.
is any of this clear?
> > > You don't think that people reject critical analysis of film and
> readily
> > > accept hype from reviewers who receive incentives from film
> marketers?
> >
> > yes. i think they also accept hype from other film critics.
> > i think we should do away with all film critics.
> > slowly and gleefully. but john can stay.
> >
> I think we should rein them in by creating a consensus standard, but all
> the reviewers should be required to preface their reviews with the
> phrase, "The following review makes no claims to assess the quality of
> the film reviewed, and is intended solely for the purpose of increasing
> readership and improving relations between the various groups of the
> corporate media giant who controls us all".
this i can almost agree with.
but the drawback is that the critics would be allowed to live.
> > > You don't think that the majority of film goers want a movie that
> puts
> > > most of the action and activity on the surface and does not require
> > > reflection in order to extract the greater depth of meaning?
> >
> > does this matter?
> > superficial does not mean artistically bereft.
> > i like deep movies and fluffy movies.
> > i think the best are those that combine form And style.
......
> There will be levels of achievement; some are going to be better than
> others. But when the original intent is not to make something good, but
> to turn a quick buck, it is our dollar that they are taking. That is why
> it matters.
again, i think judging intent is dicey.
example- aliens, a sequel to alien, was as good
as the first, but in different ways.
my point being that we should never judge anything by intent,
only by outcome.
and while you can make a case that
movies made to turn a quick
buck generally suck more than movies made by artisitc vision,
i think you'd also find that many movies made with artistic vision
also suck.
We can be an audience that serves a purpose, to line the
> wallets of those who invest and participate in the film industry, or we
> can be an audience who is served by an industry providing both style and
> substance to enrich our lives. I would like to swing the pendulum a
> little closer to the second option.
> >
> > When you expressed
> > > your opinion about what is arguably one of the top 100 films of all
> time
> > > (Mr. Smith Goes to Washington appears on several critics list),
> >
> > this is why i don't like critics.
> > i think mr. smith is highly regarded because it's old.
> >
> Perhaps it has become venerable through age. I do not endorse all
> critics, but the critical process is absolutely necessary. Without it
> you have a lot of people just winging it instead of calculated and
> studious efforts.
calculated and studious efforst still ultimately reduce to:
'i liked it'.
we don't need film critics
[in the sense of which i speak] in order to study film.
we need film scholars.
> > you're right. bwp is an excellent example.
> > i rather enjoyed it, but i'd only give it a 6 or 7 out of ten.
> > it had huge flaws, and the onlyreason i enjoyed it
> > overall was because i thought the ending made up for many of the
> flaws.
> >
> > did these flaws compromise its 'artistic value'?
> > i suppose, if i were willing to ue that term.
> >
> Absolutely. And in my opinion compromised its entertainment value also.
> I was unable to reconcile the fundamental concept of the production (a
> hand held camera capturing three people in conflict with the
> supernatural forces of nature) with the reality of how people would
> react to the situation (that camera would have become far too cumbersome
> in the moments of danger and would have been uncermoniously dumped).
this i disagree with. in the end, the were resigned to their
fates, and wanted to record their ends.
maybe, during the night flight earlier, they should have dropped the
camera.
but at that point they were merely frightened, and those cameras cost
big bucks.
> > but there's still things i enjoyed about it.
> > i AM curious, though, as to what actions you would
> > hypothetically enact to increase its 'artistic value'
> > considering that the movie is as unhollywood as you can
> > possibly get. would you merelydeny its distribution?
> >
> Not at all. I would first work on the script. The clumsy attempt at
> realistic dialog could be radically improved.
interesting.
good idea, but the script was wholly improvised.
I would love to make at
> least one character a bit more sympathetic, and/or resourceful. This
> wouldn't have cost a lot of money and would have greatly improved the
> artistic value and even the entertainment value.
it would have caused a massive reworking of the concept-
they'd have to change it form improvisation.
also, the most sympathetic character was disappeared first.
as for heather, i think her general lack of sympathetic character
makes the apology shot Much more powerful.
