Lynch vs. post-modern criticism
Han Van den Hoof
much goes with what he feels. Instead of working with concepts and
ideas, Lynch is mainly concerned with the "feel" of the images, sounds
and so on he brings to the screen. When interviewed he avoids analysis
of his own work (and that of others), he likes to keep things abstract.
As many artists can tell you, trying to put a visual idea into words
banalizes it and eventually destroys its impact.
What annoys me is that certain critics nowadays don't respect this kind
of attittude. They seem to see this "secrecy" as an invitation to probe
into the creator's subconcious. I think this is very disrespectful and
adds up to nothing in the end.
For Lynch the book by French critic Chion would be a good example of
that kind of (typically French) psycho-analysing bs. But also the
magazine "Wrapped in plastic" is trying to discover the "meaning" behind
certain "motives" in Lych's work. Anyone who read one of their "in-depth
reviews" knows what a bore they generally are. Trying to explain every
little detail is not my idea of enjoying a film, it's downright anal! Or
maybe it's a way of keeping the pages of an otherwise very slim magazine
filled... Films like "Lost Highway" speak to you or they don't, but who
knows why? That's not important and totally beside the point, I think.
It just has that "feel" to it...
Anyway, I could go on but I'd like to see other people's ideas on the
matter so please react.
Han
Will
the way they experience his work. I enjoy reading it, but have difficulty
obtaining copies.
Will
Alex
Han Van den Hoof wrote:
> From reading "Lynch on Lynch" one gets the impression that Lynch pretty
> much goes with what he feels. Instead of working with concepts and
> ideas, Lynch is mainly concerned with the "feel" of the images, sounds
> and so on he brings to the screen.
Actually, I've read the books about him and I've seen him on Charlie Rose
and Leno. He always says that his movie's come from an idea ---"like a
spark"---whether they be visual or aural or narrative etc. Much of his
inspiration comes from daydreams NOT regular dreams---he always points that
out for some reason---but he builds a movie centered around an idea,
incorporating his daydream material.
> When interviewed he avoids analysis
> of his own work (and that of others), he likes to keep things abstract.
> As many artists can tell you, trying to put a visual idea into words
> banalizes it and eventually destroys its impact.
Yeah, I think he's like Beck in this kind of way. They both tend to place
less importance on the text and place more on the individual responses
people have.
> What annoys me is that certain critics nowadays don't respect this kind
> of attittude. They seem to see this "secrecy" as an invitation to probe
> into the creator's subconcious. I think this is very disrespectful and
> adds up to nothing in the end.
> For Lynch the book by French critic Chion would be a good example of
> that kind of (typically French) psycho-analysing bs. But also the
> magazine "Wrapped in plastic" is trying to discover the "meaning" behind
> certain "motives" in Lych's work. Anyone who read one of their "in-depth
> reviews" knows what a bore they generally are. Trying to explain every
> little detail is not my idea of enjoying a film, it's downright anal! Or
> maybe it's a way of keeping the pages of an otherwise very slim magazine
> filled... Films like "Lost Highway" speak to you or they don't, but who
> knows why? That's not important and totally beside the point, I think.
> It just has that "feel" to it...
>
It's bad that people publish their own opinions about lynch's films. What
Chion andKaleta and Nochimson have to say is not bs, cause if it were, then
all critical material is bs which I don't believe. Also, I find
interpretive works really interesting if they're good that is. So I
wouldn't call Chion's book a bore, but it certainly isn't a great book.
You've gotta deal with the fact that we live in a
post-Derrida/Foucault/Barthes etc time where it seems as if anyone is
allowed to say what they want about a certain work and make valid points
about it. I'm not in total agreement with this kind of deconstructive
attitude, but it's here and we've gotta deal somehow.
Is Eraserhead about being a new father? Possibly. Is Eraserhead also about
sexual desire? Possibly. Is it about both? Possibly. You see, people will
always see things differently and it's great that people openly write and
talk about their various interpretations even if that ain't what Lynch or
any author was going for.
Chion may be psycho bs to you, but for some, it rings partially truthful.
(Though I think Ken Kaleta's book is the best there is)
regards,
Alex
Eric
I'd be weary to take everything Lynch says as truth, especially in his
discussion of the creative process. I just think that he's sometimes more
extravagant in his discussions of his mind's workings on the imaginative side,
that the authenticity of this is not always that valid. So, again, I think you
have to focus on reactions sometimes but not as he suggests. But if the artist
knows what reactions he is looking for, some attention must be paid to the
actual content of the text and not just its effects. As for him saying he has
one initial idea or spark which drives his creative process: Do you think think
this is always the case for Lynch? I think that style of filmmaking would lend
itself to much less cohesive and more haphazardly crafted films than we have
seen from him. As for Mr. Kaleta, I'm surprised you didn't fall asleep with his
inane attempt at a book on Lynch's work. Honestly, I haven't read it. Am I an
idiot? Clearly, so. -Eric
Alex
I think you're still hungover pal from your jewish feast this past weekend.
As for Mr. Ken Kaleta, he is da bomb.
regards,
Alex
damnfine
> > of his own work (and that of others), he likes to keep things abstract.
> > As many artists can tell you, trying to put a visual idea into words
> > banalizes it and eventually destroys its impact.
>
> Yeah, I think he's like Beck in this kind of way. They both tend to
place
> less importance on the text and place more on the individual responses
> people have.
I see Lynch's reluctance to discuss the "meaning" of his work as extremely
admirable. Of course he has his own ideas about what it means, but if he
went public with them, then they would be automatically seen as the
"definitive answer", and discussion on NG's like this and ATTP would cease,
because there would be no room left for personal interpretation.
--
/^\damnfine/^\
damn...@cyberdude.com
--
Quote of the moment:
"Australian laundromats can be SCARY!"
- Kramer.
--
http://www.angelfire.com/sk/garmonbozia (STILL under construction....real
world committments....slowing....me....down....)
--
Han Van den Hoof
A good work of art exposes its content (or meaning, if you wish) through the form in wich it presents itself to an audience. A good work of art doesn't need any kind of philosophical discourse to account for itself. Most philosophers nowadays think it does, in fact art has become the nr.1 philosophical playground. This is because of its intuitive and emotional nature; an artwork is very vulnerable because of this nature. It's "open for interpretation".
But the worst thing is that it's expected of artists to go along with this. If you want to be appreciated as an artist you have to speak the post-modern lingo (that "secret language" everybody's using but nobody really knows the meaning or purpose of). And if you won't someone will do it for you. Lynch doesn't play ball, that's admirable, but Chion does it for him instead. This is arrogant and disrespectful. And even if it is just a personal appreciation, it's as good as any other...
