Movies are made, primarily, to entertain. Occasionally, one can learn something of history or of human nature or of geography from watching a movie, but it is those filmmakers who go out of their way to force a point of view down the throats of the audience that end up with egg on their faces.

There is not ONE movie ever made that I have taken even remotely seriously. I adore movies, but I don’t look to them for any kind of ‘spiritual guidance’ or ‘pearls of political wisdom’ or ‘social commentary’ or even sado/masochistic/sexual ‘titillation’……no mainstream movie can ever come anywhere near satisfying the filmgoer looking for any of the aforementioned properties, unless that person has led an especially sheltered life or is easily impressed. Indeed, to take movies seriously is to be positively foolhardy, in my opinion. Take BRAVEHEART, a wonderful movie entertainment, but a heinous bastardization of history…..just think, there may be some misguided souls out there who actually took this movie seriously!

Take Kubrick. I am the first to admit that the man had talent….but that talent was handicapped (nay squandered) and finally overwhelmed by his myopic world-view. PATHS OF GLORY was brilliant, SPARTACUS was okay….the rest of his movies are lost in a jungle of ordinary-ness.

That’s why I love the movies of TODAY. The 90’s has seen Hollywood recapture the sparkling entertainment value of 30’s and 40’s cinema….the intervening decades were comparatively barren, and provided the perfect breeding ground for the likes of Kubrick to spout their insipid ‘message-movies’. Today, only the laughably misguided Oliver Stone and the leaden David Fincher survive as the ‘standard-bearers’ of all that is defunct, old-fashioned and redundant in the cinema of the 50’s through to the 80’s.

For example, Fincher’s FIGHT CLUB is a very amusing, simplistic and old-fashioned throwback to the unenlightened days of cinema of three decades ago, though it is a popular movie amongst 12 year old boys (according to my grand-kids). On the other hand, take a movie like BREAKDOWN…an absolute ‘modern classic’ that sets out to purely entertain, a brilliantly successful movie….and I don’t care whether Poledouris rewrote his score once or a hundred times, his music as heard in the movie was excellent and very CMS.

Hey, you know what? Contrary to popular belief, John Williams still writes the John Williams music of our time. Do you know who Lee Holdridge is? What about Christopher Young? Ennio Morricone? Pino Donaggio? Francesco de Masi? Tan Dun? Philippe Sarde? Elia Cmiral? Joanna Bruzdowisc? Loek Dikker? Rogiers Von Otterloo? What makes a score like Lonesome Dove communicate what it is to live, whereas some guy sampling and printing out all-purpose soundscapes just provokes rationalization? You did realize that by the time those droning techno beats made it to Frasier and David Arnold soundtracks and Midi Ventures they were already out of date? How many of those hip and happening elite composers you all love have even one thing to say about anything besides themselves? They waste time pandering to a blurry stereotype of what is supposedly going to be popular. Real musicians work from the heart, and from experience, and especially from discipline (the difference between knowing form, theory, sound, drama, how to create specific imagery, and how to apply to human beings and ideas, versus pimping out vague stereotypes and amateurish drones). Technicians and talentless hacks are just trying to service you to get more work and more justification in their reviews. Pandering works best from the kneeling position doesn't it? Are you not entertained?

Forget all that, go watch To Kill a Mockingbird because Elmer scored it and because it's a fine pic. Then get Summer and Smoke, Animal House, Robot Monster, The Grifters, and then watch Airplane again (I'm not even going to say it)

quote:

---

Real musicians work from the heart, and from experience, and especially from discipline.

---

The same goes for any creative person of talent. I think that quote says it all.

It seems that everything you say defines your taste is seriously consistant with exactly what I am saying is wrong with cinema today.

Granted, the primary (industrial) purpose of film is to make money. Nevertheless, in my opinion and, it seems, in the opinion of most people here, films are art, and should be judged as such. While some films (usually called "art films," coincidentally) can get away with being purely a statement of the filmmaker(s), the majority of what Hollywood produces are product.

Nevertheless, as I believe I proved in my initial post (or at least made a fighting case for), it is certainly possible to create entertainment that has more to it.

This, however, seems to be immaterial to you. All you seem to care about is the surface. If this is all you care about, I have nothing more to say to you. It seriously appears that you are at heart a quick-fix seeking nihilist, whose command of the English language make your comments seem to be much more important than they really are.

Whatever, this is not meant as a personal attack, really, but what you are saying is that you really don't care about anything but what is on the surface, in you films or your music, and that's pretty shallow.

In my humble opinion, of course.

I didn't really bother to refute anything Mr. 2 said, not least because I guess I'm finally learning it's pointless, but also because, hey, who am I to tell him what to feel?

There HAVE been some promising trends in film in the 1990s -- the decade wasn't quite the wasteland the 1980s was -- but all the things I'd point to as hopeful signals are nearly OPPOSITE the things Daniel values.

We might consider that he hails from the one single nation in the world where eccentricity is actually valued, if not tacitly encouraged.

I remain weirdly impressed by his ability to rub people the wrong way so consistently and so HARD. And his dedication to same cause.

NP: some Goldsmith score that I remember he doesn't like

Thank you for your considerate reply.

I believe ALL movie-making to be an art-form…..a movie made to make money is no less a work of art than a movie that attempts to make a serious comment.

All I am saying is, my preference is for a movie that unashamedly sets out to entertain. Having said that, there are movies that are also designed to make a ‘statement’ that also manage to entertain. More often than not however, as is the case with virtually all Kubrick (for instance), such an attempt to ‘preach’ or to ‘educate’ or to ‘comment’, actively hampers the entertainment value of such a movie.

I am sure that you will agree that the movies that make money today (and successful movies today garner record-breaking sums), are, on the whole, those movies that specifically set out to entertain. A movie such as FIGHT CLUB may claim to carry some sort of message….I’m sure that somebody, somewhere will find some sort of message lurking within such one-dimensional fare as SHOWGIRLS, ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN, DANTE’S PEAK, or GOODFELLAS….but all that FIGHT CLUB amounted to was a lame pandering to cinema-audience-requirements based on the filmmaker’s misguided perception of contemporary society. There are tame Stone/Kubrickismic movies still being churned out….FIGHT CLUB, EYES WIDE SHUT, HOLY SMOKE, and Stone’s own NATURAL BORN KILLERS, for instance. Each ostensibly claims to making some sort of serious ‘social comment’….either anti-government, anti-media, anti-establishment, or indeed anti-society, and yet it is clear that the filmmakers are simply courting notoriety through the media, thus making reason alone for a sizeable proportion of the cinema-going public to be ‘hooked’ by the promise of some sort of titillation….or so they think.

