8 and a Half Women
Nikolaus Maack
Women"? I've loved most of his films -- "The Cook, The Thief, His Wife,
and Her Lover" is one of my all time favourites, "Drowning by Numbers" was
great fun, and "A Zed and Two Naughts" was just too weird not to be loved.
I have no choice but to love a film featuring a decomposing zebra.
I've also hated other Greenaway works. His film verion of The Tempest --
"Prospero's Books" -- made my brain ache. Too many damn layers of imagery
overlapping. Not even John Gielgud could save the fucker.
I ask you surrealists for your opinions because I cherish and respect you
all, and love you. Passionately. Share, if you have anything to share.
I'd say Greenaway is vaguely surreal, by my feeble-minded definition of
the word, anyway.
I read a review of the film in the local paper. The reviewer, in an
attempt to sound "so-fiss-tick-ated" made a lot of snide comments and
stupid jokes. In the end, she didn't tell me much at all, and only made
me want to see the film more. She gave it one and a half stars. Damn her
senseless middle-of-the-road brain.
In the same newspaper, someone gave the film "Big Momma's House" a rave
review. Great for a laugh? Yes, I haven't seen enough films about men
pretending to be women. I've seen the preview for the film three times
now, and I feel like I've watched this cursed film twice now.
The Internet Movie Database has 92 votes on "Eight and a Half Women"
registered, and gives it a 6 out of 10. Most of the comments on the film
make me want to see it -- opaque, stilted, cold, "too much male nudity"
says one would-be critic, including homosexual incest. Cool! I can't
explain why, but I get the feeling this movie is too smart for people, and
that's why they hate it. Of course, I haven't seen it yet, so I can't
really give a valid opinion.
Have a take on this film? Answer me quickly, if you can. I intend to see
the film all by lonesome on Saturday night. Seeing a movie by myself is a
wonderful experience. Fortunately my personality is so odious that I'm
constantly thrown into such a situation.
Nik
--
Every good piece of art kills something soft and small.
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.nikart.com
johnqadamsiii
the same director of "the Cook, the Thief, His Wife, & Her Lover"
who's done it, I'll make it a point to pass. Nothing personal,
but i really did not care for the movie, which i caught in
theaters towards the end of high school. The first thing that
struck negatively about the movie was that it was very boring - i
wanted to leave and wonder around the stores until it was over
but stayed with the friends that talked me into seeing such a
travesty of film-making instead. The other thing about it that i
recall was its glaringly obvious attempts at being artistic. And
grotesque scenes taken to extremes are simply that, nothing more,
nothing interesting, or innovative.
Altogether i gave it two thumbs down and felt an enormous sense
of freedom upon walking out the doors and into the parking lot.
john
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
elag
about the fact that he seems to feel the need to remake Fellini's 8 1/2.
I generally find remakes to be pointless, but I'll give him the benefit
of the doubt.
I liked his last, "Pillow Book". I'll admit that it's not for Mass CONSUMPTION.
elag
>
> I haven't seen that particular movie, but since it happens to be
> the same director of "the Cook, the Thief, His Wife, & Her Lover"
> who's done it, I'll make it a point to pass. Nothing personal,
> but i really did not care for the movie, which i caught in
> theaters towards the end of high school. The first thing that
> struck negatively about the movie was that it was very boring - i
> wanted to leave and wonder around the stores until it was over
> but stayed with the friends that talked me into seeing such a
> travesty of film-making instead. The other thing about it that i
> recall was its glaringly obvious attempts at being artistic. And
> grotesque scenes taken to extremes are simply that, nothing more,
> nothing interesting, or innovative.
> Altogether i gave it two thumbs down and felt an enormous sense
> of freedom upon walking out the doors and into the parking lot.
It's a good thing that you weren't carrying a pot of ink.
johnqadamsiii
Dale Houstman
"Nikolaus Maack" <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:8h99g6$i1o$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> I have no choice but to love a film featuring a decomposing zebra.
Yes. Every film should have at least one rotting animal besides the star. Of
course, I'd prefer the film to be a nature film with a few decomposing
actors, but we can't have everything.
>
>
> I ask you surrealists for your opinions because I cherish and respect you
> all, and love you. Passionately.
At a distance luckily.
> I'd say Greenaway is vaguely surreal, by my feeble-minded definition of
> the word, anyway.
I've hated almost every Greenaway film that I've seen. That opinion - in and
of itself - says nothing about his "degree" of comradeship with surrealism
of course. But I also find his films too obviously arty and concerned with
merely aesthetic issues and - worst of all - they tend to revel in large
dollops of pre-considered symbolism. This is much like the argument with
Dali: their approach strikes me as similar. Greenaway appears to be a
sensationalist at heart, and as such doesn't interest me much whether
"surrealist" or not.
>
>
> In the same newspaper, someone gave the film "Big Momma's House" a rave
> review. Great for a laugh? Yes, I haven't seen enough films about men
> pretending to be women. I've seen the preview for the film three times
> now, and I feel like I've watched this cursed film twice now.
It will make a ton of money though, won't it? These films are intended for a
niche market (like so much product today).
>
>but I get the feeling this movie is too smart for people, and
> that's why they hate it.
An assumption - I think - that is more of a defensive strategy than a valid
observation. Even if you had seen the film, there is no basis for this
conclusion. At any rate - a film can be "too smart" (whatever that entails)
and still be atrociously awful. And also one has to consider the balance of
effects in any project: film is not in general an appropriate medium for
philosophical discourse, and the greatest films are often "dumb" in more
ways than one. "Casablanca" is certainly not "too smart" for anyone, but it
also certainly a better film than many "hi-brow" productions, so as a
cinematic distniction "smarts" isn't able to stand by itself. I'll take the
most trivial Buster Keaton film over Greenaway any day - both in terms of
pure enjoyment and surreality.
dmh
Nikolaus Maack
>>It's a good thing that you weren't carrying a pot of ink.
>
> I might have drowned myself in it.
You can fit your entire head into a pot of ink?
Nikolaus Maack
> I haven't seen that particular movie, but since it happens to be
> the same director of "the Cook, the Thief, His Wife, & Her Lover"
> who's done it, I'll make it a point to pass. Nothing personal,
> but i really did not care for the movie, which i caught in
> theaters towards the end of high school.
Because I said this is one of my all time favourite films, I must now
defend it. Draw your sword, knave! My steel thirsts for your blood! Er,
I mean, nothing personal. Yup.
> The first thing that
> struck negatively about the movie was that it was very boring - i
> wanted to leave and wonder around the stores until it was over
> but stayed with the friends that talked me into seeing such a
> travesty of film-making instead.
Boring? I was totally drawn in by the colours, the imagery, the music...
Every room in the film has a different colour, and the cast changes
costume to suit the new colour. Touches like this are probably what get
Greenaway that "intellectual artsy fartsy suck ass" label. It's touches
like this that keep me in awe. No matter what is happening, the screen
never looks boring. And the soundtrack -- opera singing dishwashers and a
beautiful orchestra -- make my ears salivate.
The story itself -- the illicit affair, the insane Spica thief husband,
the restaurant -- all add up to a gut-wrenching plot. By the time the
conclusion of the film rolls around, I'm on the edge of my seat -- even
after seeing the film so many times.
> The other thing about it that i
> recall was its glaringly obvious attempts at being artistic.
Hmm. I don't see it that way. The "attempts" are successes. Greenaway
doesn't fuck around -- he's not subtle with his artistry. He doesn't
apologize for it. It's there, fuck you. That's what I like about him.
He is arrogantly artistic.
> And
> grotesque scenes taken to extremes are simply that, nothing more,
> nothing interesting, or innovative.
You don't do Greenaway justice. CTWL features incredible highs and
incredible lows. That's what made the movie, for me, so stunning. He
goes from scenes of lavish meals, the lovers together in secret rooms
surrounded by plucked wildfowl, beautiful believable love, to scenes of
utter horror and perversity -- rotting meat and ice and violence. This
film hits incredible high notes and incredible low notes.
I'll say this much -- the film is very consciously constructed. It is
very much like a painting, as Elag said. The lines and the colours and
the plot parts are all bare before your eyes. If there is subtlety, it's
only through the interaction of these complex overt pieces.
I think Greenaway is a matter of personal taste. I happen to like
explosive bursts of primary colour -- big surprise. I don't mind
unabashed artistry. I don't think he's trying to show off or be cool.
He's doing his style, overtly, without apology. I can appreciate that.
> Altogether i gave it two thumbs down and felt an enormous sense
> of freedom upon walking out the doors and into the parking lot.
I've seen the movie maybe a dozen times. I never get bored of it.
However, I know it's not everyone's cup of tea. Some people like "Big
Mama's House", some people like Greenaway. *grin*
johnqadamsiii
And some people prefer "Big Bad Mama II".
I'll concede this much, that the set and the choreography may
have been artistically appealing - i wasn't impressed enough to
remember it anyway. But hardly does it make a movie, in my
opinion. It's similar to saying movies like Jurassic Park II are
great film successes - it has a wonderful set, impressive
creatures, even details down to the sweaty little kacky shorts
the protagonists were wearing were included. Well, what about the
rest of what makes a film worthwhile? It's funny that this one
aspect is the most noted. Also, the symbolism was notable, that
is to say overtly noticable. Too conscious, pretentious, and
faux.
Then, maybe i just have it in for weak movies!
johnqadamsiii
ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
>johnqadamsiii (johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid) writes:
>>
>> I might have drowned myself in it.
>
>You can fit your entire head into a pot of ink?
>
> Nik
Are you asking me or telling me? How should i know - i buy it by
the basin.
johnqadamsiii
<cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <2d1c6fb7...@usw-ex0101-006.remarq.com>,
> johnqadamsiii <johnqa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In article <8hba2a$lpo$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
>> ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:>I ignore them. The last movie I went out to see was "In The
Company
>Of Men." Has anyone seen it?
>
>cythera
That's generally what i like to do when i know they're bad in
advance.
elag
>
> "Nikolaus Maack" <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:8h99g6$i1o$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>
> > the word, anyway.
>
> I've hated almost every Greenaway film that I've seen. That opinion - in and
> of itself - says nothing about his "degree" of comradeship with surrealism
> of course. But I also find his films too obviously arty and concerned with
> merely aesthetic issues and
To me this is like complaining that Matisse was too preoccupied w/
color, or that Kandinsky was not concerned enough w/ recognizable
subject matter. Greenaway is a unique artist and his films represent
his unique vision. I don't expect the same thing of them as I expect
from say Hitchcock or Chaplin, because they are so different.
Ultimately, though, there is no arguing w/ tastes.
- worst of all - they tend to revel in large
> dollops of pre-considered symbolism. This is much like the argument with
> Dali: their approach strikes me as similar.
What you call symbolism I call imaginative structure. I consider his
films mostly in their visual aspect but I think that they are mostly
internally consistent and need not refer to recognizable symbols in
order to work
Greenaway appears to be a
> sensationalist at heart, and as such doesn't interest me much whether
> "surrealist" or not.
I see it another way. Film viewing is a visceral experience. Greenaway,
fully exploits the potential of stimulating my senses.
>
> An assumption - I think - that is more of a defensive strategy than a valid
> observation. Even if you had seen the film, there is no basis for this
> conclusion. At any rate - a film can be "too smart" (whatever that entails)
> and still be atrociously awful. And also one has to consider the balance of
> effects in any project: film is not in general an appropriate medium for
> philosophical discourse, and the greatest films are often "dumb" in more
> ways than one. "Casablanca" is certainly not "too smart" for anyone, but it
> also certainly a better film than many "hi-brow" productions, so as a
> cinematic distniction "smarts" isn't able to stand by itself. I'll take the
> most trivial Buster Keaton film over Greenaway any day - both in terms of
> pure enjoyment and surreality.
There's no accounting for taste, anyhow. Your comments remind me of a quote:
"Pictures are for entertainment, messages should be delivered by Western
Union". --- Sam Goldwyn
I don't happen to agree w/ that quote... my background is in Documentary
so it's natural that I see Film as a potentially useful mode of
philosophical discourse. It's potential uses are, of course, virtually
limitless. The breadth of possibilities stretch all the way from
Eisenstein to "Ernest Saves Cristmas."
Parry
>
> I haven't seen that particular movie, but since it happens to be
> the same director of "the Cook, the Thief, His Wife, & Her Lover"
> who's done it, I'll make it a point to pass. Nothing personal,
> but i really did not care for the movie, which i caught in
> struck negatively about the movie was that it was very boring - i
> wanted to leave and wonder around the stores until it was over
> but stayed with the friends that talked me into seeing such a
> recall was its glaringly obvious attempts at being artistic. And
> grotesque scenes taken to extremes are simply that, nothing more,
> nothing interesting, or innovative.
