Art and Audience

[anduril]

Originally posted by oscar jubis
... implying Johann loves him because "it is chic or in vogue to do so".

That you said "implying" makes this a fair but still inaccurate statement... I don't think Johann likes Greenaway because it is chic or en vogue to do so. Knowing Johann personally, I think Johann genuinely likes and appreciates Greenaway, though this is in large part because Johann, quite frankly, is a bit of a disturbed personality...

J: I mean that in the best possible way...

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
Greenaway may alienate 99% of his audience, but that's the AUDIENCE'S fault, not his.

I completely disagree and, quite frankly, I'm very glad that Greenaway's art alienates me... I'd have a problem with myself if it didn't...

Greenaway chooses to use his talents to frame and film bizarre and excessive scenes in ways that simply put are not redeeming. It is the degradation of the medium... and it only makes it worse that, in this case, we have a talented filmmaker at work.

[Johann]

That's your taste.
As Dylan said "I don't owe my listeners anything".

The directors I admire the most are the ones who say "Here's my work bitch. Hopefully you'll see my world".

Kubrick
Greenaway
Herzog
Fellini
Godard
The Bros. Quay
Tarkovsky
Russell
Bergman
Cassavetes
Scorsese
Jarmusch
Cocteau
Brakhage
Eisenstein
Resnais
Gallo
Strohiem
Lynch
Tarantino
Trier
etc
etc
etc

[anduril]

I don't think that some of those directors are as honest as you make them out to be.

[Johann]

Who said anything about honesty? Fellini said he's a BORN LIAR!
Trier says he's a "masturbator of the screen".

These directors made films that changed my life-simply because I came to the art on it's own terms.

I must state E.J. Obert's quote again:
To be in the cinema and experience a world that others have created *with wide open senses* and receive a gift in return, is one of the most vital experiences one can have. An experience perhaps more vital than love"

Your senses are closed off to Greenaway and Godard. You see the pretention, not the real intent- which is exploration of the medium. I have read a lot on Greenaway. He is the first champion of the medium. Great directors love the medium and what it can do. All the ones I've listed LOVE THE MEDIUM. Therefore they are the most worthy. You may call them exploitive and non-redeeming, but the truth is you will not come to the work. You demand the director to at least meet you halfway.

I say that a director is allowed to ask his audience to accept his work as is IF he gives you something in return equal to your attention to it. If not, then he's a hack wasting everybody's time.

Meaning: You will be rewarded if you accept these directors'
"worlds". If you're not rewarded, then your senses are not wide open.
You admitted you have seen "some" of these directors works. I think you haven't assessed their work properly. Seeing them isn't enough. But you have also said you don't have the time.

Argument over.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
You're senses are closed off to Greenaway and Godard. You see the pretention, not the real intent- which is exloration of the medium. I have read a lot on Greenaway. He is the first champion of the medium. Great directors love the medium and what it can do. All the ones I've listed LOVE THE MEDIUM. Therefore they are the most worthy. You may call them exploitive and non-redeeming, but the truth is you will not come to the work. You demand the director to at least meet you halfway.

I say that a director is allowed to order his audience to accept his work as is IF he gives you something in return equal to your "attention" to it.

You, knowing me, should know that you are being completely unfair to me here.

First, I appreciate the craft of filmmaking at work in directors such as Greenaway and Godard. You know this. Hell, for one, we watched "Pillow Book" together and discussed it at quite some length. Also, my website promotes "Hail Mary" in the section of my website devoted to Bible and Film.

Second, my point is that neither Greenaway or Godard, aside from their expertise in craft, deliver on your "IF" in at least some cases.

Third, art ought to be redeeming, especially if we want to see our society evolve into something more than the "society of idiots" you claim us to be. Showing someone pissing for longer than anyone needs to see is not "redeeming" nor is having your actors/actresses engage in bizarre perversions to no particular thematic end nor is passing off random jump cuts as profoundity.

Note: By redeeming, I'm not suggesting that every movie ought to be Mary Poppins. Rather I am saying that 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!

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
Who said anything about honesty?

I was referring to your statement to describe the ethos of the directors in your list: "Here's my work bitch. Hopefully you'll see my world."

[Johann]

I do know you personally, and you've been known to dismiss great films because they didn't "deliver".
Last Tango in Paris & Ed Wood for example.