Considering the fact that nothing in mainstream cinema is even vaguely pornographic, or even convincingly violent, today’s sophisticated society is wising up to such puerile media/filmmaker devices….the promise of unprecedentedly erotic scenes of sex, uncompromising violence, and jolting realism has worn a bit thin. The awe with which some film reviewers have discussed FIGHT CLUB, because of its so-called ‘extreme’ violence, indicates one of three things….the reviewer in question has particularly delicate sensibilities, or he is in on the payroll of the filmmakers, or the movie is ACTUALLY shockingly violent….well, having seen FIGHT CLUB, the latter explanation certainly isn’t the case…..the average Foghorn Leghorn cartoon has more shock-value than a movie like FIGHT CLUB. The fact that FIGHT CLUB wasn’t a particularly good movie anyway, is an entirely separate issue to supposedly high level of violence on show….but, in its simplistic, and fatally flawed attempts to ‘comment’ on society it did, in my opinion, sabotage the entertainment value of the picture. Don’t get me wrong, FIGHT CLUB is a fairly watchable movie, and the younger kids adored it.

One can argue that ‘the movie that makes the money’ is the more SUCCESSFUL art-form than the so-called ‘art-house’ movie, simply because it has appealed to a greater number of individuals. If these ‘art-house’ filmmakers are so worldly-wise and intelligent (and I include any filmmaker who intentionally incorporates some sort of message into his movie, mainstream or not), what are they doing making films? Why don’t they go into politics? Anyone can enter politics….if you’re clever enough you can go a long way, all the way in fact…..Margaret Thatcher was born into a very humble family, her father was a greengrocer….thankfully she decided to apply her talents CONSTRUCTIVELY, in the politics of the REAL WORLD, and didn’t enter the fictional world of moviemaking, where let’s face it, it’s easy to spout your own personal politically motivated sentiments….a filmmaker can say what he likes with impunity….a politician is dealing with REAL issues and REAL people. The politician, so often the victim of leftwing anti-establishment sentiment in movies, is the guy doing the HARD work, he’s the person upholding the democratic principles that allow the politically motivated filmmaker to spew his pseudo-intellectual gibberish.

The British film industry of the 60’s was finally annihilated by a steady stream of dismally anti-establishment, leftwing ego-trip movies…..and all of them have dated horrendously. You watch a film like IF… or A CLOCKWORK ORANGE these days, and in between bouts of giggling, you ask yourself…..what’s the point of this movie? If Kubrick or Anderson wanted to make some kind of political point, why didn’t they enter politics?….probably because they didn’t have the COURAGE. However, though most people with hindsight today look back on such movies with derision, at the time, such filmmakers as Lindsay Anderson had a captive audience….no-one can deny that.

Thankfully, things have moved on…..society has continued to mature, and so has cinema. However, though the overt ‘message movie’ may have virtually died a death, cinema will never amount to anything more than diluted, inaccurate, politically correct and vague reflections of the real world. I said earlier, that I have never taken ONE film seriously….I’ll explain why. I mentioned BRAVEHEART earlier, jokingly referring to the possibility that someone, somewhere may actually believe the events depicted onscreen happened that way. Well, since BRAVEHEART was set 800 years ago, it hardly matters now (or does it?). How about the upcoming PATRIOT? By all accounts this movie too is a gross distortion of history…even the non anglophile is admitting to that. Well, I suppose the American Revolution happened over 200 years ago, so any historical inaccuracies hardly matter (or do they?). What about U-571? Another distortion of history, but it’s a good film, and the Americans and British were on the same side, and the events depicted DID happen fifty years ago….the historical inaccuracies hardly matter (or do they?). What about THE DEVIL’S OWN? Here we have the IRA terrorists (led by Brad Pitt) portrayed as romantic freedom fighters. Pitt takes refuge in the home of Irish-American cop Harrison Ford, and his experiences in New York allow the audience to gain sympathy with the terrorist. Okay, there’s a lot of IRA terrorists who may well be romantic and ingratiating. And what of the British? Well, the action in THE DEVIL’S OWN begins on the ‘war-torn’ streets of Belfast, and the British, to a man, led by the sadistic and supercilious SAS chief Simon Jones, are just that….the bad guys. When Jones turns up in New York pursuing Pitt, even Ford’s good American cop hates the SAS man on sight. Okay, there are sadistic and supercilious Brits…..and it’s only a movie, so what if there are a few historical inaccuracies…wait a minute….historical inaccuracies?….THE DEVIL’S OWN is set in the present day, it’s those Brits again…..this time they’re oppressing the Irish…..just like they raped and pillaged in BRAVEHEART, just like they murdered and tortured in THE PATRIOT, just like they DIDN’T retrieve the Enigma Device from the Germans in U-571….and then there’s the murderous Captain Smith from TITANIC…..

That’s why I don’t take movies, ANY movies, seriously…..that’s why I hope no-one else takes movies, ANY movies, seriously. Yes, many movies are instructive….you can learn a lot about the world around us……but who is to tell the audience what is truth and what is fiction?

I guess my age has got a lot to do with my attitude toward movies. It’s not that I’m older and WISER than anyone else at the message board (though I may be older)….it’s just that, though I haven’t led a particularly adventurous life, I have experienced WWII, I have experienced the deprivation of the austerity measures of the 50’s, I have experienced conscription, I have experienced hunger, I have experienced poverty, real poverty, I have lived in those times when civil liberties were virtually non-existent….and I look at the leftwing message movies of the 60’s (particularly the British movies), and think to myself, what are you crying about?….and I look at the movies of today, 99% of which are made purely to entertain the people….and I think, at last, society has matured, and so has cinema.

Here's my list of great films of the 80's (and the release year might be murky as I only remember the year I first saw the film):

1980
The Empire Strikes Back
Breaking Away
Blues Brothers
The Shining
Ordinary People

1981
For Your Eyes Only
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Das Boot

1982
ET
Star Trek II:The Wrath of Kahn
Poltergeist
Blade Runner
Gandhi
Tootsie
The Road Warrior

1983
Return of the Jedi
The Right Stuff
The Big Chill
Never Cry Wolf

1984
Rear Window (1st re-release after years unavailable due to litigation)
2010
Dune

1985
Back to the Future
Witness
Prizzi's Honor
Amadeus
Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome
The Color Purple

1986
Aliens
Star Trek IV The Voyage Home
A Room With A View
The Name of The Rose
Children of A Lesser God
Brazil

1987
The Living Daylights
Full Metal Jacket
Platoon
My Life As A Dog
Empire of the Sun

1988
The Accidental Tourist
Die Hard
Manchurian Candidate (1st re-release after decades in the vault)

1989
The Abyss
Do the Right Thing
Lawrence of Arabia (on the big screen for the first time in restored wide screen glory!)

...just to name a few.

I don't think the 80's were all that bad. I remember the 80's had a lot of variey, because I spent a lot of time at the local reperatory house (since closed). I saw a lot of foreign and independent films (too numerous to remember or mention) that I thoroughly enjoyed. Sadly, I see little of the quality of those films now.

