 
|
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: OK, AuPh, you asked for it, so my wife speaks of LOTR posted by Victor Khomenko on January 27, 2004 at 12:41:45:
...of course the only way to appreciate films of this scope and grandeur is from the start; the story is an epic journey and cannot be joined as persuasively in the middle. BTW, it will probably take even more work for her to get into Tolkien's novels, but that's not what we're discussing here.>>> "I guess you didn't want to hear about her reaction from my lips..." <<<
Actually, I think you misunderstood my point. Since our wives do not regularly frequent this site I was simply trying to avoid disparaging your spouse's opinion, which is something many might regard as disrespectful and ungentlemanly, myself included. However, based on the reinforcement she's offering you here I think I have a better grasp of why you always open doors for women at the drop of a hat; apparently, it provides a stronger more intelligent female presence for you to stand behind! ;^)
Seriously, well, not really (grin), but if you REALLY wanna have "dueling wives" LoTR reviews, that can be arranged in the full view of our distinguished Film Asylum audience! My wife, with a record number of "wins" as a successful fantasy author will vie for the vaunted WWF (Women Wrestler Fantasy) belt against your significant other in our noble film forum. It seems like a big enough arena for such an event, but if this wraslin' match is gonna get down and dirty someone else will have to provide the mud, because I'm fresh out! :o)
Cheers,
AuPh
Follow Ups:
I feel like somebody entered my name in the Primaries and forgot to tell me I was running, but after my (ahem) beloved AuPh decided to all but promise I'd contribute something, I feel compelled.First, I will freely admit a couple of things. I don't claim to be cultured, vastly educated, or even highly literate. I will not quote obscure philosophical references. I will not remark upon ART FOR ART'S SAKE, which I find to be a discussion with absolutely no value, because art by its very nature is totally subjective. But I'll offer some street cred, for fun.
I am NOT a fine artist. I have some passing acquaintance with the masters, and I once took a really fast three-hour walking tour through the Prada. I think most modern fine art is crap, and I generally laugh out loud at the pretentious, self-important displays of toilet parts and dismembered mannequins painted with rainbows that passes under the label today.
I am NOT a connossieur of classical music, although I played with great dedication for more than 15 years, was a professional for five, and played with John Williams, Peter Nero, and the great Henry Mancini. (I also played with the Sons of Bluegrass and dressed in liederhosen to play polka at a political fundraiser. I say this because when you're truly employed in the arts, it isn't a high-concept occupation. It's working your ass off, generally teaching 40 hours a week so you can afford to take the next audition for the Symphony of the Most Remote Place on Earth, which will draw in 500 desperate, eager souls just like you.) And I find most modern classical music to be about as generally musical as broken glass in a box. I can say that, because I once had to play a piece called TUBE: A PIECE FOR NINE CLARINETS AND BROKEN GLASS. Dear God have mercy on my soul, I played it with a straight face.
I am NOT incredibly literate, in the sense that I seek out and enjoy great literary novels. I find most modern literary works have all of the depth of a toilet bowl, with none of the practical attraction, and I think if you analyze them closely, you will find there are three common factors in nearly every pretentious literary work: someone has a dream, someone acts in a way completely inappropriate to normal life as we know it, and generally, a bird appears that symbolizes something stupid and obvious. I have written and published many books, none of which qualify in the least as literary works. This does not distress me.
And now that I've explained that I am uncultured, unlettered barbarian, I'll tell you why I love "Lord of the Rings."
I have read the novels, many times. I read them when they were looked down upon as "kids books." I read them over and over as the world slowly, with great and ponderous dignity, worked its way around to mentioning that perhaps this Tolkein fellow might have had something. I loved them with a pure, burning passion. (Of course, I might have been tainted by the fact that nobody explained to me I ought to have been reading only Good Literature. I grew up reading everything from Nancy Drew and Erle Stanley Gardner to the Bronte sisters and James M. Cain. I like imagination. I am not particular about its form, I only demand it be well done.)