I've been in art school for four year and I'm tired of people trying to find connections between my work and my life. I'm not saying there's no such thing, I'm saying it doesn't matter, the work is what's there -take it or leave it. And please don't drag Barthes or Deleuze into this! I don't have anything to do with that.
Oh and eraserhead is mainly about a guy who (presumably) knocked up his girlfriend. Too bad for him the baby is not too cute. And there's a theater inside his radiator. And he gets a shrimp in the mail. The shrimp does a dance for him. And so on.
Han
tric...@hotmail.com
<han_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Allow me to further clarify my point:
>A good work of art exposes its content (or meaning, if you wish) through the
>form in wich it presents itself to an audience. A good work of art doesn't
>need any kind of philosophical discourse to account for itself.
You mean an "accessible" work of art, when you type "good"?
Or do you just mean, the kind of work you like? Either way, this definition
of yours was last workable at a time when all work was semi-appropriately
evaluated in the Modernist context in which it had been created. Since
then, some works are created with intentional or unintended
post-modern influences. Now, maybe your work is trapped in a bubble
in time, but these more recent works have something to say when
queried in a postmodern framework.
If someone else tries to interpret your work for a dimension it
lacks, blame the specific misapplication, but what is to be accomplished with
this loaded language and generalized animosity?
If you can't (or won't) make this analytical theory work for you, then
leave it for others to work out, though many will get it wrong. Many
people play the lottery. Many people are lawyers. I don't have time
to resent all the fools, including those whose graduate essays have no
content, and communicate nothing to anyone.
And I refuse to throw out a set of tools, just because you assign a set
of definitions as to what Art should be. How much does this have to do
with your fear that you will never be financially or critically successful
through your art? Four years in school, and you seem pretty defensive
against the words of some self-important critics. Unless there's a sore
spot there...
>Most philosophers nowadays think it does, in fact art has become the nr.1
>philosophical playground. This is because of its intuitive and emotional
>nature; an artwork is very vulnerable because of this nature. It's "open for
>interpretation".
Horrors! Interpretation! Rape!
Some Art ain't "vulnerable"; it's robust, and can and will defend itself.
(do you think this is a logical argument you are composing?)
>But the worst thing is that it's expected of artists to go along with this.
>If you want to be appreciated as an artist you have to speak the post-modern
>lingo (that "secret language" everybody's using but nobody really knows the
>meaning or purpose of). And if you won't someone will do it for you. Lynch
>doesn't play ball, that's admirable, but Chion does it for him instead. This
>is arrogant and disrespectful.
Paranoia and projections.
Why do you want the scenes in Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, London, and New York
to sigh over your work? Go work on your art, forget about this success crap.
Though your words are not entirely incorrect, you have inflated the monster,
and crowded yourself in a corner of your brain, behind the eddies of
unproductive thoughts about post-modern philosophers with poison pens.
Struggle in your times. What makes you think it should be so easy for you,
just because there was a rare and serene art market during the middle
decades of the century, when it seemed that quality would be rewarded.
Well that was a historical rarity. And you speak as if the artist's
birthright is a healthy patronage.
HAH ! D.I.Y.
>And even if it is just a personal appreciation, it's as good as any other...
>I've been in art school for four year and I'm tired of people trying to find
>connections between my work and my life. I'm not saying there's no such
>thing, I'm saying it doesn't matter, the work is what's there -take it or
>leave it. And please don't drag Barthes or Deleuze into this! I don't have
>anything to do with that.
You're the one throwing the pomo baby out with the Bartheswater.
Do you think you are getting tired of the implication that, by lacking
these other dimensions, your art and you are somehow deficient?
You shouldn't ask the wrong people to judge your work, and you should
have the confidence to listen hard to those who are qualified.
Or do you not want to hear which of your hidden truths they will
uncover, should the philosophers stare at your canvas.?
>Oh and eraserhead is mainly about a guy who (presumably) knocked up his
>girlfriend. Too bad for him the baby is not too cute. And there's a theater
>inside his radiator. And he gets a shrimp in the mail. The shrimp does a
>dance for him. And so on.
>Han
(FWeeeeee!) "Attitude!"
What's the point of the Veryfast 1 Min. Tough Guy Guide to Eraserhead?
Are you trying to reduce someone else's transcendent moment down to your
concrete level?
Trichome
--
Multiple simultaneous parallel systemic failures = Y2k
Y2k arrives in < 8 months. ~160 work days left for repairs.
Jeff Gower
Dang, Han! - and all this time, I was utterly convinced it was some kind
of artsy-fartsy psycho-sexual-socio-polito-econo-phallocentric,
castration-anxiety thing like that dingbat Martha P. Nochimson likes to
yack on and on about when discussing Lynch's work. ;-)
Frivolously yours,
Jeff
BTW, if you sympathize with Nochimson's "theories", please don't bother to
flame me - I DO think she has something to say, once you get over the
phallo- and castratory notions. Haha.
Gwion
tric...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <37369742...@hotmail.com>, Han Van den Hoof
> <han_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Allow me to further clarify my point:
> >A good work of art exposes its content (or meaning, if you wish) through the
> >form in wich it presents itself to an audience. A good work of art doesn't
> >need any kind of philosophical discourse to account for itself.
>
> You mean an "accessible" work of art, when you type "good"?
>
> Or do you just mean, the kind of work you like? Either way, this definition
> of yours was last workable at a time when all work was semi-appropriately
> evaluated in the Modernist context in which it had been created. Since
> then, some works are created with intentional or unintended
> post-modern influences. Now, maybe your work is trapped in a bubble
> in time, but these more recent works have something to say when
> queried in a postmodern framework
No, Han just said the plain truth. You are looking for a justification for
all this garbage that apparently fills your life. There is no such thing
as "Post Modernism", never has been, never will be, and never can be. Get
over it.
G.
--
remove "string" to respond
damnfine
> > girlfriend. Too bad for him the baby is not too cute. And there's a
theater
> > inside his radiator. And he gets a shrimp in the mail. The shrimp does
a
> > dance for him. And so on.
>
> Dang, Han! - and all this time, I was utterly convinced it was some kind
> of artsy-fartsy psycho-sexual-socio-polito-econo-phallocentric,
> castration-anxiety thing like that dingbat Martha P. Nochimson likes to
> yack on and on about when discussing Lynch's work. ;-)
ROTFL!
Jeff, that was pure genius!
Jeff Gower
<damn...@cyberdude.com> wrote:
> ROTFL!
