Posts by giovanni tiso
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
PS. You're supposed to be on my side on this, Gio. ;)
You forget I'm the postmodernist figure of fun around here. Objective value judgments are like kryptonite to me.
A saw is, by definition, better sharp than blunt. Just because we can't quite articulate the purpose of films, as we can with saws, doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't one (or some).
Ohhh... sounds like you'd enjoy Uses of Literature, by an illustrious compatriot of mine. I've been wondering if that's what Philip was thinking of when he wrote of the Uses of Avatar.
-
Sure, but if you're trying to prove that it's all subjective, then you must accept that Citizen Kane is no better than Robot Monster.
You must accept that Citizen Kane is not objectively better than Robot Monster or any other film, yes. On the other hand, so long as enough people subjectively maintain that Citizen Kane is better (therefore deserving of more analysis, better conservation, greater circulation) than Robot Monster, we're okay, no?
-
There's also this.
If I may be allowed to cross threads for a moment, I propose an objective measure of the quality of a work of art: if it has the words "iconic" or "legacy" attached to it, it's crap.
-
I do congratulate Richard Taylor on having an idea that makes the Wellywood sign seem desirable in comparison though.
-
That sculpture looks like something you'd buy. from one of those "gifts for men" shops at the mall for your rugby-loving uncle, the afternoon of his 60th birthday.
It is art for people who don't like art.
It's art designed by an advertising executive. In fact I'm pretty sure I saw that same concept in a TV ad somewhere. Was it for the promotion of the six nations in the northern emisphere? Something like that.
It is five metres high and it is horrible.
What the man said. And I agree that if we really, really must have it (that's 300k the Wellington ratepayers are never getting back) it should be on the stadium concourse.
-
But you did come here and raise some points about Avatar - to a community you perhaps anticipated would be more receptive to an in-depth anaysis? And you didn't get the reaction you expected. Is that perhaps part of the frustration? Hope that's not out of line.
More or less. I wrote elsewhere about the reaction of Herald readers to Calder's critique of Avatar and was very surprised to find it echoed here.
But despite the deluge of articles analysing Avatar from a thousand different perspectives, is anyone outside Hollywood and The Internet really taking it that seriously?
Yes. The print press has spent litres of ink on Avatar, Zizek reviewed it no later than last week in the New Statesman. And Philip is right that there has been a lot of critical attention, but whenever it has occurred in a generalist forum rather than in a film or political forum, I'd argue that the reaction has been similar to the one that has occurred here and in Your Views.
And The Matrix, deservedly or not, is one of the most studied and written about films in academia and the film press.
-
Oh, okay. That makes some sense. Although I didn't and don't feel the pressure you're talking about. And I'm really not sure that most people have.
Did you read the reactions to Peter Calder's review on the Herald? But that point - analysing the film is an incorrect response - has come up time and again on PAS as well. And we've had a reprise of it regarding Caleb, Tolkien and race. It's not that he's wrong, see, he's that he uses big words and that he analyses things that are meant to be just enjoyed.
(Although to be fair Ben responded to Caleb's specific argument - I'm thinking of Danyl's jibe.)
-
If I want to watch a film that really, y'know tell me something about the human condition (or to impress a chick), I'll go and watch a French film that includes a 15 minute sequence of a guy cycling up a hill, with nothing on the soundtrack except his tortured breathing.
But isn't that marketing? It's marketing that tells you that the correct response to an arthouse film is reflection, whereas the correct response to a blockbuster is oohs and aaahs and fleeting enjoyment. And there's nothing wrong with that, per se, there may well be some truth in it. If you take 2012, for instance, that's what the film is overtly about, it stops just short of making the characters wear t-shirts that say "this film is stupid, don't bother analysing it". Avatar is different, though, it tries to be deep and meaningful; so does The Matrix. Both Cameron and the Wachowskis have made explicit claims in this regard. Cameron even spoke Na'vi at an award ceremony for heaven's sake. So on the one hand it's the films themselves that claim to be about big ideas and Truth and not just the spectacle. But then if you do try to examine those big ideas, you get shot down pretty much right away. People take actual offense. And that's really the extent of my objection to Avatar and the Matrix - not that they're bad films, but that they're bad films that narrowly define how you're allowed to feel about them. I think that from a cultural point of view this is not harmless but actually quite unhealthy.
-
Hopefully the Len Lye down the road will rise up during the night and destroy it.
-
Meanwhile, Weta is at it again, taking its approach to public sculpture - the least possible amount of imagination on the largest possible scale - to our waterfront. Apparently it's going to be a "lasting legacy".