 
|
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 |
128.252.39.161
In Reply to: Re: Huh? posted by jamesgarvin on March 15, 2005 at 13:32:48:
You're brimming with good points today!Here's the problems with Mystic River:
1. Every single aspect of it is strenuously overwrought.
2. Every single aspect of it is strenuously overwrought to achieve a cheap set of emotions.
You missed the point of the post, but whatever, why argue, you've tipped your hand as someone who has gleefully embraced the terms of the Mediocre Revolution which is sweeping America. Hey, you folks won, why bitch?
Populism is the dullest kind of elitism, not least for its obvliousness to its own prejudice. 'Mystic River' isn't middlebrow "becaue" the masses like it, it's middlebrow because it strives so hard to appear highbrow--it hits you over the head at pretty much every single edit with how SERIOUS it is. It's sooooooo serious. Have you not noticed how serious what's going on is? Here, let me BLUDGEON YOU TO DEATH with history's most egregious film score. Still not convinced of how Transformatively Serious what is going on is? Will a Sweeping Crane Shot convince you? Can't you see how grim everyone is? What is your problem, man, this is like WAY serious...maybe a few overlong monologues will do the trick? You did get that, like, child sexual abuse is behind all of this, right? That's some serious stuff. Except, WHOAH!, it isn't behind it, because check out this totally-unforeseen set of plot twists! Isn't that seriously tragic, what just happened?
No, it's a great film, you're right. How can anything so incredibly--and I do mean incredibly--serious not be high art?
Me, I would prefer to pay $5.00, sips some suds, and watch some Bunuel, rather than have some mutli-multi-millionaire shake his well-endowed finger at me for 2 1/2 hours. You can go see Clint Eastwood's latest harangue. I'll have more fun.
______________________________
Stranger than that, we're alive!Whatever you think it's more than that, more than that.
-Incredible String Band
Follow Ups:
"No, it's a great film, you're right. How can anything so incredibly--and I do mean incredibly--serious not be high art."Please, direct me to where I wrote that Mystic River is high art. Or that I thought it attempted to be so. The arguments against it go as follows: It attempts to be high art, but it is not high art, and is therefore middle-brow.
The fatal flaw in this logic is the belief that it attempts to be high art. Has Eastwood ever said that? Anyone associated with the film? I suspect that Eastwood would simply say that he attempted to entertain the viewer, and tell a good story. But high art? YOU said that he attempted high art. Well, it seems to me the only sources for such a statement would be either Eastwood himself, or something within the film. Please direct me to something in the film which supports your thesis. Being "serious" does not equate to an attempt to be high art. Many films are serious, but have no pretentions to be high art.
d
I don't know what the fixation on the truth-value of the word 'high' is here. All that means to me is that it achieves an exceptional standard of quality relative to other works, such that it may be called exemplary--or 'high.' Isn't that the argument being made here, that Mystic River so excels?So what's the problem? I don't think Mystic River is exceptional. I think it pretends to be the sort of movie that should be exceptional by dressing itself in all manner of affected gravitas. What is not to understand about that? Why are you both hung up on this term in exclusion to the rest of the argument?
______________________________
Stranger than that, we're alive!Whatever you think it's more than that, more than that.
-Incredible String Band
...(essentially) -- SO BLAME THE BOOK! Or Dennis Lehane. Why Eastwood?clark
Because I picked it up and flipped through it and I must say, the movie is a definite improvement on the book. Maybe the overall story is compelling, but the guy cannot write a decent sentence to save his life...and I'm not asking for Chandler here, just something that gets above a fourth grade composition assignment.I guess I'm 'blaming' Eastwood because the movie feels so self-indulgently ponderous. I think it probably could have been a much better movie, actually, with the exact same cast even, if it hadn't been for the leaden hand of its director, who, like I've said, seemed to be very concerned that the weightiness of the situation might escape us...
______________________________
Stranger than that, we're alive!Whatever you think it's more than that, more than that.
-Incredible String Band
Who said that, anyway? Kubrick? Was he dissing on Stephen King and Thackeray?