>
> Jeff, that was pure genius!
Thankya, thankyaverymuch. For my next number.......
Jeff
Alex
can't stand. Kaleta's book is fairer to both sexes and that's one of the main
reasons why i think it's the best book out there.
regards,
Alex
Jeff Gower wrote:
> In article <37369742...@hotmail.com>, Han Van den Hoof
> <han_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Oh and eraserhead is mainly about a guy who (presumably) knocked up his
> > girlfriend. Too bad for him the baby is not too cute. And there's a theater
> > inside his radiator. And he gets a shrimp in the mail. The shrimp does a
> > dance for him. And so on.
>
> Dang, Han! - and all this time, I was utterly convinced it was some kind
> of artsy-fartsy psycho-sexual-socio-polito-econo-phallocentric,
> castration-anxiety thing like that dingbat Martha P. Nochimson likes to
> yack on and on about when discussing Lynch's work. ;-)
>
tric...@hotmail.com
con...@string.cheerful.com (Gwion) wrote:
>
>No, Han just said the plain truth. You are looking for a justification for
>all this garbage that apparently fills your life. There is no such thing
>as "Post Modernism", never has been, never will be, and never can be. Get
>over it.
>There is no such thing as "Post Modernism", never has been,
>never will be, and never can be.
Defend this patently ridiculuous claim,
you pompous, uneducated ass.
The evidence that you exist, online or in RL,
is far weaker than your claim of the non-existence of
post-modern critical theories or works informed by pomo.
sensibilities.
In fact, I publicly fucking dare you to define Modernism
thoroughly. I would suggest that you have no grasp of
these terms whatsoever. For starters, you seem to have
confused "Modern" with "contemporary".
Trichome
the pompous ass who tries to stick to topics
where he has at least some familiarity
damnfine
> >There is no such thing as "Post Modernism", never has been,
> >never will be, and never can be.
Trichome wrote:
> Defend this patently ridiculuous claim,
> you pompous, uneducated ass.
>
> The evidence that you exist, online or in RL,
> is far weaker than your claim of the non-existence of
> post-modern critical theories or works informed by pomo.
> sensibilities.
>
> In fact, I publicly fucking dare you to define Modernism
> thoroughly. I would suggest that you have no grasp of
> these terms whatsoever. For starters, you seem to have
> confused "Modern" with "contemporary".
WooHoo! Welcome to TrichomeWorld, Gwion!
That comment was utterly ridiculous and got everything it deserved.
I am not ANYWHERE NEAR an authority on this topic, and could probably not
even offer a passable definition of Post-Modernism, but to say that it is a
completely non-existent thing is the height of stupidity. If it doesn't
exist, then why the hell do we have that term to describe it?
Sure, post-modernism is best known for the material works that it results
in, and yes, they can be and are dismissed as pretentious bullshit by
ignorant, lazy people.
But, as Trichome said, it is at heart a SENSIBILITY and simply the fact
that we HAVE the term "Post-Modernism" is, to me, irrefutable evidence that
it exists.
--
/^\damnfine/^\
damn...@cyberdude.com
--
Quote of the moment:
"It's like you're dreamin' about Gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly Brie
time baby!"
- Dialogue from There's Something About Mary.
Van den Hoof-Leysen
Jeff Gower
tric...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <content-ya0240800...@news.alt.net>,
> con...@string.cheerful.com (Gwion) wrote:
> >There is no such thing as "Post Modernism", never has been,
> >never will be, and never can be.
Okeedokee.....
> Defend this patently ridiculuous claim,
> you pompous, uneducated ass.
Let 'em have it, Tri'! Some people knee-jerk anything they don't (or
can't bring themselves to try to) understand.
> In fact, I publicly fucking dare you to define Modernism
> thoroughly. I would suggest that you have no grasp of
> these terms whatsoever. For starters, you seem to have
> confused "Modern" with "contemporary".
Yep. Hell, call it "post modernism", call it "contemporary", call it
whatever - play those semantic games - but Gwion's dismissal of such
analytical thought endeavors as "garbage" reeks of either frustration or
stubborn unwillingness to tackle them. Hey, they ain't everyone's bag,
and not everyone is receptive to them, but that doesn't render them
frivolous garbage.
> Trichome
> the pompous ass
Jeff
just a regular ass
Han Van den Hoof
No, I mean good.
>Or do you just mean, the kind of work you like?
That's right, I like "good" art. hehe
>Now, maybe your work is trapped in a bubble
in time, but these more recent works have something to say when
queried in a postmodern framework.
Art is not timeless, I'm well aware of that. But nonetheless it tries to be. And tell me...what do these recent works say when queried in a postmodern framework? Do they speak French?
>...but what is to be accomplished with this loaded language and generalized animosity?
Hey! If critics can get away with that, why can't I?!
>How much does this have to do
with your fear that you will never be financially or critically
successful
through your art? Four years in school, and you seem pretty
defensive
against the words of some self-important critics. Unless
there's a sore
spot there...
Enough allready! That's the typical response I don't want to hear! Not because of any sore spots but because it's completely beside the point. This is exactly what I was fulminating about... people like you keep dragging things into the discussion that have nothing, ZIP to do with the subject! But I guess you're just seeing things from a "broader perspective". Oooh baby.
>You're the one throwing the pomo baby out with the Bartheswater.
Where did you steal this? Or are you just being "intertextual"?
>Or do you not want to hear which of your hidden truths they will
uncover, should the philosophers stare at your canvas.?
I can't wait, in fact, for them to reveal just how afraid of women I am because my mother is a huge, walking vagina dentata.
>What's the point of the Veryfast 1 Min. Tough Guy Guide to Eraserhead?
Are you trying to reduce someone else's transcendent moment down
to your
concrete level?
I'm just
saying what's there, as opposed to placing it in a post-modern framework
and letting it speak. But I'm sure the movie has a very layered
structure hidden beneath the surface. And I bet it even beats a lasagna
at that. Now get out your pomo tools and work that baby! Like, a thousand
levels, man...
Let me put it very simple: "Art theory" is a contradiction in terms. If you're interested Tom Wolfe wrote a great essay on the subject called "The painted word", I think. But then maybe you won't take Wolfe seriously because he didn't study with Lacan or anything...
Han
(ps: I'm not denying there is such a thing as post-modernism, the problem
is I can't. I find it very impotent as "a set of tools", but when
you use your own people take you for an idiot. This is no unfounded, irrational
fear of mine. This is the current climate.)
Will
damnfine
> Pesronally, I believe truly great art to be timeless.