I was fully prepared to NOT like the films. I have rarely seen an adaptation that I loved as much as the original novels; they're either so slavish that they lose all sight of the spirit, or they're so free with the concepts that they no longer represent the work. And fantasy has been given even shorter shrift in film than in literary circles. It's most often been treated by the filmmakers as little more than cartoonish, and nearly always has been given some wink-wink-nudge-nudge aspect to remind us that the people making the movies didn't *really* expect us to believe this hogwash.
That was not what I found in Lord of the Rings. Instead, I found a team of people who had read and internalized the novels, who were nevertheless willing and able to make the changes that absolutely had to be made to bring the story to a visual medium. The adaptation is stunningly good, in my opinion. The characters are faithful to the spirit of the work. If I have a criticism, it is that the in-computer work does tend to have a flatter palette than I would have liked, but for heaven's sake, we're talking about an art form that is so new it's literally younger than most of the people seeing it. There is room to grow. I would be disappointed were there not.
I cannot fault the music, which does exactly what I wanted it to do ... underscore the story, and do it in a way that enhances but does not overpower. (And who knew Billy Boyd could sing? And so well!?)
But most of all, this film has something that I do not find in many movies -- I would say "these days," but that isn't true; it's simply never been there at all in fiction or film. It has the courage to tell a story that is the mirror opposite of what we're so often given as "heroic." I offer the example of another Oscar-nominated film: "Cold Mountain."
When I watched "Cold Mountain," I kept getting more and more annoyed by the obviously "literary" touches that practically screamed, "Look at me, I'M ABOUT SOMETHING!" (Remember my literary rules? Someone has a vision ... Nicole Kidman looks in the well and sees her beau -- and BIRDS! There are always birds. But I digress.) I groan every time I hear the grating, annoying trailer slurp its overdone accent across my ears. Who dares to say this movie isn't fantasy? Nicole Kidman can't get a date? Her piano stays in tune on a jouncing cart ride across the south to such an extent she can play beautifully WHILE THE CART IS MOVING? The Four Seasons just charged us to have *their* piano tuned before a party, and hell, they just rolled it across the hall.
But worst of all, the movie had no heart. Or, actually, it had exactly what it promised: a cold one. It hammered its message home with a piledriver: LIFE IS HORRIBLE AND SHORT AND WORTHLESS! YOU CAN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE, YOU'RE JUST A SCRAP OF FLESH CAUGHT IN THE GRINDING WHEELS OF AN UNCARING UNIVERSE! The angstridden longing of Nicole and Jude was ludicrous to me, an overwrought and astonishingly selfish (and self-centered) anti-romance. (However, I fully approved of Renee Zellwegger, who said what I was thinking on more than one occasion.)
Exactly the opposite, in Lord of the Rings. Its message is really very simple: you make a difference. Not because you're pretty or wellborn or royal, but because you have the power to choose. It's a story of love and sacrifice and heroism, and that makes it different from nearly everything out there. The plight of Sam and Frodo at the end of the world means more to me than a hundred Jude Laws and Nicole Kidmans, whose main goal seems to be ensuring that they don't die virgins in the midst of all of the bloodshed and strife.
I like Lord of the Rings because, at heart, I'm one of those completely ordinary hobbits, thrust daily into a world larger and more frightening than I'd ever prefer. I love encountering, just for a brief, shining few hours, people who are willing to give their lives for love, for hope, and for something larger than themselves.
Because otherwise, we're left with the likes of Cold Mountain and Mystic River for inspiration, and personally, it's enough to make me want to go back to liederhosen and play another political fundraiser.
-- Let the flames begin! --
Roxanne Longstreet Conrad, aka Rachel Caine
(and the wife of AuPh, but don't blame him, I talked him into it)
Hi Roxanne,I have to say that having known AuPh for years, I kinda expected a certain similarity in views between a husband and wife - I think that is inevitable in most good marriages. So no major surprise here - seems like you have good resonance going.
