If I have overlooked the point you were making, it was not my intention, but my mistake.

I apologize.

Good evening.

After eating a large meal, sometimes I retire to the local water closet and make a deposit in the porcelain fixture. This was created by me, not only a human, but an artist. I do not consider it art. I should hope no one else does.

When I was seven, my grandfather and I built a table. This was an act of craftsmanship, and the table lasted several years. The item created was a tool, not art.

Art is not just something created by somebody. I have created many things in my life, whether for home use or for my work, that make life easier for me. These were technical things, and were in no way, shape or form considered art.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swashbuckler:
After eating a large meal, sometimes I retire to the local water closet and make a deposit in the porcelain fixture.

---

FINALLY...
The mystery of the CMS has just been disclosed!!!

(*) CMS = Composing Mediocre Scores

Swashbuckler, expect to be visited by $$imp$$on/Bruckenheimer/MV/DANIEL2 attorneys any time now.

We are all behind you, mate!!

Your interpretation of art as a ‘higher form’, does not correspond with what art is in reality, and merely comes across as a spurious and dubious device that only serves to support the misguided theory of a few, that one form of art is ‘superior’ to another (for instance, the prejudiced, elitist and snobbish belief of a minority, that popular music, as an artform, is inferior to classical music, as an artform (the same can be true of movies….these same unenlightened souls may also argue that the work of Kubrick is superior to the work of Devlin and Emmerich….though perhaps a maladjusted and naïve filmmaker like Kubrick would agree with such sentiments…..however, by the same token, I am not saying that the product of Kubrick’s motivation and approach to filmmaking is inferior or superior art….what I am saying is, the product of Devlin and Emmerich’s motivations and approach to moviemaking is equally VALID art)).

I agree, the act of passing faeces is not an art….it is a natural function of all animals (though the unnatural inducement of bowel movement is an artform, and man’s ability to dispose of such waste cleanly and effectively, is artistry).
However, the act of creating a table is art, and the table is ‘a work of art’. The table is something created by man’s artistry (and not by the random forces of nature).

So, art IS just ‘something created by somebody’.

The nuclear missile is a weapon, and a work of art. The naked flame can be used as a weapon (as well as many other things), but it is not a work of art. However, mankind’s harnessing of fire, and use of the naked flame as a weapon, or as a source of heat, or as a means by which to cook….that is artistry.

‘Art’ is not the profound or complex or superior product of human ingenuity…..art is merely the product of human ingenuity…. the product of man’s artistry,
be it a doormat or a symphony….IT IS STILL ART.

A few more thoughts on James’ interesting post relating to his interpretation of the meaning of art.

At one point in his posting, James says “true art”. Well, as far as I am concerned, all art is true.

The manufacture of a drain-cover is as much true art, as the composition of a grand opera.

I believe James’ interpretation of what ‘art’ is, to be somewhat short-sighted. The ‘performing arts’, the art of composing music, the art of sculpting and painting, and the art of movie-making etc, merely forms a small, though significant, part of what art actually is. Some individuals may believe the performing arts, literature, the composition of music, and so on, to be ‘superior’, to be the preserve of the intelligentsia, or the property of the ‘enlightened few’, or the reserve of the ‘professional artist’ or the possession of the ‘elite’, or may see art as ‘a particularly complex human activity or product, though available to the ‘masses’, can only be appreciated by a select few’. That is like saying the more wealth one possesses (whether earned or inherited), the more influence one should have on the election of government….that amounts to sheer unadulterated corruption….Tammany Hall comes to mind. Of course, some ‘highbrow’ individuals take comfort from their idiosyncratic belief that their interpretation of ‘true art’ can only be understood by a few, and that’s what they think sets them apart from the plebs; maybe such people have this belief because they are in some way inadequate, or are genuinely elitist and snobbish. To such a person I say….fine, if that belief makes you feel more secure, and you’re not harming anyone, I’m very pleased for you…..but the real world is a different, and better place.