> of freedom upon walking out the doors and into the parking lot.
As Elag’s virtually alone in defending Greenaway, I’ll add my voice as a
fan. The detractors are ignoring Greenaway’s good points and fixating on
his “artiness” as if he were just Derek Jarman. In Greenaway’s films I
find frenetic imagination, black humour, rich sensuality, driving
intelligence, and a detailed depiction of interconnected reality. His
movies aren’t of uniform quality, though. I liked “Cook” but didn’t
think it was one of his best. It was oddly unsatisfying, like it had
something missing. I can understand why someone would be put off by it.
What was he trying to do with those garish lighting gels and
Felliniesque traveling shots? My favorite Greenaway is probably
“Draughtsman’s Contract.” Also the haemorrhaging visualize of
“Prospero’s Books.”
-- Parry
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Parry
> I ask you surrealists for your opinions because I cherish and respect you
> all, and love you. Passionately.
More lies.
> I read a review of the film in the local paper. The reviewer, in an
> attempt to sound "so-fiss-tick-ated" made a lot of snide comments and
> stupid jokes. In the end, she didn't tell me much at all, and only made
> me want to see the film more. She gave it one and a half stars. Damn her
> senseless middle-of-the-road brain.
The word-crunchers that breed movie reviews for tv and newspapers work
from a very small toolbox. They judge movies against a model of
narrative efficiency, making some allowance for the demands of genre.
Confronted by a film not so easily reducible, they can only blink
uncomprehendingly and take snipes at the “pretenses” of more discerning
movie-goers.
> In the same newspaper, someone gave the film "Big Momma's House" a rave
> review. Great for a laugh? Yes, I haven't seen enough films about men
> pretending to be women. I've seen the preview for the film three times
> now, and I feel like I've watched this cursed film twice now.
>
> The Internet Movie Database has 92 votes on "Eight and a Half Women"
> registered, and gives it a 6 out of 10. Most of the comments on the film
> make me want to see it -- opaque, stilted, cold, "too much male nudity"
> says one would-be critic, including homosexual incest. Cool! I can't
> explain why, but I get the feeling this movie is too smart for people, and
> that's why they hate it. Of course, I haven't seen it yet, so I can't
> really give a valid opinion.
The IMDb is a great resource but I suspect its reviews are written
mainly by kids who haven’t seen a whole lot of movies. How else would
crap like “Star Wars” get listed in the top ten movies of all time? This
nonsense happens when a school-report style grading system is accepted
as a substitute for actual film criticism.
elag
>
> And some people prefer "Big Bad Mama II".
This is painful to me...
> I'll concede this much, that the set and the choreography may
> have been artistically appealing - i wasn't impressed enough to
> remember it anyway. But hardly does it make a movie, in my
> opinion.
That's like saying that a bunch of torn up pieces of newspaper isn't
art. To quote Schwitters: "I am a painter and I nail my pictures together."
Films don't even have to be stories... films don't even require a
camera... films don't even have to include images... films don't even
have to include sound... the potential is endless and must not be bound
by the Cliches of Commercial Cinema.
It's similar to saying movies like Jurassic Park II are
> great film successes - it has a wonderful set, impressive
> creatures, even details down to the sweaty little kacky shorts
> the protagonists were wearing were included. Well, what about the
> rest of what makes a film worthwhile?
The difference is that this is Filmmaking by comittee. The art of
cinema is intentionally ignored in favor of the bottom line. They know
full well that "it doesn't matter whether or not the film delivers as
long as they create the impression that it delivers". It's all hype.
Greenaways films are his own, for better or worse.
It's funny that this one
> aspect is the most noted. Also, the symbolism was notable, that
> is to say overtly noticable. Too conscious, pretentious, and
> faux.
Pretentious... perhaps, but I enjoy his films. Concious?... I actually
think that he's transcribing his fertile imagination... something which
I'm quite interested in. Faux... no I think it's far more real than the
average film which is written in a board room...Greenaway's films are
made on a drawing board (my computer monitor is on one as well).
>
> Then, maybe i just have it in for weak movies!
You said it.
elag
> As Elag’s virtually alone in defending Greenaway, I’ll add my voice as a
> fan. The detractors are ignoring Greenaway’s good points and fixating on
> his “artiness” as if he were just Derek Jarman. In Greenaway’s films I
> find frenetic imagination, black humour, rich sensuality, driving
> intelligence, and a detailed depiction of interconnected reality. His
> movies aren’t of uniform quality, though. I liked “Cook” but didn’t
> think it was one of his best. It was oddly unsatisfying, like it had
> something missing. I can understand why someone would be put off by it.
> What was he trying to do with those garish lighting gels and
> Felliniesque traveling shots?
He was trying to please me.
My favorite Greenaway is probably
> “Draughtsman’s Contract.”
That may be his best.
Also the haemorrhaging visualize of
> “Prospero’s Books.”
I loved that as well... but then I'm an admirer of the abstract and
underground films which are its progenitor.
elag
>
> Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> > I ask you surrealists for your opinions because I cherish and respect you
> > all, and love you. Passionately.
>
> More lies.
Sounds like a small inside joke to me.
>
> > I read a review of the film in the local paper. The reviewer, in an
> > attempt to sound "so-fiss-tick-ated" made a lot of snide comments and
> > stupid jokes. In the end, she didn't tell me much at all, and only made
> > me want to see the film more. She gave it one and a half stars. Damn her
> > senseless middle-of-the-road brain.
>
> The word-crunchers that breed movie reviews for tv and newspapers work
> from a very small toolbox. They judge movies against a model of
> narrative efficiency, making some allowance for the demands of genre.
> Confronted by a film not so easily reducible, they can only blink
> uncomprehendingly and take snipes at the “pretenses” of more discerning
> movie-goers.
They also work for companies that are owned by the companies that own
the major studios and distribution networks and TV stations and radio
stations and newspapers which carry the reviews.
>
> > In the same newspaper, someone gave the film "Big Momma's House" a rave
> > review. Great for a laugh? Yes, I haven't seen enough films about men
> > pretending to be women. I've seen the preview for the film three times
> > now, and I feel like I've watched this cursed film twice now.
> >
> > The Internet Movie Database has 92 votes on "Eight and a Half Women"
> > registered, and gives it a 6 out of 10. Most of the comments on the film
> > make me want to see it -- opaque, stilted, cold, "too much male nudity"
> > says one would-be critic, including homosexual incest. Cool! I can't
> > explain why, but I get the feeling this movie is too smart for people, and
> > that's why they hate it. Of course, I haven't seen it yet, so I can't
> > really give a valid opinion.
>
> The IMDb is a great resource but I suspect its reviews are written
> mainly by kids who haven’t seen a whole lot of movies. How else would
> crap like “Star Wars” get listed in the top ten movies of all time? This
> nonsense happens when a school-report style grading system is accepted
> as a substitute for actual film criticism.
Some of the written reviews are helpful to me however. I usually read
them after I've seen the films, though.
Dale Houstman
"elag" <el...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:39396FD8...@concentric.net...
> Dale Houstman wrote:
> >
> > "Nikolaus Maack" <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> > news:8h99g6$i1o$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> >
> > > I'd say Greenaway is vaguely surreal, by my feeble-minded definition
of
> > > the word, anyway.
> >
> > I've hated almost every Greenaway film that I've seen. That opinion - in
and
> > of itself - says nothing about his "degree" of comradeship with
surrealism
> > of course. But I also find his films too obviously arty and concerned
with
> > merely aesthetic issues and
>
> To me this is like complaining that Matisse was too preoccupied w/
> color, or that Kandinsky was not concerned enough w/ recognizable
> subject matter.
Not at all, although I understand the comment. Though both Matisse and
Kandinsky are interested in "aesthetics" they are not interested in overt
and obvious symbolism. And - to be frank - Greenaway makes a common error of
filmmakers (one that the early Hollywood producers share) of confusing
literary expression with filmic expression. Also - although it is probably
unfortunate - film is a public and democratic form in the way that painting
isn't. It seems to me that the best films reject too much literary pomposity
and symbolic weight in the pursuit of something altogether different: a
poetics of light and shadow and faces. Greenaway's films strike me as
elephantine in their movements, and - really - too studied in their
seriousness. Both Mastisse and Kandinsky - by contrast - are rather giddy
and joyful in their gestures. When it comes to "arty" film I prefer the
rather focussed sensationalisms of an Orson Welles: every bit as a
"classical" in his background but with a real feel for the difference
between film and books.
Greenaway is a unique artist and his films represent
> his unique vision. I don't expect the same thing of them as I expect
> from say Hitchcock or Chaplin, because they are so different.
> Ultimately, though, there is no arguing w/ tastes.
Of course not. I don't expect "the same thing" either, but there are
neverthless reasonable expectations of all sorts in film. You expect it to
engage you in some way: most intimately via the dance of light and dark,
color juxtapositions, etc. To merely say "so and so is a unique artist" is
not to say much at all, critically. The same might be said of any truly
aeful film maker. Uniqueness is not what constitutes success in all cases.
For example, the "film noir" films of the 40s and 50s are replete with
repeated motifs, camera shots, dialogue, and so on. The variations can be
relatively small, but it is the power of the genre, it's ability to explore
"underbelly" issues, and sexuality, power, death and so on that render it
intriguing to me. Even some of the wrost films of the type can be vastly
interesting, and much of the material used is sub-literary.
For myself, it is obvious that Greenaway is trying too hard to astound me,
and this realization kills the buzz mostly.
dmh
>
> - worst of all - they tend to revel in large
> > dollops of pre-considered symbolism. This is much like the argument with
> > Dali: their approach strikes me as similar.
>
>
> What you call symbolism I call imaginative structure. I consider his
> films mostly in their visual aspect but I think that they are mostly
> internally consistent and need not refer to recognizable symbols in
> order to work
I think differently. They seem literally fat on borrowed symbols of the most
overt type. I can "ignore" them of o course, but that doesn't mend the film
only my enjoyment. And I must say that symbols are very often a way to avoid
imagination: my favorite art creates its own symbols (it's own myths) as it
spins along. These sorts of films seem to be more alive to me, seem to exist
as they are projected.
>
>
> Greenaway appears to be a
> > sensationalist at heart, and as such doesn't interest me much whether
> > "surrealist" or not.
>
>
> I see it another way. Film viewing is a visceral experience. Greenaway,
> fully exploits the potential of stimulating my senses.
No arguing with taste...
>
>
>
> >
> > An assumption - I think - that is more of a defensive strategy than a
valid
> > observation. Even if you had seen the film, there is no basis for this
> > conclusion. At any rate - a film can be "too smart" (whatever that
entails)
> > and still be atrociously awful. And also one has to consider the balance
of
> > effects in any project: film is not in general an appropriate medium for
> > philosophical discourse, and the greatest films are often "dumb" in more
> > ways than one. "Casablanca" is certainly not "too smart" for anyone, but
it
> > also certainly a better film than many "hi-brow" productions, so as a
> > cinematic distniction "smarts" isn't able to stand by itself. I'll take
the
> > most trivial Buster Keaton film over Greenaway any day - both in terms
of
> > pure enjoyment and surreality.
>
>
> There's no accounting for taste, anyhow. Your comments remind me of a
quote:
>
> "Pictures are for entertainment, messages should be delivered by Western
> Union". --- Sam Goldwyn
>
> I don't happen to agree w/ that quote...
I don't either. To me the best films (the best arts) make no distinction
between "messages" and "pleasure" but seem to exist simulataneously in all
fields. This mechanical approach - as said by Mr. Goldwyn - has nothing to
do with what I am saying. He was a salesman.
>my background is in Documentary
> so it's natural that I see Film as a potentially useful mode of
> philosophical discourse. It's potential uses are, of course, virtually
> limitless. The breadth of possibilities stretch all the way from
> Eisenstein to "Ernest Saves Cristmas."
Of course, but excuse me if I do - lamely enough I suppose - see a
difference between the two. If film has the freedom to explore a wide
spectrum, I certainly must have the right to find some of the expeditions
worthless or failed?
I have nothing against "philosophy" as such, but still insist that these
sorts of considerations grow "orgaincally" from the immediate interaction of
filmmaker with subject. Often a documentary ends up beng not what the artist
set out for. Greenaway appears to pre-consider everything. He bores me.
dmh
johnqadamsiii
<el...@concentric.net> wrote:
>johnqadamsiii wrote:
>>
>> And some people prefer "Big Bad Mama II".
>
>This is painful to me...
>
Ah, revel in it!