1980s--
The Elephant Man/Morris
Altered States/Corigliano
Carny/North
Empire Strikes Back/JW
Dressed to Kill/Donaggio
Final Countdown/Scott
Long Riders/Cooder
Saturn 3/Bernstein
The Island/Morricone

Eye of the Needle/Rozsa
Dragonslayer/North
Final Conflict/JG
Heavy Metal/Bernstein
Heartbeeps/JW
Le Professionale/Morricone
Masada/JG
Ghost Story/Sarde
Rich and Famous/Delerue
The Howling/Donaggio
The Black Cat/Donaggio
Wolfen/Safan
Escape From New York/Carpenter
Southern Comfort/Cooder
Clash of the Titans/Rosenthal

Conan/Poledouris
The Thing/Morricone
ET/JW
Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid/Rozsa
The Challenge/JG
Poltergeist/JG
First Blood/JG
Night Crossing/JG
Secret of NIMH/JG
Quest For Fire/Sarde
Frances/Barry
48hrs/Horner
Creepshow/Harrison

Under Fire/JG
Twilight Zone/JG
Le Marginal/Morricone
Wargames/Rubinstein
Blue Thunder/Rubinstein
To Be or Not to Be/Morris
Lone Wolf McQuade/DeMasi
Cop Killer/Morricone
Scarface/Moroder (Hey, I liked it!)
L'Aldila/Frizzi
Brainstorm/Horner

Greystoke/Scott
Cousteau Amazon/Scott
Fort Saganne/Sarde
The Natural/RNewman
Under the Volcano/North
Once Upon a Time in America/Morricone
Last STarfighter/Safan
Remo Williams/Safan
Gremlins/JG
Red Dawn/Poledouris
Streets of Fire/Cooder

Return to Oz/Shire
Lifeforce/Mancini
Revolution/Corigliano
Legend/JG
Dr and the Devils/Morris
The Shooting Party/Scott
Mountbatten/Scott
Vagabond/Bruzdowisc
Silverado/Broughton
Young Sherlock Holmes/Broughton
Baby Secret of the Lost Legend/JG
Explorers/JG

KIng Kong Lives/Scott
Salvador/Delerue
Pirates/Sarde
Short Circuit/Shire
Spacecamp/JW
The Mission/Morricone
Queenie/Delerue
HIghlander/Kamen
Link/JG
Clue/Morris
Platoon/Delerue
Star Trek 4/Rosenman
The Fly/Shore
Big Trouble in Little China/Carpenter
Blue City/Cooder

Ironweed/Morris
The Whistle Blower/Scott
Lionheart/JG
Extreme Prejudice/JG
Man on Fire/Scott
Robocop/Poledouris
Empire of the Sun/JW
The Kindred/DNewman
Lethal Weapon/Kamen, Clapton, Sanborn
Spaceballs/Morris
Rampage/Morricone
Living Daylights/Barry
No Man's Land/Poledouris

Lonesome Dove/Poledouris
Winter People/Scott
Hellraiser 1 and 2/Young
Dead Ringers/Shore
Slipstream/Bernstein
The Deceivers/Scott
Without a Clue/Mancini
Sunset/Mancini
They Live/Carpenter
Alien Nation/JG

Casualties of War/Morricone
King of the Wind/Scott
The Wash/Morris
Old Gringo/Holdridge
Farewell to the King/Poledouris
Batman/Elfman
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade/JW
Johnny Handsome/Cooder
Henry V/Doyle

Total Recall/JG*
The Grifters/Bernstein
The Field/Bernstein
The Russia House/JG

Hook/JW
JFK/JW*
Son of the Morning Star/Safan
Naked Lunch/Shore*
Lionheart/Scott
Ballad of the Sad Cafe/Robbins
Bed and Breakfast/Shire
Godzilla vs King Ghidorah/Ifukube
Once Upon a Time in China/Wong

Basic Instinct/JG*
Becoming Collette/Scott
Last of the Mohicans/Jones
Alien3/Goldenthal
Honey I Blew up the Kid/Broughton

Jurassic Park/JW
Schindler's List/JW
Rudy/JG
Godzilla vs MechaGodzilla/Ifukube
Wild Palms/Sakamoto
Geronimo/Cooder
Tombstone/Broughton

Daughter of D'Artagnan/Sarde
Wolf/Morricone
Interview w/the Vampire/Goldenthal
Far From Home/Scott
Chungking Express/Wong, Garcia
Ashes of Time/Wong, Garcia

Nixon/JW*
Godzilla vs Destroyer/Ifukube*
Seven/Shore*
Sleepers/JW
Mission Impossible/Elfman
True Women/Broughton
Lucie Aubrec/Sarde

Nostromo/Morricone*

Starship Troopers/Poledouris*
Rosewood/JW
Last Stand at Saber River/Shire
U-Turn/Morricone
20 000 Leaugues Under the Sea/Scott
Horse Whisperer/Newman

SPR/JW
Mulan/JG
Playing By Heart/Barry
13th Warrior/JG*
Red Violin/Corigliano
Titus/Goldenthal
Phantom Menace/JW

but, you know, just the ones with a star by em I didn't have to think about first.

Naked Lunch... did ANYONE like, much less, understand this film??? I appreciate Cronenberg's attempt to film the unfilmable Burroughs but.. whoa.

I imagine Shore was musically portraying his complete confusion when he composed the score.

I've thought of others that really did something for me...

The Terminator
Places in the Heart (isn't it nice to see these films listed together )
A Passage to India
Koyaanisqatsi
Hannah and Her Sisters
Airplane!
Excalibur
Local Hero
Raising Arizona
Roger and Me
Running on Empty
Reds
Being There
Once Upon A Time in America

To say that no one is allowed to make comments on political and social conditions except politicians is the purest idiocy. Art has been a form of communication longer than it has been a form of entertainment. And yes, I said "communication."

What you don't seem to understand is that what I am saying is that it is possible to be entertaining and mean something. I'm not just talking about the message movies, either. I thought I made that clear. I mean, Hollywood industrial product that is designed to make money, is entertaining and has a purpose. That purpose may not even be political or social. It may be purely dramatic. But it is more than you seem to care for.

"One can argue that ‘the movie that makes the money’ is the more SUCCESSFUL art-form than the so-called ‘art-house’ movie, simply because it has appealed to a greater number of individuals," you say. I disagree. Why? Because it may appeal to all od those individuals, yes, but on what level? Not that you care.

I'm not going to waste any more time arguing this subject with you. I don't know if you actually believe the bullpoop you are spewing or you're just trying to get a rise out of me, but it seems that we will not come to an agreement because you insist on looking at the world, and cinema in particular, in a manner I find abhorrent.

Explain this to me. If you don't take cinema seriously, or film music for that matter, why come here and waste the time of those who do? If you are so jaded and cynical as so to be entrenched in a miserable pit apathy towards these things, then go away and let those of us who enjoy this art form and do believe that it is possible for a greater goal discuss these things. If you consider it intellectual masturbation, than so be it. I, myself, have seen what you believe, and can't put much stock in your opinion.