I would like to make just one brief comment. You say:
"Because otherwise, we're left with the likes of Cold Mountain and Mystic River for inspiration..."
I have not seen either of those two films, and perhaps you are right in their regard, but my feelings at this point is that we do not have to limit our search and our ideals to the above mentioned films.
I would suggest that during the last century or so dozens of great directors have created hundreds, if not thousands, of trully great films, and it is those gems, and not the mediocre mass-produced mass-culture stuff, that we should use to define our aspirations.
And therefore, while the LOTR might indeed have some merit when put against the pale backgroud of your typical mass-pleasing fodder, it simply disappears from view when considered in the context of the hystorical achivements in the art of movie making.
A ghost train on a village fair, so in a way it can be fun when you can enjoy the ride, every has his own, I remember enjoying the over drawing film called " Raiders of the .."
The problem is people some people se more in it than that. Like a religious war. And THAT I do not appreciate.
I am in full agreement with you - I have no problem when people enjoy whatever they do, and we all have our guilty pleasures - remember the darling Clueless? He-he...My hair goes up when people start calling something "Best film ever" or something along those lines simply because they love it.
But the torture continues....
Last night it was on the cable again, and Anya said: "I must try to understand with open eyes and ears what people love about it, I owe it to myself".
So she turned it on again. As I was sitting near, reading - of all authors, Tom Clancy... oh-ho... don't ask me why, but at least that wasn't his wooden prose (can't imagine anyone actually reading his books, really), it was the non-fiction account of Airborne... one of my guys gave it to me, as I am considered a military expert, so I felt obligated if not to read it, at least skim through it.
Anyway... here I am sitting, reading, and then I realized that Anya really put her finger on what is perhaps the MOST irritating about the LOTR - it is its NOISE TRACK.
The noise is constant, irritating, empty and frankly idiotic.
It was interesting to watch the action and listen to the noise. In most scenes there is no tension at all, the plot is shallow and the acting non-existant, so the only thing that hinted at some "strong emotions" the viewer is supposed to experience, was the NOISE.
So it became the modern days equivalent of the Scratch and Sniff routine.
The problem was the noise was always the same, not changing one bit, just as "climatic" every second along the way.
Dumb.
In 1766 Gotthold Ephraim Lessing wrote a critical work called Laokoon, where he in essence covered just that sort of "art" and method.
Too bad the makers of this elephant never read his work... they would know that in some forms of art the constant climax has no place, and is the sign of ultimate weakness and ineptitude.
Anyway... to make it short... Anya lasted for about 30 minutes, then said something along the lines of not being able to take it any longer, and I can't express to you the sense of relief that I experienced when my ears were finally relieved of that horrible, lame and ineffective NOISE.
I presume all her attempts at delving deeper into that work ended last night. I know mine had for sure.
I have not forget..I am waiting like a spider, at the next best occasion, to rub it under your nose...
I learnt that only the films who resist the " time test " are outside the " flavor of the day " that is insidiously invade our daily routines.
I suppose Anya is honest personn, and try her best....I would do the same.
The sound track..Well in my original post I did write just the same...the HORRIBLE all way digital, disturbing, hurting my brain and my stomach, sound.
It almost disturb my sexual appetite of the day....
So in resuming : Blue sky AND noise track = LOTR
The actors seems always deseperate to find another living person on the set, hehe....
What a crap!
Your last lines said it all.
Thank you for the very polite response, Viktor ... I'd be interesting in talking about what we each consider historical achievements in the art of movie making. (Although, I'm sure we won't agree on them.)I am the prototypical consumer of mass market entertainment, I suspect ...! But I've learned that it's not necessarily a bad thing, and it's what makes me happy. I attempted to be highbrow and literary early on in my career, but I got over it. (And my sales went up when I did.)