The manner in which the
> deterioration of the characters in the face of unremitting fear was
> portrayed conveyed an all or nothing at all attitude. I think a deft
> touch of gradually showing the deterioration at different stages for
> each character would help, once again not a big cost impact but definite
> artistic implications. The best thing that the movie has going for it is
> the sense of mystery of the unknown forces at work. I would increase the
> intensity and confusion related to this factor by having the characters
> recognize and discuss their frustrations (less the curses or at least
> use them for effect instead of affect) with their inability to cope with
> the situation, and suggest manifestations from their deeper fear of the
> dark, the unknown, and evil. These suggested manifestations could be
> perceptual changes, dissociations, personality and mood shifts, passive
> agressive behavior, and even cinematography.
uh huh.
me, i thought the biggest flaw in the movie was the editing, which is
basically what the directors did the most of.
for the reasons you cite above-
their cutting of the material was either horrible. or
else their concept of doing the
thing as entire improvisation and their choice of actors
yileded poor results.
> Yes I am also suggesting a third person perspective, used minimally, in
> those situations where it would present the opportunity of greatest
> gains, specifically when people would be too scared to carry a camera,
> when cinematic technique could enhance the terror and mystery, and when
> a larger panorama could break the boredom of the shaky hand held camera.
again, this contradicts the central conceipt of the film.
you want them to compromise their artistic aspirations
[the pov was thematic] for added entertainment value.
> > > Film is a commercial enterprise and I know that if we threaten the
> > > financial opportunity of the enterprise that not only will we not
> get
> > > better art, we may not get any film at all. So once again I say
> gather
> > > the critics and teachers, get a consensus of what is good, develop
> the
> > > critical standards, publish them on the internet, and invite
> everyone to
> > > participate in learning them and applying them.
> >
> > this is horrible.
> > first, i doubt there will be a consensus.
> > second, i can imagine those standards-
> > "Good, intriuging, original plot".
> >
> As opposed to bad, contrived, completely borrowed or stolen from someone
> else's idea, a sequel to a work of no great worth, or better yet a
> remake of an old TV show! Exactly what we need more of. I never cease to
> be amazed at the kind of stories that get made into movies. Sure it is
> fantasy, but does it have to defy all known logic to be made into a
> film? Take for instance Runaway Bride, the 'not a sequel' sequel. Do we
> really need to see our stars making fools of themselves to gratify
> someone's idea of what people want to see?
but kubric's plots are egenrally borrowed.
should we make it "Good, intriuging, original plot,
except for kubric or fincher or
___"?
> Now maybe if we had a standard that told us to look for films that
> embodied originality, enough people would say no to Runaway Bride to
> discourage future embarassments (I'm sorry I haven't seen the movie,
> just a few seconds of the trailer was more than enough for me. For all I
> know it could be a lot of fun, but I found just the concept insulting.)
i found the trailer quite entertaining.
in fact, i found the concept entertaining.
i have no doubt i wouldn't find the movie entertaining.
i've typed too much already.
being damonovich
Helen & Bob wrote:
>
> milgra...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <38B61386...@mdo.net>,
> > being damonovich <dcru...@mdo.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > When you expressed
> > > > your opinion about what is arguably one of the top 100 films of all
> > time
> > > > (Mr. Smith Goes to Washington appears on several critics list),
> > >
> > > this is why i don't like critics.
> > > i think mr. smith is highly regarded because it's old.
>
> Damon. If that were the case, then ALL the movies that old would be on the
> list.
not the sole reason.
Mr. Smith is there, not because its old, not because it's
> representational, but because it's great.
arsenic and old lace is the best capra movie i've ever seen.
also the only one i really liked.
i think it's because capra has a noncomformist streak in him
that he subverts. wrt mr smith..., i think his 'voice' int he movie
lies in the jaded assistant, who is portrayed better than
any other character, and who saves the movie from being a complete
waste of time.
i think smith's presence there is to effect change on her,
a sopposed to vice versa, and i'd call her the protagnist
of the film, if only because she's the main one who undergoes
character evolution [the other one being the nemesis]
[i take it back, mr. smith evolves from a weakling into strength,
but his fundamental nature is unchanged].
BUT, mr smith is goofy, cliched, and uninteresting as a character
until the end. he is also extremely unrealisitc.
the evil senator is also overdone.
the whole plot concept is vastly overdone, and the
nemesis overly villified to make the movie more
emotionally gripping- instead of making a film about
how politics works, or about corruption inherent in power,
we see a film about an evil mob boss who winds up having children
beat up[!], just to ..... keep people from phoning in!
we see a completely LUDICROUS filibuster, and we see
it *miraculously* transforms the senator, who not only recants,
but admits his sins! [and doesn't he suddenly die then too?]
and, of COURSE, we see trumped up charges, because
politicians have to frame people for crimes rather than
merely use their rank and privelage to achieve their goals.
we have the cloying speech about decency and the american dream at the
end,
we have the stirring instrumental musical montage meant to warm our
hearts
with patriotism.
we have the simple but good hearted man overcoming adversity,
BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKS IN WASHINGTON!!!!!!
i could go on.
