Quote:
Originally Posted by Wodgy /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Great comment, Blessingx. I agree with you, but it's also true that a lot of the old "classics" are overrated, which discourages people from really getting into old movies. Just to pick on Kubrick, "2001" is only a fantastic movie after you've seen it once. Sitting through it the first time is an absolute chore, because the narrative is not well-constructed (it leans far too heavily to the last 1/4th of the movie, with nothing but art prior). Then you watch it a second time and can really get into it. But I don't think it's worth the critical acclaim as a movie. As a piece of art, it's exceptional -- it just fails to be a movie. It's like James Joyce's novels. They're all terrible, but no one is willing to admit they think they're terrible, because the critics have annointed him and people are afraid of being perceived as stupid or philistines.
|
Wodgy, thanks for the comments, but any critical establishment can be intimidating to individuals and difficult to disagree with, but how is that different for film? And since we disagree so strongly on
2001, I want to take a quick moment to address your comments.
2001 is a great film in mine and many others book, precisely because it's Visual Art. I'm doing some assuming on how you're using the term "art", but although the film is a narrative (mans progress), I feel you're criticizing it for something it's obvious not - a traditional literary narrative. I never once think it sacrifices for visuals or that "the book was likely better", because it's an unabashed MOVIE! Film is drowning under the weight if being visual short story/novels, and I can't imagine a society collectively expecting the same out of opera or sculpture. Film strengths over all other medium/media lay outside what even some famous critics approach it as, and films that break this mold should be celebrated (and why films based on poetry can be so successful) as much as films that choose the mold of "books for the eyes" (with all the expectation of traditional literary storytelling). And in case there's any doubt from what I wrote, I'm not talking moving pretty pictures any more than I think great poetry can only be rhyming prose.
To be honest, people complain we need to stop making more movies about superheros, but I wish we'd stop adapting literary sources and see what film is really capable of. Interestingly, some of my favorite movies (
2001, The Third Man) had novels written specifically to be filmed. The book was subservient to the film and it made a better movie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by virometal /img/forum/go_quote.gif
x, I greatly admire your taste in movies and bow to your knowledge without hesitation, but calling out an entire off topic forum? We can't all be experts in everything. Movies are a populist medium. A topic that transcends every forum I visit. What do you expect here - dissertations on Brazil? If so, I worry about your sanity.
|
Perhaps you should and this is coming after my above comment, but am I really talking of this subject outside the scope of how we address it on Head-Fi? We (and certainly I) talk about films a great deal. There's a relationship to film and music and it shows here. There are a lot of threads. When people ask about phones, many ask about genres, and we start prioritizing traits we apply to those genres. Need bass or detail or soundstage and we point to equipment. We say connecting a R10 to an iPod is a waste. Do we recommend an Orpheus to play the Kelly Clarkson even if it's really well produced and mixed? How many times does "it's all about the music" get repeated? We do this all the time.
So here we have a thread discussing worth of going to a theater. Home theater is understandably immediately brought up (both off this sites direct subject). I know it was a little off topic (and I tried to joke with that, but really only one more step!
), and the technical qualities of the films discussed may make them most necessary for a high quality setup. But is it so wrong to say, as a group, while seeking out better audio, video and projection setups (that are in most cases already better than most of the history of the film going public ever received), the priorities are insanely backwards? Would you get freaked out if after mining the headphone, amp and source forums you drifted over to music and came across lots of positive GWAR discussions? Should there be relationship between interest in the art of the medium and the playback equipment? Would you want to be straight with someone investing $20K in a headphone setup to listen to The Monkeys? Hey, there's the band called The Beatles...
With great systems come great responsibilities.