>> I'll concede this much, that the set and the choreography may
>> have been artistically appealing - i wasn't impressed enough
to
>> remember it anyway. But hardly does it make a movie, in my
>> opinion.
>
>That's like saying that a bunch of torn up pieces of newspaper
isn't
>art.
How so?
> To quote Schwitters: "I am a painter and I nail my
pictures together."
>
>Films don't even have to be stories... films don't even require
a
>camera... films don't even have to include images... films
don't even
>have to include sound... the potential is endless and must not
be bound
>by the Cliches of Commercial Cinema.
Thank you.
This isn't what i mean at all though. The movie obviously did
have some sort of story, and i simply thought the set and costume
alone didn't carry the rest of it very well. I imagine color,
set, and costume wouldn't carry too many movies by themselves.
Im not familiar with his other films - those i might like - i was
commenting on this one.
>>
>> Then, maybe i just have it in for weak movies!
>
>You said it.
So you agree.
cythera
ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
> johnqadamsiii (johnqa...@yahoo.com) writes:
> Every room in the film has a different colour, and the cast changes
> costume to suit the new colour. Touches like this are probably what
> get Greenaway that "intellectual artsy fartsy suck ass" label.
It's a traditional touch, anyway I've done that off and on for years.
Lots of people love to play with clothing in real life. And while
clothing, jewelry, hair etc. can be certainly artistic, and evocatively
beautiful, this isn't an original idea. Also, personal touches such as
dress express the emotions, not the intellect. If Greenaway subverts
the emotional to make little "art statements" then to me that seems
infinitely boring.
cythera
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
johnqadamsiii
<lukeydN...@earthlink.net.invalid> wrote:
>In article <1ba45ab8...@usw-ex0101-006.remarq.com>,
>johnqadamsiii <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>In article <8hbnmu$u6o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cythera
>><cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Company Of Men." Has anyone seen it?
>>>
>>>cythera
>>
>>That's generally what i like to do when i know they're bad in
>>advance.
>
>uniformly bad. If the thing isn't amazingly well-written, I
>can't sit there in the seat. I saw "Glengary Glen Ross" on TV
>and it was excellent. But usually I prefer oldies, foreign
>films, and shoestring budget pictures, not that there isn't the
>boring and avoidable in each genre. Traditional movies seem
>dull, for example, "Vertigo" and "Psycho" are the only late
>Hitchcock movies I enjoy even one bit, and now that I know the
>stories I feel very impatient watching them. "In The Company Of
>Men" is so well-written and tight that I had to go back two
>times. Completely watchable. I wish I'd written it.
>
>cythera
Yes, this is true, pretty much you have to be careful of anything
"big production" because odds are it's going to be formulaicly
spun to play it safe and win the bucks. The last movie i saw that
pleased me was The Minus Man - nicely filmed, well written,
interesting character buildup. That one starred Owen Wilson
originally from Bottlerocket (and others) fame. Tonight i'll
finish watching the other half of Total Eclipse, the story of
Rimbaud and Verlaine, starring Leo Dicrappio. So far i feel he
does a good job of *resembling* Rimbaud, but something is lacking
in his screen presence (acting ability? i dont know, he's 'ok').
Perhaps it is that the character could have been better directed
to display a little more "genius" or charisma fitting of a
revolutionary poet. Either it's a bill that could not be
fulfilled or a subjective choice of the makers to do otherwise
with the character. But somehow i think this is where the movie
is going to sag where it shouldn't for me.
john
johnqadamsiii
<pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote:
>As Elag’s virtually alone in defending Greenaway, I’ll add my
voice as a
>fan.
Now it's 3 on 3: Parry, Nik, Elag versus Dale, Cythera, myself.
The score is 10-7, our favor. Will you punt or steal for the
lead? Greenaway takes the snap, goes back into the in zone and
passes deep to Angry Mule Feathers.
Dale Houstman
> Parry wrote:
> >
> > Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> > > I ask you surrealists for your opinions because I cherish and respect
you
> > > all, and love you. Passionately.
> >
> > More lies.
>
>
> Sounds like a small inside joke to me.
You're being generous. Though I wouldn't characterize it as a lie - because
he doesn't expect us to believe it - I would call it more of a piece of
immature snideness with an undertone of whiny self-pity. Inside jokes are
almost always meant to create bonds of affection or comradery, and are akin
to argot. There is no way you can convince me that he was being affectionate
or friendly.
dmh
johnqadamsiii
<lukeydN...@earthlink.net.invalid> wrote:
>In article <257ad190...@usw-ex0101-006.remarq.com>,
>johnqadamsiii <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>In article <02712a58...@usw-ex0101-007.remarq.com>,
><cythera <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>Tonight i'll finish watching the other half of Total Eclipse,
>
>love.
>
>>the story of Rimbaud and Verlaine, starring Leo Dicrappio.
>
>what I saw in the TV commercials for "Titanic," what a snooze.
>James Dean is the only man I can think of who could have played
>Arthur Rimbaud. He even looked like him in that late
>photograph, in which A.R. is dressed in a light-colored suit.
>
>Who plays Verlaine? And is it romantic? With such a movie,
>it seems rather easy to be given the shell, and not the slug.
>
>>john
>
>cythera
>
That's a good way of putting it. David Thewlis played Verlaine.
I wouldn't necessarily portray it as romantic - it did have much
to do with their relationship however, and less to do with
aspects of the actual writing. All in all it was a decent rental
considering everything at the local theater seemed a bit
unappealing tonight.
Nikolaus Maack
> I ignore them. The last movie I went out to see was "In The Company
> Of Men." Has anyone seen it?
That movie was amazing, and completely gut-wrenching. It was like being
kicked in the groin for two hours. I read some description of it
somewhere that said this was the most graphic movie you'd see this year,
and there wasn't a single drop of blood spilled in it. Very accurate.
It renewed my faith in film, when I saw it. I'd been depressed with
movies, figuring I'd never see anything new and good. This movie changed
my mind.
fluffy_...@my-deja.com
cruelty and characters without a single redeeming emotional value.
I saw Cabaret Balkan and couldn't sit through it for the same reason.
I finally got up and left. There was not (as of when I left) one shred
of humanity in any of the characters. Now, I appreciate the social
conditions a film like that is coming from, and I am not a pollyanna
that requires happy, nice people and happy endings, but I walked away
feeling SO bleak. I just said to my companion, "if that's really the
way it is over there, then there is no hope whatsoever." Even now, I
feel queasy just thinking about the movie.
In the Company of Men, which also made me disgusted (although I stuck
with the whole movie), is interesting to me because if a woman had
written and directed it, she would have been accused of male bashing to
promote a "feminist" agenda that all men are bad.
There's a point in every movie where I ask myself--do I CARE what
happens to these people and will I feel cheated if I leave. If the
answer to both is no--then I cut my losses and try to redeem my evening.
In article <8hbnmu$u6o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
cythera <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <2d1c6fb7...@usw-ex0101-006.remarq.com>,
> johnqadamsiii <johnqa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article <8hba2a$lpo$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
> > ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
> > >johnqadamsiii (johnqa...@yahoo.com) writes:
>
> > Then, maybe i just have it in for weak movies!
>
> I ignore them. The last movie I went out to see was "In The Company
> Of Men." Has anyone seen it?
>
> cythera
>
> > john
elag
>
> In article <1ba45ab8...@usw-ex0101-006.remarq.com>,
> johnqadamsiii <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> ><cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Then, maybe i just have it in for weak movies!
> >>
> >>I ignore them. The last movie I went out to see was "In The
> >>Company Of Men." Has anyone seen it?
> >>
> >>cythera
> >
> >advance.
>
> To me, if they come from a big studio, and are recent, they're
> uniformly bad.
ditto.
If the thing isn't amazingly well-written, I
> can't sit there in the seat. I saw "Glengary Glen Ross" on TV
> and it was excellent.
Mamet at his best.
But usually I prefer oldies, foreign
> films, and shoestring budget pictures, not that there isn't the
> boring and avoidable in each genre.
I like no-budget underground films/videos because the makers are
beholden to no one's idea of what a film "should be". That is, of
course, why they are so rarely seen.
Traditional movies seem
> dull, for example, "Vertigo" and "Psycho" are the only late
> Hitchcock movies I enjoy even one bit, and now that I know the
> stories I feel very impatient watching them.
Are you saying that you don't like "Rear Window"? (one of my faves)
"In The Company Of
> Men" is so well-written and tight that I had to go back two
> times. Completely watchable. I wish I'd written it.
It sounds like an interesting premise.
elag
>
> In article <393971...@zxOMITmail.com>, Parry
> <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote:
>
> >As Elag’s virtually alone in defending Greenaway, I’ll add my
> voice as a
> >fan.
>
> Now it's 3 on 3: Parry, Nik, Elag versus Dale, Cythera, myself.
> The score is 10-7, our favor. Will you punt or steal for the
> passes deep to Angry Mule Feathers.
I hate sports... anyway it's how you play the game.
elag
Okay.
elag
> >In article <1ba45ab8...@usw-ex0101-006.remarq.com>,
> >johnqadamsiii <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>In article <8hbnmu$u6o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cythera
> >><cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>> Then, maybe i just have it in for weak movies!
> >>>
> >>>I ignore them. The last movie I went out to see was "In The
> >>>Company Of Men." Has anyone seen it?
> >>>
> >>>cythera
> >>
> >>That's generally what i like to do when i know they're bad in
> >>advance.
> >
> >To me, if they come from a big studio, and are recent, they're
> >can't sit there in the seat. I saw "Glengary Glen Ross" on TV
> >films, and shoestring budget pictures, not that there isn't the
> >dull, for example, "Vertigo" and "Psycho" are the only late
> >Hitchcock movies I enjoy even one bit, and now that I know the
> >Men" is so well-written and tight that I had to go back two
> >times. Completely watchable. I wish I'd written it.
> >
>
> Yes, this is true, pretty much you have to be careful of anything
> "big production" because odds are it's going to be formulaicly
> spun to play it safe and win the bucks. The last movie i saw that
> pleased me was The Minus Man - nicely filmed, well written,
> interesting character buildup. That one starred Owen Wilson
> originally from Bottlerocket (and others) fame. Tonight i'll
> finish watching the other half of Total Eclipse, the story of
> Rimbaud and Verlaine, starring Leo Dicrappio. So far i feel he
> does a good job of *resembling* Rimbaud, but something is lacking
> in his screen presence (acting ability? i dont know, he's 'ok').
I bet he falls asleep when he tries to read Rimbaud.... if he ever did
try. He probably is much more familiar w/ Rambo.
> Perhaps it is that the character could have been better directed
> to display a little more "genius" or charisma fitting of a
> revolutionary poet.
That'd be a tall order for the best actor. Leo couldn't stretch that
far if he were strapped to "the rack".
Either it's a bill that could not be
> fulfilled or a subjective choice of the makers to do otherwise
> with the character. But somehow i think this is where the movie
> is going to sag where it shouldn't for me.
It's probably pointless for Hackeywood to try to film a story about
these major literary figures for what amounts to a sub-literate audience (USA).
When you must appeal to the lowest common denominator the soup becomes
rather bland.
elag
>
> johnqadamsiii (johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid) writes:
> >>It's a good thing that you weren't carrying a pot of ink.
> >
> > I might have drowned myself in it.
>
> You can fit your entire head into a pot of ink?
Wadda pen-head.
elag
>
> In article <39397427...@concentric.net>, elag
> <el...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >johnqadamsiii wrote:
> >> I'll concede this much, that the set and the choreography may
> >> have been artistically appealing - i wasn't impressed enough
> to
> >> remember it anyway. But hardly does it make a movie, in my
> >> opinion.
> >
> >That's like saying that a bunch of torn up pieces of newspaper
> isn't
> >art.
>
> How so?
You seem to be saying that a film must be bound by certain criteria in
order to be legitimate art (or that something basic is lacking). I'm
saying that art or film (after the modernists) need not be so rigidly
defined. Have you ever seen the films of Man Ray or Joseph Cornell (so
different from the Commercial Cinema)?. These are Greenaway's
progenitors more than the American Classicist Cinema. I think it's a
matter of trying to classify fish as fowl. Of course, you are welcome
to your own opinion.
>
> > To quote Schwitters: "I am a painter and I nail my
> pictures together."
> >
> >Films don't even have to be stories... films don't even require
> a
> >camera... films don't even have to include images... films
> don't even
> >have to include sound... the potential is endless and must not
> be bound
> >by the Cliches of Commercial Cinema.
>
> Thank you.
>
> This isn't what i mean at all though. The movie obviously did
> have some sort of story, and i simply thought the set and costume
> alone didn't carry the rest of it very well. I imagine color,
> set, and costume wouldn't carry too many movies by themselves.