> Why should it matter what time period the artist lived in.
> If something is truly beutiful, original and fascinating as good art
should be, then why must we > pretend it is not becasue of it's time
period.
I completely agree. But who's suggesting otherwise?
> To say that "post-modernism" is not a valid term is ridiculous.
> Its like saying nothing is "epic".............. ~ahem~.
LOL!
> Maybe you need some "sharp" dialogue, and a few stories running at the
same time to make > a film "deep". Pulp Fiction is not deep. Pulp Fiction
is shit. (In my opinion)
Sure Pulp Fiction is not deep, but it's not MEANT to be. It's nothing more
than pure, adrenilyn-charged, highly original entertainment. IMHO It's
among the top 10 films of the 90's in terms of both influence and
entertainment-value.
Alex
Does the fact that it's a pastiche of film references make it pomo? How about
its ironic content? Is that pomo? I'm curious to read what others think.
regards,
Alex
Han Van den Hoof
Will wrote:
OK, I'm gonna jump out of the 2 threads I've been in for that last couple of years, and add my opinion here too. Pesronally, I believe truly great art to be timeless.Why should it matter what time period the artist lived in.If something is truly beutiful, original and fascinating as good art should be, then why must we pretend it is not becasue of it's time period. To say that "post-modernism" is not a valid term is ridiculous.Its like saying nothing is "epic".............. ~ahem~. And yes, you may be correct in your description of the events which happen in Eraserhead,but would you really describe a lovely and tasty cake to your friend as "Just some milk, flour eggs and butter kinda mixed up a bit"?NO, you wouldn't. (Well, maybe you would, I don't kow)Eraserhead as a piece of art is beautifully crafted and is the most fascinatin piece of film I know of. Sometimes it can make an hour and a half seem like ten minutes, sometimes it feels like hours, but each time you notice something new.Each time you watch it, something makes more sense.It is like a painting from renaissance times. Maybe you need some "sharp" dialogue, and a few stories running at the same time to make a film "deep". Pulp Fiction is not deep. Pulp Fiction is shit. (In my opinion)Sorry. I know nobody metion Pulp Fiction..........I just imagined it happening..........Anyway............Will
1) I'm NOT saying post-modernism is an invalid term. I'm just saying
that certain post-modern viewpoints are utterly worthless.
2)If I didn't know the words "lovely", "tasty" and "cake" I'd probably describe it as "some kinda damn fine pastry" and if that wouldn't work I'd probably sum up the ingredients... how would you do it? (Hey, Trichome, help me out here. I need your undoubtedly thorough knowledge of semiotics... (semiotics = pomo philosophy's retarded little steph-brother.))
3)Eraserhead IS a beautifully crafted work of art. It IS fascinating. But is that because it might be about male fear for the female reproductory system? I don't think so... Critics who appreciate movies because they fit in the kind of discours* they like to use are not seeing the movie, they're thinking how smart and intellectual they are.
Han
*Yuk! I really hate that word!
tric...@hotmail.com
>Ok, now Pulp Fiction. Do people think it embraces certain pomo qualities?
>Does the fact that it's a pastiche of film references make it pomo? How about
>its ironic content? Is that pomo? I'm curious to read what others think.
>
>regards,
>Alex
Sounds like very strong pomo influences, but, alas,
film cad that I am, I still haven't bothered to watch Pulp Fiction.
Or Reservoir Dogs. Or Casablanca. Or the Godfather.
So talk amongst yourselves;
or else I'll have to look up the pomo partyline on Pulp Fiction,
and pretend I've seen it.
Trichome
Will
At times it is amusing, and can be entertaining.
I personally do not see it as original. It is simply a mish-mash of of every
movie and novel which Tarantino and the guy who actually WROTE the film
(whose name escapes me) saw or read in the same genre.
Add in a few "hilarious" pop culture conversations and one-liners, and you
have Pulp Fiction.
Reservoir Dogs was superior, and had far more influence over films of the
90's.
I still hate Tarantino, though.
Having said all this, I'd still rather watch Pulp Fiction than The
AmityVillle Horror Part IV: The Evil Escapes....................or Men in
Black.
Will
Will
before I came on-line ( a few months ago), I had never heard the term
"pomo".
Could someone explain it to me please?
Will
Katrina & Mike
Excellent post. I got the same sense from "Lynch on Lynch" but felt that
he then contradicted himself slightly by being very loquacious on the
film making process. I found Lost Highway to be a very disturbing film
but on a visceral level. His typical use of deep background sound to
give an almost subconscious unease is enormously effective and again on
an emotional level. You are so right to say that you either get it or
you don't. It's not beyond analysis but to do so would be unnecessarily
dull.
It would be interesting however to hear Lynch talk more about Kubrick as
I believe there are many parallels in their work. Both know the power of
stillness and are unafraid to shoot a scene with very little action to
convey a growing sense of fear. One scene in Twin Peaks still sends
shivers down my spine just thinking about it. It's a simple low angle
shot of the Palmer's living room which seems to go on for several
minutes before suddenly a white horse appears walking across frame.
Kubrick used similar stately, rigid shots in The Shining to similar
effect. Their power is in their simplicity. I believe that one of
Kubrick's rare interviews around the time of 2001 included a line about
his film being a non-verbal experience that bypasses normal conscious
thought. The same goes for Lynch.
Wait a minute. We're analysing. Do'h!
Mike.
Oh no I've just read the other responses. I'll get my coat.
--
Mike
Alex
Also could someone help me out with ROFTL
What the heck is that?
I'm not down with the internet speak...I figured out LOL, but ROFTL or whatever
it is, I'm hard pressed.
regards,
Alex
Matt
> Or Reservoir Dogs.
Bother
>Or Casablanca.
Don't bother.
>Or the Godfather.
Bother right this instant!
--
-Mr. Marquis
Matt
> (whose name escapes me)
Roger Avary co-created the stories, QT wrote the actual dialog.
--
-Mr. Marquis
Matt
>
> Sorry, I have always considered myself a relatively seasoned film buff, but
> before I came on-line ( a few months ago), I had never heard the term
> "pomo".
> Could someone explain it to me please?
>
> Will
I think they're using it as an abbreviation for post-modern. For a more
detailed explanation of that, I'll leave it to someone bettwe at
producing word definitions
--
-Mr. Marquis
Alex
Will wrote:
> Personally I dislike Pulp Fiction.
> At times it is amusing, and can be entertaining.
> I personally do not see it as original. It is simply a mish-mash of of every
> movie and novel which Tarantino and the guy who actually WROTE the film
> (whose name escapes me) saw or read in the same genre.
