 
|
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 |
4.235.203.106
In Reply to: RE: True enough, but... posted by jamesgarvin on November 07, 2007 at 09:53:39
expends mighty intellectual effort in criticizing him on those alleged attributes.
Ya want a bud with that herring?
It's an imperfect world. Anyone that watches a film based on "real" events, or a book, thinking he is going to get a carbon copy is naive.
Artists don't copy, they interpret.
You seem to confuse fiction films with documentaries.
Follow Ups:
Not sure what such and such is. Is that like yada yada? Sorry, I'm not smart enough to follow that extensive vocabulary. I never wrote about a "carbon copy." I assumed you would be smart enough to figure out the point of my post. I gave you too much credit. For that, I apologize.In a film based upon real events, I expect a film maker to take some liberties. I assume Mel Gibson did it with Passion of the Christ, because, well, everyone who was there was dead, and I do not trust those that tell me God commuicates with them. So I expect some liberties.
The question, dear Tinman, is not whether a filmmaker, should take some liberties, and they do, but why. Are they taking some liberties because they have no choice, i.e. that an historical record is missing some fact. Or are they taking a liberty to make the film more "exciting" to the audience, knowing the real story. Case in point is the Disney film "Iron Will", based upon true events. In the film, the lad wins the race. In real life, he never even finished.
You often spend too much time here critisizing viewers who are lazy, and expect the filmmaker to hand them everything. Here, I argue that the filmmaker should present a "true story" as true as possible without embellishing the truth to make the facts seem more exciting, in other words, let the audience come to them, and you have an issue. Grits is right. You just like to argue.
"Artists don't copy, they interpret."
Obviously. Again, the issue, which you fail to understand, is not whether they interpret, but how, and why. If an artist draws a real horse to look like a dog, it is no longer a horse, but rather a dog, regardless of what the subject looked like.
"You seem to confuse fiction films with documentaries."
You confuse fiction films with non-fiction. Perhaps you meant to write that I confuse dramatic films with documentaries. Dramatic films can be fiction, or non-fiction. Documentaries are generally non-fiction, except in Michael Moore's case, in which case they can also be be fiction.
Neither one of us ever will know the "why" of a director's mind; he probably doesn't know, himself.
I don't know the truth behind the events in Black Book and I'd wager you don't, either.
It's poor film making, no matter the truth or non-truth of it.
I especially liked your film categories. Drama, no comedy films, Jim?
You may wish to ponder why filmmakers say, "based on a true story," instead of just "a true story."
It's called artistic license.
At any rate, an SS top officer, who supervised and was present during years of torturing prisoners and responsible for the rendering of Jews, falls in love with an attractive Jewish girl and... my God! He's being fitted for a yarmulke!
I don't know what's more ridiculous, the film or those that try to defend such bullshit.
"I don't know the truth behind the events in Black Book and I'd wager you don't, either."Then perhaps you should stop calling it bullshit, if you do not know that it is bullshit. This is the difference between us. You do not know the facts, but are content to spout opinions about things you know nothing about - blaming a director for the content of the film without knowing whether it is the director making the choice, or the facts making the choice for the director. I, on the other hand, am willing to accept that the relationship did occur as depicted, as I do not know differently, and prefer to judge the director's merit on not what the film demonstrated, but how it did so.
You may wish to ponder why filmmakers say, "based on a true story," instead of just "a true story."
It's called artistic license."Do you read any posts? Or remember them beyond the period of time it took you to type your mindless responses? I previously used the example of Passion of the Christ. I assume that Mel Gibson took some artistic license. But the underlying premise - that Christ was heinously tortured on route to his crucifiction, remains intact. Similarly, because a director or screenwriter uses some artistic license does not mean that the underlying facts are fabricated, or, to use a term from your voluminous vocabulary, "bullshit."
"I especially liked your film categories. Drama, no comedy films, Jim?"
Not only can't you read, you are apparently stupid as well. See, I used the word "drama" because it was clear that you were confusing "drama" with "fiction." If Black Book had been a comedy, then I would have used the word "comedy." I doubt that cleared things up for you, but there you go.
"At any rate, an SS top officer, who supervised and was present during years of torturing prisoners and responsible for the rendering of Jews, falls in love with an attractive Jewish girl and... my God! He's being fitted for a yarmulke!"
Ah, sarcasm. The last bastion of the empty headed. When you have nothing intelligent to add, throw out sarcasm. I know you are having difficulty in reading retention, but you should review another post in which I provided my opinion that he should have been executed with the rest of them. Missed that, did you? On the other, I am curious, what would a death penalty opponent such as yourself have done with him? Care to answer that?
"It's poor film making"
In typical Tinhead fashion, you are great at providing conclusions, weak at providing analysis. So far, we have a relationship (that the resistance instructed her to enter) between a Jewish woman and an SS Officer. Man, you are insightful. You like the Wizard of Oz because of Dorothy's red shoes?
Your entire argument against the film boils down to your opposition of a Jewish woman falling for an SS officer. It is clear that your mind requires, and cannot move outside, those boundaries. All Nazis are evil. All Nazis murdered innocent people. All Nazis are beyond human redemption, and cannot change. Any film that attempts to show the grey is bad.
I have, in the past, drawn attention to your hyprocrisy. One parting shot. Regarding "Dead Man Walking" you write: "Penn is Sean, of course. Have you seen "Dead Man Walking"? This is a very good film but contains an excellent performance---he should have received 2 Oscars."
A comment I agree with. Odd, though. Penn plays a sadistic killer of two innocent people, who spends 90% of the film denying he did anything wrong, whom Penn redeems into a human being with his performance. And you like it. Here we have an SS Officer, who we do not see, or know of anyone he killed, only that he was a member of an evil organization, and you condemn the film out of hand because it humanizes the latter. You love the human portrayal of the former.
With that, this discourse is over, for me.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
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 ]
