Films/DVD Asylum Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

Well, no...

Posted by rhizomatic (A) on March 16, 2005 at 17:34:57

In Reply to: Re: The masses are too dumb, not smart enough to know what is good and not good. posted by jamesgarvin on March 16, 2005 at 15:55:18:

the arguments against it go as follows: it makes an implicit claim on being 'profound.' The critics almost universally treated it as some grand statement on the meaning of violence, and made these ridiculous claims that Eastwood was "confronting his past" and suchlike. But it is overbearing, and being overbearing scuttles efforts at profundity. Your argument was against the idea of 'highbrow' elitism. I don't like the term 'highbrow,' but I think a fair amount of objects that fall under that banner are wonderful fun. And that's my point, that these arguments against 'highbrow' culture presume that critics of low- or middle-brow culture aren't satisfied because the products referred to basically aren't depressing enough. 'Highbrow' culture is used as a synonym for an overseriousness. And Eastwood's film, in my opinion, makes a claim on being deeper than it actually is--and was treated as such by the critics--just because it is crushingly serious everywhere and at every level. Like 'The House of Sand and Fog,' which is probably a better example of what I'm talking about, being the only movie I've ever seen in which there is literally not a single moment of levity.

My impression was that you were turning your nose up at the supposed 'elitism' of 'highbrow' culture because its products supposedly eschew basic values of entertainment. And maybe you just thought Mystic River was wonderfully entertaining, but its treatment in the media has been to canonize it as a Major Statement. Whereas I think plenty of 'highbrow' art--Ulysses, Bunuel's films, too many painters and sculptors to mention--are joyously entertaining, as well as being genuinely profound. Eastwood seems to think that in order to make a serious work of art you have to make a serious work of art. And the function of his films in popular culture is to serve as a reference to hold against other supposedly 'highbrow' pieces of art, as has been done in this thread, as a way in which something can be 'crowdpleasing' and still profound. And I don't think it's either. And I do think it's possible to do both, but most people have subscribed to a sort of reverse elitism where they dismiss 'highbrow' art as being on principle overly self-important and dour.

Dig?

______________________________
Stranger than that, we're alive!

Whatever you think it's more than that, more than that.

-Incredible String Band

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

Signature Sound

[ Signature Sound Lounge ]

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---