Home Films/DVD Asylum

Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star.

Re: Movies: story vs. art

216.158.42.31

***But I must disagree a bit here. It's true that if a story is not well portrayed by the actors and director, then it's not impressive. However, the story is really the subtance and all the actors and director do is to illustrate it just right, no more or less. Over(under) acting, over(under) camera works would only take away from the story.

caa, nowhere did I say that a story has no place in movies and art in general. If it was not stated clearly, then what I mean is simply that artwork DOESN'T NEED a story behind it. It can use it and many good movies have done so, but this is not a must. Of course, all this rests on our definition of what the "story" is. I don't see any "story" in Autumn Sonata, but would inderstand someone seeing one there.

***I can understand why one might rather see a well-excuted film than a badly portrayed story. However, a well executed film without a story to tell is at most interesting. A great movie, such as Dr. Zhivago, is one with a great story to tell; and it's told well. Taking away the story from it, i'm not so sure if it's still as good.

It is interesting that you brought up that movie - because both the movie and the story it is based on are controversial. By many Pasternak lovers it is considered so much below his level that it is rejected as something that should be forgotten. Given his standing in Russian poetry this is not surprising.

I never liked the novel, and was at first quite negative on the movie as well. Having seen it more than once I had grown somewhat accustomed to it and the last time we watched I didn't dislike it at all.





This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Schiit Audio  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups


You can not post to an archived thread.