To me, the practical art of the ‘real world’ is far more sublime and profound and amazing than the ‘art of fiction’ (movies, novels, music etc)….in other words, it is man’s practical triumph over the chaotic and destructive forces of nature (his construction of buildings, automobiles, his harnessing of natural resources, the creation of Capitalism, his ability to heal, and so on) that is true art in the way that James appears to describe artistry. Of course, many practical products of art, such as buildings, can be both ‘useful’ and ‘entertaining’, the architecture of a building can be beautiful (or horrible)….but that is my point….all of man’s creations, be it practical of frivolous, be it beautiful or horrible, be it sublime or banal, is ART. Movies, paintings, novels, and music, are all amazing products of man’s artistry….but are mere trifles in comparison to practical art….the art of civilization. This is not to say that music and movies and paintings aren’t important…..of course they are….but more on a recreational level….more on an entertainment level….and there we have come full circle, the art of moviemaking is a recreational art, and yes, as an artform, moviemaking has some importance….but let’s get things into proportion, each individual product (the movie) does not have any practical importance, but merely serves as form of entertainment….and the world is amore interesting (and fun) place because of the existence of movies. But, any filmmaker who chooses to distort the purpose of filmmaking by making some kind of ‘social comment’ or whatever, though there is nothing stopping him from preaching such a message, is compromising and diluting the purpose of the art of filmmaking, and therefore his movie has less effect on any level. Such an opinionated and politically motivated filmmaker’s enterprise is simply falling between two stools…..if he wants to make movies, make them entertaining, if he wants to change society by ‘spouting messages’, enter politics. I am NOT saying the filmmaker shouldn’t be allowed to incorporate social comment into his movies…..all I am saying is, when he does dilute his movie with ‘message’ and ‘comment’, he is compromising his art, and lessening the effect of his movie as an entertainment.

Let me put it another way. During times of war, famine or disease….which arts become most important? The art of weapons manufacture, the art of growing crops and the art of medicine (among others) are what becomes important. Yes, music can play a part in military discipline, in spiritual comfort, and morale boosting, and movies can take the suffering individual or community briefly ‘out of oneself’….movies and music can still entertain, and therefore boost morale, even when man is at his lowest ebb. But, the performing arts, paintings, music, and so on, can only really be enjoyed in times of peace and prosperity….they are recreational artforms….if a man was dying of cold, and the only fuel to sustain his fire was a priceless Rembrandt…what would he do, die viewing the painting or improve his chances of survival by burning it? (I’d burn the damn thing, but no doubt in a Kubrick fairytale ‘divorced from reality’ movie, the man would either sit there viewing the masterwork until the skin was frozen off of his face, or perhaps he would try and have sex with the painting (that’s really sensational moviemaking, and I’m sure symbolic of some obscure pseudo-intellectual gibberish-philosophy rotting away at the back of some pretentious ‘arty-farty’ filmmaker’s mind). Society does benefit from the performing arts and paintings and movies and so on, but it doesn’t need them. We all know Mozart died penniless, but that was only because, personality wise, he was inadequate. Mozart was born into privilege, but childishly frittered away his wealth and squandered his possessions. And yet, while he had money, he created some great musical works (works of art), and even when he was living in poverty, he continued to compose magnificent music. His music has provided pleasure for billions of people since, his music has enriched many peoples’ lives…..but his work is no more true art than the work of a farmer. And yet, the farmer’s work is a practical art, whilst the composer’s work is the art of entertaining….and as such, I regard the farmer’s work with far more importance….after all, we need the art of the farmer, but only benefit from the art of the composer.