>
Yeah, but isn't that original? Isn't PF's originality found its amalgamation of
film history (i.e. origins)? How many mainstream films do you know that are so
self-consciously/obviously self-referential? I don't think many. Irma Vep is
one that I can name, and maybe Last Tango in Paris. But they are hardly
mainstream like PF. I think PF is very original, original as a twisted return
to the origins, as the juxtaposition of different genres, as something
reflecting pomo aesthetics. Tarantino rehashes old films---this is true and he
admits it---but the way in which he puts them together is pretty fun and
interesting., as
> Add in a few "hilarious" pop culture conversations and one-liners, and you
> have Pulp Fiction.
> Reservoir Dogs was superior, and had far more influence over films of the
> 90's.
>
I've got to say that Reservoir Dogs isn't as great as PF. It's all style no
substance; all about being cool without having anything else to say. The
dialogue's funny though. Its such a glossy film that it hides the vast
deficiencies. It's been noted for its realistic violence, but I didn't care
about any of the characters getting killed and in that sense, it wasn't
realistic at all. The characters were all superficial and disposable. Mr.
White, Mr. Blue, Mr. Pink: they're all useless.
> I still hate Tarantino, though.
>
I don't think he's a great filmmaker but his dialogue is damn good.He's also a
bitch.
regards,
Alex
Alex
Rent it tonight even though it's pretty slow in the middle and way longer than it
should be.
Skip out on Reservoir Dogs unless you plan on getting drunk or are watching it with
a bunch of rowdy guys. Other than that, it's pretty useless.
Matt said all there needs to be said about the Godfather.
regards,
Alex
Matt
>
> Pomo''s short for post-modern
> Also could someone help me out with ROFTL
> What the heck is that?
> I'm not down with the internet speak...I figured out LOL, but ROFTL or whatever
> it is, I'm hard pressed.
>
> regards,
> Alex
After some time, I picked up on this one.
Rolling on the floor laughing, or sometimes Rolling on the floor
laughing my ass off.
God, I feel like such a tool . . .
--
-Mr. Marquis
Matt
> > Don't bother.
>
> bother anyway
Ok, ok, since this comes under my "bizarre personal preferences"
category, I guess you should bother and see it for yourself, as there
are plenty of people who like it. For my money, though, I look no
further in Bogey vehicles than Treasure of Sierra Madre.
--
-Mr. Marquis
Alex
Batches? We don't need no stinking batches!
That seething noirish tension. Bogey ain't too bad in the Big Sleep if you can
somehow get through the convoluted story.
regards,
Alex
damnfine
> Personally I dislike Pulp Fiction.
> At times it is amusing, and can be entertaining.
> I personally do not see it as original. It is simply a mish-mash of of
every
> movie and novel which Tarantino and the guy who actually WROTE the film
> (whose name escapes me) saw or read in the same genre.
Tarantino DID write the film. PART of the middle story was conceived by
Roger Avary, but Tarantino wrote the entire screenplay.
damnfine
> > I still haven't bothered to watch Pulp Fiction.
Yes!
> > Or Reservoir Dogs.
> Bother
Yes!
> >Or Casablanca.
> Don't bother.
Hey! Definately bother.I don't knowwhy it was listed among these films, but
bother anyway
> >Or the Godfather.
> Bother right this instant!
Yep, the best of them all, easily.
damnfine
justification for
thing
> > >as "Post Modernism", never has been, never will be, and never can be.
> > >over it.
> >
> > >There is no such thing as "Post Modernism", never has been,
> > >never will be, and never can be.
> >
> > you pompous, uneducated ass.
>
>
> G.
Come on! I for one am very interested to hear your reasons...
Matt
>
> Treasure of the Sierra Madre is a great film.
> Batches? We don't need no stinking batches!
> That seething noirish tension. Bogey ain't too bad in the Big Sleep if you can
> somehow get through the convoluted story.
>
> regards,
> Alex
Yeah, I read/saw that one in some film class freshman year with Rachel
Adams (it was pretty good, since we watched full metal jacket, aliens,
lone star, and a wide variety of other stuff). It really helped to have
read the book, so that I could realize important things like one
character being homosexual.
--
-Mr. Marquis
tric...@hotmail.com
preferences on your newsreader so that your messages don't go out in
the MIME format, which is non-standard for Usenet; and which is
not commonly read by others' software.
In article <373850BD...@hotmail.com>, Han Van den Hoof
<han_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>You mean an "accessible" work of art, when you type "good"?
>
> No, I mean good.
>
Even if I blow up and roll away, don't you see how this rigid
"good" is going to repeatedly draw you into conflict, if you can't
use that word in less charged way, dividing one set of works
which you like from other's works, which are clearly labelled
as "good" by someone else.
Unpack your politics, or you will encounter the same boring
introductory confusion every time this conversation starts up,
rather than proceeding to more sophisticated explorations of
the participants' ideas.
>>Or do you just mean, the kind of work you like?
>
> That's right, I like "good" art. hehe
>
>>Now, maybe your work is trapped in a bubble
>in time, but these more recent works have something to say when
>queried in a postmodern framework.
>
> Art is not timeless, I'm well aware of that. But nonetheless it
tries to
>be. And tell me...what do these recent works say when queried in a postmodern
>framework? Do they speak French?
>
What they say, goes like this.
The traditional arts, in their Modern forms (?~1840 - ~1940?), came to their
commonalities by reflecting European and American cultures in flux.
People moved to the cities, and started to read.
They invented holidays, and baseball, and unions.
And one of the most obvious common ideals of Modern art, was
that the tools and materials of each separate medium be seen as the special
Muse and guiding principle. Thus, a photograph does not have to look
like a painting. They are free to express their inherent qualities, which is an
obvious parallel to the need of the individual to approach membership in
a Modern, far more complicated society, by expressing his distinctions
aloud. For the first time, in the relatively short history of the new era.
>>...but what is to be accomplished with this loaded language and generalized
>animosity?
>
> Hey! If critics can get away with that, why can't I?!
Because you're better than that, and who says they get away with it, if
we can still tell obfuscation from insight. Yes they get printed, but
there's a lot of corruption in art, politics. You can't let the crap
ratio get to
you, as it will always be high. Just better your art, your interpretive
frameworks, and tell those other voices to piss off. But recognize that
there are some voices in there that you just aren't ready to grasp.
I don't know if I'll ever *understand* Peter Greenaway or his films
as well as I'd like, but I actually like the thought that I've found a topic
where I can reach out, but I may never be able to settle on one fully
satisfying way of thinking about him.
