This movie should have been called:
WHAT?!?!?!?!
shareGood art polarizes. In the future I would recommend considering a little bit more, I know it's hard, before landing so firmly on the peabrain pole.
shareI'd say SOME art polarizes. Something that polarizes is not automagically "good". And usually, just the art made for shock value is the stuff that polarizes. And I would even debate if that stuff is "ART", or just viral advertising of a brand.
ANYTHING can be called art. A pile of dog poo is "art" to anyone that decides it is such. In movie cases, my interpretation of whether it is good or bad depends on intention: do the makers want it to be watched by, and please only 3 people? or 3 million people? If intent was 3, and those 3 like it, they done good, and it is good to those people, by that standard. If intent was 3 million people, and only 3 liked it, it is NOT good, no matter how you slice it. Most publicly projected movies are designed to please more than 3 people. This movie did that. Does it please the intended sized audience? Probably not, but time will tell.
Low ratings, and "F"s etc, will say it probably is not good. Except to some.
So is this polarizing because it is GOOD Art, or because it is just controversially bad? What was its intent?
"So is this polarizing because it is GOOD Art, or...?"
Because it is gives the appearance of being a film of ideas, a film with an a hidden meaning or perhaps several...but some would say that's its downfall, because the director has tried to shoe-horn too many layers of meaning into it without developing them to completion, and whatever allegorical interpretation you choose to apply, it won't fit all the events of the film.
I said good art polarizes. You implied that what I meant was that everything that polarizes is necessarily good, but I didn't say that, I didn't mean that, and I don't believe that. I meant exactly what I said, good art polarizes. See the distinction?
shareI respect that. But, I would see that GOOD pleases MOST, thus almost no polarization. A picturesque scene of a sunny meadow full of life and bringing feelings of happiness pleases nearly everyone living. IT is GOOD art. How could it be polarizing? Sure, it is possible, but how could that good art been seen badly by anyone? Maybe one guy? If only one guy, that is not polarizing (love it or hate it) it's just one little guy who was abused as a child and doesn't see positivity in anything. The art is too "good" to be polarizing.
OTOH, if something is not so good - 50 to 75% are giving it an F rating - people will step up and say, "you either love it or hate it" but, seemingly so far, MOST (not all) are on the "it's not good" team... THUS causing a polarization.
Not trying to be a jerk - just discussing rationally with you, and I appreciate your perspective. We can agree to disagree. :) I think if it WAS "good", it would not polarize.
But I totally understand your perspective and what you are saying. :)
"I think if it WAS "good", it would not polarize."
That isn't how art works. Things that are now regarded by most students and teachers of film as masterpieces were and still are polarizing for general audiences. Your "picturesque scene of a sunny meadow full of life and bringing feelings of happiness pleases nearly everyone living" sounds like the most un-ambitious, un-challenging thing one could possibly imagine. That is not what Aronofsky does.
I think I ran too far with your comment. And I do get it. :) I was focusing on the aspect of the movie being "good" as Art, not about Art Polarizing. Like I said, someone can pee on a cross in the name and call it art, and it will polarize, or recreate a pile of poo as art, and those polarize. Definitely nothing "good" or amazing, or worthy, or talented about those "arts". Just lazy grandstanding.
I appreciate what Aronofsky was saying, not a fan of how it was said.