I keep ducks….some for the table, some for the eggs, some for breeding purposes and some as pets. The domestic ducks themselves are the product of man’s artistry. The Aylesbury and the Saxony and the Silver Appleyard ducks (and my Rhode Island Red chickens) are all specially bred mutations that man has ‘created’ through selective breeding. At the moment, many of the ducks are sitting on eggs…that’s nature. However, I have over 100 eggs set in incubators….that’s art. The duck egg incubator is a device created by man to artificially hatch duck eggs….that is practical art. Indeed, in many ways the practical incubator is just like the entertaining movie….the incubator is made up of components….the incubator is an artform made up of smaller artforms. If you liken the incubator to the movie, then the incubator’s thermostat could be, say, that movie’s film music (film music is a smaller artform within a larger artform (the movie)). Indeed, the incubator and the movie form a small part of a bigger artform….that being mankind’s existence. The ducks I keep serve no other purpose than to provide for mankind….they are lovely creatures, but completely impractical…most are too heavy to fly. The very fact that mankind has influenced evolution (and the domestic duck is just one of a million examples) proves, to me, that there is no supreme supernatural being….there is no God…..there is only random and chaotic nature, and mankind is ceaselessly struggling to conquer it. Why did God give wings to the duck if it cannot fly?….Some will say, because man tampered with nature to create a mutation and that God did not intend for the duck to be unable to fly….to which I say, what of the ostrich? The ostrich is a bird that is unable to fly….man has not influenced its evolution….only the random forces of nature influenced the ostrich’s evolution. Surely the ostrich is living proof of evolution….why would God have created a bird with wings and feathers that cannot fly? No, those wings and feathers once served a purpose, but evolution has made them redundant (just as society’s evolution has made redundant the pretentious work of such filmmakers as Kubrick). Therefore, evolution is proved, in direct contradiction to the teachings of the bible. If the bible got that bit wrong, why should anyone believe any of its other fanciful fables?….though I am sure there is a grain or two of truth in the bible somewhere…after all, Jesus the Christ did exist, but only as a mortal carpenter and as a charismatic, though somewhat deluded, prophet (but being a carpenter, he was an artist….I’m sure he used his artistry to make lots of tables).

Of course, mankind is part of nature…..but mankind should understand, tame and respect nature, not worship it by inventing Gods and other non-existent obstacles to the progression of civilization. As an artform, religion has served its purpose….as society continues to mature, and the world continues to harmonize (led by the greatest nation the world has ever known…the USA), religion, in all its divisive guises, can only hinder the progress of global unity.

ART IS MAN’S ABILITY TO CREATE , THEREFORE RELIGION AND THE IDEA OF GOD IS MERELY THE PRODUCT OF MANKIND’S IMAGINATIVE ARTISTRY .

Mankind also has the artistry (and intelligence) to jettison such superstition.

Swashbuckler and James. Yours is a popular misconception of what art is. You want to believe art to be a ‘superior form of human creativity’, when in reality, art encompasses ALL forms of human creativity, no matter how humble.

In effect, your misinterpretation of art (man’s ability to create) as a ‘higher form’, trivializes, undermines, and marginalizes the TRUE importance (and meaning) of art.

This message board already has an even-handed administrator…..a message-board nanny is surplus to requirements.

Perhaps if you took the trouble to read the postings at this thread, you may discover that movies and film music, and the part they play in the scheme of things, is very much a part of the discussion.

By all means disagree with the issues raised….as some may testify, I welcome a healthy debate…..but if you have nothing relevant to say, please restrict your banal and naive comments to other threads that might not upset your obviously delicate sensibilities.

Since I was apparently wrong when I said you had nothing new to say on the subject, and you did bring up a few new points, and (this part really scares me) I am beginning to enjoy this debate, I will continue.

First of all, I am an idealist... as an idealist, I can tell you that if I was alone in a freezing-cold room with only a match and my copy of The Unabridged Edgar Allan Poe, I would destroy the match and die reading it. I would rather freeze to death reading "Annabel Lee" than burn the text so important to me.

However, if instead of Poe I had the last copy in the world of my own complete poetry, I would not hesitate to burn it (although I would probably save the poems I dedicated to other people).

I'm not sure why you spent so long explaining art's relation to God, but it was probably inadvertantly my fault. I was NOT using the term "Creator" literally, and I would advise you not to try to attack something you know so little about (my religious beliefs).

Also, I NEVER said that one form of art was superior to another. I have neither the right nor the knowledge to make a judgement like that.

