 
|
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 |
216.196.128.235
In Reply to: RE: Best or most popular? Corliss should know better. Just posted by tinear on December 11, 2007 at 06:18:00
I think you are missing the point of his piece. Critics may love and recommend obscure films which are "good", but, at the end of the day, their opinions mean little in the world of commerce, which is reflected in the awards shows. The major studios keep churning out product, people buy tickets for that product, the academy, more often than not, continues to nominate films based upon box office receipts, which, in turn, generates viewers for the award shows. "Good" films (those critics fawn over) do not generate excitement at Oscar time. That is his point. And he is right.
Odd, though, that you recently supported those same studios chopping up films to make them more marketable at the expense of a director's vision.
I also sense some feeling in your post that if a lot of people "get" something then it must be bad. Too many people in the "club" lessens your feeling of exclusivity. You country club liberals are all the same.
Follow Ups:
> > I also sense some feeling in your post that if a lot of people "get" something then it must be bad. Too many people in the "club" lessens your feeling of exclusivity. You country club liberals are all the same.> >
That is a bogus statement. A child "gets" Steven Spielberg. So does an adult. But there's simply nothing in it for an adult in a dumbed down piece of junk like Schindler's List.
> But there's simply nothing in it for an adult in a dumbed down piece of junk like Schindler's List. >
Many adults found a great deal in Schindler's List.
"Many adults found a great deal in Schindler's List."
Including every fascist. By portraying the fascists as drooling retards and perverts, the real fascists of the world have been exonerated. If fascists are drooling retards and perverts, nobody is a fascist. Schindler's List is the movie the fascist dreamt of but couldn't imagine ever being made.
By adult I mean mentally adult. By adult I mean people who do not think reading is faggy. I mean people who do not laugh when they hear the word "Uranus." You know, adults.
> > "Many adults found a great deal in Schindler's List."> >
> Including every fascist.>
Which fascists have expressed satisfaction with schindler's List? Do you have some facts to support this assertion?
> By portraying the fascists as drooling retards and perverts,>
Who was portrayed as a "drooling retard and pervert?"
> the real fascists of the world have been exonerated.>
They have? How so? How on earth does Schilder's List "exonerate" teh Nazis and their atrocities during the holocaust?
> If fascists are drooling retards and perverts, nobody is a fascist.>
You aren't making any sense here. The Nazis were clearly portrayed as the fasctists and murderers that they were.
> Schindler's List is the movie the fascist dreamt of but couldn't imagine ever being made.>
Can you offer any quotes from known fascists to support this assertion?
> By adult I mean mentally adult. By adult I mean people who do not think reading is faggy. I mean people who do not laugh when they hear the word "Uranus." You know, adults.>
I know. You mean pretentious ass holes like yourself with no sense of humor. The sphere of adulthood extends way beyond your limited scope.
If you portray fascists as the Three Stooges with signs that say "Kick Me" on their backs and it is NOT a comedy, you are doing a disservice. And it exonerates the real fascists, like Le Pen and Giuliani.
Indeed, I see no fun in that. Mel Brooks' The Producers is fun.
"You mean pretentious ass holes like yourself with no sense of humor. The sphere of adulthood extends way beyond your limited scope."
My scope is wide, alright. Being an adult means to be able to make fun of yourself and to be silly. But it does not include wasting time on third-rate movies like Schindler's List. The movie doesn't have a single redeeming quality.
when asked for support for your bizarre assertions you offer nothing. Anyone can get on soap box and call something dumb with no apparent reason. You certainly are entitled to your opinions about the quality of the movie but as it stands you come off as a bit of a nut. You may even find a few people that agree with you on this one. It is a big world. But by and large I think you are completely out to lunch on this one.
I wish I were.
We saw what happened at Abu Ghraib after the enemy--the "Islamofascist"--had been dehumanized.
Hitler may have hade some serious personality disorder or whatever. But Hitler and his followers were not stir crazy madmen. They were mostly like you and I. Some where more driven and calculated. Others were just cowards--followers. The Africans welcomed the Germans because they treated them better than the British did.
I even go so far as to put some of the blame for Abu Ghraib on Spielberg. Actions have consequences. I believe in responsibility and accountability. Ignorance is not a defense.
What did the Abu Ghraib scandal bring? A ban on cell phone cameras! If they had had cell phone cameras in Nazi Germany, 6 million Jews might have been saved. It wasn't like politicians in Europe and America were oblivious. They just couldn't believe what they heard.