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
Well, no. I think the problem here is that you criticize Eastwood for what others have written. "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." The few professional reviews I have read did not include these statements. I am not sure where they came from. They certainly did not come from Eastwood.Your next statement relative to Eastwood and the film is "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." The problem, of course, is that the unnamed critics were the source of this "grand statement", which you then attributed to Eastwood's intentions. Eastwood made no such statements. The film makes a claim is the same thing as saying Eastwood makes a claim, as it is his film, and the film is his means of expression. But, where is evidence that he made such a claim? And where is the evidence that any artists makes such a claim?
You then write "but its treatment in the media has been to canonize it as a Major Statement." Maybe, but unless Eastwood controls the media, it is again unfair to attribute such thoughts to Eastwood.
You further write "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..." Really? You know what he thinks? I don't. Maybe he does think this. But it is not fair to assume he does, then pass off your assumption as fact.
You conclude with "And the function of his films in popular culture is to serve as a reference to hold against other supposedly 'highbrow' pieces of art..." Who said that was his function? You? I have never heard him say such a thing. I have never read any critic saying such a thing. Again, it is not fair to attribute intentions to Eastwood, or anyone else, and then criticize their work based on those assumptions. Which is precisely what is taking place here.
The analysis goes something like this: Mystic River is so serious. Because it is serious, it intends to be high art, and to convince it's audience that it is high art. Because it is not high art, it therefore perpetrates a fraud on it's audience. It is therefore middle-brow.
The problem with this analysis is that something can be serious because of the subject matter without aspirations of being anything more than about the subject matter, telling a story, or entertaining. Mystic River is about a murder, and the chain of events that are set in motion by that murder. That is serious. It is not funny material. Would you expect a few jokes to lighten up the material? Some levity? But because it is about a serious subject matter, that does not mean that Eastwood intended anything more than to tell a story. You may not enjoy the subject matter, but that does not mean you should ascribe more to it than it asks. You conclude that it is middle-brow because of some intentions unstated by anyone associated with the film. You think that is fair? Well, is it okay for reporters to misquote in order to get the "feeling" of the piece?
"...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." I do not know "most people." As I wrote in another portion of this thread, most of my social contacts are among "working class" folks. I have never heard this as a topic of conversation. I think where "most people" might take offense is when patrons of what you refer to as highbrow art denigrate a form of entertainment enjoyed by those people which aspires, but falls short, of highbrow's ideal.
When I watched Mystic River, I did not think about the artwork I saw at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. I never asked myself how I would compare that film to those pieces. I never compared it to any other film, from any other director. I suspect that if you asked Eastwood, he would probably tell you that he would never compare any of his works to that of any other artist, entertainer, etc. Look at it on it's own merit. The problem is that you do not criticize the film. Rather, you criticize what you assume the film hopes to acheive, and then state it fails. When I go to an art museum or look at the paintings in my house (for reference, I own three oil on boards, and twelve oil on canvas), I do not compare one to the another. I look at each painting as an individual piece, and value only the joy, entertainment, whatever you want to call it, that it gives me. I do not enjoy one any less or more because of how it compares to another painting. Likewise with music. Last night it was Tal Farlow, tonight probably Lee Ritenour. I like them both, and value each accordingly.
I think that this was the point I was making about Pollock. I probably could have better expressed my point. I'll try again. Many people consider Pollock high-art. But then, there are many people who may be fans of Renoir, Botticelli, etc. and say that if you compare Pollock to their works, he fails by comparison. Your analysis followed to it's conclusion would go something like this: Pollock attempted to make high-art, in comparison with his contemporaries. His work fails to accomplish that level of skill, education, etc., and therefore is perpetrating a fraud in the public, and therefore is middlebrow. Listen to many art experts. That is precisely what they day about Pollock. Just as some say about Eastwood. If someone says that Pollock is a genius, I say, that person is entitled to their opinion. Art is subjective. I would not suggest that Pollock perpetrated a fraud on anyone, or tried to convince anyone he was something he was not. That is an insult. But the sin here is that Eastwood's bashers do not stop there. They attribute some mens rea to him, claim some fraud. That is an insult to him, and his audience. I think it ironic that someone could be insulted by my suggestions of Pollock being less of an artist for the same reasons, then use the same arguments to bash Eastwood. I was not insulting Pollock. I baited the hook, as I knew what the response would be.