Thanks for the opportunity to contribute ...
Roxanne
Hi, Roxanne,Thank you for letting me into your inner world! I can see that we are judging Lord of the Rings from different angles and am hoping that you will not misconstrue my reply as anything but sincere.
By my temperament I am a critic, and you are a creator. My mother who is an artist says, that without my opinion and critique she would not be able to paint. Let her statement be what it may - pure and unadulterated motherly love, but it is true that any work with a claim for success should be able to withstand a good amount of "red pencil" editorials.
I deeply respect a creative spirit and wish I could get as excited about my own insignificant work as I see all the time in my mother. I tend to immediately see all the weak sides of any work rather than concentrate on the achievements. I am guessing that you have the same excitement and passion that you put in the act of creation as my mother. Please, do not regard this as patronizing, for I am very sincere in this admiration.
Perhaps, I was expecting too much from LOTR as an independent work (I think any screen adaptation should be viewed as such, and not mere a transfer of the book to the screen.) It may also be that having not read the book, in my mind I was not surrounded by the world created by the author, and therefore, was unable to keep that fascination for the movie, which I regarded as an original fantasy and, unfortunately, still see as some sort of Disney animation, which is not a bad thing, but not the type of art that I was hoping to see.
Be it what it may, we can agree that this movie will delight a lot of viewers. As far as I am concerned, there are many movies which I hope will delight me for many years to come.
Who knows, maybe years later I will look at it with a warm nostalgic feelings, that time always brings to us, and... even like it.
Anya
A polite response? I am afraid to think of what AuPh has been telling about me all this time... :-)The historical achievements? I am a rather conventional guy with mostly classical tastes, so in terms of what I consider the great achievements, it is mostly the works of the directors that AuPh has listed in his post... there are a few other, fringe type, less known, but the majority of what I consider references come from the great masters, and we all know who they are. It is things like Cabiria, Bicycle Thief, Persona, Wild Strawberries, The Seventh Seal, Paths of Glory, Grand Illusion, Barry Lyndon, Ivan the Terrible, The Discrete Charm, and many like these that truly define the scale of the absolute values, plus some modern directors like Claire Denis and even more obscure Lavinia Currier.
So nothing really special there, but I believe one must know the classics and fundamentals before rendering his judgement. And I don't mean you in this case, as there is little doubt you and AuPh have covered most of that, it is just that you decided to take a different direction from there. A somewhat nihilistic direction, in my opinion, but that is your choice.
I also strongly disagree with you when you say all modern art is garbage. While we all have seen such cases (there is a broken snow shovel on display in the Phily Art museum...) the modern art is rich with talents - too many to mention, really. Needless to say, all great movie directors could arguably be considered modern artists.
There is another notion one hears often. It goes along the lines of "Oh, you don't really like Bergman, you simply say you do because you are supposed to!"
While some of that undoubtedly exists, I can assure you that I never force myself to love something... I am too old for that, so I allow myself to simply absorb the work and go with my skin reaction, and if it turns out I don't like a particular work of a great master (enter Satyricon), then so be it.
Did you like " Casanova " ?
I did not. But I have it seen only once, would you give it another try?
There was something terribly wrong in it for me, the actor maybe?
I never saw that one... it is generally not available here, but I saw it on ebay, and will try to get it.
I was full of promesses as I so much like his memoirs..The film did fail short...I you have it, let me know, of course.
nt
;^)
nt
:o)My wife may or may not respond to Victor's nice rebuttal, but as gentlemanly as it is, and I'm sure that she will appreciate that aspect of it if she takes time from her schedule to read it, I thought his remarks smacked of condescension. We are both fully aware of the plethora of films produced over the past 100 years and respect artistry from every locale, period and inspired Director. OTOH, there are many films that are what Roxanne and I both tend to regard as pretentious crap (i.e., at least, for us these films turned out to be a waste of time; YMMV), and most of this boring cinema doesn't originate from Hollywood by a long shot!