I think Andre Lux may have been right about you all along. Because if you really believe what you write, then you're a pretty pathetic individual.
_________________________________________________________________________

You know, until this thread, I've always considered myself a pretty easy going poster. The preceding may be misinterpreted as flaming, and I suppose that that is a valid misconception. But just as Daniel2 has the right to express his views and criticisms, I have the right to criticize them. I say that my track record on this board is sufficient to prove that my intentions are, essentially, peaceful.

However, I have found continually that Daniel2 appears and berates people for their hobby and sings the praises of mediocrity. I find this offensive, and therefore I claim the right to express this view. Should I be considered being too harsh on him, well, what can I say. I've avoided him for a very long time, and I guess this had to happen eventually.

How long must this piddling go on, until everyone realizes that CMS stands for Celebrating Mediocre Scores according to Current Mediocre Standards via Cacophonous Meretricious Slop in the guise of Convoluted Meandering Serpentine verbosity? And considering the fact that the average moviegoer doesn't care a wit about the music, you think anyone who comes to this website gives a hoot about their prevailing Contemporary Moviemusic Sentiments?

Bulldog said it all when he said he wasn't interested in 'music sensibilities' so much as sensible music. Enough of this Conniving Malevolent Snake.

*********************************************

MR. 2.

Please address, in your experience, Hollywood's political motivations and relationships. I deduce from your posts here that politics and entertaining by way of filmmaking have no relationship in the real world?

This may or may not be the example I am looking for, but had not a bunch of Hollywoodites planned to buy a house for Bill Clinton in the L.A. Palisades, before it was known he would be living in New York after his Presidency? There are greater connections with entertainment (the powerful heads of entertainment) and politics here in the U.S. that you may not have considered. Or have you?

Thank you.

PeterK

Howard, you poet or playwright! I’m impressed with your:
Convincing Meticulous Savvy.
Cogent Marvelous Sagacity
Constructive Metempirical Scintillation

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swashbuckler:
Daniel2, your simplistic ideals surprise me.

I think Andre Lux may have been right about you all along. Because if you really believe what you write, then you're a pretty pathetic individual.

---

Thanks for your kind words and welcome to the club, Swashbuckler!!

Cheers... and be cool man.

But I DO think that MOVIES in the 1980s were stuck in a weird sort of stasis -- these endless knockoffs of whatever had been popular the year or two before. Remember (and I'm sure you do) that the BLOCKBUSTER phenomenon was relatively new (well, it wasn't really, it's just what we'd learned to be told to call it). Why else such endless nonsense as ... oh, just fill in the blanks.

But the eighties was indeed a golden time for film music. So VERY many of my favorites are from right around then. Once again, Mr. W, you picked out some choice ones. And I too have been less impressed with the 1990s output even from my very favorites.

In terms of film-SCORING, I'd say the opposite of the 1990s. The cumulative effect is depressing. But as I said, I DO think there have been some interesting developments in the way films are made and marketed that DO make me look forward to the future. (What choice do I have? I intend to be part of it.)

The jury may still be out, but the verdict is shaping up...

I could go on, but these two items alone require tremendous meditation in order to properly assess the social damage that has been done by Bill & Hillary Clinton.

I must say I find it very gratifying that so many of you have expressed an interest in what I have written here.

Anyhow, let me put my attitude toward cinema into perspective. I absolutely adore candy….I’m forever chewing toffees, scoffing sugar-coated pineapple chunks, guzzling sherbet and devouring bars of thick creamy chocolate. But, I like bread and cheese as well….though it’s candy that I really enjoy eating.

Nevertheless, though I do love candy….I don’t take it very seriously….candy IS nice, but hardly NECESSARY to sustaining oneself. However…..bread and cheese, though I don’t enjoy eating it as much as candy, I do take seriously….it provides NECESSARY sustenance.

For candy, read movies.
For bread and cheese, read REALITY.

It is surely no coincidence that given half the chance, a child will eat nothing but candy…..but will he grow to be a fully functional adult?

Firstly…I find it rather bizarre that you should ask ME to ‘go away’ because of my attitude toward cinema. I am one of those people who admires, and is defending much of modern cinema. On the other hand, you appear to be one of those who regards much of modern cinema, and its legion of expert CMS composers, with disdain. Despite this, I would never ask you to ‘go away’. And you ask me to leave a message board that is designed to celebrate and discuss the world of film and film music.

All I am saying is, though I find movies entertaining, I don’t EVER take them the least bit seriously. I adore movies, music, and music written specifically for movies…..but that doesn’t mean I have to regard them with reverence. Having said that, within the context of the movie, I am often moved, or amused, or excited, or whatever by the dramatic aspect of a film when viewing a movie, once that movie has ‘taken me out of myself’….but that is quite different from regarding a movie as a serious commentary on society, politics, human nature, history or whatever. Your assertion SWASHBUCKLER, that I am apathetic toward cinema is not true. CON AIR and ARMAGEDDON (and their incredibly accomplished scores) are two of my favourite films of all time….an awful lot of people went to see those movies (judging by box office receipts). Do you really know what you sound like when you talk of movies appealing to a ‘certain level’?….it almost sounds like snobbery….but I’m sure that isn’t the case with you, but others may not see it that way. If my liking a successful movie such as ARMAGEDDON makes me jaded and cynical, and unable to appreciate movies in the ‘proper’ way, then what does that make the person who ‘turns his nose up’ at such incredibly popular popcorn movies as MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, preferring the safe, tame, conformist and restrictive confines of the pseudo-intellectual ‘art-house’ movie? The same argument can be made with regard to classical and pop music in film or away from film. What is it that makes an orchestral score more ‘complex’ and more ‘acceptable’ (to a few) than a pop-orientated score? To many it seems that an orchestral score is more complex and on a higher plain simply because it is orchestral….this, in many instances, is patently not the case. Indeed, there is often more innovation, wit and intelligence crammed into one minute of a pop song, than there is in 60 minutes of orchestral film score. Now Swashbuckler, I’m not suggesting for a moment that your tastes are so narrow as to exclude mainstream movies. I’m sure you have a high regard for many of today’s mainstream movies….some of which may even have made money. But to say that film A is better or more artful than film B because it DOESN’T appeal to the lowest level (that sounds so class-system-orientated) is akin to saying ARMAGEDDON is better than CON AIR because A comes before C in the alphabet…..it just doesn’t work like that. I know that’s a bit of an over-simplification, but it serves to demonstrate my bemusement at the attitude you have struck toward contemporary cinema. As I have said before, there is a strong argument that the movie that appeals to the most people (and therefore, if you like, communicates with more people) is the greater and more successful art-form than the barely-released, obscure, message-preaching or social-commentary product of a peculiar filmmaker’s myopic minds-eye.