The problem seems to be that we have different perceptions of what art actually is.

Lets say you are in a room with a comfortable temperature and you have access to water, but no food. Also in the room is your wife of twenty years, whom you love and adore... you can either spent your last moments starving to death in her embrace (like the hypothetical filmmaker you mentioned) or you can kill her and use her as a source of food in order to prolong your survival. Based on all the point you have made, I would expect you to favor cannibalism. Now you may contend that this situation does not apply because (by your definition) your wife is not a "work of art," but I say (by your definition) she is. The process of conception may be "natural," but the act by which it was allowed to occur was human artistry. Therefore, (by your definition) your wife is a work of art and her most practical purpose in the situation would be as a source of food.

This is why even after all your book-length posts I still don't understand where you are coming from. You seem to look to what is practical and useful and say that it is the better "art," but what is "practical" is not always better, simply because humans are not practical.

In any case, I the main point and belief I want to get across is that you do not seem to have addressed is that whether or not an artist intends his work to be public is irrelevant, and whether or not it becomes public in the end is irrelevant. All that is relevant is what the art means to someone on a personal level. In this case I do not dispute you, it is only that to me your attitude towards art seems apathetic and insulting (I am not saying that it is, only that it seems that way to me because of my failure to understand you).

Personally, I guess the only other I can explain myself is to say that if someone burned every last copy of everything ever written by Poe and Blake, I would quite literally and seriously commit suicide.

I guess I am not able to fully explain what I believe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DANIEL2:

No need. Clinton’s extraordinarily successful record as US president speaks for itself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DANIEL2:

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

---

No problem Aaron. I’m sorry I reacted in the quite the way I did, it’s just that I’d spent twenty minutes typing in that last post, and then you chimed in.

By the way, when I described your comments as ‘banal and naïve’, I wasn’t referring to your general input here at the message board, only to your post asking for this discussion to cease.

Kind regards,
Daniel

Actually, you’ve expressed yourself very clearly, and to be honest, I’m more than a little envious of your deep affection for, and ability to appreciate, the ‘fine arts’.

Sure, what I said is pretty shallow, but I like to keep it simple.

By the way... I do have respect for the positive things that Clinton did for the nation, but I'm more of a Cronenberg fan than a Clinton fan.

As for art, I have another simple explanation of how I see it. Art is a celebration of the imagination, no matter what the form. (but I still didn't understand Naked Lunch!)

Thanks for your time, and enjoy your day!

I have given further thought to your latest interesting comments on the meaning of ‘art’.

Of course, if I were that man dying of cold, and to survive I had a choice between burning a priceless Rembrandt OR a copy of yesterday’s newspaper, I would choose the newspaper….though again, perhaps a woolly-minded pseudo-intellectual filmmaker like Kubrick would have the man, in the name of some obscure symbolism, burn the Rembrandt and preserve the newspaper (hey, Harvey Keitel would be great as the man dying of cold).

If I were in a heated room with ample fresh water, and my only source of food was my wife of twenty years, would I butcher and eat my wife to survive? Well, apart from the fact she would be more likely to butcher and eat me, that’s a difficult question to answer. Sat here, in the comfort of my own home, with the smell of succulent sizzling beefsteaks on the grill wafting through the house, it would be easy for me to pretend, ‘no, I would starve to death in my wife’s arms’. However, in reality, and facing certain death, to speak nothing of the madness and delirium that starvation can induce in the sanest of men, I would probably end up eating my wife, if she didn’t eat me first. The question of whether I would kill her and eat her is even trickier. To ensure the food supply (my wife’s body) remains fresh for as long a period as possible, it would be prudent to restrain my wife and merely eat her limb by limb before moving on to the vital organs that would finally lead to my wife’s death. In the heat of the moment however, such practical thoughts may be overwhelmed by human compassion or the simple practicalities of the situation. To eat one’s wife is one thing, to prolong her suffering is quite another. Of course, if there was a suitably sized refrigerator in the room, this question would not arise.