I agree... not many movies... but just as form alone can define a
Mondrian or color alone define a Rothko... a film may transcend the need
for character/plot/action or at least change the balance of elements
from the traditional Classicist Cinema Cookbook.
>
> >It's similar to saying movies like Jurassic Park II are
> >> great film successes - it has a wonderful set, impressive
> >> creatures, even details down to the sweaty little kacky shorts
> >> the protagonists were wearing were included. Well, what about
> the
> >> rest of what makes a film worthwhile?
> >
> >The difference is that this is Filmmaking by comittee. The art
> of
> >cinema is intentionally ignored in favor of the bottom line.
> They know
> >full well that "it doesn't matter whether or not the film
> delivers as
> >long as they create the impression that it delivers". It's all
> hype.
> >
> >Greenaways films are his own, for better or worse.
> >
> >
> >It's funny that this one
> >> aspect is the most noted. Also, the symbolism was notable,
> that
> >> is to say overtly noticable. Too conscious, pretentious, and
> >> faux.
> >
> >Pretentious... perhaps, but I enjoy his films. Conscious?... I
> actually
> >think that he's transcribing his fertile imagination...
> something which
> >I'm quite interested in. Faux... no I think it's far more real
> than the
> >average film which is written in a board room...Greenaway's
> films are
> >made on a drawing board (my computer monitor is on one as well).
>
> Im not familiar with his other films - those i might like - i was
> commenting on this one.
Fair enough... you might brave "A Draughtsman's contract" or "Drowning
by Numbers" if you have a chance.
>
> >>
> >> Then, maybe i just have it in for weak movies!
> >
> >You said it.
>
> So you agree.
I just meant: YOU said it (not me)... I wouldn't deign to judge you on
such slim info.
Chacun a son gout.
elag
>
> > Every room in the film has a different colour, and the cast changes
> > costume to suit the new colour. Touches like this are probably what
> > get Greenaway that "intellectual artsy fartsy suck ass" label.
>
> > happening, the screen never looks boring.
>
> Did you ever see "Last Year in Marienbad"? It's a beautiful-looking,
> subtle film which might get you thinking and questioning. I recommend
> it.
Also by Resnais: "Hiroshima Mon Amour" & "Mon Oncle D'Amirique" ---
These films have the most beautiful and complex structures in all of
Film history, in my opinion.
> It's good to try different things: to watch different types of film,
> try different kinds of painting, etc. I think you know what I mean...
Yes... my goal in life... Vive la difference.
elag
> > johnqadamsiii (johnqa...@yahoo.com) writes:
>
> > Every room in the film has a different colour, and the cast changes
> > costume to suit the new colour. Touches like this are probably what
> > get Greenaway that "intellectual artsy fartsy suck ass" label.
>
> Lots of people love to play with clothing in real life. And while
> clothing, jewelry, hair etc. can be certainly artistic, and evocatively
> beautiful, this isn't an original idea.
At this late date what is totally original? Everything seems to be
eclectic syncretism to me. Anyway, I love primary colors.... this is
how I see the world.
Also, personal touches such as
> dress express the emotions, not the intellect.
This sounds like the old Colorist vs. Drawing argument from the days of
Rubens. We don't need to draw a line betweeen these two aspects. They
exist in a continuum. In any case film is a visual medium and it is the
director's job to express a personal POV through control of visual elements.
If Greenaway subverts
> the emotional to make little "art statements" then to me that seems
> infinitely boring.
I feel that this is a mischaracterization. He is a master of his medium
and he concerns himself with each element (visual literary and
conceptual) of his films. This may bore you but it interests me as it's
so rare to see a film made by a painter... his films are as much
painting/sculpture/drawing as they are cinema. This is why I like them.
They are not, as the vast majority of flickering images are, slaves to literature.
johnqadamsiii
>> In article <39397427...@concentric.net>, elag
>> <el...@concentric.net> wrote:
>> >johnqadamsiii wrote:
>
>> >> I'll concede this much, that the set and the choreography
may
>> >> have been artistically appealing - i wasn't impressed
enough
>> to
>> >> remember it anyway. But hardly does it make a movie, in my
>> >> opinion.
>> >
>> >That's like saying that a bunch of torn up pieces of
newspaper
>> isn't
>> >art.
>>
>> How so?
>
>You seem to be saying that a film must be bound by certain
criteria in
>order to be legitimate art (or that something basic is lacking).
No, again, that is not what i am saying. This particular film
didnt succeed, in my opinion, because of the manner in which all
the elements that were chosen were actualized in the final
presentation.
> I'm
>saying that art or film (after the modernists) need not be so
rigidly
>defined. Have you ever seen the films of Man Ray or Joseph
Cornell (so
>different from the Commercial Cinema)?. These are Greenaway's
>progenitors more than the American Classicist Cinema. I think
it's a
>matter of trying to classify fish as fowl. Of course, you are
welcome
>to your own opinion.
Where you draw this from (my classification) i have no earthly
clue. Yes, I have seen some of these movies. Whether Greenaway
can be linked to surrealism perhaps is the matter of opinion.
>> > To quote Schwitters: "I am a painter and I nail my
>> pictures together."
>> >
>> >Films don't even have to be stories... films don't even
require
>> a
>> >camera... films don't even have to include images... films
>> don't even
>> >have to include sound... the potential is endless and must
not
>> be bound
>> >by the Cliches of Commercial Cinema.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> This isn't what i mean at all though. The movie obviously did
>> have some sort of story, and i simply thought the set and
costume
>> alone didn't carry the rest of it very well. I imagine color,
>> set, and costume wouldn't carry too many movies by themselves.
>
>
>I agree... not many movies... but just as form alone can define
a
>Mondrian or color alone define a Rothko... a film may transcend
the need
>for character/plot/action or at least change the balance of
elements
>from the traditional Classicist Cinema Cookbook.
Certainly.
I might try them sometime, just for the heck of it.
>> >>
>> >> Then, maybe i just have it in for weak movies!
>> >
>> >You said it.
>>
>> So you agree.
>
>I just meant: YOU said it (not me)... I wouldn't deign to judge
you on
>such slim info.
>
>Chacun a son gout.
To each resisiter may he become the son of a goat.
elag
>
> "elag" <el...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:39396FD8...@concentric.net...
> > Dale Houstman wrote:
> > > I've hated almost every Greenaway film that I've seen. That opinion - in
> and
> > > of itself - says nothing about his "degree" of comradeship with
> surrealism
> > > of course. But I also find his films too obviously arty and concerned
> with
> > > merely aesthetic issues and
> >
> > To me this is like complaining that Matisse was too preoccupied w/
> > color, or that Kandinsky was not concerned enough w/ recognizable
> > subject matter.
>
> Not at all, although I understand the comment.
I was painting w/ pretty broad strokes, but I thought you might
understand it on some level.
Though both Matisse and
> Kandinsky are interested in "aesthetics" they are not interested in overt
> and obvious symbolism.
What you deride as symbolism I see as a complex web of absurdly
interlocking allusions to games sex and mortality which run throughout
his lifes work. In any case I don't have anything specifically against
symbolism. You may agree that Welles used sybolism to great effect in
"Citizen Kane". I think Greenaway uses his own internal sytem of
'symbols' equally well, after his own fashion.
And - to be frank - Greenaway makes a common error of
> filmmakers (one that the early Hollywood producers share) of confusing
> literary expression with filmic expression.
He is not confusing them but fusing and eliding them... breaking down
the boundaries so to speak. I am always interested in this kind of thing.
Also - although it is probably
> unfortunate - film is a public and democratic form in the way that painting
> isn't.
That is true.
It seems to me that the best films reject too much literary pomposity
> and symbolic weight in the pursuit of something altogether different: a
> poetics of light and shadow and faces.
I think that Greenaway often approaches this ideal... perhaps not in a
style that you prefer. "Pillow Book" fulfills this role well in my
eyes, though it is by no means always consistent.
Greenaway's films strike me as
> elephantine in their movements,
e ain't heavy, he's my brother. Elephant's are pretty graceful when
they're charging a jeep full of yuppie tourists at 40 mph {25 kph}.
and - really - too studied in their
> seriousness.
On the other hand I think they generally exhibit an excellent sense of
black Humor.
Both Mastisse and Kandinsky - by contrast - are rather giddy
> and joyful in their gestures.
Well I don't mean to suggest a 1:1 ratio. Stylistically Greenaway
reminds me more of Duchamp or Jim Dine or Matta.
When it comes to "arty" film I prefer the
> rather focussed sensationalisms of an Orson Welles: every bit as a
> "classical" in his background but with a real feel for the difference
> between film and books.
His mastery is a given in my book, but I don't hold Greenaway to the
same standard. I do hold all artists to an equally high standard
though, but I don't want to judge them out of their own contexts.
Welles made great (as well as poor) Welles films; Greenaway makes great
(if sometimes inconsistent) Greenaway films. I happen to like 'em.
>
> Greenaway is a unique artist and his films represent
> > his unique vision. I don't expect the same thing of them as I expect
> > from say Hitchcock or Chaplin, because they are so different.
> > Ultimately, though, there is no arguing w/ tastes.
>
> Of course not. I don't expect "the same thing" either, but there are
> neverthless reasonable expectations of all sorts in film. You expect it to
> engage you in some way: most intimately via the dance of light and dark,
> color juxtapositions, etc.
Right, and Greenaway does that for me.
To merely say "so and so is a unique artist" is
> not to say much at all, critically.
What I'm saying is that he's an independant filmmaker and his films are
his own. The vast majority of films are the product of Boardroom deals
and target demographics representing the personal (unique) POV of no-one
and simply constructed to look good in adverts.
The same might be said of any truly
> aeful film maker.
The truly awful filmmakers are merely babysitters for the "stars". Not
that the "Auteur theory" is my bible, but I'm differentiating between
personal films and works for hire (e.g. Rambo 3 "directed by" Peter MacDonald).
Uniqueness is not what constitutes success in all cases.
Can't argue w/ that.
> For example, the "film noir" films of the 40s and 50s are replete with
> repeated motifs, camera shots, dialogue, and so on. The variations can be
> relatively small, but it is the power of the genre, it's ability to explore
> "underbelly" issues, and sexuality, power, death and so on that render it
> intriguing to me. Even some of the wrost films of the type can be vastly
> interesting, and much of the material used is sub-literary.
Sure, I'll agree. Genre films allow a great deal of freedom for the
directo since the basic elements of these films are already established
in the minds of the viewers before the first frame of image. They are
like jazz riffs on old standards.
I still prefer personal (unique) films even if they may be 'hard to get
into" at first.
>
> For myself, it is obvious that Greenaway is trying too hard to astound me,
> and this realization kills the buzz mostly.
I can understand that, though I disagree. To quote some guy:
"The director Peter Greenaway will divide audiences into those who look
on him as a brilliant experimenter with film as art and those who will
be bored out of their skulls."
Perhaps the twains shall never meet... perhaps they'll collide on track three.
> > - worst of all - they tend to revel in large
> > > dollops of pre-considered symbolism. This is much like the argument with
> > > Dali: their approach strikes me as similar.
> >
> >
> > What you call symbolism I call imaginative structure. I consider his
> > films mostly in their visual aspect but I think that they are mostly
> > internally consistent and need not refer to recognizable symbols in
> > order to work
>
> I think differently. They seem literally fat on borrowed symbols of the most
> overt type. I can "ignore" them of o course, but that doesn't mend the film
> only my enjoyment.
I don't ignore them so much as accept the film's internal logic... like
suspending disbelief.
And I must say that symbols are very often a way to avoid
> imagination:
I disagree, Greenaway's use of symbols seems no worse and little
different to me than a genre film's use of stock characters and storylines.
my favorite art creates its own symbols (it's own myths) as it
> spins along.
This sounds good... I think that "Drowning by Numbers" does this quite well.
These sorts of films seem to be more alive to me, seem to exist
> as they are projected.
Okay.
> >
> >
> > Greenaway appears to be a
> > > sensationalist at heart, and as such doesn't interest me much whether
> > > "surrealist" or not.
> >
> >
> > I see it another way. Film viewing is a visceral experience. Greenaway,
> > fully exploits the potential of stimulating my senses.
>
> No arguing with taste...
Not usually.
I know that your intent was different, but you seem to say something
similar: film should be this way and not that. Of course, my
estimation of Greenaway's work stands in oposition to yours.
>
> >my background is in Documentary
> > so it's natural that I see Film as a potentially useful mode of
> > philosophical discourse. It's potential uses are, of course, virtually
> > limitless. The breadth of possibilities stretch all the way from
> > Eisenstein to "Ernest Saves Cristmas."