I have never said that filmmakers, or any other non-politicians should not be allowed to make social or political comment…..it is just that when filmmakers do, they usually come across as amusingly and desperately frustrated little ego-trippists taking advantage of a society that is fortunate enough to have a benign and democratic government and also taking advantage of a medium designed to entertain the public, not pummel them with the empty-headed burblings of an opinionated and dubiously motivated individual….the filmmaker…..I ask again, why doesn’t such a politically-motivated filmmaker enter politics? Peter K’s mentioning of the link between establishment politics and the entertainment world is interesting, but is really a separate issue to what we are talking of here. There has always been a strong link between the political establishment and the filmmaking establishment….and, if anything, provides further reason to treat movies with as little reverence as your being will allow.

Of course, art CAN communicate something to the consumer….but here the phrase ‘produced by art, not by nature’ comes to my mind. Art in its truest sense isn’t JUST about communicating something, and it isn’t even JUST about entertaining….art simply amounts to man’s (rather than nature’s) ability to create. Nature has created the beautiful rose, man has replicated the image of such a flower onto canvas…..that is art at its most beautiful. Nature has provided the means by which man can produce bricks and mortar, roof tiles and timber frames, and in turn man has created buildings…..that is art at its most practical. Nature has provided man with the ability to recognize his own existance, man has utilized this unique ability to discover, to understand, to heal and to triumph….that is art at its most profound. Art is far more than the production of an obscure product that may appeal to a few egg-headed intellectuals……art is the product of man’s ingenuity for the benefit of all mankind…..art is for all mankind…..movies are made for all mankind.

Whether a movie appeals to the ‘intelligentsia’ or to Joe Public, it is still art.

I believe that movies DO provide an emotional experience….the most common being excitement….some movies induce fear, some induce laughter, some induce pity, some induce shame, some induce admiration, and so on….and some movies induce a mixture of many different emotions….but whatever the emotion(s), beyond the confines of the movie such feelings cease to exist to anywhere near the same intensity. Indeed, no matter how strong the emotional impact of a movie, there is always a part of us (a very big part of me) that says ‘hang on, this is ONLY a movie’. Additionally, since it is the moviemakers’ intention to gain and maintain an audience, (be it the majority or minority interest) most people don’t go to the cinema to be depressed, or preached to, or given a ‘wooden documentary-account’ of a fictional or factual series of events…..people go to the cinema primarily to be entertained….and one would hope that would be the filmmakers’ primary intention at all times.

I don’t see anything wrong with that…..and, as you say Swashbuckler, many movies can entertain AND also, on a secondary level, ‘educate’ the viewer, or the filmmaker can make an entertaining movie AND, on a secondary level, project his own sensibilities, political or otherwise. Every movie, no matter how bad, or mundane, no matter how good, or exciting, provides some material that the audience can learn from….even if only of human nature. But what is the point of a ‘well-meaning’ or ‘message-movie’, if that movie is not made to also appeal to the widest possible audience. Such a well-intentioned, but marginalized, movie, brimming with social comment, would be ignored by the vast majority of the viewing public, thereby evading the very people the filmmakers would hope to ‘preach’ to…..therefore, their precious little message-movie would only be ‘relished’ by those already familiar with that filmmakers philosophy….in other words, the filmmaker would only be ‘preaching to the converted’. No matter how profound the message of ANY movie, it must be made in such a way as to appeal to the widest of audiences. That’s why I put so much faith in the box office returns of a movie, rather than the sycophantic hero-worship of many critics and some movie-fans. A ‘message movie’ can be a commercially successful movie….but these days, the use of the art of filmmaking to make political or social comment is anachronistic, to say the least. Oliver Stone’s naïve and quaintly old-fashioned approach to movie making sticks out like a sore thumb amongst the high quality and intelligence of today’s sophisticated cinema. Yet, cinema can educate, to a small degree. But the same can be said of many daily experiences. You go to a bar, you go to a party, you read a book….you’re learning all the time….and movies have the same effect, but no more or no less than many other daily human activities. The problem with movies is, those people that take them too seriously, can actively be MISINFORMED.

Take BRAVEHEART. Now, I’m not suggesting for one minute that you SWASHBUCKLER, or anyone else took this movie seriously. I loved it, not least because of James Horner’s magnificently successful CMS score. Indeed, anyone watching BRAVEHEART, apart from being entertained, is bound to learn something of history and of human nature, as with many movies. However, BRAVEHEART’s chief worth lay in its ability to tell a fictional story and entertain, not in its ability to educate or comment. The basic outline of the movie was accurate…..the English did oppress the Scottish during the reign of the English king Edward Longshanks…….but beyond that, very little of the movie bore any relation to historical fact.

The trouble with most movies is, they rarely depict events from any more than one or two perspectives. BRAVEHEART was made from the perspective of William Wallace….and everything in the movie was distorted in favour of HIM, and at the expense of Longshanks. It would be just as easy to make a movie from the English king’s point of view that put Longshanks in a favourable light….and I would regard such a movie with equal disdain from an historical-accuracy point of view……I’m not sceptical of BRAVEHEART’s numerous historical inaccuracies BECAUSE it was biased against the English….I am merely sceptical of BRAVEHEART’s numerous historical inaccuracies BECAUSE it was historically inaccurate…period.

You see, what BRAVEHEART doesn’t portray is all of the amazingly good and important things Edward Longshanks (Edward I of England) did. It was Longshanks who fully developed and publicised the true importance of the Magna Carta….the single most profound influence (the catalyst, if you will) on the freedoms that the western world enjoys today. He was also known as the “English Justinian” for his work in developing English common law…an institution that has not only been embraced by virtually all of the world’s countries that once comprised the British Empire (including the USA), but beyond also. Indeed, some countries that never were part of the British Empire have subsequently joined the Commonwealth. Just as importantly, Longshanks also developed and strengthened the idea of parliament….the institution that forms the bedrock of democracy.

But what did BRAVEHEART tell us about Longshanks? It told us Edward I was simply a monster…..yes, he was ruthless, he was manipulative, he may have sacrificed the Irish in his army’s ranks before putting his Englishmen into battle. But all of those things were probably more out of necessity than desire….they were particularly tough times….to survive, one had to be tougher than the next man. The trouble with movies like BRAVEHEART and LAST OF THE MOHICANS is, they’re just too nice…too TAME. Because the stories are told with modern sensibilities and political correctness, the actions and motivations of the characters are distorted. Edward Longshanks WAS, in reality, a great, though ruthless, man…but as with TITANIC’s criminally fictional portrayal of the Scottish hero Captain Smith as a murderer, to most of the audience of BRAVEHEART, Longshanks was nothing more than an anonymous and ‘historical’ English villain.