In other words, much of Victor's "hystorical achievements in the art of movie making" are assessed on a subjective basis. We might differ on what those achievements are and how relevent they are on the context of the history of cinema. Personally, I think The Lord of The Rings trilogy will eventually be viewed as classics, treasures for generations to come, and be highly regarded as a cinema milestone for translating what was regarded as an unfilmable work, cult-like in it's following, into a popular accessible epic with a worldwide audience.
How these works will stand against Fellini, Bergman, Eisenstein, Renoir, Bresson, etc., remains to be seen, but to write something off as being trite simply because it comes from Hollywood, or in the case of LoTR from New Zealand, and appeals to a mass audience, is the epitome of egotistical, elitist attitude. Ignoring the fact that a film series has touched so many people in a positive manner and trying to nit-pick it to death with innuendoes about non-existent racism, homo-erotic content, it's length, it's remarkable CGI effects, it's color palette, etc., just makes the critic appear petty and bitter.
So, if you and Victor want to continue digging around in the Film Asylum sandbox, either as playful children or impatient felines dependent upon what you're trying to accomplish, then Roxanne and/or I will gladly sift through it, with kid gloves if necessary, and address any inappropriate deposits.
AuPh
Well Victor, had some problems with the fact that your dearest cited two films that would not enchanted two films snobs like us, but in this context in was not possible to juxatpose LOTR with " Wild Srawberries " would it be not? So she had no choice...
And the upcoming feeling of condescension may start in you, because of you and less in Victorīs post..
Of course, in the history of movies making, like in all others art form, the subjectivity of one determine the value...But as there is good taste, there is also a ladder from zero to ten!
It is like some people saying all wines are tasting the same, it depends on people taste. Ignorance and stupidity pared with arrogance of the insensible and ignorant.
LOTR in my view has not even the quality of beeing discussed, so bad I review it. But again it is fun to speak of it as some scenes in this picture may have been ( the second one had some good moments )..But there no wonder as in a seven hours film nobody can do every thing wrong....
It will find his place in the same way as " Star Wars " did.
Look the reality is just easy: Hollywood do makes movies for profit only ( 99% ) others makes them for artistisic values and of course as the rest of us, for money too. But the mixe may not be the same...
Nothing against New Zealand but their choice to beat Hollywood at their worstest, or in this case " Lucas factory ."
Victor and I try to exchange views, learn from others , as others learn from us, and without pepper the soup may be tasting lame.
LOTR is and will remain in all times to come, a gigantistic failure. But for the child in some of us, it may have some values. But no more as a " mystery train " would have.
Yep, "artistic" is what snobs call a film when no one will pay to see it! ;^)Cheers,
AuPh
It was not that much more.
Of course the Hollywood machine is in only for the money, every US star who got an inteview here tell you that..the latest..? KC....
But you do not have to read that..You can see it..hear it...smell it .....
You keep forgetting there is huge world outside the US, and many films that do not become popular here are considered masterpieces in many other countries.America has its unique taste, and we should admit, in many areas it is not the best.
So instead of writing the film off simply because it produce little revenue in the US, one might try to understand what people elsewhere are finding it.
But your fixation on "paying to see it" is telling.
True perhaps, but conservatively speaking I think poor taste has more application on the political scene than in films. ;^)> > > "You keep forgetting there is a huge world outside the US, ..." < < <
C'mon Victor, you DO realize that this is ME you're talkin' to here? No offense buddy, but I'm very up on what goes on outside of the US; heck, we even have a subscription to Variety, so I can see what's popular outside the US entertainment-wise.
FTR, it would appear that Europeans like American films, and often even more than their own product! Oooops! There's that nasty word "product" again. Oh well, it's probably inevitable that commercial interest will have some bearing on what people watch and the bottom line is still the bottom line: even "art" can't stand in the way of folks having a good time? :o)
AuPh
There is no question many American films produce tremendous revenues abroad - that IS the strenth of American movie industry.But let's not lose our perspective - what sells most is usually not what is synonimous with high quality.
