What is post modern era in film? Pls explain?!!!!!! (LONG. Sorry.)
Nicolas A. Falacci
>>Worse, this sort of criticism allows one
>>to sidestep basic questions -- such as: "What was the artist trying to
>>say?" and "How well did he say it?"
>I think what you're saying is that you'll rip the head off of anyone who
>disagrees with your approach to art or writes a book that confuses you.
Al:
I think you hit the nail (or cannon) right on the head.
BTW - for what it's worth, the whole idea behind post-modernism is to explore
what artists are trying to say through their use of pop culture artifices and
constructs by shifting and juxtaposing those conventions.
Anyway ... this is a topic wherein interested parties can grind an axe until
all they have is a pile of metal shavings.
Next!
================================================
Sent via The Vine - The Entertainment Industry Online
http://www.vine.org for information
Bruce Attah
Nicolas_A...@vine.org (Nicolas A. Falacci) writes:
> BTW - for what it's worth, the whole idea behind post-modernism is to explore
> what artists are trying to say through their use of pop culture artifices and
> constructs by shifting and juxtaposing those conventions.
*Sigh*. If only things were that simple.
> Anyway ... this is a topic wherein interested parties can grind an axe until
> all they have is a pile of metal shavings.
THAT's closer to what post-modernism is about.
For what it's worth, most post-modernist 'critics' are NOT interested primarily
(or even distant-secondarily) in 'what the artists are trying to say', but
rather in 'deconstructing' the work to find things that the artists might be
saying without intending to; better yet, the ideal post-modern critique chooses
something that says nothing at all and, by spinning a punning web of cultural
connections over it, 'proves' that it means anything and everything that the
critic wants to say.
As someone remarked earlier, post-modernism is opposed to all authority,
including that of meaning, and rebels against it. The reasonable conclusion to
draw from that is that post-modernism is essentially adolescent, and, as such, a
fad that must pass.
It is also an attempt by critics to usurp the creativity of the artist. Under
post-modernism, advertising slogans and Chekov are equal in value, as long as
they provide grist to the mill of the creative critic. The mistake here is to
fail to recognize that each art is always paramount in its own domain -- even if
criticism becomes a fine art, it can only mark out its own territory, and never
seize the territories of other arts. Movies will still be movies, and there
will continue to be good ones and bad ones, regardless of what the critics do.
Al Bell
Nicolas_A...@vine.org (Nicolas A. Falacci) writes:
>>>Worse, this sort of criticism allows one
>>>to sidestep basic questions -- such as: "What was the artist trying to
>>>say?" and "How well did he say it?"
>>I think what you're saying is that you'll rip the head off of anyone who
>>disagrees with your approach to art or writes a book that confuses you.
>I think you hit the nail (or cannon) right on the head.
In all fairness, I've gone off on post-modernism from time to time
myself, and I went back and read other posts by Martin.
Most of the time he's pretty reasonable. I guess the trouble is that bad
post-modernist literary criticism is so bad that it drives perfectly nice
readers into a blinding fury.
>BTW - for what it's worth, the whole idea behind post-modernism is to explore
>what artists are trying to say through their use of pop culture artifices and
>constructs by shifting and juxtaposing those conventions.
That's what the post-modernists _say_ they want to do. I think the subtext
is that a lot of modernists avoided sentimentality and ornamentation
because they were afraid of sex and emotion (i.e., the terror of fighting
in World War I), while a lot of the first post-modernists avoided
sincerity and straightforward narrative because they wanted to write about
their creepy interests without getting in trouble for their creepiness.
Example: Paul De Man, one of the big-time post-modernists, turned out to
be a Nazi war criminals. Alain Robbe-Grillet wrote a Pulp Fiction-like
book in the 1960s that seemed to be mostly about the joy of doing stuff
like raping women on subways. When a professor assigned the book in class,
some of us students pointed out that, although we enjoyed it and we
weren't trying to censor it, we thought it was evil. But it's really hard
to make an argument like that in a post-modernist context.
--
Al Bell's Bell Jar - http://www.vnet.net/users/allbell/belljar.html
"I'm just crazy about it." - Sylvia Plath
Featuring: "Terror at 30 Rock (or: The Peacock Had Fangs)"
all...@vnet.net all...@delphi.com
Ron Moskovitz
I was never under the impression that modernism and post-modernism meant
the same thing from field to field. (And I realise that I may have no
idea what I'm talking about.)
However, that being said, my understanding of modernism (in literature)
is that the structure of the story is consciously modified for the
purposes of telling the story. The obvious example being Joyce's Ulyssess,
where the structure of the narrative is at least as important as the
narrative itself. It is bringing in news structures to take the place
of traditional ways of storytelling, but it is still storytelling.
Post-modernism (or, again, my understanding of it) occurs when the structure
replaces the story. (The example I like is when Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow.)
The point is no longer the underlying story, but rather the structure itself.
And that's my best guess. I'm sure I'm wrong.
-Ron
Al Bell
rm...@netcom.com (Ron Moskovitz) writes:
> I was never under the impression that modernism and post-modernism meant
>the same thing from field to field. (And I realise that I may have no
>idea what I'm talking about.)
a) You probably have a better idea than I do. :-)
b) I think you're sort of right. Modernism in literature, say, affected
modernism in architecture, and vice versa, and modernism in both fields
came about because of some of the same forces, but different people
started the movements, and a modernist building doesn't necessarily have
anything to do with a modernist poem.
> And that's my best guess. I'm sure I'm wrong.
Given that you're humble, you're probably right.