But it doesn’t stop there. The makers of BRAVEHEART had the temerity to indicate that Sir William Wallace fathered the future king of England, and that Longshanks died at the precise moment of Wallace’s demise, and that Wallace’s highlanders wore face paint…..and on and on and on. Just on those very few points, Isabella (wife of the future king Edward II), who we are led to believe is carrying Wallace’s child, was only 11 when Wallace was executed, Longshanks never threw his son’s homosexual friend from the window (he was merely exiled), Longshanks survived Wallace by two years, and the Scottish had ceased to wear face paint in the 9th century.

As a piece of fictionalized historical hokum, BRAVEHEART is a superb entertainment. As a means by which the audience can learn something, BRAVEHEART means nix…..in fact, anyone taking BRAVEHEART seriously as history, will go away with a completely inaccurate view of history….or at least a view of history from just one biased perspective. The same can be said of virtually every movie ever made…..it is positively foolhardy, in my opinion, to take ANY movie seriously beyond its entertainment value (and by entertainment value, I mean dramatic value…you can laugh, you can cry and you can blow raspberries…but beyond the running-time of the picture, the movie simply becomes another consumed bar of candy….very nice, and fondly remembered….but little else). Someone at another thread recently described my interpretation of history as ‘misconstrued’….well, there’s nothing wrong with my version of the facts…..the same however, cannot be said of the movies. Even the filmmakers of U-571 only reluctantly gave a closing credit to the heroic British expedition(s) that ACTUALLY recovered the Enigma device….but this concession to fact by the filmmakers was only made after pressure from within AMERICA. I’m sure U-571 is a very good movie, and I’m looking forward to seeing it….but think of all of the people leaving the cinema actually believing what was depicted in U-571. As Ebert said, ‘everything the Americans did in U-571, the British did in real life’…….I’m keenly awaiting the upcoming Americanized version of COLDITZ…..just for the record, NO Americans escaped from Colditz. As I said before, whilst I welcome American culture improving the world, I do not necessarily welcome American cinema changing history (especially now it has become apparent that some people actually take cinema seriously)……America has done enough great things in its short history to fuel a million different exciting movies without having to ‘invent’ tales of American heroism or play down British endeavour.

Now, as far as your describing my attitude toward cinema as jaded and cynical….nothing could be further from the truth. Just take a look at my postings at the ‘Just Movies’ threads ‘what have you seen in May and June’. There you will see just how positive and uncomplicated my attitude toward cinema is. Apart from anything else, I am a great fan of the work of all film composers, with only ONE or two exceptions….just take a look at my list of favourite film composers at the thread ‘A Far Off Place…the last of James Horner’. Okay, so I don’t like every score ever written. Take Jerry Goldsmith (since my scepticism about much of his 90’s work appears to be ‘bone of contention’….though, for the sake of message board harmony, and in respect of Peter K’s wishes, I have desisted from criticising Goldsmith’s output at this message board). Though I have very little regard for much of his 90’s output, the vast majority of his career has been characterized by a stunning array of superb film scores (including his 1999 releases). Having just reanalysed my Goldsmith records, I have discovered that I have found favour with 67% of Goldsmith’s career output (that I have seen/heard)…..that’s pretty good. Indeed, Goldsmith is at number 29 on my list of personal favourite composers. Goldsmith and Oliver Stone apart, I find very little to criticise in contemporary cinema…..and YET I am the one you describe as cynical and apathetic. Even the bad films, even the politically correct films, even the movies with a point of view (albeit juvenile, such as FIGHT CLUB and NATURAL BORN KILLERS) are quite watchable. As long as it isn’t boring, I’ll watch any movie…..a movie doesn’t have to be good to be entertaining…..FIGHT CLUB was enjoyable but fatuous kiddie-winkie fodder, whilst ARMAGEDDON was a classic movie…..but both I watched, and enjoyed, for varying reasons. Some films, like HOLY SMOKE and NATURAL BORN KILLERS, were made to be laughed at and mocked…..but that doesn’t make them any the less entertaining, even though the moviemaker’s intentions failed so dismally….Oliver Stone can usually be relied upon to unwittingly conjure up an unintentionally comic marvel.

It seems to me SWASHBUCKLER, the difference between you and I is, whereas I am quite willing to accept your opinion that cinema is personally important to you, you seem unwilling to accept my point of view….that point of view being….I LOVE cinema, but I don’t WORSHIP it. I’m not asking you to AGREE with me, but I would expect a fellow movie-fan to have the grace to accept that I have an alternative point of view. After all, I am NOT mocking your attitude toward movies, I am only questioning your motives (having already accepted your standpoint).

I DO believe what I write, and if that makes me a pathetic individual in your’s or anyone else’s eyes….so be it. I love watching movies, and I love discussing movies….I am a great fan of good acting, good film music, good scripting, imaginative direction, interesting stories, etc….and it’s also fun to poke fun at some of the pseudo-intellectual garbage that some filmmakers trot out…..and yes, I love bad movies too….and there are plenty of them…..especially during the 60s, 70s and 80s. Perhaps when you have been around as long as I have, you’ll see movies for what they really are….merely images captured on a strip of celluloid. Likewise, perhaps you’ll come to appreciate just how lucky we are to be living in a relatively safe, prosperous, free, and peaceful society…..perhaps though, that sort of thing can only be appreciated if you’ve experienced real hardship (like me)….WWII, the Blitz and the deaths of so many family, friends and neighbours, the hunger and the cold of the post-war austerity measures. So many millions of ordinary men and women gave their lives in WWII to preserve the freedoms that we all enjoy today….only for a small (and rapidly declining) section of society to question the foundations of western civilization, and for a few cowardly filmmakers, hiding behind their cameras in their cosy little studios, to ‘rubbish’ the democracy that so many sacrificed their lives to protect…..was it all in vain?

I have never berated anyone for their beliefs or orientation….it just so happens that I may sometimes berate those things that some hold dear…..there’s a big difference. I don’t berate SOMETHING to get at SOMEONE….I merely berate SOMETHING. Have I once OBJECTED to the amount of scorn poured on such movies as CON AIR and ARMAGEDDON?…..movies that have my complete admiration as consummate movie entertainments. No, I don’t take criticism of my favourite movies to heart, because I don’t take movies that seriously to begin with. Is it really wrong for me to question the motives and output of a small percentage of opinionated, and often marginalized, filmmakers, but okay for others to continually rubbish commercially successful popular movies such as CON AIR……I might openly disagree with any anti-Zimmer sentiment here at the message board….but I have never disagreed with someone’s right to say it.

Thank you Swashbuckler for stating your opinions so honestly and for giving me the opportunity to expand upon my opinions….it has been most stimulating reading your comments…..but, as much as you have found my attitude toward cinema provocative, I have found your ‘cinema is profound’ and ‘contemporary cinema is mediocre’ attitude mildly amusing and somewhat naïve….perhaps, with further experience of real life, you’ll learn. There, now I’m being totally honest. Indeed, all I am saying is, whilst I enjoy movies, period….you seem to be saying you enjoy movies AND also find some movies intellectually stimulating….that’s fine, but it doesn’t make your appreciation of cinema any more valid than my own.