If the western world was suddenly struck by a seemingly incurable and air-born communicable plague, or the earth was invaded by warlike Martians, or the western world was flung into full-scale war with China that resulted in a nuclear conflict…..what of the ‘fine arts’ then? The fine arts are enjoyed by most today because the average Joe has the time and the means to read, go to the theatre, go to the art gallery, or listen to music. Just a couple of hundred years ago, the fine arts were the preserve of the privileged few because the privileged had the time to devote to the study and practice of the fine arts…..this is all tied up with the class system. If western civilization suffered a catastrophe as described above, people would not have time to indulge in the fine arts, they would be too busy trying to feed themselves and keep themselves warm. And so we return to the question of burning the last remaining copy of The Unabridged Edgar Allan Poe to prolong one’s survival. James, what if you weren’t the only one dying of cold. What if your child was with you? Sacrificing yourself is one thing, but would you sacrifice your child’s life to save the last remaining copy of The Unabridged Edgar Allan Poe?

The dilemma of eating one’s wife or burning the last remaining copy of The Unabridged Edgar Allan Poe to prolong one’s life, begs the question ‘why not?’.
Why not kill one’s wife or burn the last remaining copy of The Unabridged Edgar Allan Poe if it improves one’s chances of survival. Putting to one side the question of breaking the laws of our society, is it scruples, or a fear of offending God that makes us hesitate in our decision to kill one’s wife or burn the last remaining copy of The Unabridged Edgar Allan Poe to improve one’s chances of survival? To me, there is no God, I am an atheist, so I am not likely to worry about the latter….but scruples, are they a human frailty, or are they a sophisticated trait of civilized man that sets him apart from the beast? Scruples (and compassion) are merely emotions that man has developed as a result of discovering the ability to recognize his own existence….without scruples or compassion, there would be no civilization, as we know it. Let me put it this way, if one believes in God, then one probably believes in the immortal soul. I believe in neither, once one is dead….that is it for all time….you don’t get reincarnated, you don’t go off to a heaven or a hell and you don’t get reborn as a butterfly or as a beetle. In ten or twenty years I’ll be dead, in sixty or seventy years virtually everyone who has visited this message board will be dead…..so why should the welfare of the last remaining copy of The Unabridged Edgar Allan Poe concern us? Once we’ve gone nothing matters to us. They say that a part of the father is in his child. This may be true, but the consciousness of the father is not in his child….so when the father dies, his consciousness dies with him, so why should the father or the man dying of cold be concerned with the destruction of the last remaining copy of The Unabridged Edgar Allan Poe? For the sake of the future of civilization and to protect the interests of his offspring, and of his offspring’s offspring perhaps. No, civilization will continue, whether Poe’s work exists or not. The same can be said of the symphonies of Beethoven or the complete works of Shakespeare. Society may benefit from such fine arts, but society doesn’t need them. So, if I was dying of cold and had the choice between burning the last remaining copy of The Unabridged Edgar Allan Poe or burning the only remaining plough in the world, I would burn the last remaining copy of The Unabridged Edgar Allan Poe every time. The plough is a symbol of practical art, the Poe is a symbol of the recreational arts, therefore the Poe is expendable. Some may argue, that any one of a million men could reinvent the plough, but only one unique individual, Poe himself, could write The Unabridged Edgar Allan Poe. Maybe, but is anyone willing to take the chance that someone will reinvent the plough before potentially millions of people die from starvation. And, what if it wasn’t a plough, but a sheet of paper detailing a total cure for AIDS or cancer? What then, the Poe, or the secret that will lead to the eradication of one of mankind’s greatest natural enemies? Under such circumstances, which is the better art? The art, that may bring pleasure to millions, or the art that may save the lives of billions? That is the difference between the ‘fine arts’ and the ‘practical arts’, that is why I perceive the practical arts to be more important than the recreational ‘fine arts’. The practical arts are necessary to all mankind, whilst the ‘fine arts’ benefit some of mankind. Undoubtedly, the world is a far more interesting place with the ‘fine arts’….but it is the practical arts that civilization relies upon.

