Art and Audience

[pmw]

Originally posted by anduril
PMW: I never said I found industry trash more compelling because I don't... Personally, I find pretentious crap more compelling than industry trash... What I said is that I find more contemptible those cinemaniacs who will laud praises on filmmakers simply because it is chic or en vogue to do so than I find common people contemptible who take superficial joy out of listening to industry trash.

You're right, you didn't say that. On review, that was a bit of a leap.

I'm a fan of "the common man" if there is such a term. I just feel like there are plenty of options for he who diggeth deeply. And I don't think the prevailing motive for 99.9% of the people who choose them is pretension or to be en vogue. I feel like there are a lot more lazy thinkers than pretentious film snobs. In any case, I think we can both agree that both exist.

[tabuno]

I never did get an answer from anduril on whether or not "good art" must lead to "societal change." Can "good art" simply create in a viewer a strong, impression of emotional feeling just a "Mona Lisa" might or "The Blue Danube" used in "2001: A Space Odyssey?"

[anduril]

First, you've taken what I've said about being "a disturbed personality" the wrong way if you consider it an insult... it's nothing you yourself have not claimed about yourself.

Second, nothing in what you have written about Greenaway reveals a significant change in your life. It only shows that you learnt something new about cinema; Greenaway did that much for me, too. But then, so have so many other directors...

Third, I have never denied the man's cinematic craft behind the camera. Greenaway has innovation maybe even brilliance (to paraphrase my own words). What I question is the uses to which these talents are put... you have not presented any compelling reason why the grotesque and the bizarre are images that every person ought to indulge themselves in.

[anduril]

Originally posted by pmw
You're right, you didn't say that. On review, that was a bit of a leap.

I'm a fan of "the common man" if there is such a term. I just feel like there are plenty of options for he who diggeth deeply. And I don't think the prevailing motive for 99.9% of the people who choose them is pretension or to be en vogue.

I don't think I gave such a large percentage, did I? I've tried to qualify everything I've written... where I haven't, it has been a slip up.

I'm simply frustrated when film buffs lord over people directors and films that are "alledgedly" brilliant, when in actual fact it is nothing more than pretension and style used to cover up the absence of content. Furthermore, I also find tragic that there are directors of such great gifts who have chosen to make their work so inaccessible and/or degrading. Godard is sometimes an example of the former while Greenaway is sometimes an example of the latter.

[anduril]

Originally posted by tabuno
I never did get an answer from anduril on whether or not "good art" must lead to "societal change." Can "good art" simply create in a viewer a strong, impression of emotional feeling just a "Mona Lisa" might or "The Blue Danube" used in "2001: A Space Odyssey?"

Actually, tabuno, I did feel I answered this question when I wrote: "I'm not sure, however, that I can agree with your claim that there are movies that do not seek change or influence. Simply because a subsequent aspect of my discussion, especially with Johann, delved into politics does not mean I limit it to that sphere either nor do I think my initial post belied that limitation. You brought up a fine list of movies that attempt to influence people in alternative, also very important ways. The list only engages and supports my original point, i.e. film needs to be seen; if it isn't seen, what good is it?"

In other words, all art attempts to influence people's perceptions and in this way tries to effect change... this is inevitably a type of social change. Good art, in this process, must communicate Truth. As I stated before, "artists are compelled by their own craft and their gift in filmmaking (or music, painting, etc.) to communicate Truth... the failure to do so is a travesty against themselves and their audience!"

[Johann]

I didn't take it the wrong way- I'm all for self-deprecation, I get insulted with "in large part" and the implication that I am bizarre because I see Greenaway for what he is.

You have proven beyond a doubt that you've only given Greenaway a glib cursory look if your argument is rooted in "long peeing", "grotesque & bizarre images". That's what every ignorant filmgoer points to.

You're frustrated with my lording over Greenaway? I call it deep appreciation. If receiving and understanding a man's art on it's own terms (which you have not done) delivers me to a new perspective- ONE I CALL LIFE-CHANGING-then call me a LORD.

