 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Wholly mackerel! ;o) Talk about fryin' bigger fish: posted by Audiophilander on January 23, 2002 at 15:24:12:
First, propaganda in movies in not big news to me, as you yourself had suggested. But there are a couple of points here. First - we are definitely seeing the spread of agenda-driven trash presented to us here in the US like never before. Triumph of the Will and others in that genre were transparent works. Today we are seeing much smarter approach and it appears to be largely the American phenomenon.Second - it was YOU who used the social agenda of that weak work as a proof of its director's talent. That was the only prase of that film that you mentioned.
Regardless of how many words you dump on me, that point is still indefensible and is not getting any more solid. Your applauding a film where two - yes, bimbos - "challenge" the established society routines is quite typical and I thought by now was mostly forgotten. And your fine examples (Ms. Brooks) nothwithstanding I still see your enthusiasm for T&L as demeaning to women, as your admiration for the two low life characters shows what your vision of a "new free woman" is. It ain't pretty.
Your characterization of Ms. Loy is completely unjustified and yes, she could more than just hold the candle to the constant stream of female idiots that grace today's American screen. To you this is unacceptable because she didn't quite challenge the establishment, to me she simply presents the best there is in both men and women.
You seem to be under impression that wearing your agenda on your sleeve is good for this nation - I disagree. That film you like so much - the dreaded T&L - is quite representative of the fodder we feed our society. It is hard to say whether the general moral decay is the result of such movies or vise versa, but they are closely linked. I simply refuse to go with you in the direction where movies raise the worst in human beings. I have seen enough films that make me think and - I shall use that cliche here, pardon me - want me to become better, to not accept the T&L trash's right to exist.
***That's nonsense! Censorship or repression of adult prurient interests
What sensorship have you spotted anywhere here beside the good taste and refusal to watch trash?
***is just as demeaning as patting a woman on the head and dismissing her to a sewing circle while the men folk retire to the study, smoke cigars and discuss politics! Is that the kind of Conservative world-view you wish pandered to by the film community? I sure don't!Jeez, that explains most of your approach. This sentence is sooooooooooo dated and silly even my dog would see it for what it is. Are these the kind of stereotypes you live with? This is just pure liberal bunk and...... for the twentieth time....
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DIRECTOR'S TALENT!!!!!!!!
Follow Ups:
I find it interesting that you continue to spin a weak line knowing that the bait you're trying to hook me with is totally bogus. My defense of Thelma & Louise has nothing to do with any "agenda", political or otherwise. Your overly vitriolic remarks about the film while pointing an accusatory finger at both myself and the film's Director suggesting that we're part of some sort of grand scheme to corrupt society's values is pure bunk.You continue to bring up the Director's talent, usually in the negative sense, as if he hasn't proven himself many times over. Yet you've pointed to nothing which demonstrates a lack of talent on Mr Scott's part except through expressing disdain for the subject matter of specific films he's directed. The funny thing is, YOUR RESPONSE to my purely tongue-in-cheek sarcasm (i.e., about dismissing women "to their sewing circles while the men folk retire to the study, smoke cigars and discuss politics") says more about the stereotypes YOU may be harboring than anything I'd ever be associated with.
> > > "This sentence is sooooooooooo dated and silly even my dog would see it for what it is." < < <
Yes, the sentence you referenced was dated and silly by intent! BTW, in spite of the openning you've kindly provided, I'll avoid the obvious response to your *ahem* canine riposte out of a respect for women everywhere.
As for Ridley Scott's talent, besides having a roughly 2/1 ratio of hits over misses his track-record has more critical successes than many of his well known contemporaries and he's achieved those successes through a broad range of subjects which is a major accomplishment in itself. The fact that I see greatness in many of the director's films while you do not we can always chalk up to personal preferences, but the contempt you have for his work seems more deeply rooted to me. Perhaps you'ld care to explain the intense hatred you have of his films, if not to us then perhaps to someone ...professional?
AuPh
It is always fun to see how quickly the liberals fall apart and start being personal. No need for that, really, as this was supposed to be about fun, after all.But going back to your arguments. This is the second time you fall into your own trap. Now you are trying to get out by repeating that our likes or lack thereof is just the matter of pure taste. This is not what you stated originally in both threads, and this is not what started that argument. Instead you - again - tried to provide some "objective" justification, however lame, for film's and director's goodness. My counter was in both cases that there is no, and could be no such objective criteria.
If we go back to the start of this thread we will find that you considered Scott great director for two (among a couple others) reasons (I shall not hide from you that I think both are indefensible when applied to ANY art form):
1. His film had high number of sequels.... wow...
2. He showed two girls doing something against the male-dominated society... well, another wow...
And these "arguments" are exactly what I attacked, and I have not seen you put up any reasonable defence of these two.
Instead you kept digging yourself deeper in your last post by repeating this greatness kaka again: "As for Ridley Scott's talent, besides having a roughly 2/1 ratio of hits over misses his track-record has more critical successes than many of his well known contemporaries and he's achieved those successes through a broad range of subjects which is a major accomplishment in itself."