Furthermore, I do not consider my wife a ‘work of art’, she is merely a ‘product of nature’. The process of conception is purely natural, but the act of lovemaking is an art. Conception and lovemaking are two separate issues. The art of lovemaking is all about providing maximum mutual sensual pleasure, it isn’t about procreation….contraception, more often than not, sees to that (an artform in itself). A child conceived in a test tube, though the conception is allowed thanks to mankind’s artistry, the fertilization of the egg is purely natural….therefore the resulting child, or my wife, or any other human being, is not the product of art. Even the clone is merely the product of nature, though mankind’s artistry may play a part in its conception.

Whether Clinton’s presidency has been a ‘debacle’ or not, you will often find that the journalist is at least as reprehensible as the object of his ‘investigations’.

It is only natural, to my mind, that in today’s free and sophisticated society the journalist is often regarded with disdain, when once he was seen as a public hero….democracy has been won, the free press is not perceived by many to be the sole guardian of justice any longer. The reporter was once a favourite hero of the movies of the Golden Age, and even as recently as ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN, the journalist was portrayed as a crusading freedom-fighter. Now things are quite the reverse at the cinema, though Stone’s jaw-droppingly and unintentially hilarious farrago NATURAL BORN KILLERS, an attempt to satirize the media and society’s voyeurism, completely failed in its aims. Indeed, I believe today’s increasingly sophisticated society is increasingly less inclined to voyeurism….but the media seems slow to pick up on this.

Having said all of that, I believe the interfering journalist is a worthwhile price to pay for a free press….though individuals may get hurt, it is for the greater good. Privacy laws are the thin end of a damagingly anti-democratic wedge. If the French press had the freedoms that the British and American press enjoys, then some of their politicians would be exposed for the corrupt and corrupting overtly self-serving individuals that they are.

At least we get to hear about corruption in high places (some of it at least). The fear of media exposure is a potent deterrent to the would-be crooked politician. For all of Clinton’s faults, he is an extremely popular leader…..a massive boon to the nation, and to the free world. Any straying from the straight and narrow I see as a simple admission of the human frailties that bedevil even the most powerful man in the world. Clinton is an extraordinary politician, but he is also just a human being, and as such, he has my greatest respect.

“Clinton’s extraordinarily successful record as US president speaks for itself.”

I hope you're prepared to expand upon that statement, because it's difficult for me to see any accomplishments that Mr. Clinton can actually take credit for...since the last and most devastating of the scandals, he has been valiantly searching for SOMETHING he can call his legacy, because the sad truth is that the history books will print the scandals, and there simply ARE no accomplishments to speak of that he is responsible for.

He has involved himself in two Israeli elections (something no American President should ever do), and in turn betrayed Israel to the PLO. Just last week he told Yassar Arafat that he had to back off on relations with him because his Vice President and his wife are both in need of the Jewish vote in their upcoming elections.
(Arafat has, on every US visit, been welcomed into the White House, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu never received such privilege. Upon every visit, he was given a Washington D.C. hotel room.)

His attempt to produce a Nationalized Health Care System was an early, resounding failure, and thank God (He does exist)! Had our federal government taken over an industry that comprises over one-seventh of the entire national economy, the pharmeceutical industry would have been destroyed, as would nearly every small business in the USA. When asked to address these fears, Mrs. Clinton (the unelected, unaccountable head of the effort, who proceeded to illegally conduct those meetings behind closed doors) said, "My job is not to protect the pharmeceutical industry, or small businesses. My job is to provide health care for every American."
If this plan had been written into law, I (for one) would have lost my business and my clientele literally overnight. No vocation, no income, no house...BUT I WOULD HAVE HAD ONE HELL OF A GREAT HEALTH CARE PLAN!

Thanks to the Clinton administration, China has speedily gained over three generations of nuclear technology in just seven years.

This is the Clinton legacy.