I'm willing to bet that you haven't seen any Greenaway film more than once. I'm willing to bet you can't remember the ending to The Pillow Book. You are in no way qualified to say that Greenaway has nothing more to give a viewer than grotesque images.

But I forgive you Ken-you know not what you do.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
I didn't take it the wrong way- I'm all for self-deprecation, I get insulted with "in large part" and the implication that I am bizarre because I see Greenaway for what he is.

You have proven beyond a doubt that you've only given Greenaway a glib cursory look if your argument is rooted in "long peeing", "grotesque & bizarre images". That's what every ignorant filmgoer points to.

You're frustrated with my lording over Greenaway? I call it deep appreciation. If receiving and understanding a man's art on it's own terms (which you have not done) delivers me to a new perspective- ONE I CALL LIFE-CHANGING-then call me a LORD.

I'm willing to bet that you haven't seen any Greenaway film more than once. I'm willing to bet you can't remember the ending to The Pillow Book. You are in no way qualified to say that Greenaway is a has nothing more to give a viewer than grotesque images.

But I forgive you Ken-you know not what you do.

Now, that's pretension!

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
You have proven beyond a doubt that you've only given Greenaway a glib cursory look if your argument is rooted in "long peeing", "grotesque & bizarre images". That's what every ignorant filmgoer points to.

You haven't read my posts very well if you think that is the extent of my argument.

Also, there is nothing wrong with pointing to the content of a movie in order to assess its contribution...

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
II'm willing to bet that you haven't seen any Greenaway film more than once.

You are right... I have not watched any Greenaway movie more than once... But, you are wrong if you think that means that that makes me unqualified to give my opinion on it.

If the number of times you watch a movie or the completeness of your movie repertoire is the sole criteria of whether an informed opinion can be offered on a subject, you would not have been able to start the thread on Scorsese, what with you not even having seen Kundun at the time you started writing... for shame, especially seeing as you watch movies in almost every free moment of your life.

[Johann]

Now that's pretention? No, that's hitting you where it hurts.

What else do you have to say about Greenaway?
I have read your posts- they gleem with ignorance.

Just because you've acknowledged "craft" doesn't mean shit.
Greenaway is way more than that- I can't convey it in fucking words! You won't see the films, so what am I to do?

I've done my best to tell them, Lord, but they still don't get it...

How can you acknowledge craftsmanship on the director's part but in the same breath say he degrades the medium?
Being challenged morally is wonderful! Few directors do it with as much visual pizazz as PG.

[anduril]

In a sense Godard destroyed everything
-- Peter Greenaway, Director.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
Now that's pretention? No, that's hitting you where it hurts.

Really? I hadn't experienced the pain, sorry man.

Originally posted by Johann
You won't see the films, so what am I to do.

When have I ever refused to watch Greenaway?

Originally posted by Johann
I've done me my best to tell them, Lord, but they still don't get it...

Paraphrasing Christ... oh if only you were that humble...

[Johann]

You didn't feel the pain because ignorance is bliss.

You haven't refused, but you're not eager- same thing to me.

Mama! I don't eat humble pie....

[Johann]

Anyone reading your quote will be led to believe that Greenaway has something against Godard.

HE DOESN'T FOLKS- read the books. Context is paramount. Something anduril is lacking at the moment.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
Anyone reading your quote will be led to believe that Greenaway has something against Godard.

HE DOESN'T FOLKS- read the books. Context is paramount. Something anduril is lacking at the moment.

And, if you had been reading my posts, you'd also know that though I have criticized both Godard and Greenaway, I also respect them as filmmakers.

Greenaway, of course, respects Godard. In fact, Greenaway regards Godard, alongside Eisenstein and Welles, as the greatest filmmakers in the history of film. He calls Eisenstein the inventor of the language, Welles the perfector of the language, and Godard the destroyer of the language. But, here is the point, Greenaway is not so flush with Godard that he doesn't recognize the consequences of Godard's unintelligibility.

If there is anything I am not, J, it is uneducated...