It is your loss, not the films,
> if you do not see that.
-
i'll agree to hate mr smith with a cold and steely heart,
and you can agree to hate south park with disdain and
scorn.
being damonovich
milgra...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <38b5ba9b$0$14...@news.voyager.net>,
> gbur...@erinet.com (Geoff) wrote:
>
> > Don't forget ancillary rights.
> >
> Thanks for reminding me.
>
> > I admire your train of thought.
> >
> I applaud your powers of discernment.
errr,
never mind.
> Screenplay: A melange of screams, arguments, and curses strung together
> with a complete lack of skill. There was not a memorable line in the
> lot. I suppose this is somebody's idea of authentic dialogue so we will
> give marks for the attempt at realism, but the exposition is so poorly
> realized that those marks are offset.
it was all imrprov.
>
> So when viewed in terms of utilizing the elements of the medium this
> film scores very poorly.
well, it did utilize one element extremely well-
the limited eye of the camera.
Did it develop its theme(s)? I had difficulty
> discerning what exactly they were trying to accomplish other than to
> slap together a low budget horror movie. Was this an examination of the
> psychological impact of fear and terror?
yes.
Was it a multi-level exploration of man/woman in confrontation
> with nature? This is your suggestion (in the thread that I posted this
> in the previous poster cited this as a theme of the film) but this has
> also been done before and in much better fashion in films like
> Deliverance and Walkabout.
\yes.
it is about many things-
heather's pride,
the ultimate mystery of fear,
the limited nature of film.
the movie, for it's lack of script, is quite intellectually developed.
it's what i liked most about the film.
Laelsport
that Paul Newman's performance in Message in a Bottle was worth a nomination.
I also believe that For Love of the Game should have been nominated!
But then again, I really loved "Wild Wild West" too, and that seems to go
against every reviewer and critic out there :-D
lael
Helen & Bob
being damonovich wrote:
>
> -
> i'll agree to hate mr smith with a cold and steely heart,
> and you can agree to hate south park with disdain and
> scorn.
>
I don't hate South Park. I merely dismiss it from consideration. Starship
Troopers. Now, there's a hate. The only film I have ever seen that makes me want
to physically harm the Director and the Producer, and ban the stars from the
entertainment industry, in any way, down to and including theater usher. Now,
THAT is hate.
Bob
milgra...@my-deja.com
The term is normally used in music and denotes a confluence of lyrical
and musical content but I have taken some license here in applying it
to film which I think is not too inappropriate.
> this will be long and rambling, but i'm speaking of things
> i don't have terminology for.
>
> 'aesthetics', or 'art' [i view the two as interchangable terms]
> are *primarily* emotional reactions [with an intellectual component].
>
Art is a medium of communication which possesses beauty when it
effecively communictes the message and elegantly incorporates the
elements of the genre which it employs. The reactions both visceral and
intellectual to which you refer reinforce this definition for they are
evidence of the reception of the communication and aesthetic
appreciation for the skillful use of the elements of the genre.
> these emotional reactions are distinguished [semantically, if
> in no other way] by that which they are reacting to.
>
> to reduce it-
> 'art' is what people find moving.
> this statement is of course absurdly reductionist.
>
> however, it is the soul of the matter.
> when people speak highly of an artistic work, they call
> it transcendent- a visceral stimulation that contains in it
> some -THING- which [for the truly transcendent] "envelops"
> the brain, or penetrates every cognitive aspect- the emotional
> and the mental.
>
The something you are referring to is cultural and individual content
that aligns with the perspective of the receiver, and in deeply
artistic works archetypal content that communicates unconsciously which
appears to be transcendent or numinous because it incorporates elements
which are transpersonal.
> *however*, the *primary* aspect of this experience is still emotional.
> it is still visceral. one can see this demonstrated in
> blues music, whihc is extremely simplistic but still
> found to be transcendant by many, but the
> particular combination fo elements, while not complex or intellectual,
> is still moving.
>
The primary aspect of the reaction to blues music is emotional because
blues artists emphasize emotional content over intellectual content. On
the other hand there are art forms which are highly intellectual, and I
would say that these tend to be the higest or most experimental levels
of a genre which require a large range of knowledge of the genre in
order to plumb the depth of meaning and achieve the intended
communication. I think atonal classical composition fits this
definition.