I suspect that we may enjoy these things we generically refer to as art more if we spent less time comparing this to that and instead valued these things on their own merit, and not ascribe any motives or intentions to the creators.
a
Regardless of what 'level' the work is at, I think it's the work itself that makes a claim on its status as art. All of the supplementary baggage plays a role, but the role the supplementary baggage plays devolves upon a consensual undertanding that the work itself makes some claim upon judgment. I don't doubt that you weren't sitting in your chair keeping a running tab on the relationship between Mystic River and other films or other works of art, but I don't believe that you're sitting there understanding that film, or anything else, as some sui generis experience that's incomparable to any other film or work of art. We understand things only through reference to other things, implicitly or explicitly. The very tone that Mystic River takes comes equipped with historical baggage. Film is as historically bound a medium as anything else, and there's certainly nothing in Mystic River that is genuinely original (in the sense of technique or plot development, characterization, etc.), as I think even its strongest defender would concede. So never mind Eastwood's 'motives' as something independent of the film. The film situates itself relative to other films via its aesthetic choices; those choices make some claim on a status relative to the cinematic tradition. Agreed?Maybe you're right and I'm wrong about its pretensions to high art, and maybe that's the wrong way to frame what I'm trying to say. My problem with the film is its overseriousness, on the one hand, and then an issue that may be extrinsic to the film itself: the idea that overseriousness is supposed to be the province of 'high art,' and that's what legitimates popular disdain of high art...
Er, I've gotta go to lunch but I'd be happy to continue this discussion, as I think it's interesting and you've made good points.
______________________________
Stranger than that, we're alive!Whatever you think it's more than that, more than that.
-Incredible String Band
"Regardless of what 'level' the work is at, I think it's the work itself that makes a claim on its status as art."I guess this is where we agree to disagree. I do not see any creative product, whether you call it art, entertainment, etc., in any media, that makes a "claim" for anything. I think the work is an extention of the creator of that work, particularly in a medium such as film. If Eastwood says that his work is designed to accomplish some ideal, then he should be judged accordingly. Unless he holds his work out as an example of something, then who are we to tell him that his work stands for some idea, theory, what have you, that he never intended, and we would judge his work according to whether his work accomplishes our idea of what he was trying to do. I suspect that in two hundred years we will not be making these judgments about Eastwood's films (if that is what we are doing) just the same as I do try to attribute "claims" made by painters who painted six hundred years ago.
I never asserted that Eastwood's motives were independent of the film. Only that I do not know what his motives were, and I would not presume to guess what his motives were by the tone of the film. Nothing I have seen posted attempts to provide anything more than fact masquerading as conjecture. I know the motives of Unforgiven, because Eastwood told the public what he hoped to accomplish. Therefore, it is fair to judge him accordingly.
Maybe if we just threw out those terms like "high art", "middle-brow", etc., we could do away with what they are supposed to represent, and instead deal with the merits of the film. Or lack thereof.
I am judging the film. I'm not judging what I think Eastwood's motives originally were, I'm making judgments about the effects made by the film. You seem to be assuming that an artist has total control over his/her product, and that an artwork is a transparent window onto his/her intentions. I don't buy that. The film itself makes demands upon its audience, and it situates itself in the course of a tradition. Once a piece of work is out in the world, it 'belongs' to the audience, not its author, and it's up to them to figure out how it fails or succeeds. And the primary relationship which defines its function in a society is not a three-way relationship between author, work, and public, but between the work itself, other works, and the public.But, whatever. Very basic disagreements here, no point in our waging a war of deliberative attrition, I think we each know where the other is coming from. I'm just glad we steered the conversation back towards cordiality and substance. Nice talking to you.
______________________________
Stranger than that, we're alive!Whatever you think it's more than that, more than that.
-Incredible String Band
I mean both critics' opinions and whatever we can say that Eastwood's 'intentions' may have been.
______________________________
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:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
