"My gut feeling is that you are Romantic, while I am Classical".
Hm, it`s never occurred to me to think of my preferences in these terms... well, it`s certainly accurate to say I appreciate poetic qualities in art. After all, I think art should probably appeal to the emotional side foremost. But Romantic... I dunno, Kubrick is a big favourite yet him being "cold", "emotioally distant" and "overly cerebral" are the standard criticisms of his films (although I don`t personally agree with these assessments). And Dostoevsky is one of my top 3 favourite writers. Don`t know much of anything about classical music from experience, so I`ll just have to skip that subject.
"Movies are just not in the same league".
My thinking, on the other hand, is that film might just be the artistic medium with greatest potential as it combines the literary, the visual, the aural, the physical performance and shapes it all via editing, the one tool unique to film. But comparing film to literature is kind of a pointless and impossible exercise to begin with - hell, on another board I just sort of concluded even comparing feature film to TV series is... hard, complicated. At best.
"Beyond the creative control of any one man".
Well, obviously no film can be quite 100% director`s own voice... even if the director personally oversees all aspects of a production and has the final cut. But I don`t really need to resort to any philosophical/theoretical musings to prove (to myself) the abundant existence of auteurist cinema - all I need to do is take a look at a film and recognise an unmistakable directorial handwriting that shines through even if the editors and cinematographers keep changing. Obviously though auteurs are a tiny minority - and I´m also not trying to imply an "auteur" is by all means a superior artist/entertainer to a filmmaker who doesn`t possess such an idiosyncratic style (for instance, I seriously doubt I`d recognise a John Huston or a Howard Hawks movie in a blind test...)
"Reed`s The Man Between or Ray`s They Live By Night".
Haven`t seen the former. Do like the latter - although I think Altman`s remake, or is it re-adaptation, Thieves Like Us is slightly superior. Flawless movies are obviously extremely rare to come by... Barry Lyndon would qualify as such... and a couple of debut`s like Lynch`s Eraserhead and Coens` Blood Simple... but perfection ain`t that important anyway. Many of my favourite films are quite heavily flawed yet the strong parts are so strong that it becomes irrelevant.
"I`m a huge fan of John Ford & Hitchcock".
I can`t stand Ford - mainly because this goofy, boorish, horribly unfunny vaudeville humor he seems to cultivate in each of his films (Liberty Valance in particular was almost unwatchable due to that). As for Hitch, I wouldn`t call myself a fan, but nevertheless Vertigo is amongst my top 25 favourites... and there are nearly 10 of his films I`ve rated 8/10 or higher.
"But the picture-postcard golden fields of Days Of Heaven are a cliche to me".
Well, many a meadow look the same, sir. But of course I totally reject the often voiced ridiculous criticism that "you might as well watch some National Geographic programme" for I`ve never seen a NG programme where soundtrack works in such sublime unison with the imagery, that is edited with such sophistication and where the voiceover provides an ethereal, distant tone and perspective. As for the sketchy relationship... Malick doesn`t do character studies. But nevertheless the mental states are more than successfully conveyed through images - both of people in question as well as other objects or natural phenomenae.
"I never for a moment buy the concept of movies as paintings".
I do. I also buy the concept of film as music, which is how Kubrick and Altman insisted they should be seen.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
reply
share