> wrt film, i can explain this best by two of my
> favorite movie moments-
> [1] the end of harold and maude, wherein we see a moment
> of pure bliss combined with a simple melody that is
> allegorical to the movie's theme.
> [the director, whose name i also forget, is very good
> at those simple moments, because he achived the same effect in his
> other film, being there]
>
This is the cinematic prosody that I referred to earlier.
> [2] the shipwrecked scene in joe vs the volcano, wherein
> a beleaguered tom hanks, on the verge of breakdown and death,
> managed to catch a whiff of melody on a small radio,
> and does a wonderful simple dance of joy-
> i'ts a zen thing- an allegory wrapped in simplicity.
>
> now, i say all of this to explain what i meant above when i said-
> i think entertainment and production values are PART OF
> > > artistic content. they ARE aesthetics.
>
I believe the two terms are separate and distinct because they refer to
two different things. Art consists of work in a medium, aesthetic is
generated by individual perspective. Think of it as communication
theory, for it does apply, with a sender, a medium, a receiver, and of
course signal loss and interference. Art is the medium, the artist the
sender, the audience the receiver, and the differences between artist
and audience the interference that causes signal loss.
> 'entertainment' is another word which reduces to- 'that which moves
us'
> [digression- my dictionary lists it as that which amuses us, which is
> not
> the current colloqiual definition. i point this out because
> *i* see no meaningful disntnction between art and entertainment.
> especially since i don't see any meaningful definition of art.
> my point here is that every characteristic applied to the term
> 'art' is equally valid when applied to the term 'entertainment'.
> there IS a colloqiual distinction, which in effect relies on
> the intention of the creator. i think that's a dicey proposition
> to rely on]
>
There is a bit more to distinguish art from entertainment but you are
correct in pointing out that art should entertain. Perhaps it is best
understood in terms of intent, though you seem to think that is not a
reliable barometer. The artist has spent a great deal of time and
effort to educate and train his/her talent and ability, and approaches
the medium with respect and accepts the challenge to compete with other
achievements in the genre at least on the basis of comparison.
By comparison entertainment does not pretend to assume such high airs.
A dog doing a trick might be entertaining, a young child with a cute
smile might be entertaining, a sporting event might be entertaining,
but none of these are art or intend to be artistic.
> now, were we to rely on the colloquial usage of 'entertainment'
> [which i presume to be- 'that which is meant to viscerally amuse us,
> as opposed to move us with profundity, or communicate
> some worthy ideal], then any work of art which
> seeks to both move us and communicate to us
> [virtually all of them, i'd warrant] can be split into]
> the visceral and the intellectual.
>
> the visceral aspects, these 'entertainment' aspects,
> are 'what moves us'. these aspects INCLUDE production values.
> hence, my lumping them in.
>
> i hope this makes sense- i think i progressed nicely toward
> my ultimate argument, but fizzled at the end, because
> my end arguments are just restatements of the previous
> points i was making.
>
> is any of this clear?
>
Absolutely. It is a way of denying the true value of art and viewing it
in terms of its function as entertainment. We have a lot this going
around now. I don't mean to be overly critical, I just think we are
better served letting art be beautiful, entertaining, intellectual,
transcendent and emotionally cathartic, and recognizing that
entertainment is but one if its functions.
> i've typed too much already.
>
Me too. Take care...
MATTRETT
matt...@aol.com
jor...@thetics.europa.com
Haley Joel Osment being relegated to a "supporting" role.
- Jordan
jor...@europa.com
********************************************************************
* "Heroes are not giant statues framed against a red sky, they *
* are people who say: 'This is my community, and it's my *
* responsibility to make it better.'" *
* - Tom McCall, Oregon Governor 1967 - 1974 *
********************************************************************
John H
>
> Haley Joel Osment being relegated to a "supporting" role.
>
> - Jordan
> jor...@europa.com
Osment's character is a supporting role -- the principal arc of the
story is Bruce Willis' character finding out who he is and having to
deal with that.
Osment's performance is so good that it looks like a lead, but, alas,
it isn't. Heck, he's got a shot at winning in supporting.
John Harkness
The Academy Awards Handbook
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0786010649/qid=950212206/sr=1-2/103-6719228-9156655
K
individual taste etc.
But I would've liked to have seen Kate Winslet nominated for "Holy Smoke". I
really liked that film.
K