>
> Of course, but excuse me if I do - lamely enough I suppose - see a
> difference between the two. If film has the freedom to explore a wide
> spectrum, I certainly must have the right to find some of the expeditions
> worthless or failed?
Yeah, I don't deny you that. If everyone always agreed w/ me life would
be a bore. I still like these opportunities to air my grievances...
mebbe a few lurkers might check out these films (who might not have
otherwise) and like them.
>
> I have nothing against "philosophy" as such, but still insist that these
> sorts of considerations grow "orgaincally" from the immediate interaction of
> filmmaker with subject. Often a documentary ends up beng not what the artist
> set out for. Greenaway appears to pre-consider everything.
Nearly all films are (heavily) pre-considered. Someones got to type up
the scripts and book the locations and hire the actors and rent the
equipment and arrange the financing and buy the props and re-upholster
the casting couch. It's extremely rare to keep the crew sitting around
while the director improvises on the spot (reference to Godard). It is
nearly unavoidable w/ such a costly medium, though there's always room
for some improv.
Keaton, for example (and there's no bigger fan than myself)
pre-considered large chunks of his work, or he would have been killed.
Hitchcock shot his films in his head before he transcribed them shot for
shot on the set. Lang spent hours each night pre-conceiving every
nuance of every frame. Nevertheless I love their work.
In a different way I love Cassavettes & Godard & Wiseman who lived and
died by the laws of improvisation. I derive different things from each
of these voices and I don't expect to get boullabaisse from a hot dog
cart or dance music from an organ grinder. I get pretty much what I
expect from each artist whom I seek out. I adjust my tastes to my moods
so I seek out Greenaway to assuage on yen and Cassavettes to kill a
different urge. Sometimes I'm in no mood for either and drown myself in sit-coms.
> He bores me.
I'm sorry.
elag
>
> In article <393AB70C...@concentric.net>, elag
>
> >> In article <39397427...@concentric.net>, elag
> >> <el...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >> >johnqadamsiii wrote:
> >
> >> >> I'll concede this much, that the set and the choreography
> may
> >> >> have been artistically appealing - i wasn't impressed
> enough
> >> to
> >> >> remember it anyway. But hardly does it make a movie, in my
> >> >> opinion.
> >> >
> >> >That's like saying that a bunch of torn up pieces of
> newspaper
> >> isn't
> >> >art.
> >>
> >> How so?
> >
> >You seem to be saying that a film must be bound by certain
> criteria in
> >order to be legitimate art (or that something basic is lacking).
>
> No, again, that is not what i am saying. This particular film
> didnt succeed, in my opinion, because of the manner in which all
> the elements that were chosen were actualized in the final
> presentation.
Alright by me.
> > I'm
> >saying that art or film (after the modernists) need not be so
> rigidly
> >defined. Have you ever seen the films of Man Ray or Joseph
> Cornell (so
> >different from the Commercial Cinema)?. These are Greenaway's
> >progenitors more than the American Classicist Cinema. I think
> it's a
> >matter of trying to classify fish as fowl. Of course, you are
> welcome
> >to your own opinion.
>
> Where you draw this from (my classification) i have no earthly
> clue. Yes, I have seen some of these movies. Whether Greenaway
> can be linked to surrealism perhaps is the matter of opinion.
Okay. I'd never attempt to link them directly in any case. I think
that his films could be of interest to a "Surrealist".
<<smiles>>>
<<happiness>>
> >> >>
> >> >> Then, maybe i just have it in for weak movies!
> >> >
> >> >You said it.
> >>
> >> So you agree.
> >
> >I just meant: YOU said it (not me)... I wouldn't deign to judge
> you on
> >such slim info.
> >
> >Chacun a son gout.
>
> To each resisiter may he become the son of a goat.
Goat should be eaten to the accompaniment of the sound of goats.
cythera
fluffy_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> There's a point in every movie where I ask myself--do I CARE what
> happens to these people and will I feel cheated if I leave.
Whether a character is in film, theater or television, I hardly ever
care by the next day. My favorite movie might be "Harry and Tonto,"
because I honestly did care what happened to them.
cythera
Dale Houstman
"cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8hhc2t$qtm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <393AA7E0...@concentric.net>,
> el...@concentric.net wrote:
> > > >In article <8hbnmu$u6o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cythera
> > > ><cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
Well he sure knows how to fill up a room.
>I don't like the movie because Grace Kelly is boring. She didn't know how
to act.
But she knew how to stand, and make the air in the room seem to drop a few
degrees. Acting - as such - is an overrated commodity in films. The famous
story involving Laurence Olivier and Gary Copper comes to mind: when
Laurence first came to the States to be in film he worked with Gary, and
couldn't comprehend what Gary was doing. He just seemed to be standing
there. But when Laurence saw the rushes he understood what film acting is
partially about: being an icon. He says it helped him immensely in his own
work. John Wayne can't act a spit, but he realized early on that film was
all about image: that he only had to create iconic gestures and walks, etc.
Many "great thespians" by and by are a bore on film. Basil Rathbone is
funny. Orson Welles is expressionistic, but he came very early to the
realization of cinematic potential. But - for a television example -
although Patrick Stewart is a classically trained actor with good
credentials, I'd rather watch that Hollywood whore William Shatner any day.
He's campy and energetic where Patrick is just implacably noble.
dmh
elag
>
> Shatner I love, and I hope you see him on "MTV's Movie Awards
> Uncensored" if you already haven't.
He is Canada's most successful self-parody. A perfectly post-modern personage.
Patrick Stewart was "hot" as
> Sejanus in "I Claudius." That's all I've seen him in.
I hope you can hear this file:
elag
>
> "cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8hhc2t$qtm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <393AA7E0...@concentric.net>,
> > el...@concentric.net wrote:
> > > cythera wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <1ba45ab8...@usw-ex0101-006.remarq.com>,
> > > > johnqadamsiii <johnqa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >In article <8hbnmu$u6o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cythera
> > > > ><cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > To me, Raymond Burr was under-rated as an actor.
>
> Well he sure knows how to fill up a room.
>
> >I don't like the movie because Grace Kelly is boring. She didn't know how
> to act.
>
> But she knew how to stand, and make the air in the room seem to drop a few
> degrees. Acting - as such - is an overrated commodity in films.
I prefer Bresson's term "actor-model"...
"Just sit in fronta the camera and look stupid... a-a-a-and ACTION!".
The famous
> story involving Laurence Olivier and Gary Copper comes to mind: when
> Laurence first came to the States to be in film he worked with Gary, and
> couldn't comprehend what Gary was doing. He just seemed to be standing
> there. But when Laurence saw the rushes he understood what film acting is
> partially about: being an icon.
True, but the "STAR's:" iconography (or baggage) is one of the main
reasons I can't stand main stream films. I can't abide thinking about
publicity hype during a film and most actors are little more than a
whole heap of hype.
He says it helped him immensely in his own
> work. John Wayne can't act a spit, but he realized early on that film was
> all about image: that he only had to create iconic gestures and walks, etc.
Yup, he plays Wayne better'n anybody, podna.
> Many "great thespians" by and by are a bore on film. Basil Rathbone is
> funny.
...and I thought it was just me.
Orson Welles is expressionistic, but he came very early to the
> realization of cinematic potential.
Hm-m-m-m... what do you think of Mr. Arkadin?
But - for a television example -
> although Patrick Stewart is a classically trained actor with good
> credentials, I'd rather watch that Hollywood whore William Shatner any day.
> He's campy and energetic where Patrick is just implacably noble.
He can be pretty campy to when he has a mind... but it tastes like an
over toasted crumpet.
cythera
<el...@concentric.net> wrote:
>cythera wrote:
>> Did you ever see "Last Year in Marienbad"? It's a beautiful-
>> looking, subtle film which might get you thinking and
>> questioning. I recommend it.
>Also by Resnais: "Hiroshima Mon Amour"
Yes. I've lived in Japan, and been to the bomb sites. This
film means a lot to me.
>& "Mon Oncle D'Amirique" --- These films have the most
>beautiful and complex structures in all of Film history, in my
>opinion.
I haven't seen the latter, but am an admirer of Alain Resnais.
When I used to watch a lot of films he was my favorite
director. I saw "Night and Fog" in my 8th grade English/History
class and have felt almost haunted by it since then. What is
your opinion of it? I've yet to see it again because I don't
know where to locate a copy.
cythera
johnqadamsiii
ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:>> I don't know. Perhaps surrealism will answer this question if
it
>> already hasn't.
>
>I find something incredibly depressing in the notion of saying,
"Perhaps
>surrealism will answer it." It's not that far a stone's throw
from saying,
>"God will sort it all out." And I am (supposedly) a theist. If
I have a
>choice of "waiting for god to do it" and doing it myself, I
choose the
>latter. Why wait for "surrealism" to answer all your questions?
I think this is a sad, literal misinterpretation of what she
meant.
Her true intention, i believe, was to infer that only through
certain investigations such as surrealism's one might find
answers to these kinds of questions.
>YOU, Cythera, are a surrealist. We all are, (supposedly).
Shouldn't we
>actively try to answer the question, instead of assuming that
"our
>movement" will answer it for us?
This could be seen as an aspect of surrealism - but you wouldnt't
realize this.
>Sorry, I don't mean to pick on you. I just found your wording
somewhat
>strange.
>
>On top of all that, surrealism itself isn't all that "original".
It has
>been around for over 80 years. Some of us talk about how it's
bringing
>about great and new things. I'm not so sure. I've read a
hundred
>automatically written pieces, seen dozens of "exquisite
corpses", and I
>start to feel like I've read and seen them all.
>
>Funny that I don't feel the same way about dreams.
>
>Perhaps the 80 year standing that surrealism has had is in
itself a marker
>that questing for something "original" isn't that important. If
you want
>something "original", why latch on to an 80 year old dinosaur?
What does being 80 years old have to do with anything?
No doubt you are still astounding people with your
misunderstanding of surrealism, its intentions, and it's 'works'.
>In the end, truth is a very old concept, and that is what
surrealists are
>(supposedly) after.
>
How easy for you to oversimplify something you barely comprehend,
and on occasion intentionally misconstrue. And you wonder why
people become impatient after so much time.
john
Nikolaus Maack
>> At this late date what is totally original?
>
> I don't know. Perhaps surrealism will answer this question if it
> already hasn't.
I find something incredibly depressing in the notion of saying, "Perhaps
surrealism will answer it." It's not that far a stone's throw from saying,
"God will sort it all out." And I am (supposedly) a theist. If I have a
choice of "waiting for god to do it" and doing it myself, I choose the
latter. Why wait for "surrealism" to answer all your questions?
YOU, Cythera, are a surrealist. We all are, (supposedly). Shouldn't we
actively try to answer the question, instead of assuming that "our
movement" will answer it for us?
Sorry, I don't mean to pick on you. I just found your wording somewhat
strange.
On top of all that, surrealism itself isn't all that "original". It has
been around for over 80 years. Some of us talk about how it's bringing
about great and new things. I'm not so sure. I've read a hundred
automatically written pieces, seen dozens of "exquisite corpses", and I
start to feel like I've read and seen them all.
Funny that I don't feel the same way about dreams.
Perhaps the 80 year standing that surrealism has had is in itself a marker
that questing for something "original" isn't that important. If you want
something "original", why latch on to an 80 year old dinosaur?
In the end, truth is a very old concept, and that is what surrealists are
(supposedly) after.
> I was responding to Nik.
Aren't you always?
Nik
--
Every good piece of art kills something soft and small.
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.nikart.com
elag
> > I feel that this is a mischaracterization. He is a master of his
> > medium and he concerns himself with each element (visual literary
> > and conceptual) of his films. This may bore you
>
> As I implied, I haven't seen his work.
Oh, I guess I was more tired than I thought.
> > but it interests me as it's so rare to see a film made by a
> > painter... his films are as much painting/sculpture/drawing as they
> > are cinema. This is why I like them.They are not, as the vast
> > majority of flickering images are, slaves to literature.
>
> I probably don't understand you. Will you please point out a film in
> English that is not based on a play, but that _is_ a "slave to
> literature"? I can't think of any other movies based on literary
> works that have adhered to their original. Perhaps I should ask you
> to explain what you mean by "slave."
I meant this in a general sense... as in: Conforms To Aristotle's Poetics.
Films that assume literature (or theatre) as the model for Cinema. Most
of my favorite films are more related to the plastic arts than to the
lively arts.
Example the former: "Fatal Attraction"
Example the latter: "Mothlight" by Brakhage
> As far as Peter Greenaway, when I heard of "Prospero's Books" years
> ago, I decided to stay away because I'd read that John Giulgud is
> naked (?), but most especially because Ariel is my favorite character
> in English lit, and I did not want to see him get short shrift. How
> does the director present Ariel?
