Posts by giovanni tiso
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Does it relate to one of the seven basic plot types?
Does it follow the 3-act structure?
Does the 'break into the second' occur on or around minute 13?
Is the narrative arc of the main character strong and focussed?Does it have unity of action, time and place? Aristotle is going to insist on this. And would say that Citizen Kane is objectively terrible.
-
To reassure any CYFS representative who may be in attendance, we fast forward through the toll booth scene.
-
If you're putting a DVD on to entertain your kids, The Little Mermaid would be more suitable than The Godfather.
You know I'm going to have to dispute that, right?
-
Ah, but we're not talking about you, Ben. We're talking about those others. Them. That amorphous mass out there somewhere. Lurking. Waiting. That blank canvas onto which we can project.
You're talking about the Matrix now, aren't you?
-
Okay, I'm going to spend the rest of the day trying to wrap my head around the notion that Roger Douglas is a spokesperson for disability issues.
-
Works for me; perhaps "celebration" as well.
I think this one is going to be the celebration of an iconic legacy.
Why all the lineout art? It's not even our strong point.
It would if we were allowed to use the surging undead. Time for a new ELV?
-
You've complained about the director prescribing the way the film can be thought of -- but you seem outraged by people declining to think of it in quite the way you do
If you say so. I'm not about to go and collect quotes again, but I've made abundantly clear what the attitude was that I objected to. And I've said fifteen different times that if people want to enjoy Avatar as a spectacle, that's fine by me, and if they want to praise it as a film of ideas, that is also fine and perfectly defensible. Yet I seem to get boxed into petulant bitching anyway, which rather proves my point if you ask me.
Yeah, I thought that “desperate bitching” comment was pretty petulant, too. Poor baby.
Wait, that was Gio, right?
:-)
I'm delighted, but not surprised, that we have come to re-evaluate Robot Monster to the extent that we have.
-
-
So for whatever reasons, 'The Matrix', and 'Avatar' get treated seriously. Because their makers are po-faced egotists and demand that they are. Because the films were successful. Because success gets confused with significance by the critics. Because audiences are unsophisticated. Because there's no such thing as serious journalism any more, so big equals significant. Look! a dog with a fluffy tail! Because whatever.
I think Matrix and Avatar have a lot in common, actually. They were both technically innovative, or at least the first to adopt a series of devices and techniques on a massive scale; they are both films of ideas; they are both very spectacular; they are both almost flamboyantly derivative (William Gibson, the Dragonriders of Pern, you name it, they heavily borrowed from it); they were both extremely successful right from the start. When that happens, it's always going to generate a lot of discussion: what do these films mean, what does their success mean, is it possible to make blockbusters that talk about important themes and issues?
But I wouldn't underestimate the importance of the success itself: when just about everybody has access simultaneously to a film or a book, it creates a perfect space for conversation, and for the critic it's also an opportunity to reach a broader audience. It certainly didn't hurt my blog readership none that I wrote about Avatar, I can tell you that.
-
But there are things that Citizen Kane does objectively better than Robot Monster. Its acting is more persuasive. Its cinematography was groundbreaking.
That's a subjective measurement surely, based on a model of naturalistic acting that just twenty years earlier had no currency, and that might some day be similarly passè.
Its dialogue is more compelling.
Again, subjective but besides it may not be central to somebody's appraisal of the value of a film.
It is -- as this is important in terms of the canon -- about a serious subject (if Charles Foster Kane had been a spaceship commander, we wouldn't be hearing as much about Citizen Kane).
Being about a serious subject surely is not a prerequisite for being of value? I mean the subject of Don Quixote is not serious.
It is from a film-maker whose other work we recognise as important and valuable.
It was his first film and the powers that be ensured he'd almost do nothing else in cinema. Mankiewicz and Toland both died within twelve years or so but made nothing else of lasting value. Cotten is the person who came closer to having a career and let's face it, it wasn't much of one.
Even in terms of the objective groundbreakingness of Citizen Kane, one could always say "But what about Rules of the Game?"
(I like Citizen Kane a lot, and I see what you're saying. Still.)