You have now piled what appears to be some sort of really nutty theory that speilberg is to some degree to blame for attrocities against Arabs in Iraq by U.S. soldiers on top of your wild assertions. You still offer nothing to support your beliefs. I'd have to put your views on Schindler's List in the same catagory as ufology. But ufology does have a pretty big following. I think you are in very small company.
Spielberg made a conscious decision to portray the Nazis like characters out of Bloodsucking Freaks. How many real people do you know that are like that? Probably nobody. Hence, there are no Nazis. That's one point.
The second point is that the movie dehumanizes the enemy.
Forget the ideology. How does Schindler's List differ from the dehumanization of Jews in Der Ewige Jude?
Why would you hold Spielberg to different standard than that of the director of Der Ewige Jude? And isn't that to short-sell Spielberg?
Cinema is propaganda.
> Spielberg made a conscious decision to portray the Nazis like characters out of Bloodsucking Freaks.>
Really? He told you this? Looks like you are just making up more crap to support your paranoid dellusions.
> How many real people do you know that are like that?>
Like what? Like how Spielberg portrayed the Nazis our how you imagine he portrayed the Nazis? There is a pretty huge disconnect between the two. Either way I must confess, I don't know many people who would proactively participate in the killing of 6 million people based on their heritage.
> Probably nobody. Hence, there are no Nazis. That's one point.>
A silly point at that. I don't know anyone as sociopathic as Hitler. Does that mean I should believe Hitler never existed? Your logic is nothing short of bizzarre.
> The second point is that the movie dehumanizes the enemy.>
Not the Schindler's list I saw.
> Forget the ideology. How does Schindler's List differ from the dehumanization of Jews in Der Ewige Jude?
Why would you hold Spielberg to different standard than that of the director of Der Ewige Jude? And isn't that to short-sell Spielberg?.>
didn't see Der Ewge Jude. I don't cut Spielberg any special slack. I think your opinions of schindler's list is more about your baggage than Spielberg's film.
> Cinema is propaganda.>
If you are paranoid.
The Academy certainly does not award nominations based on box office.
what his gist is:
"In fact, we're essentially passing notes to one another, admiring our connoisseurship at the risk of ignoring the vast audience that sees movies and the smaller one that reads us."
He's criticizing critics for not paying attention to the marketability of a film and instead grading it upon it's worth.
Your point is quite different.
One hears ridiculous opinions such as Corliss's occasionally from critics who vainly attempt to separate themselves from their peers; a one-up-personship, of sorts.
How many bottles of Montrachet are consumed each year compared to premium wine coolers?
Now, one may say that Oscars should be awarded based on their simplicity, popularity, budget, and star-factor but that would invalidate what is the stated objective of the award: excellence.
In other words, entertainment may be art but not necessarily vice-versa.
Corliss writes: "By the time I'd got back to my office I had realized that we critics may give these awards to the winners, but we give them for ourselves. In fact, we're essentially passing notes to one another, admiring our connoisseurship at the risk of ignoring the vast audience that sees movies and the smaller one that reads us."
What does this mean? That critics give awards to films that the general public will not see, and has no interest in seeing, and has no interest in reading about. But still they write. Why? If critics are the main audience for art films, then they are likely the audience for critics who write about art films. Which is what he means when he writes that they passing notes to each other.
Corliss writes: "You will be forgiven if, like my friends at TIME, you are scratching your head and feigning interest, hoping I'll get quickly to the sexy stuff, like best non-fiction feature (the Iraq docs No End in Sight and Body of War and Michael Moore's Sicko) and distinguished achievement in production design (Jack Fisk, There Will Be Blood, L.A.) . Gee, you're wondering, did The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, the French story of a man totally immobilized by a stroke, beat out the German spy drama The Lives of Others? (Three out of five critics groups say yes.) If you're getting restless, movie lovers, too bad. You'll be hearing the same obscure names at the Golden Globes and on Oscar night.
This is called sarcasm. He is equating general mainstream interest in what art films will win awards with obscure awards for which nobody has any interest, other than those persons nominated. Those nominations, with nominations for art films, which the mainstream film goer has no interest in watching, will be their destiny come the award shows. Again, the point here is that the mainstream film goer has no interest in these art films.
He then goes on to write that other films which people actually paid to see were absent from the New York Critics list of nominations. So what? Does he write that the critics were wrong? Did he himself nominate the mainstream films? No, he did not.