>
>>How much does this have to do
>with your fear that you will never be financially or critically successful
>through your art? Four years in school, and you seem pretty defensive
>against the words of some self-important critics. Unless there's a sore
>spot there...
>
> Enough allready! That's the typical response I don't want to
hear! Not
>because of any sore spots but because it's completely beside the point. This is
>exactly what I was fulminating about... people like you keep dragging
things into
>the discussion that have nothing, ZIP to do with the subject! But I guess
you're
>just seeing things from a "broader perspective". Oooh baby.
>
I have heard similar words before, and even if my description did not
apply to you, you'd know darn well who I'm talking about.
Art students with much pressure on them.
Often uneducated as to Art History, Theory.
Defending against a perceived conflict between Mo & Pomo, which need not
even arise if all critics are obliged to give an example of at least
one insight
which productively arises from the application of the method.
I mean, does Egyptian art benefit from being asked the same questions one
would of the Impressionists' scenes? No, that's just as absurd as slathering
Pomo frameworks onto works for which they are clearly unsuited.
>>You're the one throwing the pomo baby out with the Bartheswater.
>
> Where did you steal this? Or are you just being "intertextual"?
My punning love goes back through Lewis Carroll to Shakespeare.
You brought up Barthes, while I neither read French, nor do I necessarily
grasp what these people meant. I have, however, been very satisfied to
learn new ways to probe a text. And hopefully the discretion not to
force my pet paradigms into arenas where they will only add to the
misunderstandings.
>>Or do you not want to hear which of your hidden truths they will
>uncover, should the philosophers stare at your canvas.?
>
> I can't wait, in fact, for them to reveal just how afraid of
women I am
>because my mother is a huge, walking vagina dentata.
Now play fair. That's Freud & Jung. That's totally Modernist in
origin, but it gets picked up with much enthusiasm by Deconstructionists
(whoever they are - I'm one self appointed, but I probably don't understand
what exactly the most formal and proper definition would be.)
>>What's the point of the Veryfast 1 Min. Tough Guy Guide to Eraserhead?
>Are you trying to reduce someone else's transcendent moment down to your
>concrete level?
>
> I'm just saying what's there, as opposed to placing it in a
post-modern
>framework and letting it speak. But I'm sure the movie has a very layered
>structure hidden beneath the surface. And I bet it even beats a lasagna
at that.
>Now get out your pomo tools and work that baby! Like, a thousand levels, man...
>
Geological pasta strata, man.
Dig, I see the colors !
Post-modern can just be "the themes which emerged in Art under a common
condition of human society in a post"Modern" era, one which has moved
beyond the forces which guided Modern society.
In Modernism, the masses could read the newspaper.
In postmodernism, everyone watches cable.
On the Internet, we are all publishers.
Pomo just correlates the Times with the themes in the works.
(unless you are working now in a modernist time-arrested framework,
in which case no one may be interested, just as there isn't a market for
new art imitating old schools (where's the drama, the agenda, the
inspiration?)
>
>Let me put it very simple: "Art theory" is a contradiction in terms. If you're
>interested Tom Wolfe wrote a great essay on the subject called "The
painted word",
>I think. But then maybe you won't take Wolfe seriously because he didn't study
>with Lacan or anything...
>
"Down by the riverbank, a blues band arrives.
The music suffers; the music business thrives."
"Art Theory" is not the same as Art,
and some of what is good for Art Theory is evidently not good for the
creation and support of Art.
I think many feel inadequate, and rightly oppressed, by the thought
of having to learn these critics well enough to shoot down their
notions and impress art babes at artsy parties.
I deeply wish there were some easy way to distill out that which
enlightens, from the parasites. I would have needed at least two more years
in the Art History program, and a change of brain, if I were ever going
to master all these jargon-filled freaks. And that didn't happen, so at least
you are spared my Mr. Know-it-all routine.
>Han
>
>(ps: I'm not denying there is such a thing as post-modernism, the problem is I
>can't. I find it very impotent as "a set of tools", but when you use your own
>people take you for an idiot. This is no unfounded, irrational fear of
mine. This
>is the current climate.)
>
It is the current climate. And *you* are the current climate.
That's what it's going to continue to come down to.
You and now.
Free yourself to be yourself,
because we can talk about all the critical losers,
but "they" will not change.
So it's all got's to come from you, baby.
damnfine
Will
Reservoir Dogs has a hell of a lot more substance than Pulp Fiction, and is
written far better. That is my opinion, as is my opinion that Pupl Fiction
is all about gloss and being cool, yet has little substance.
And to finish this post I'll say....Tarantino was CREDITED with writing the
entire film, but it is common knowledge that he did not, and that the other
guy (Roger Avery), in fact wrote the majority of the film leaving Tarantino
to "cool" it up.
Will
Alex
got its form, its great load of self-referentiality (granted RD is indebted to
Taking of Pelham 1,2,3, and some Hong Kong films), its extremely pomo look that
hasn't really been seen in the mainstream film world before, dialogue just as
good, etc. RD is a good first effort but PF is a far better film. RD isn't
even that cinematic in terms of film language and technique.
regards,
Alex
Will
:-)
In reservoir Dogs, we are left alone with around 7 men in a warehouse. We
learn about them as the movie progresses, and personally I thought the
characters were better written thatn those in Pulp Fiction.
How can you say there is no substance in the relationship between Mr. Orange
and Mr. White?
How could you not feel sorry for the cop in the chair?
Reservoir Dogs is the most original work Tarantino has done, and will never
succeed in bettering it.
Are you trying to say that Reservoir Dogs would have been better with MORE
"references" to other films?
I personally call it blatant plagorism.
Jules and Vince in Pulp Fiction are empty vessels. There is little or no
characterisation going on there.
The only well written character in the whole damn thing was Butch.
That is what I think anyway.
Will
Jeff Gower
> > > >Or Casablanca.
> > > Don't bother.
> >
> > Hey! Definately bother.I don't knowwhy it was listed among these films, but
> > bother anyway
>
> Ok, ok, since this comes under my "bizarre personal preferences"
> category, I guess you should bother and see it for yourself, as there
> are plenty of people who like it. For my money, though, I look no
> further in Bogey vehicles than Treasure of Sierra Madre.
I'll pass on Bogey too. Just never did much for me.
Jeff
tric...@hotmail.com
<han_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>2)If I didn't know the words "lovely", "tasty" and "cake" I'd probably
>describe it as "some kinda damn fine pastry" and if that wouldn't work
>I'd probably sum up the ingredients... how would you do it? (Hey,
>Trichome, help me out here. I need your undoubtedly thorough knowledge
>of semiotics... (semiotics = pomo philosophy's retarded little
>steph-brother.))