I hope you'll take a chance to view it, I have no doubt that it'll
engender strong reactions one way or another.
To start with Ariel is played by:
Orpheo...Ariel
Paul Russell (I).... Ariel
James Thiérrée....Ariel
Emil Wolk.... Ariel
I must sleep right now so I'll resort to IMDB for "viewer reactions":
Nikolaus Maack
> I think this is a sad, literal misinterpretation of what she
> meant.
"Surrealism will find a way." Maybe she meant, "We as surrealists will
find a way," or "through movements like surrealism, we will find a way."
In the end, doesn't it all amount to the same thing? To me, it's far more
productive and meaningful to say, "I will find a way."
In any case, I was asking for clarification, not abuse. Guess which
you're giving me, John?
> Her true intention, i believe, was to infer that only through
> certain investigations such as surrealism's one might find
> answers to these kinds of questions.
An investigation you then ignore in your post.
So let's get to it -- do you think there is there anything "original" and
new? Is pursuing something original, in itself, a worthy cause? I don't
think so. It seems to inevitably lead to old concepts that have merely
been forgotten.
I think it's more productive to find a way to best express my own
material, much in the way Miro worked on expressing his own mythology and
style.
> What does being 80 years old have to do with anything?
I think I was pretty clear on this, but I'll restate it. If the goal a
person posesses is to find "original" material -- material that is new,
fresh, insightful, etc -- why use an 80 year old model like surrealism to
find such material? Isn't this somewhat odd?
> How easy for you to oversimplify something you barely comprehend,
> and on occasion intentionally misconstrue.
Or, perhaps, you're misreading what I say, consuming it in the worst
possible light.
Nikolaus Maack
> You seem to find almost everything that I write to be depressing,
> or to have no passion. Yet you read it. I find that stupid.
The above is untrue. Obviously I find material of value in what you write
or I wouldn't read it. If I wasn't interested in discussing it with you,
I wouldn't respond to it. If I didn't care to hear what you had to say, I
wouldn't ask you questions.
I found that one particular statement depressing, is all. It sounded
like, "Oh, one day THEY'll find an answer." Maybe you didn't intend it
that way. Who knows? Presumably you do.
> Like I said, "if it already hasn't." Has it? If not, Nik, then
> what has it said?
As I said in a message to John, I think the idea behind automatic writing
and other surrealist "games" is not expressing something original, but
expressing your own material (mythology) as clearly as you can. It only
occurred to me this very second that, perhaps, being as true to your own
personal style, your own personal expression, is as close to being
"original" as we can get.
That is, if I can write a poetry that is truly from the heart of me, it
can't help but be original, because I, as an individual being, am
original. If you make a painting, and it expresses the profound
individual experience you have, straight from your "soul", the work can't
help but have your "original" and unique fingerprints on it.
But in pursuing things in this way, I inevitably pick up old "unoriginal"
tools. Fauvism, for example, is important to my personal mythology, as is
portraiture -- two very old concepts.
So what'd you think of them apples?
Dale Houstman
> In article <393c3856$0$16243$65a9...@news.citilink.com>, "Dale
> Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>I don't like the movie because Grace Kelly is boring. She didn't
> know how to act.
> >
> >But she knew how to stand, and make the air in the room seem to
> >drop a few degrees.
>
> daughter Stephanie is so much prettier than the mother, because she is
> so lively.
This is true, and is also the reason Hitchcock was so obsessed with her: she
seemed totally unattainable, and that both threatened him and made him feel
safe at the same time. Honestly I never much liked her myself - especially
when I was younger, and she seemed so "adult."
>Poor Grace is my least-favorite "beautiful" leading lady. I'm
> not interested in traditional good looks, and so Grace just left me
> bored in a lukewarm fashion.
My favorite when I was younger was Ingrid Bergman, but she isn't really a
"beautiful" but a "natural and boyish" look. I still thinks she's probably
the most attractive of the leading ladies. Oh and Jean Harlow still amuses
me to no end. But both Harlow and Ingrid are infinitely more "heated" on
screen than Grace.
>I agree to some extent with what you say
> about acting, but a good actor can persuade you into overlooking
> physical "flaws" so that you feel some kind of emotional desire for
> them (Kim Novak is a good example; her face wasn't really pretty but
> you would think, "she's so attractive that I want her character to be
> happy") and a non-actor like Grace has no such charms. I don't like
> her.
Although I agree with you on Grace - I was just making a general statement
on screen acting - I must say that Kim Novak always struck me as a gum
chewer. She is pretty graceless and a little too "big boned" on-screen to
quite please me. Plus, she is as bad an actress as Grace, but didn't know
how to "lay back" and present a unified front. The first movie I remember
seeing her in was Picnic with William Holden (one of my favorites still),
and I found myself oddly repulsed by her. She seems desperate. Between the
two I'd go for Grace, but I'd prefer more choices.
>
> Shatner I love, and I hope you see him on "MTV's Movie Awards
> Uncensored" if you already haven't. Patrick Stewart was "hot" as
> Sejanus in "I Claudius." That's all I've seen him in.
>
Saw him, and thanks. Yes, Patrick was rather good as Sejanus, but in that
production everyone got a plum role, especially John Hurt as Caligula. But
Patrick's one of those "third-rate" classically trained actors who bore the
salt out of me. They come on TV and pretend as if they're Ralph Richardson,
and they're always appearing in "special TV events" like his Christmas
Carol, a pale imitation of an earlier TV production of the same starring
George C. Scott, which is quite a nice production I watch every miserable
Christmas. It's one of the very few things I can stand about that miserable
time of year.
dmh
Nikolaus Maack
> Truthfully, I was bored by the
> question and wished to push it aside.
I noticed that, and it bothered me. That's all.
> I thought the answer was
> apparent: the imagination of some people is original. Whether
> syncretic or wholly original isn't important. What is at hand
> for some of us is that we liberate our own imaginations. Elag
> can probably relate.
Apparently we agree...
> That silly Nik writes me that I "wait for surrealism to answer
> all [my] questions" is the last fucked in the imagination
> straw...
... even as you assume we don't. *smile*
Dale Houstman
"johnqadamsiii" <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:18a8e2dc...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com...
> In article <8hhm5b$2qr$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
> ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
> >cythera (cyt...@my-deja.com) writes:
N spoketh:
> >>> At this late date what is totally original?
> >>
>
> I think this is a sad, literal misinterpretation of what she meant.
> Her true intention, i believe, was to infer that only through
> certain investigations such as surrealism's one might find
> answers to these kinds of questions.
I find the notion of "originality" (especially as a focal point of human
exertion) to be rather pointless. One can argue whether or not any
particular piece is original or not until you're blue in the netherlands,
but it is - perhaps - a waste of time. I suppose surrealism's answer to this
is that if the work is born of aleatory and automatic processes it must be
original. Also one looks for the "originality" too often in the genre and
materials, very few of which can ever be original again; unless you are keen
on making a sculpture out of plutonium laced Mars meteorites or some such
"new" matter. But I see "originality" in things every where I look, even
though I don't particularly prize it. Is putting a moustache on Mona Lisa
"original"? One can say no (especially as Pucabia did it before Duchamp)
because such hijinks are the common coin of subway vandals. Yet Duchamp's
piece is now a central icon (terrible word in this context!) of Dada
impishness and salaciousness and disrespect.
>
N spoketh:
> >YOU, Cythera, are a surrealist. We all are, (supposedly).
> Shouldn't we
> >actively try to answer the question, instead of assuming that
> "our
> >movement" will answer it for us?
>
> This could be seen as an aspect of surrealism - but you wouldnt't
> realize this.
No one is waiting on the "movement" and only N thinks we're camp followers.
I think surrealism assumes the originality of the human conscience once it i
s liberated from social expectations. Every line you make on a piece of
paper that is free of demure civilization is original.
N spoketh:
> >On top of all that, surrealism itself isn't all that "original".
>
> >In the end, truth is a very old concept, and that is what
> surrealists are
> >(supposedly) after.
> >
>
> How easy for you to oversimplify something you barely comprehend,
> and on occasion intentionally misconstrue. And you wonder why
> people become impatient after so much time.
>
Exactly...
dmh
barrett john erickson
"Nikolaus Maack" <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:8hijp5$e10$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> [...]
> As I said in a message to John, I think the idea behind automatic writing
> and other surrealist "games" is not expressing something original, but
> expressing your own material (mythology) as clearly as you can. It only
> occurred to me this very second that, perhaps, being as true to your own
> personal style, your own personal expression, is as close to being
> "original" as we can get.
it's not about expression.
it's about exploration and experimentation and discovery.
http://www.magneticfields.org/aarc/index.html
-- barrett
BLUE FEATHERS #3 is now available
http://www.MagneticFields.org/blue/
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
surrealists in minnesota
Sur...@MagneticFields.org
==============================================
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
contradictions."
...André Breton
==============================================
Nikolaus Maack
> it's not about expression.
> it's about exploration and experimentation and discovery.
Is there a difference between the two? For me, the former always leads to
the latter. And vice-versa, actually.
I'm getting a weird vibe off alt.surrealism today. Everyone is starting
to sound more "cult-like" than usual. First Cythera says that surrealism
isn't a mere 80 years old. 80 years ago is just the date when Andre
Breton "discovered" surrealism -- a force or a focus or a process that has
existed in human beings for thousands of years. That kind of strikes me
as L. Ron Hubbard-ish.
"We're a thousand year old tradition that started yesterday."
It might make surrealism sound important, but in the end isn't this just
pretentious postering?
And that whole "exploration, discovery, experimentation" shtick. In the
end, we're just writers and painters, right? Why make it out to be a
grand adventure if all we're going to do is write poetry and political
diatribes and paint weird shit? It's not like we're actually DOING
anything that merits the label "discovery" -- are we?
Please note that I'm not just insulting you people, I'm also insulting
myself.
I have a friend who gave away everything he owned and wandered throughout
Canada for a year. He starved a bunch of times, lived in a tent listening
to the rain fall until he began to hallucinate, hitch-hiked all over the
place, etc. That strikes me as a exploration and discovery. Sitting in a
room, writing random thoughts on a piece of paper -- is this really
discovery of any sort? In comparison to my friend's adventures, it seems
rather cowardly and small.
So when I hear these GRAND words about how very IMPORTANT surrealism is --
even though I like surrealism and its ideas -- I can't help but be skeptical.
Any thoughts about all of this?
fluffy_...@my-deja.com
different circumstances, it could have been accused of having one.
Frankly, I kept hearing about what a shocking film it was, but I didn't
find it shocking at all. Just plain bad behavior carried a little
farther than usual. I guess I'm just bored with bad behavior for its
own sake. Didn't find it interesting or compelling in the least. I
found it tedious.
In article <8hh78j$ncc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
cythera <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8he6ra$hid$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> fluffy_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > I saw it. I HATED it. I get bored with hours and hours of asinine
> > cruelty and characters without a single redeeming emotional value.
> > In the Company of Men [...] is interesting to me because if a woman
> > had written and directed it, she would have been accused of male
> > bashing to promote a "feminist" agenda that all men are bad.
>
> I didn't feel the movie had any agenda. I appreciate its lack of
> deference to so-called good and bad "morals. The viewer's
> interpretations are his or her own, because the director (also
> screenwriter) and his camera were there to record. I liked some of
the
> characters.
fluffy_...@my-deja.com
seat, then it's a bad thing.
when I saw Awakenings, I WAS affected for a week or more by that film.
I have never been able to watch it again.
In article <8hh7u2$nt1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
cythera <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8he6ra$hid$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> fluffy_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > There's a point in every movie where I ask myself--do I CARE what
> > happens to these people and will I feel cheated if I leave.
>
> Whether a character is in film, theater or television, I hardly ever
> care by the next day. My favorite movie might be "Harry and Tonto,"
> because I honestly did care what happened to them.
>
johnqadamsiii
ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
>johnqadamsiii (johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid) writes:
>> I think this is a sad, literal misinterpretation of what she
>> meant.
>
surrealists will
>find a way," or "through movements like surrealism, we will find
a way."
>In the end, doesn't it all amount to the same thing? To me,
it's far more
>productive and meaningful to say, "I will find a way."
>
>In any case, I was asking for clarification, not abuse. Guess
which
>you're giving me, John?
Clarification, master?
>> Her true intention, i believe, was to infer that only through
>> certain investigations such as surrealism's one might find
>> answers to these kinds of questions.
>
>An investigation you then ignore in your post.
I'm sorry, was i required to reply on that point?