PS….Great news from Bloemfontein, South Africa. England have beaten South Africa in the second Rugby Union test 27-22 to square the series. Great result, great match. THE MOTHER COUNTRY STRIKES BACK.

If I were you, I'd start taking candy more seriously. If you don't, then you have no reason to limit your intake, you will eat too much and inevitably get sick. Therefore, you must take candy seriously on some level.

Now I'm not trying to say you should read candy as movies in my analogy, I am merely pointing out an oversight in yours.

Then again, if it's true in foods, it must be true in art.

quote:

---

art is the product of man’s ingenuity for the benefit of all mankind ...art is for all mankind...

---

I beg to differ. Art is the lifeforce that gives a human being his/her personality, makes them who they are, sets them apart from the rest of their race by defining their uniqueness. Art, true art, is only for the benefit of one person, and one person only: the individual who created it. Art is a divine gift from the Creator, whomever He may be, that allows us not just to think and feel for ourselves, but to make others think and feel through us, to allow us to have a profound impact on the life of another even if we have never met them.

It is your failure or reluctance to realize this sublimely significant purpose that I do not understand.

Art is the driving force in my life, something without which I can't imagine living. I don't care what you think about artists, but I do not make art so you can enjoy it. And if there did come a day when I realized I was creating art for the audience, I can't think of anything I could do except throw myself from the roof of a skyscraper.

I create art for the sake of creating. I create art because for me it is an urge more primal than mating, more necessary than consumption. I do not understand how you can sit there and tell me that I shouldn't take it seriously.

James

However, it seems that you have, again, missed my point.

Perhaps I do come close to worshipping cinema. This probably comes from the fact that I, myself, am a filmmaker and approach the medium as my own form of personal expression.

When I say you are too jaded and cynical, it meant that you couldn't take films seriously enough to look at them as an art form. Although you insist that you do, everything you say to clarify this denies it instead.

I work very hard on my films to make them interesting and entertaining. The simple fact is that I do want to appeal to a larger audience. Nevertheless, I do not feel that making an empty film will really do much for anybody.

I believe it is entirely possible to make films that serve both purposes. That is my point. And that is something that I find sorely lacking in today's cinema. There seems to be little or no attempt, really, at making works that last. Armageddon and Con Air were enjoyable diversions, but neither of them stayed with me. There are many other films that have. And they were not just the art-house films you refer to either. Many of them have been Hollywood films. I named Spartacus and Casablanca before, and I could easily prattle off many other films that not only managed to entertain, but operated on a higher level as well, and were seen by many people.

The Godfather and The Godfather Part II are prime examples of this. Neither are political statements or "message movies." As has been offered before (and I wish I could remember who did), people came for the gangster drama, but came back for the family drama. Both were released by a major studio and many, many people saw them.

...or take the Hitchcock films until Torn Curtain. All of them, with the exception of Vertigo (which, in its re-releases, made quite a lot of money) did great business. Did Hitch have to sacrifice drama or intelligence to do it? Not at all.

I think that it is possible for films to make demands upon people and for them to enjoy that process just as much, if not more, than merely getting a mental enema for two hours. Am I an elitist about the public demand? Actually, no. I think that, in general, there are very few films being produced that attempt to be satisfying entertainment and something greater, and that the audience's taste for spectacle will be heightened by giving it some purpose.

Although I may be in the minority here, I have to give the Wachowski brothers credit for attempting this with The Matrix, which has an extremely entertaining (and, at times, self-conciously mocking) action side to it, but also has a challenging premise and deals with issues of Zen and identity. The film manages to do this without slowing down. It weaves these things into the fabric of its progression.

Most of the time, however, such as in Con Air and its ilk, deeper ideas are shunned and instead we are left with a lot of slick images, loud explosions, cute one-liners and nothing else.

This is the crux of what I'm talking about. Today's films rarely have anything more than the "here and now." They are built, essentially, to last from the opening credits to when you leave the theater and get into the car. There is a reason why so many films from the past could be pointed at and these cannot. It's because they stayed with people. And they did so because they had something more than just what you see.

Regarding historical accuracy in cinema...

I agree with you when you say that what appears on the screen is just a movie. It should not be taken as fact. Hell, a lot of people took the life of Mozart as portrayed in Amadeus to be fact, when Peter Shaffer, the stage and screen writer, has gone on record as saying it's only a "what-if." In fact, one of the most interesting things about the Pioneer Special Edition laserdisc of this title is Milos Forman and Shaffer's commentary track, in which Shaffer points out what were his inventions and what was based on fact.

I understand the need, sometimes, for a writer to take dramatic license with history in order to make a book, play or film work. This is something that has been done since the beginning of drama. Shakespeare wrote quite a few historical plays, none of which can be taken as an accurate portrayal of the events depicted. Films can raise conciousness, and, yes, perhaps even educate. But, as you say, their primary purpose is dramatic (or, one could argue, aesthetic), and so education per se is not really a consideration.

Films can educate. That is not usually their goal, however, and that is something that must be taken into account when viewing them.

I do not deny that all film technically boils down to is images projected through celluloid and sounds reproduced from optical flickers, magnetic patterns, or pits on a disc. However, I also believe that film is capable of much more than its physical properties, and that is what I think separates you from me. I believe that something greater can come from these things than be produced with talent, energy, intelligence and no small amount of emotion.

I grant you that cinema is not the end-all, be-all of our lives. It is, however, the twentieth century's addition to the palette of the artist, and, just as there are people who study novels, paintings, photographs and so on, there are people who study film and glean from it various aspects of sociology, semiotics and psychology (you can tell a lot about a culture from the art it produces). When I look at most of today's films, I find they lack subtext, and, in doing so, cheapen their value, both as art and as entertainment.

I'm not asking the general public to sit through the films of Alain Robbe-Grillet. I am, however, saying that as cinema loses its layers, it also sacrifices its maturity.

...and if you're going to sit there and tell me that you don't think that the thematically rich and entertaining Chinatown is a better film than the shallow histrionics of Armageddon, then I don't really know where to go from here.

Incidentally, I really wish you'd stop throwing Oliver Stone at me. I'm not really a big fan of his.

I just wanted to say how much I appreciate your informative and compelling reply.

CHINATOWN and ARMAGEDDON are both excellent movies, and both have great scores, in my opinion.

I know we will never see eye to eye…..but we can agree on one thing…..we like movies.

It’s nice to hear someone (like yourself) exercising his right to free speech…..a democratic principle that politicians such as Bill Clinton are staunchly defending, and defunct filmmakers like Stanley Kubrick have attempted to undermine.

Don’t get me wrong, there are ‘politicians’ in the world that I haven’t had much time for…..Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Duvalier and many others.

The difference is, each of those ‘politicians’ were there for the duration (or at least as long as the free world would permit them)…..no matter how much you detest Clinton, you can at least take comfort from the fact that the democratic system to which he unflinchingly dedicates his life ‘dictates’ that he leaves office at the end of his short term…..despite being one of the most popular and championed men in world history.