>
Again, I was falling asleep in class too much when I had my
chance to master these ideas, but here's a thought.
Semiotics is for breaking down the functional elements of art,
the symbols and tropes and pieces, so you can examine how
they work together, as well as how they are used elsewhere in the
culture. This is indeed a different way to describe a cake, and it
works far better in a post-modern time, because the artists and
viewers are familiar with a broader set of symbols. They expect,
to some degree, to consider the work in comparison with everything
else.
I wish I could like this "Semiotics for Beginners" site, but it's too
academically thorough, and not introductory enough.
http://www.aber.ac.uk/~dgc/sem01.html
One part I like,
>In the last decade or so, semiotics has undergone a shift of its theoretical
>gears: a shift away from the classification of sign systems - their basic
>units, their levels of structural organization - and towards the exploration
>of the modes of production of signs and meanings, the ways in
>which systems and codes are used, transformed or transgressed in social
>practice. While formerly the emphasis was on studying sign systems
>(language, literature, cinema, architecture, music, etc.), conceived of as
>mechanisms that generate messages, what is now being examined is the
>work performed through them. It is this work or activity which
>constitutes and/or transforms the codes, at the same time as it constitutes
>and transforms the individuals using the codes, performing the work; the
>individuals who are, therefore, the subjects of semiosis.
So the focus changes to the individual, who intentionally OR
unintentionally uses symbols to communicate. It's the way in which the
individual draws those symbols from a common well, and tailors them
to suit his or her sensibilities, that we may learn something about the
work and the artist.
And you know that DL is wayyy out there semiotically. It took me nine
years to figure out the Blue Rose of FWWM, and I am so satisfied with the
answer. Much better than some joker who spread loose ends everywhere,
none of which have the thorough depth of Lynch's sensibility.
I know him by the way he uses symbols, and part of that is that he is
aware of me, watching him insert the symbols. It's all very meta-
without being dry and difficult. A self-aware process, and a delightful
interplay with the audience.
Maybe this is not a particular dynamic Han wants in his art.
But post-modern appetites want to be involved, as petite fans,
gallery owners, professors, and artists.
Trichome
what do I know? I like photography and film and music.
Not all arts have as much use for po-mo, which makes sense,
given their historical circumstances.
Alex
Will wrote:
> You really don't think much of my opinions, do you Alex?
> :-)
I do I do. Don't sweat it. It's just that I don't see it the same way.
> In reservoir Dogs, we are left alone with around 7 men in a warehouse. We
> learn about them as the movie progresses, and personally I thought the
> characters were better written thatn those in Pulp Fiction.
I think had PF been a linear narrative, it would be much easier to chart
whatever character arc there is. But since it's not, the audience has to try a
little harder to see where each character goes. I agree that the characters in
PF don't have the depth of say Will in Good Will Hunting (as a screenplay, GWH
is pretty damn good) or Travis Bickle, but then neither do the characters in
RD. PF gives each character much greater individuality than RD does. One way
to test this is who I remember the most and can pick out in a crowd. The "Mr.
Color" characters all seem the same to me even though Mr. Pink is "the fag" and
Mr. White is the patron saint. I know who Sam Jackson and John Travolta as
characters are, but I don't remember what makes each Mr. Color different. Like
in the opening Madonna scene at the restaurant in RD...do you remember who talks
and who contributes? It's just a mass of opinions that all sound exactly the
same in terms of diction and vernacular. The writing is undifferentiated. In
PF, the characters all speak differently. In RD, it's the same tone in all
their speech. That's why I think PF has better written characters and more
easily identifiable ones.
> How can you say there is no substance in the relationship between Mr. Orange
> and Mr. White?
Here, you have a point. But this relationship is secondary to the bloody back
seat of the car and the whole "You know why you're not going to fuck up? Cause
you're super cool" attitude that Mr. Orange takes up. In other words, the gloss
of the violence draws attention away from their relationship. It's marginalized
and stylized which makes me care less. Also, the relationship is a cliche like
the one in Donnie Brasco or like in Real World Seattle where Dave goes to work
late and it looks bad for the guy who gave him the job. Because I knew it was
cliche, I didnt react the way I might've had it not been so overused.
> How could you not feel sorry for the cop in the chair?
>
How could you? I mean, what are we drawn to? Michael Madsen shaking his ass
around to the supersounds of the seventies or the prop in the chair we know very
little about? That's right, the guy's a prop, an object to be fucked with. The
audience is drawn to the violence; that's all we care about. And we're
attracted to how cool Madsen looks and how awesome the music is and how
hilarious the violent act is (which by the way is either a rip-off or homage to
lynch's BV). So I don't feel sorry for him cause I'm too into Madsen cause he's
cool and he's got a fuckin razor and he's gonna jack shit up.
> Reservoir Dogs is the most original work Tarantino has done, and will never
> succeed in bettering it.
I think PF is far more original. RD is a straightforward narrative about a
botched crime. We've seen this plot before. We've seen the realistic violence
before. PF on the other hand has great use of form, great use of cinematic
language, great references to film history, and Uma Thurman.
> Are you trying to say that Reservoir Dogs would have been better with MORE
> "references" to other films?
> I personally call it blatant plagorism.
See that's the catch with referentiality. It's either rip-off or homage. Like
with Lynch, he's either a genius or an idiot.
> Jules and Vince in Pulp Fiction are empty vessels. There is little or no
> characterisation going on there.
>
I don't think so, cause if they are empty vessels then what are the characters
in RD other than mere names of colors?I've already talked about the characters a
few lines up.
regards,
Alex
Jeff Gower
lynch...@aol.comnospam (Lynch4ever) wrote:
> >I like Nochimson's book the least cause it oozes gendered interpretation
> >which I
> >can't stand. .
>
> At least Nochimson is able to come up with complete theories.
Can you say "phallocentricity"? "Castration-anxiety", perhaps? These
topics are used so often they are given several page-pointers EACH in the
index. I'm sorry, but when she starts talking about Coop's thumbs-up, and
the Giant, and anything else that is longer than it is wide in TP, as
being "phallic", and when she treats every motive and compulsion as being
derived from a fear of being castrated, and she constantly refers to
manifestations of female and male bodies and envies thereof, and all that
jazz, it is hard to take her seriously. So much of everything is related
to genitalia to her. I just don't buy it. I am not at all closed to
feminist interpretation - I find some of it very refreshing. But
Nochimson often tries to force the issue, IMHO.