>So let's get to it
yes
>-- do you think there is there anything
>"original" and
>new? Is pursuing something original, in itself, a worthy cause?
I don't
>think so. It seems to inevitably lead to old concepts that have
merely
>been forgotten.
Well, according to you the only original thing in some time is
the internet. Does DSL count? What about super unleaded gasoline?
I really haven't followed this portion of the posts for some
reason. Do you mean artistically speaking only?
>I think it's more productive to find a way to best express my
own
>material, much in the way Miro worked on expressing his own
mythology and
>style.
>
>> What does being 80 years old have to do with anything?
>
>I think I was pretty clear on this, but I'll restate it. If the
goal a
>person posesses is to find "original" material -- material that
is new,
>fresh, insightful, etc -- why use an 80 year old model like
surrealism to
>find such material? Isn't this somewhat odd?
Not at all, what is odd is your insistence on this. I won't
continue to explain the same things over and over however.
>> How easy for you to oversimplify something you barely
comprehend,
>> and on occasion intentionally misconstrue.
>
>Or, perhaps, you're misreading what I say, consuming it in the
worst
>possible light.
>
Negative my comrade.
Dale Houstman
<fluffy_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8hjaub$8ps$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> when I saw Awakenings, I WAS affected for a week or more by that film.
> I have never been able to watch it again.
>
Now THAT film was a certifiable piece of sweetcrap. The book it is based on
is a very good case study, but the film (with that odious sugarlump of an
"actor" Robin Williams) is a true candidate for bad film of the year.
dmh
Dale Houstman
"cythera" <lukeydN...@earthlink.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:21dff3a0...@usw-ex0106-045.remarq.com...
> In article <8hhm5b$2qr$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
> ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:> I don't say that I am. Dale, Parry and john are better able
> than I to say whether or not I am.
I'm all for issuing you an official card, but the machine is buried under a
pile of Menudo records.
>
> >We all are, (supposedly).
>
> That's not true.
>
> >Sorry, I don't mean to pick on you.
>
> Nor do I mean to pick on you. It's not personal. I am serious:
> Respond to my imagination's "product" (or explain your opinion
> that I have no passion and imagination by showing it through my
> own words). I'm involving myself in my work and will avoid
> pointless debates.
>
> >On top of all that, surrealism itself isn't all that
> >"original". It has been around for over 80 years.
>
> It's a reality that our species has perceived for thousands of
> years. Breton "discovered" it and wrote about it. Know the
> difference.
>
It is N's hammering on the centrality of originality itself which is the
problem here. Too much has been done in the name of mere sensationalism,
and - after all - it is easy to be original. A statue of Lyndon Johnson made
from the actual corpses of Vietnamese children would be "unique" but not
particuarly easy to pull off and defend I would think. It isn't so much that
originality cannot be found as it is that we are tired of this struggle
toward mere shock. One can easily create something new, but nobody cares. At
any rate I find most of the work I receive joy from occurs very far away
from museums nowadays. I really enjoy folk art, and art brut, and things
such as decorated cars, done by people quite disinterested in the pursuit of
the original, yet nevertheless immersed in the pursuit of their own dreams.
dmh
Dale Houstman
> >
> > My favorite when I was younger was Ingrid Bergman, but she isn't
> > really a "beautiful" but a "natural and boyish" look. I still thinks
> > she's probably the most attractive of the leading ladies. Oh and
> > Jean Harlow still amuses me to no end.
>
> movie. She had a beautiful hair color and skin. And I'll watch
> anything with Jean Harlow. She was very cute. I've also loved Clara
> Bow in her movies that I've gotten to see. I guess Jean was part of
> that lineage?
I saw one film with Clara: The It Girl. The film is less than zero, but
she's mesmerizing. I'm not certain which lineage you're speaking of, but if
it's female actors who are strong-willed and energetic and - relative to
their time - shocking, the answer's yes. I could instantly see why the
public was enthralled with Clara.
>
> When I was a little girl my favorites were Shirley Temple and Judy
> Garland. Later when I watched tv with my parents I found out about
> Mae West. These days my favorite "guilty pleasure" movie (that's not
> utter trash) is "Calamity Jane" with Doris Day. What a hoot! And
> you?
Judy's a permanent star in my constellation: again she is just one of those
instant icons. I saw her in some dump of a "Broadway Melody" stagedoor
musical with the usual - though often amusing - array of vaudeville castoffs
doing bird calls and the like. She had a very small role but was riveting.
Shirley Temple - as a child - is the same way, but her attraction doesn't
abide. As a teenager she's just a doughy little presence in equally doughy
films. The thing about Doris Day is her intense dislike for what Hollyowood
made of her: she was offended by the "sweet cheeks" thing. She's in a film
with James Cagney (can't recall the title offhand) in which she plays a
true-life character of a club singer who gets involved with a gangster gimp.
She's quite good, and - honestly - she has a good singing voice.
>
>
> I saw a little something on some tv show about a cult that Grace
> belonged to when she died. She was the priestess. Do you know about
> this?
Beyond this starstruck filmgoer.
>
>
> I love her voice and I adore her performance in "Vertigo": I can't go
> past that building on Mason and California without saying, "There's
> Madeleine's house." And I like her with Jimmy Stewart. "Bell, Book
> and Candle" was cute. She was odd and okay. Now, for desperate (and
> campy) have you seen "Lila Clare," directed by Robert Aldrich?
> Unbelievable.
No but I'll look it up: Aldrich is interesting. The thing about her
performance in Vertigo (which Hitchcock wanted Grace for) is that she is
essentially playing a screen for Jimmy to project his desires upon, so that
robot quality is fitting.
> >
>
> I loved what he said at the end, as Claudius was dying, remember? I
> watched that show with my parents when it first came on. Too bad Derek
> Jacobi fizzled after the BBC "Hamlet" a few years later. He was such a
> bore as Brother Cadfael. So earnest.
Yes, even in Claudius he's just the backdrop, as the character is made to
be: much like David in David Copperfield Claudius is more of a literary
device than a character. He does well with it, but he is dull in almost
everything else.
>
>
> Oh, he's adorable! I loved him as Jeremy Irons' father in "Brideshead
> Revisited." Was Ralph ever in Dickens things? He seems so perfect
> for them: the Aged Parent (forget which book he's in), the Convict,
> or just about anyone older.
I seriously can't recall that he is in a Dickens adaptation, but he would
have been good there. Of the three "great" English actors (Olivier and
Gielgud being the others) he is my favorite, and - in his personal life -
he is by far the battiest and most endearing, with little to none of the
Lordly or aristocratic drape that hangs over the others. Gielgud is great,
and although Olivier has more than a few great moments on film I find myself
not particularly excited by him.
>
> Hmmm, I'll remember it. I always watch the one with Alistair Syms,
> and there was that black-and-white one that used to be on but seems to
> have disappeared. The ghost scenes were pretty good in it.
The Syms version is the mold of course, and Scott borrows heavily. But I do
recommend it.
>
> This December I'll remind you about "A Christmas Story" with Darren
> McGavin, if you haven't seen it.
Oh yes: I forgot that one. Very funny. Darren McGavin is a fine and
underused actor. The film is based on Jean Shepherd stories and has a lot of
authentic feel to it.
dmh
fluffy_...@my-deja.com
and watching them go from being very active back to lethargic and
outwardly nonexistent. Without that specific moment/event, I agree, it
would have been just another piece of sugary sentimentality.
You have to agree that the use of "Time of the Season" was awesome.
In article <393d6b23$0$16237$65a9...@news.citilink.com>,
elag
>
> In article <393ABA52...@concentric.net>, elag
> <el...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >cythera wrote:
>
> >> Did you ever see "Last Year in Marienbad"? It's a beautiful-
> >> looking, subtle film which might get you thinking and
> >> questioning. I recommend it.
>
> >Also by Resnais: "Hiroshima Mon Amour"
>
> Yes. I've lived in Japan, and been to the bomb sites. This
> film means a lot to me.
>
> >& "Mon Oncle D'Amirique" --- These films have the most
> >beautiful and complex structures in all of Film history, in my
> >opinion.
>
> I haven't seen the latter, but am an admirer of Alain Resnais.
> When I used to watch a lot of films he was my favorite
> director. I saw "Night and Fog" in my 8th grade English/History
> class and have felt almost haunted by it since then. What is
> your opinion of it?
I saw it in a similar academic setting. It is a great and important and
sobering film.
I've yet to see it again because I don't
> know where to locate a copy.
you could buy it here:
elag
> > Uncensored" if you already haven't. Patrick Stewart was "hot" as
> > Sejanus in "I Claudius." That's all I've seen him in.
> >
> Saw him, and thanks. Yes, Patrick was rather good as Sejanus, but in that
> production everyone got a plum role, especially John Hurt as Caligula. But
> Patrick's one of those "third-rate" classically trained actors who bore the
> salt out of me.
Oh, c'mon... he's at least 2nd rate.
elag
>
> el...@concentric.net wrote:
> > cythera wrote:
> > > > Every room in the film has a different colour, and the cast
> changes
> > > > costume to suit the new colour. Touches like this are probably
> what
> > > > get Greenaway that "intellectual artsy fartsy suck ass" label.
> > >
> > > It's a traditional touch, anyway I've done that off and on for
> years.
> > > Lots of people love to play with clothing in real life. And while
> > > clothing, jewelry, hair etc. can be certainly artistic, and
> > > evocatively beautiful, this isn't an original idea.
> >
> > At this late date what is totally original?
>
> I don't know. Perhaps surrealism will answer this question if it
> already hasn't. But if I thought of dressing to suit the rooms in
> which I lived as a young woman, then it's difficult for me to feel
> impressed when I read about this also appearing in a film. Though
> perhaps it is impressive. I have no idea.
It is beautiful. I appreciate dynamic art direction. Stylistically
it's right in line w/ my POV.
elag
>
> (Snipping to fit this on Remarq's small page):
>
> elag wrote:
>
> >>>> At this late date what is totally original?
> >>>
> >>> I don't know. Perhaps surrealism will answer this question
> >>> if it already hasn't.
> >>
> "surrealism" to answer all your questions?
>
> >Her true intention, i believe, was to infer that only through
> >certain investigations such as surrealism's one might find
> >answers to these kinds of questions.
>
> question and wished to push it aside. I thought the answer was
> apparent: the imagination of some people is original. Whether
> syncretic or wholly original isn't important. What is at hand
> for some of us is that we liberate our own imaginations. Elag
> can probably relate.
Yes, this makes sense to me. I can see how your comment could be
misconstrued but I believe that I understood you. I probably should
have asked "what do you mean by original?". Anyhow, you're right it
isn't too important.
Anything new (original) is a synthesis of the old (existing), but that's
not really a limit...
it's simply the condition of existence...
constant transition from one state to another.
elag
>
> In article <8hhm5b$2qr$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
> ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
> >cythera (cyt...@my-deja.com) writes:
> >>
> >> I don't know. Perhaps surrealism will answer this question if
> it
> >> already hasn't.
> >
> >I find something incredibly depressing in the notion of saying,
> "Perhaps
> from saying,
> >"God will sort it all out." And I am (supposedly) a theist. If
> I have a
> >choice of "waiting for god to do it" and doing it myself, I
> choose the
>
> I think this is a sad, literal misinterpretation of what she
> meant.
> certain investigations such as surrealism's one might find
> answers to these kinds of questions.
That's how I would interpret it.
>
> >On top of all that, surrealism itself isn't all that "original".
> It has
> >been around for over 80 years. Some of us talk about how it's
> bringing
> >about great and new things. I'm not so sure. I've read a
> hundred
> >automatically written pieces, seen dozens of "exquisite
> corpses", and I
> >start to feel like I've read and seen them all.
> >
> >Funny that I don't feel the same way about dreams.
> >
> >Perhaps the 80 year standing that surrealism has had is in
> itself a marker
> >that questing for something "original" isn't that important. If
> you want
> >something "original", why latch on to an 80 year old dinosaur?
>
> What does being 80 years old have to do with anything?
> No doubt you are still astounding people with your
> misunderstanding of surrealism, its intentions, and it's 'works'.
Well, the wheel has been around for 1000's of years... but your computer
wouldn't work w/o it. It's not the age of our tools but how we use them.
elag
>
> "Nikolaus Maack" <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:8hijp5$e10$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>
> > [...]
>
> > As I said in a message to John, I think the idea behind automatic writing
> > and other surrealist "games" is not expressing something original, but
> > expressing your own material (mythology) as clearly as you can. It only
> > occurred to me this very second that, perhaps, being as true to your own
> > personal style, your own personal expression, is as close to being
> > "original" as we can get.
>
>
> it's about exploration and experimentation and discovery.