You also said,

“For all of Clinton’s faults, he is an extremely popular leader…..a massive boon to the nation, and to the free world.”

Popular to WHO?

Mr. Clinton's "popularity" was such that in 1994, just two years after moving into the White House, he was responsible for establishing a Republican majority in the Congress for the first time in over 40 years!
Today there are more than twice as many Republican state Governors than there are Democrats...this due to Mr. Clinton's "popularity".
In 1992, Mr. Clinton was elected President of the United States with about 42% of the national vote.
Thanks to the interference of H. Ross Perot's "Reform Party", as well as George Bush's idiotic "Read My Lips: No New Taxes" faux pas, Clinton won the election with far less than 50% of the national vote. This was also true in 1996.
Clinton has NEVER had a mandate from the American people.

And, because of ALL of the above, because of what YOU, Daniel2, refer to as Clinton's EXTREME POPULARITY, his faithful Vice President Al Gore is NOW having the fight of his life trying to make the American People FORGET the scandals, FORGET the lies without number, FORGET the daily illegal fundraising events...
Someone has coined the term Clinton Fatigue. Gore MUST overcome the American people's Clinton Fatigue if he is to win the upcoming election.

Right now, the poor gent looks very much like a duck at an oil spill...

Can he win?

I dunno...but so far it's ALL been really fun to watch!

I suppose everything I've stated will be contested (come on DOWN, mlw!), but ONE THING IS CERTAIN:

THIS IS GOING TO BE THE MOST EXCITING PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN SEASON I HAVE EVER WITNESSED!

Pull up a chair!
Pop some popcorn!

THIS IS FAR BETTER THAN ANY MOVIE!!!

This is REAL LIFE!

NP: The glorious widescreen version of The Fall Of The Roman Empire!
The sets! The costumes! Sophia Loren! Dimitri's wonderful Russian/Roman score! Sophia Loren! I love it!

It's difficult to believe, but I think that Sophia is even more beautiful NOW!

[This message has been edited by Chris Kinsinger (edited 28 June 2000).]

I finally understand where you're coming from, and while we will obviously never agree, I now have much less to argue about.

And to answer your questions, yes I would definitely sacrifice Poe's work for my child. And I think I would sacrifice his work for the cure to AIDS. While I like to say I don't really care much for the human race, there's always the proverbial question "Who goes first?" and I can't make a decision like that.

Well, since this thread is turning into more of a hypothetical game than an actual discussion, I won't say anything more. Thanks for taking the time to explain yourself to me (even to the dismay of other members). This has been educational and actually quite therapeutic for me.

Daniel, you wear us all out.

I came back, but only because your obvious ignorance of the Clinton administration seduced me.

Clinton’s very being is an accomplishment in itself.

By the way, my discussion with James has been completed amicably….it just goes to show that alternative opinions can be expressed without one falling out of one’s pram.

I quite understand and respect the message board administrator’s actions, and depart the board with good grace.

And Palestine forever!

Looks like I called yer BLUFF, Daniel!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:
I think we should consider ourselves lucky we live in a society that allows us the comfort of being so entertained. Take movies for what they are. Entertainment. Some you will like some you won't. Some have messages and deep meaning some dont. Just think of it as 2 hours you don't have to be yourself and worry about the rest of the world

dave

---

thank u for quoating me

You have a great outlook as well!!

dave

Perhaps the reason why this thread has over 100 posts is that it touches the very core issue of the role of cinema in an individual's life: What do you or me or anyone use the cinema for? What do you want from the movies? What do you expect a movie to be? And how does that expectation affect how you'll be let down or boosted by what you're presented with?

And we've had a lot of answers from people who say not to take the cinema seriously, not to let little problems diminish what in other respects is viable, to those who hate the shallow and insist that every aspect of a film be ruthlessly criticized and put under the microscope.

I'm not going to be able to synthesize the conflicts of opinion into some blanket statement that pleases everyone. Maybe the closest was the one just presented about some people looking for entertainment and others not. Certainly, there are many different filmmakers and different kinds of films for different audiences (including films made where the audience isn't even taken into consideration).