I must say that I don't really know what your taste is, man.
You worship Star Wars, love The Man From Snowy River and can't get enough of The West Wing, yet you acknowledge Kubrick and Fellini.

And you say I'm a disturbed personality....

Also, the "ethos" I stated refers to the possibility of a cinematic gift of art & new perspectives, not "honesty", "truth", "purity" or any other moral claptrap. (Although they may contain such things)

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
I must say that I don't really know what your taste is, man.
You worship Star Wars, love The Man From Snowy River and can't get enough of The West Wing, yet you acknowledge Kubrick and Fellini.

And you say I'm a disturbed personality....

First, I don't worship Star Wars but I do think it excels at what it is. There are not many movies in this world that can generate such a wonderful world of pure childhood escapism like the original Star Wars trilogy. I detest Lucas's latest Star Wars films.

Second, I love Man from Snowy River not as film but because it reflects my passion for horses, my passion for the outback, and evokes many memories for me. Incidentally, I don't think it is all that bad a movie either. Kirk Douglas, in particular, does a great job playing two engaging characters.

Third, I can get enough of West Wing. I stopped watching this season... the writing dried up into Josh Lyman constantly yelling, "Donnaaaa...." or spouting off some incoherent Democratic propaganda.

Fourth, in any case, I'm not sure how any of these interests would classify me as disturbed...

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
I do know you personally, and you've been known to dismiss great films because they didn't "deliver".
Last Tango in Paris & Ed Wood for example.

I'm not going to pander to what I'm "supposed" to think is great film. "Last Tango in Paris" is not only crude but also a complete bore. The only thing I enjoyed was seeing Paris. As for "Ed Wood," Tim Burton is just not my filmmaker. This is just about personal taste for me. The only movie of Burton's that even remotely engaged me was "Sleepy Hollow."

[Johann]

Does anybody think anduril and I would be better than Siskel and Ebert?

We need to get an agent, Kenneth...

[anduril]

I second that motion.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
These directors made films that changed my life-simply because I came to the art on it's own terms.

This is something I'd like to hear more about... how has Greenaway changed your life, J?

[Johann]

Once I started really looking at the complete canon of Greenaway it dawned on me that filmmaking is more (or can be more) than "actors", "sets", "scripts" and "props".

It can be a living, breathing fantasia of tableaux- tableaux that needn't be held down by conventions or criteria. It creates it's own rules and makes sense by it's own accord.

You can create your own cinema without worrying about whether or not people will "like it". If people are open enough, they'll "get it". That is tremendously exciting to me. Greenaway's cinema is not a cinema of plot- it is a cinema of ideas, images, juxtaposition.

People see no plot and are immediately disinterested. Too bad.
They say "it's boring" or "it's indulgent trash". An egomaniac is behind the camera. Nothing could be further from the truth.
He's a genius-possibly more cinematically acute than Kubrick. Yes, I'm serious. Greenaway is on a level that people can't handle.

There's no doubt he's an intellectual. He's misunderstood as an elitist snob who rubs the layman's nose in his "pretentious high art". If a guy like me can see that (and I only graduated high school, what does that say about the "educated people" who write him off as a bore?) there's a big problem.

They haven't assimilated cinema history. (And they haven't dared to go where no movie-goer has gone before).
I have, and I can say with all honesty that I feel sad yet oddly joyful that I understand Greenaway while everyone else scoffs.

I also feel like I'm very alone in my opinions, but I don't care. I've read the books, watched the films and objectively ruminated on the man for years. My authority on the subject trounces the naysayers. I wish Greenaway himself could post here to back me up, because I don't feel my pontificating and "penchant for over-reaction" is going to convince anyone.

Am I right? Damn straight.

[Johann]

I think Johann genuinely likes and appreciates Greenaway, though this is in large part because Johann, quite frankly, is a bit of a disturbed personality...

J: I mean that in the best possible way... [/B]

After reading this again I feel this is one of the most insulting things you've ever said.

"In large part because I'm a disturbed personality?"
Thanks.

To set the record straight, I'll have you know my appreciation of Greenaway is based solely on appreciation of creative genius.
A skill I hone everyday, every hour.

Try it. It's a great feeling.