I still maintain that Corliss' piece is a subtle, backhanded condemnation of the film going mainstream viewer than critics. To wit: We keep recommending these obscure, good films, which lead to nominations, but nobody appreciates them, or wants to see them, so, tongue firmly planted in cheek, maybe we should simply give them what they want.
This is the logical interpretation in light of the fact that Corliss himself does not do what you argue he is suggesting critics should do in the editorial. If Corliss was advocating what it is you suggest he is advocating, then he would nominate the Simpsons, Bee Movie, et al. in his various 'best of' catagories. He did not and does not because he does not advocate that. The title of the piece is a play on the phrase "What do I know," when talking to what seems like a brick wall.
He ends with: "And it all starts here, with critics fighting over which hardly seen movie they want to call the best of the year."
Notice he writes 'here.' Because he continues to argue for those hardly seen movies. Whose fault is that? Clue: The F**m Goi** P*blic. Now, if you would like to cull some specific quotes to support your argument, I'm all eyes.
the films critics do: that's why they have jobs.
I suppose you'd like Jack Black to be the food critic for the NYT so the fast food appreciating public would have direction?
Corliss is a poseur.
I don't quite agree with missing the point. I mean, would a food critic factor in popularity, or even beg the question?
I think Corliss point is this: We critics pontificate about the best films of the year, make up our lists, and no one cares. We write about, and recommend, these obscure films that, despite our best efforts, remain largely unseen by the movie going public. The movie going public has no interest. I and other critict pump up the latest Coen Bros. film, and the only response I get from people in my office is "yea, I keep meaning to see that one." Guess what? They ran out to see Enchanted.
The movie going public would prefer to spend their hard earned dollars on films made strictly for entertainment. And the Hollywood machine, which needs money to survive, promotes and advertises those films made for entertainment, while it spends nary a penny on those films we critics recommend.
The academy will throw us a bone by nominating those art films we love for awards, but then the public will stay away from the award shows because they want to see the big production films, not the small art films.
I do not read Corliss' piece to suggest that critics should factor in mainstream success in their opinions - after all, their opinions are generally published before the box office numbers are tallied. Rather, I think Corliss is suggesting, "what is the point?" "Does anyone really care?"
...multiplexes and our regional reviewers too often speak the politically correct blockbuster line.
Its as if the reviewer is unable to think as an individual, or never really gets the movie but has to puke up something.
If it isn't a "thrill ride" or a "Johnny blow 'em up", they seem to think we won't get it.
We'll I for one do -- dumb and dumber a la cart.
the "tv" or entertainment industry periodical whore that NEVER finds anything at fault in the most inglorious tripe.
"NEVER finds anything at fault in the most inglorious tripe."
Hollywood has the perfect system to make sure they don't. Hollywood rewards obedient critics with exclusive interviews with the stars and invite them to the sets of big productions and things like that. Nobody gets hurt.
This is so old and boring. But there are three ways we can judge the quality of cinema, art, food, whatever.
1. The market decides.
2. The individual decides.
3. An elite--i.e. the critic--decides.
Corliss asks if we need the latter. The question should be, Do we need Corliss?
If Corliss would do his homework he would know that "Hicksville" U.S.A. is the world's single biggest market for French cinema, and that includes France! It is indeed ironic that Americans are the world's biggest Francophiles and the French are the world's biggest Anglophiles. Ah, tough love.
A critic should do more than just rate a movie, he should educate the reader. I'm not talking about education as a chore. The critic can do nothing for people who think reading is gay. Why should he bother? Should Wong Kar-wai care if Joe Schmoo of Boise, Idaho, likes his movies? More important, why should Joe Schmoo of Boise, Idaho, care about Wong Kar-wai? Joe Schmoo of Boise, Idaho, already has Steven Spielberg and the rest of Hollywood kissing up to him. Joe Schmoo of Boise, Idaho, is King of Corporate America.
I'm talking about educating people who want to learn. Some people will say that Wong Kar-wai's In the Mood for Love speaks for itself. But a critic should still explain why it is a great movie.
Hollywood makes 50% of its revenue from the 10 or so top-gross movies each year. Movies like Titanic and The Lord of the Ring do not bring out every movie fan. They bring out people who are NOT movie fans. (I guess they call themselves movie fans. But they are movie fans in the same sense "super-size me" makes you a gourmet.) Again, why would a critic want to limit himself to write for people with a very limited interest in movies?
| 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 © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