I certainly don't know nor care what "critical successes" you are talking about but presume that is along the Ebert lines, and I already told you I have no respect for that individual.
As we see again, there is no defense based on any artistic merits, just some alledged "success"... mass appeal, really... or the lowest denominator. Figures.
So according to you - popularity, agenda, "success" are what defines the director talent.
According to me it is the ability to touch the inner souls of its viewers, and that is where he, in my opinion, is lacking.
You seem to be so fixated on the woman's role that you just can't let it go. Have it if you want, but just as a very brief summary I would rather have my daughter grow up to be like Ms. Loy than one of the two of your hero brainless morons who's sole contribution to society was - according to you - in standing up against the male domination.
I would submit to you that one could certanly make more worthy contribution to mankind... but that thing touched you so much you just could not stop talking about it. OK, enough of that.
Are you a contributor to the "conspiracy of dumbing up of America"? Yes, I'd say so, with your insistance on agenda driven films. If not for the audience like you we would not see the explosion of "social issue" trash. It certainly was not ME who asked for marvels like T&L or Philadelphia. So accept that blame as just result of your labor.
Here is your last quote: "The fact that I see greatness in many of the director's films while you do not we can always chalk up to personal preferences,
I would not have any problems with that. If you look back some people always express their preferences and I usually don't argue with that. Your problem, just like the last time, was your attempt at providing the "objective proof".
***but the contempt you have for his work seems more deeply rooted to me.If you allow me, my "contempt" or whatever has grown tremendously since you started throwing items like "success" and "agenda" into this fish soup. Again, blame yourself. Before your argument I didn't see it that way, now I do understand what his works mean to some CERTAIN portion of population, so thank you for educating me. Perhaps not the way you wanted it, but that is outside of your control. This is what you get for getting up on your social soap box all too soon.
I shall pass on that silly mental health sub-attack - I would consider responding to that sort of statements below most individuals here.
You, Victor, turned this discussion into one about agendas, not I. Calling a movie "trash" that in the opinion of many has social relevence is as far off base as suggesting that it's two featured characters are supposed to be "heroes" in the literal sense (mine, as you casually insinuate or your daughters, as you apparantly fear) and "brainless morons" or whatever.Since you don't like Roger Ebert (are there any critics that you DO like or is it simply a matter of your believing that your own viewpoint ascends to a height superior to all others?) I'll link Peter Traver's impressions; perhaps his observations will persuade you since my opinions have failed so miserably in that effort.
FTR, I don't demounce actresses like Myrna Loy, et al., but they are from another time and representative of a system that abused women without remorse. Perhaps you, as a father, would prefer dressing your daughters in Victorian attire (okay, 1930's era), which isn't an uncommon thought among fathers of girls I'd wager, but one really should try to appreciate the complexities of life in the new milennium, IMHO. Films are, after all, movies and not reality, but they do reflect social change. If T&L offends you, perhaps it was intended to by drawing attention to FEELINGS women have about abusive relationships.
OTOH, by taking Callie Khouri's screenplay too literally, latching on to the films depiction of violent feminine outrage as an indication of moral decadence rather than a symbolic release of repressesd inhibitions, it's easy to see why issues like relationship abuse get shoved into the closet by well meaning folks like yourself.
AuPh
Hello Victor,If you have the time, you may wish to look for this Japanese film by a director named Miike called 'Audition'.
There isn't a region 1 DVD for it ( but doesn't every self-respecting film buff own a region-free player :)?) but there should
be region3 discs for it available on the 'net or your local/closest Chinatown. Also, may like 'Unagi' by ImamuraRegards,
A.
Thank you Andrew. I dutifully wrote down these and your previous recommendations and will take them to my store. Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't own a region-free player... ten lashes with VHS tape for me, I guess.
Hello Victor,Sorry, didn't mean to sound snotty..I watch films in whatever format I can get it on.
Unfortunately, a whole bunch of films are not available for domestic release in NAmerica,
thus the region-free player. I should have brought back a multisystem player the last time
I was in Asia...can't believe how many films are in PAL and not NTSC.Regards,
A.
***Sorry, didn't mean to sound snotty..I didn't take it that way, don't worry, I perfectly understand the reason.
***I watch films in whatever format I can get it on.
Unfortunately, a whole bunch of films are not available for domestic release in NAmerica,
thus the region-free player. I should have brought back a multisystem player the last time
I was in Asia...can't believe how many films are in PAL and not NTSC.And I am sure there are some great SECAM films too. I presume one can buy such player in NY City - no?
...if you wish to continue your conversation with Auph, there's always the thread with John Dem 'above'.A.
He is not the most shy guy here, he can always find me... he-he...
(nt)
Hello Victor,"And I am sure there are some great SECAM films too. I presume one can buy such player in NY City - no? "
No doubt one can find such machines in NYC...but over here in Canada, we're such law-abiding citizens that
we don't have them for sale ( 'cept maybe in chinatown ).Regards,
A.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