> Nochimson's book is harder to read, due mainly to the extreme use of the
> language of academia, but she seems to have a little more on the ball.
I will grant that she is on the ball in other aspects, though - she DOES
have some good things to contribute, and I enjoyed struggling with her
theories - if ONLY she'd put aside the ubiquitous phallo-castratory
bullshit for 5 minutes, the book would be recommendable from me.
Just my opinion.
Jeff
Alex
Lynch4ever wrote:
> >(Though I think Ken Kaleta's book is the best there is)
>
> We did read the same book, I assume? Did you happen to notice that in Kaleta's
> book he says that the policeman in "Wild at Heart" commits suicide, rather than
> Bobby Peru?
Nope, I paid attention to more important details but I understand that it's a
careless error.
> Kaleta has some interesting points, but it's far from the best
> book on Lynch's works. That award, in my opinion, goes to either "Lynch on
> Lynch" or "The Passion of David Lynch". Even David Wallace Foster's essay,
> "David Lynch Loses His Head" is better than Kaleta's book.
Actually, when I meant that Kaleta's book was the best there is, I meant book. I
am an enormous DFW fan and can't wait till Brief Interviews comes out. His essay
is good but it doesn't go into enough detail about all his films. If someone wants
in introduction to what the term "Lynchian" means, then that's the perfect essay
for you.Nochimson's book isn't bad, I just don't think I rememer liking it orusing
too much of it in my termpaper. I just found it to be overanalytical and Nochimson
often says things without much backing up.I found Kaleta's book far more accessible
and just as smart as Nochimsons but without the biased reading.
regards,
Alex
> jason
Lynch4ever
We did read the same book, I assume? Did you happen to notice that in Kaleta's
book he says that the policeman in "Wild at Heart" commits suicide, rather than
Bobby Peru? Kaleta has some interesting points, but it's far from the best
book on Lynch's works. That award, in my opinion, goes to either "Lynch on
Lynch" or "The Passion of David Lynch". Even David Wallace Foster's essay,
"David Lynch Loses His Head" is better than Kaleta's book.
jason
Lynch4ever
>which I
>main
>reasons why i think it's the best book out there.
So because Kaleta's an equal opportunity kinda guy you like him better? At
least Nochimson is able to come up with complete theories. Kaleta's book is a
meandering mess, with incomplete thoughts and unexplored premises. I admit,
Nochimson's book is harder to read, due mainly to the extreme use of the
language of academia, but she seems to have a little more on the ball.
jason
damnfine
> And to finish this post I'll say....Tarantino was CREDITED with writing
the
> entire film, but it is common knowledge that he did not, and that the
other
> guy (Roger Avery), in fact wrote the majority of the film leaving
Tarantino
> to "cool" it up.
Will, I'm afraid you're completely misinformed. And believe me, I have read
MUCH about all this, from the POV of both Tarantino and Avary.
Firstly, Tarantino AND Roger Avary were credited with the stories.
Secondly, Roger Avary conceived only the plot for the "Vincent Vega and
Marsellus Wallace's Wife" story.
Finally, Tarantino wrote the entire screenplay by himself in Amsterdam,
keeping in mind, partly, the story that he had previously discussed with
Avary.
I am not the world's biggest Tarantino fan, but give credit where it's due,
Pulp Fiction is a modern classic and he created it.
--
/^\damnfine/^\
damn...@cyberdude.com
--
Quote of the moment:
"I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks AND blows."
- Bart Simpson.
damnfine
> And you know that DL is wayyy out there semiotically. It took me nine
> years to figure out the Blue Rose of FWWM, and I am so satisfied with the
> answer. Much better than some joker who spread loose ends everywhere,
> none of which have the thorough depth of Lynch's sensibility.
Yes! I have gone back and read your Blue Rose theories on Dejanews and I
certainly understand what all the fuss was about. While, of course, I
should probably have tried attain my own theories on things like this,
adopting yours works just fine for me. I understand your satisfaction with
Will
actual film.
When was the last time you heard anyone mention the guys name on say, a
movie show in feference to Pulp Fiction.
Will
Will
Yes, I can remember who contributes what in the "Madonna scene" at the
beginning of RD.
All the way through the film we learn about the characters, with the
exception of Brown and Blue.
The characters all ver interesting backgrounds and are each very different.
This is the whole essence of the film.
Mr Pink is not "The fag". You're mistaking who he is, with what he says says
in the colour allocation scene.
I didn't laugh at the ear scene. I grimaced.
Although I did think "WHY is he doing this ?".
Personally I felt a hell of a lot more emotion when White has to kill Orange
at the end because he lied to him, than I did when Butch caps Vince coming
out of the bog.
Again I will say, Pulp fiction is all about gloss and violence with little
attention to character detail. The non-linear plot-line had not "confused"
me in any way, or clouded my judgement. The characters are still empty
vessels, whom we find very little about, and never really get to know.
Will
Matt
Ok, I'll step in here a moment. You're both right, you're both wrong. I
loved both RD and PF, and I feel from both of them (though admittedly
more from PF) that I got an above average sense of character. As for
reactions to various plot elements, That can only be chalked up to
personal opinion.
--
-Mr. Marquis
Matt
Never, which is the way it should be if his contributions end at the
extent damnfine explained.
--
-Mr. Marquis
Will
As legend has it, Avery and Tarantino concieved and wrote many of the
elements of PF a few years before Quentin wrote the script.
Avery deserves more credit. Many people around at the time say Avery wrote
MORE of what was in the film than Tarantino did.
Will
Sam and/or Karen Rouse
discussion, but whaddefuck...
In article <373850BD...@hotmail.com>, Han Van den Hoof
<han_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Let me put it very simple: "Art theory" is a contradiction in terms. If you're
> interested Tom Wolfe wrote a great essay on the subject called "The
painted word",
> I think. But then maybe you won't take Wolfe seriously because he didn't study
> with Lacan or anything...
Yeah, that's a _great_ book! I also love the followup volume about modern
architecture, "From Bauhaus to Our House."
It seems to me that when art becomes art theory, it is art devouring
itself. The evolution of modern art is this process carried to its
ultimate conclusion, with the remaining players scrabbling to suck the
marrow out of the last of the bones (hence the mad rush to jump on the
post-modern bandwagon - whatever that is - in search of fresh meat).
I think I'll mosey along and find my asbestos underwear...
-Sam
--
Sam and/or Karen Rouse ro...@teleport.com
FZ Concert Tales:
http://www.teleport.com/~rouse/fz/