Someone, Graham (?), made the point that the issue really involves standard Hollywood movies as opposed to specialty films---that the regular, average, multiplex cinema movie used to be made with a higher regard for the intelligence of its audience than it is today.

Perhaps, in this regard, some of us have outgrown the movies, that they are being made for 13 year olds like toys and candy and are no longer being made in general for older experiences except in isolated cases. Maybe there has been a dumbing down of culture but it could be in response to public demand for non-challenging fare--in this case, it's not the movies that have gotten bad, it's the brains and tastes of most people and the cinema reflects that rather than creates it and those that squak about it are holdouts from a previous time and aren't in step with the cultural trend.

I don't know about the rest of you but I'm a demanding consumer. I want a lot for my 8 bucks. I want an interesting story that makes sense, isn't full of holes or implausibilities unless it has them to achieve another kind of effect that will move me emotionally. I want a point, a message, to have learned or experienced something about people, politics, human nature or the nature of the world. But it has to be done in a way that isn't too heavy or preachy, that's organic, that comes naturally out of the elements instead of feeling imposed. I want to be moved emotionally. This most of all. A film doesn't even have to have resemble reality--it could be 2 hrs of colors--if it can do this. I want characters, drama, plot, and action. Because it's the cinema and that means sight and sound, I want neat settings, neat visuals, shots and framings that are aesthetically pleasing. I want to hear music, good music. I want a film to be as solid as a building--great construction, technique, acting, editing, production in toto.I want to be entertained, moved, taken out of my own world, distracted if you will, but I don't want to be sent to some meaningless desert. I want the film to work with my mind and emotions to take me somewhere (even if it's the self-consciousness caused by alienation techniques) I can only get to through the cinema.

I could even go on with more things I want from movies. Now obviously, very few if any movies can give me all the things I demand wrapped up in one package. Films are made by people, groups of people, companies too if you look at it that way. People are falliable. High perfection isn't possible unless a lot of factors come together that may not even be planned for in some cases. I'm surprised most movies are any good at all considering how difficult they are to conceive. The best movies give me some of what I want and falter in other respects (leading to the are we too critical question that opened this discussion) and I deal with that as best I can.

I know some films aren't even going to try to give me a fraction of what I'd like to see but may still work for me nonetheless. And my description wasn't really in favor of just art films. A film like Good Burger, as prole comedy as you can find, may meet all my requirements where the finest Bergman cannot. Gold is where you find it.

But again, this is just my take and I'm probably not the lowest common demoninator that the film product is marketing itself to these days.

Can I personally take the cinema for what it is and maybe not take it too seriously. Yes. I'm cautious about something that needs to be looked at uncritically for it to work better. Seeing is believing and the cinema like TV, photography, advertising, and other visual-based media carries this immediate experience into one's head by-passing some of the critical filters that words do. It's potent communication, teaching even. Wim Wenders said that entertainment movies were the most political movies of all because they eliminated any vision of change, that they always supported a status quo/things are OK as they are point of view. So, I not only reserve the right to demand the quality of a film and to criticize it for what I see as faults, but I try to be critical of the entire media representation to the extent that I can understand its influence on me.

biblio. http://www.iap.org/politics/peace/esaid-pl.html

quote:

---

After all that respectful correspondence I've had with you, I'm amazed you are lumping me in with all those detrimental influences you no doubt despise. Do all "conservatives" make such assumptions based on almost no information at all?

---

I made no such assumption.
I simply asked you a question, Michael (you may call me Chris, if you like).
I simply asked you a question, and you went off like a two dollar pistol.
I have family in Israel. I regularly hear about the PLO terrorism where they live.
You exclaimed "Palestine Forever!", and I simply asked for amplification, that's all.
I made no assumptions whatsoever.
You did.

quote:

---

Remember, anyone with an opinion that isn't yours is not to be trusted.

---

Remember who said that.

Do all liberals go ballistic when simply asked to explain the meaning of their statements?