I couldn't agree more. If I've gained nothing else from my time in
alt.surr, I have been able to put the art of Surrealists into proper
perspective w/ the philosophy of Surrealism.
elag
>
> johnqadamsiii (johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid) writes:
> > I think this is a sad, literal misinterpretation of what she
> > meant.
>
> find a way," or "through movements like surrealism, we will find a way."
> In the end, doesn't it all amount to the same thing? To me, it's far more
> productive and meaningful to say, "I will find a way."
>
> In any case, I was asking for clarification, not abuse. Guess which
> you're giving me, John?
If you don't want to invite abuse you might refrain from beginning posts w/:
"I find something incredibly depressing in..."
and instead beginning w/:
(What do you mean?) "I just found your wording somewhat strange."
This is especially true when conversing w/ someone w/ whom you are
already at odds.
Additionally you must know that comparing Surrealism to Theism thusly:
"Perhaps surrealism will answer it." It's not that far a stone's throw
from saying, "God will sort it all out."....
will start a row before the conversation can even begin to roll.
It just seems that you should ask for a bit of clarification before
publishing your theory. There's always plenty of time for that once a
dialogue has actually begun.
Usenet strikes again.
elag
>
> In article <8hhm5b$2qr$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
> ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
> >cythera (cyt...@my-deja.com) writes:
>
>
> I don't say that I am. Dale, Parry and john are better able
> than I to say whether or not I am.
Isn't your own declaration more important?
elag
>
> In article <8hj2mh$6nc$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
> ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
> > "barrett john erickson" (bar...@magneticfields.org) writes:
> > > it's about exploration and experimentation and discovery.
>
> > Everyone is
> > starting to sound more "cult-like" than usual. First Cythera says
> > that surrealism isn't a mere 80 years old. 80 years ago is just the
> > date when Andre Breton "discovered" surrealism -- a force or a focus
> > or a process that has existed in human beings for thousands of
> > years.
>
> thousands of years.
>
> It is not a supernatural "entity," i.e. a projection of our
> psychologies.
>
> Since you know something about art history (don't you) then perhaps
> you will muse on this possibility: the cave paintings at Lascaux and
> Altamira are a surrealist recording, not religious iconography.
>
> From the First Manifesto of Surrealism: "Men's piety does not fool me.
>
> The Surrealist voice that shook Cumae, Dodona and Delphi is nothing
> more than the voice which dictates my less irascible speeches to me."
The way I'd put it is:
The imagination has been around forever
but it tends to be drowned out
by the drumbeat of society
so feel free to wear headphones
in order to better hear your own voice
elag
>
> "cythera" <lukeydN...@earthlink.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:21dff3a0...@usw-ex0106-045.remarq.com...
> > ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
> > >cythera (cyt...@my-deja.com) writes:
> >
> > >YOU, Cythera, are a surrealist.
> >
> > I don't say that I am. Dale, Parry and john are better able
> > than I to say whether or not I am.
>
> pile of Menudo records.
> >
> > >We all are, (supposedly).
> >
> > That's not true.
> >
> > >Sorry, I don't mean to pick on you.
> >
> > Nor do I mean to pick on you. It's not personal. I am serious:
> > Respond to my imagination's "product" (or explain your opinion
> > that I have no passion and imagination by showing it through my
> > own words). I'm involving myself in my work and will avoid
> > pointless debates.
> >
> > >"original". It has been around for over 80 years.
> >
> > years. Breton "discovered" it and wrote about it. Know the
> > difference.
> >
> It is N's hammering on the centrality of originality itself which is the
> problem here. Too much has been done in the name of mere sensationalism,
> and - after all - it is easy to be original. A statue of Lyndon Johnson made
> from the actual corpses of Vietnamese children would be "unique" but not
> particuarly easy to pull off and defend I would think. It isn't so much that
> originality cannot be found as it is that we are tired of this struggle
> toward mere shock.
True, but shock CAN be useful.
One can easily create something new, but nobody cares. At
> any rate I find most of the work I receive joy from occurs very far away
> from museums nowadays. I really enjoy folk art, and art brut,
But "they" have now moved this stuff into fency boo tee cues.
and things
> such as decorated cars,
That really is the stuff. Expressing the imagination in everyday life.
done by people quite disinterested in the pursuit of
> the original, yet nevertheless immersed in the pursuit of their own dreams.
...and the more the merrier.
johnqadamsiii
Exactly right, though there was no supposed abuse. Everything
appears to be a chess move attempt and I never was much of a
player myself.
>Additionally you must know that comparing Surrealism to Theism
thusly:
>
>"Perhaps surrealism will answer it." It's not that far a stone's
throw
>from saying, "God will sort it all out."....
>
>will start a row before the conversation can even begin to roll.
>
>It just seems that you should ask for a bit of clarification
before
>publishing your theory. There's always plenty of time for that
once a
>dialogue has actually begun.
>
>Usenet strikes again.
>
>
kin...@hfwork1.tn.tudelft.nl
>(Nikolaus Maack) wrote: [...]
>>It's not like we're actually DOING anything that merits the label
>>"discovery" -- are we?
> Some of us so clearly are, and have been, right in front of your face!
> You, Paul Kinsler, Brenda etc. have had a front row seat. I think
> you're scared.
1) I dont post much stuff because I'm not very surreal, not because
I'm "scared". If you dont like providing the not-very-surrealists,
the timid, and indeed the rest of the internet with "a front row
seat", then the only thing _you_ can do is stop _posting_ to the
public parts of the internet.
2) I've complained about all the anti-NM stuff because IMO it clutters
up the group and is irritaiting to wade through, and because to me
NM not as annoying as you high-volume posters seem to find him. It's
not because I'm a fan.
#Paul
Dale Houstman
"elag" <el...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:393DB6AC...@concentric.net...
> barrett john erickson wrote:
> >
> > "Nikolaus Maack" <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> > news:8hijp5$e10$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> >
> > > [...]
> >
> > > As I said in a message to John, I think the idea behind automatic
writing
> > > and other surrealist "games" is not expressing something original, but
> > > expressing your own material (mythology) as clearly as you can. It
only
> > > occurred to me this very second that, perhaps, being as true to your
own
> > > personal style, your own personal expression, is as close to being
> > > "original" as we can get.
> >
> >
> > it's about exploration and experimentation and discovery.
>
>
> alt.surr, I have been able to put the art of Surrealists into proper
> perspective w/ the philosophy of Surrealism.
Yes: the entire notion of "originality" as a guiding force is just another
reformation of audience pleasing, an outwardly turning consideration which
has no bearing on surrealist work.
dmh
Dale Houstman
<fluffy_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8hjuip$p3n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> It was really DeNiro's character that affected me more than anything,
> and watching them go from being very active back to lethargic and
> outwardly nonexistent. Without that specific moment/event, I agree, it
> would have been just another piece of sugary sentimentality.
It was just okay in my book. I think DeNiro has become a very lazy actor,
and he was never very smart - in choosing roles for instance. I suppose he
did well here, but I am bone tired of actors playing the " mentally
challenged ." It seems to have become a cliche. There seem to be very few
movies De Niro is capable of charging up from nothing, unlike his mentor
Brando who was in a number of bad films, but is almost always intriguing.
The movie was directed by Penny Marshall, for ding-dong's sake!
> You have to agree that the use of "Time of the Season" was awesome.
I can't imagine a bad use of it! But you're exploiting my "pop
sensibilities."
dmh
Dale Houstman
You ARE the generous sort. Okay I'll give it to you. But I'm being
insincere.
1st rate: Richardson/Gielgud/Olivier
2nd rate: Thesinger/Hopkins
3rd rate: Patrick Stewart
dmh
Dale Houstman
Precisely. But this is like the statement "Surrealism is not a tool of Art,
Art is a tool of Surrealism." Originality should not be the starting point
of any surrealist activity, but can perhaps be a delivery system of sorts.
Still, it is not an issue I much consider. I am not concerned with public
displays for the most part. Not that I degrade those who are, unless the
process is for base profit or celebrity.
>
> One can easily create something new, but nobody cares. At
> > any rate I find most of the work I receive joy from occurs very far away
> > from museums nowadays. I really enjoy folk art, and art brut,
>
> But "they" have now moved this stuff into fency boo tee cues.
Yes. But I refer to those things which are created every day, before they
are "moved indoors." Such things as I find in small feature articles of the
newspapers. Of course anything can be corrupted by museumization, but I even
find - for all their air of death - that the individual spark which created
the objects must still be replicated to some degree in the object. Their
being taken out of functionality and day-to-day surroundings is problematic
but not fatal I think.
>
>
> and things
> > such as decorated cars,
>
> That really is the stuff. Expressing the imagination in everyday life.
Yes: it is mainly what I like. Even the stupidest things, like the world's
biggest ball of yarn. And I mentioned once this model train set (now a
highway tourist attraction out East) that filled an entire warehouse, having
moving figures, airplanes, hills, etc. Quite impressive and - yes- corny.
But thre man who did it did it entirely without regard for audience or gain,
but because he had a desire. The show now opens with an incredibly hoo-had
patriotic message involving taped voice, a "rising sun" and the statue of
liberty. Marvelous!
>
>
>
> done by people quite disinterested in the pursuit of
> > the original, yet nevertheless immersed in the pursuit of their own
dreams.
>
>
> ...and the more the merrier.
Here's mud in your eye!
dmh
Nikolaus Maack
> Everything that you've ever posted to me has been of a negative or
> patronizing nature, if memory serves. I'd like to ask you why.
I have a theory: you're extremely paranoid.
Watch out, or I'll make some references to domesticity! (Can you tell me
what THAT was about, Cythera?)
Slightly unrelated topic... I'm subscribed to the Mind Control Victim's
Experience mailing list. I'm there because I'm thinking about writing a
novel about a mind control conspiracy and paranoia. The topic has appeal.
Over and over again, I see the crazies defend their insanity in the
strangest of ways.
"Yes, I have all the symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia. I know this.
But you see, the reason I have these symptoms is because the government is
beaming signals at my brain, talking to me through the bathroom drains,
and using magnetic radiation to program my thoughts. They WANT me to
think I'm crazy! I don't know why they're doing it, but they are."
"No matter where I go -- even if I go to cities far away from where I live
-- people behave strangely around me. It's as if everyone knows who I am,
like there's a website all about me and my sex-life. People sneer at me,
give me funny looks, laugh at me. What's going on?"
(You're behaving oddly in public and people are reacting to it.)
"Mom and dad admitted they were in on it the other day. Finally, the
proof I'd been waiting for! I asked mom every day for two weeks about the
conspiracy, and mom broke under the pressure. 'Sure, I'm part of the
conspiracy,' she said, not even looking up from her magazine, sounding
almost bored. 'Me and your father are in on it. Can I read my People
magazine now?' So you see, I'm not crazy. I have PROOF!"
It's so sad and funny at the same time. Heart breaking comedy that makes
you want to cry is my favorite form of humour.
Nik
--
Every good piece of art kills something soft and small.
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.nikart.com
Dale Houstman
<kin...@hfwork1.tn.tudelft.nl> wrote in message
news:cf5lh8...@moo.uklinux.net...
> > You, Paul Kinsler, Brenda etc. have had a front row seat. I think
> > you're scared.
>
> 1) I dont post much stuff because I'm not very surreal, not because
> I'm "scared". If you dont like providing the not-very-surrealists,
> the timid, and indeed the rest of the internet with "a front row
> seat", then the only thing _you_ can do is stop _posting_ to the
> public parts of the internet.
First off you have no right to say who can and who can't post whatever they
want, whether ir irritates you or not. Secondly, cythera said that you
already did have a front-row seat, so why do you ask us to provide it?
>
> 2) I've complained about all the anti-NM stuff because IMO it clutters
> up the group and is irritaiting to wade through, and because to me
> NM not as annoying as you high-volume posters seem to find him. It's
> not because I'm a fan.
>
He may not annoy you. For that matter he may not annoy me; bemused boredom
shading over into mild disregard is closer to the truth. But your level of
annoyance with him is not relevant to those of us who might be annoyed with
him. Thirdly, the real issue is not whether or not N provokes us with his
statements, but whether or not the issues he presents - either consciously
or by his very presence - are intriguing to us vis a vis surrealism. When he
says something - as is his wont - that contradicts all I have learned and
experienced as a result of my involvement in surrealism, then - since this
is a group devoted to surrealism - I feel it is often in my own interest to
respond. Also, since you complain about not getting a "front row seat" to
the questions of surrealism (and since there are many more like you who
probably know little and wish to know more), fighting dis- and
mis-information about the subject strikes me as not an annoyance but an
essential process.
dmh