The thing is DJC, if you regard a champion of democracy like Clinton with such bitterness, who does fit into your idea of what makes a good president……Milosevic?

Quite apart from the large number of actors and movie stars (such as Shirley Temple, Robert Montgomery, and Ronald Reagan) who have subsequently entered politics, having already established political-establishment connections during their movie careers, there has always been a strong, but informal, and usually amicable relationship between the American political establishment and Hollywood…..this is much less the case here in Great Britain, where the British film industry, since the 60’s, established a dismally left-wing anti-establishment bent that lasted well into the 80’s. It is only because there is no British film industry, as such, in existence now, that Britain ceases to churn out left wing propaganda….perhaps the factory production line of left wing anti-democratic movies was partly responsible for the demise of the British film industry, since the continued sophistication and maturing of society during the 80’s made such movie-making practices defunct…..in effect, no-one was foolhardy enough to want to see such movies. Yes, there are still British films being made (and Ireland also continues to produce some fine movies too), but today’s ‘British’ film industry is almost entirely controlled by American production companies….therefore, in simple terms, the British once colonized North America, but it is the Americans who are now colonizing Britain…..through neocolonialism…..the American cultural invasion, through cinema, improved communications, and consumer product, continues to sweep the globe….and I for one welcome it.

Anyway, back to the present political/cinematic relationship in America (and therefore, essentially, the entire planet). Only recently was Bill Clinton so impressed with a movie that he invited many of the cast and crew onto Air Force One…..indeed, the movie AIR FORCE ONE, can be interpreted as a glowing tribute to all of those men, past and present, who have resided at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue….that great bastion of civil liberties…..holding the most important office in the world and protecting the freedoms of all mankind. And, it was heartening to see such an uncomplicated and patriotic movie as AIR FORCE ONE, not only succeed on a massive scale at the US box office, but also dominate world cinema for a substantial period of time….a few surviving jaundiced left-wing journalists, here in the UK, poured scorn on the patriotic elements of the movie with column headlines such as ‘AIR FARCE ONE’, but even they admitted to the technical brilliance of the movie. Indeed, the exceptionally entertaining AIR FORCE ONE could perhaps only have been improved by the casting of Bill Clinton himself in the heroic Harrison Ford role….the part is perhaps modelled on Clinton’s exceptionally popular American president.

So, as far as we know, the current relationship between cinema and establishment is amicable and informal…..and that’s a good thing. The same can be said of the past, generally. Perhaps the one American president who was almost completely unworthy of office (at least with hindsight) was John F Kennedy. As with Clinton (also from Irish stock), Kennedy was an extremely charismatic man, like many of the Irish, and was just what America needed during a period of economic slump…..but, though he wasn’t overtly corrupt, he was very weak. Nevertheless, his connections with the entertainment world were about as full and complete as if he were actually a part of the entertainment world itself (some may argue, holding the presidency is akin to being part of the entertainment world). However, despite his links with the Rat Pack (especially Francis Albert Sinatra and the Englishman Peter Lawford) and Marilyn Monroe, there is no evidence to suggest that his government actively influenced the filmmakers of the time themselves. In fact, the early 60s saw a slew of excellent political dramas (such as AVISE & CONSENT and THE BEST MAN) that portrayed American politics in an honest, authentic and even-handed light.

Indeed, there is little reason for the political establishment to exert undue influence on cinema…..for cinema itself is merely a medium designed to primarily entertain the public…..any other motivations or purpose is overwhelmingly secondary and of marginal interest. Of course, some latch on to cinema as a possible means of ‘important social commentary’….let me put it this way, it’s like sex….when does sex cease to be a pleasure, and become an obsession? Movies are the same, the casual movie-goer can enjoy a movie for what it is…..the compulsive movie-goer is in danger of taking cinema TOO seriously, and therefore can tend to read things into movies that either aren’t there, or are simply the unenlightened thought-processes of an inadequate, petulant, sensation-seeking and disgruntled movie director or scriptwriter. Of course, just like sex, movies can be an obsession AND a pleasure at the same time….that is what fuels the compulsion.

You see, cinema isn’t compulsory….people aren’t forced to go to the movies….therefore, any establishment interference is less likely to have any real purpose….especially since western democracies aren’t really about the individual president or prime minister (who is limited to a short term in office). Therefore it is only the long-term political strategy of a particular political movement that is likely to want to influence cinema (or the media as a whole)…but usually you find it is the egomaniacal (a trait that does characterize ALL politicians, to varying degrees) individual leader who is more inclined toward corruption….but, no matter how egomaniacal a western leader is at heart, he doesn’t have enough time in office to let that side of his character become anything more than an eccentricity.

"(some may argue, holding the presidency is akin to being part of the entertainment world)"

To be positively popular (Nixon was popular, but not so positively), chum up with Hollywood. They will take care of your image.

Mr. 2, you also make light of the fact that attending movies is voluntary. Politicians would be wasting too much of their limited time manipulating a piece of work that not everyone will see, at least not right away. The movie's "message" does not immediately influence society's behavior or perception, compared to, say, lobbying a bill that gets passed into law that citizens must immediately obey.

This is not to say movies are lacking serious meaning or message today. I agree that all movies do, or should, have messages, whether dreadfully serious messages the moviemakers want us to take seriously (the movies you refer to from the likes of Kubrick, some Coppola, etc.), or lighthearted messages that reflect a trend in pop culture or societal inebriation.

And then there are movies like Chicken Run. The message? Sure, it's purely American in its message about freedom, but the real message? To movie-goers, take this movie with any once of seriousness, and you'll be sent to the coop.

A perfect movie.

PeterK

As far as candy/movies are concerned, I actually said “I don’t take (them) very seriously”….so, that is not to say I disregard candy/movies entirely.

Whether or not the artist intends his work to become available to a wide audience….it often happens that way….from ancient cave paintings and millennia-old pottery to Leonardo da Vinci’s scientific drawings. So art, or man’s ability to create, is for all mankind to appreciate.

Not all art is beautiful….indeed, one could argue that most art is abhorrent. The nuclear bomb is a work of art….mankind created it, therefore it is art. Apart from looking particularly sleek, I would not describe the nuclear missile, as beautiful.

Now, I’m a dustman….and my work involves artistry….without the dustman, the streets of historic Bristol would resemble the local municipal dump (that is a work of art in itself)……the art of my profession, is to create a better environment for the people of Bristol, England.

All of mankind’s existence IS art.

Art is not a divine gift from some mythological and entirely fictitious being…..art is mankind’s triumph over the destructive, random and chaotic forces of nature. That is what separates man from the beast.

Therefore art is both sublime and mundane…and each individual human being is an artist.

Therefore there is nothing special about movies….movies are ONLY art….

Good day.

James