Your original point was that snobs here want to see films nobody else wants to - and to that I say that is incorrect. Even if the proportion of people in other coutries who love those obscure in the US films is being swamped by the mad hordes of the French and Italian viewers standing in line to see the Titanic.
Which is to say I suspect many more have seen and love Friday Night in France than here. So wanting to see it here doesn't qualify one as a wierdo, but rather as someone who is curious what the big world loves.
I don't even want to mention the dreaded MacDonald analogy here.
No, in reality, what sells most is usually synonimous with what most folks deem worthwhile! Everything else "usually" appears on Bravo or the Sundance Channel at 3 AM in the friggin' morning. :o)AuPh
...I have been wasting my time here.
But letīs give him another chance...King Kong is coming...Hehe..
Down with Liv Ullmann! Here comes Peter Jackson!!!!!!Too bad Liv doesn't even pass the Sundance at 3 AM test - no one shows her here. So she must be truly insignificant to "young adults".
Well, I'm glad to see that you had a change of heart and brought your bat back out to play; I brought the balls. ;^)> > > "Down with Liv Ullmann! Here comes Peter Jackson!!!!!!" < < <
I'm sure that Liv Ullmann, now in her mid-60's, still excites the bedpan brigade provided they're "up" at 3 AM in the morning, ...well, maybe her films still do when combined with one of Bob Dole's little blue pills. Now Liv Tyler, as she appeared in LoTR ...! Well, perhaps it's best not to put too much stress on those pace makers, gents.
You know, as I'm sure you are aware, as one "matures" the range of "young adults" gets wider and wider. Eventually, almost everyone fits into that category; it's called getting old.
BTW, just FYI, I'm not partial to the remaking of classics (i.e., I intensely disliked the De Laurentis abysmal remake of King Kong back in the late 70's), but if anyone can breath life into this tired overgrown overblown gorilla saga, Peter Jackson could do it.
AuPh
Sheeeesh! Someone give big Vic a lace hanky and two passes to the nearest art-house; Frodo Baggins, you ain't. ;^)Deeply disappointed,
AuPh :o(
Damn. Missed my cue. Should have read your post before I posted mine. sorry, dear. (LOL!)I can't complain about condescension. I'm horribly condescending myself, at every opportunity; I just try to be clever about it. Writers all have a terrible egomaniacal problem. Why else would we be arrogant enough to believe people should pay their hard-earned money to read what we have to say?!
AuPh is terribly better educated in film than I am; he can attest that I quite often wander off when he's trying to show me Important Film, or (worse) go to sleep and wake up when the end credits roll. It isn't that I'm stupid or disinterested; it's just that there is some predisposition that I lack, the way he loathes mayonnaise and I mostly can't stand mustard.
I suspect why it's called "taste."
Roxanne
Would she not be a perfect match for Victor?
Il mio caro Patrick... are you trying to get me into big trouble?I already have such "snoring" partner, and quite strong-willed for sure, so I like my balls where they are, and not nailed to the wall!
I presume Mrs. Audiophilander and you would have been a perfect match for a " Lost in Translation " viewing....
And there is no sin in sleeeping together, tell Anya.....PS: My poor friend is she really capable of doing THAT?
And being a classy woman, she would probably use one of my 18th century damascus shamshirs to do that.At least, the razor-sharp blade would make it less painful... or so they say... ouch!
Yes, yes no doubt my dear friend, but seeing them nailed? That would be a terrible moral torture!
I MUST speak to her!
You are good friend, Patrick, but remember - YOU are getting me into this problem! That "snoring partner" thing IS dangerous!"But honey, I didn't sleep with her, I just snored!"
Bill Clinton should be proud of you!
:o)
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 © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
