Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:08:04 -0500
From: Erik Marshall <aa9728-AT-wayne.edu>
Subject: Re: lost dawg



I'm not picking on Michael here, but playing a little devil's advocate.
Michael Moretti wrote:

> Okay, call me nutty, but my point remains that I think the film was
> contrived for consumption by a Western audience, not that I thought it
> failed to conform to the form of Western film. I don't believe that this
> film rated among the better martial arts films, and I have seen many.

Does it rate among the better sci-fi/fantasy/technoir films, such as the Matrix?
What about traditionally animated films? If you're looking for generic purity,
then of course this film will disappoint.

> Let me
> stress that I did not go to see this film because it was or was not a
> martial arts flick. I went because it looked promising from what I had
> heard. Back to my thought that the film was contrived: I felt as though the
> film was packaged as a foreign (exotic) film which are typically viewed by
> American/Western audiences as either being too deep for mass consumption or
> just was the intellectual elite love to feast upon. And I count myself more
> among the latter. Many films are just made and play to the smaller audience
> because they are made as art, not commercial products.

Must we obey the traditional, typical art/commercial dichotomy? In an industry
where the oppositions between mainstream/independent, commerical/arty, A/B, even
general public/intellectual elite and West/East are becoming increasingly less
meaninigful, perhaps we should investigate the ideoloigical implications of making
such distinctions.


> Most of us can
> separate the Bressons/Truffauts from the Warner Bros. I read the code: I
> just thought it was too obvious to be natural. And, I tend to side with
> Tarkovsky - characters should not be symbols. They should be natural,
> truthful expressions of the type/ideal. By succeeding at this they give us
> characters who are unique, memorable and with whom we can identify. This
> film stayed too deep in its own form to appeal to me on a real emotional
> level. I couldn't escape its genre thanks to the effort I feel the filmmaker
> put into conforming to the genre so that it would sell. A great martial arts
> flick for the aristocracy... not.

"natrual"? "unique"? "with whom we can identify"? What do these terms mean? Are
they not mutually exclusive? How can they be achieved in film, and (why) are they
desirable? What is a "real emotional level"?

>
>
> And some like to jump to the conclusion that because one criticizes a film
> it's because of some populist allergy. Admittedly, I rarely find myself at
> movies that everyone's raving about. But, this doesn't mean that I cannot
> transcend my bias. I have been surprised, so I do keep myself open. I
> realize that "some of you" are more enlightened than others when it comes to
> film criticism. But, is my claim that the film ends abruptly really personal
> criticism, or just personal observation. In fact, it seems that I have run
> afoul of the film criticism community standards by suggesting that by taking
> a personal position I am somewhat of an anarchist seeking ownership in a
> process which belongs to others... Have we forgotten that film is between
> filmmaker and audience: art and meaning are not the province of the critic,
> only his objects.
>
> A work of real art cannot be seen universally. It is a very peculiar thing.
> If everyone likes it, understands it, then it has failed as art. The
> artist's vision has been diluted, corrupted and sold out. It's when it has
> succeeded for a few that it transcends its worldliness.

Art, by definition, then, is inaccesible?

It seems to me that many of us are responding to marketing strategies and
traditional generic expectations, which this film certailny breaks. When we accuse
a filmmaker of using subtitles to appeal to an art crowd,  are we not succumbing
to the same simple prejudices we suspect the general public of, namely, that
subtitled films are art and "western" (whatever that means) story structure are
not? When we compare such a movie to other martial arts films, are we not
measuring it against western-cosntructed generic boundaries? It seems paradoxical
to insist that a film obey generic and other categorical constructions, yet
present unique, non-stereotypical characters.

For the record, I greatly enjoyed the film for it visuals, grace and for strong
characterization of women. I, too, had problems with the narrative structure, and
perhaps my dissapointment is a response conditioned by traditional Hollywood, or
by marketing expectations. But, you know what? I think I'll go see it again,
perhaps with different expectations.

Diabolically yours,
Erik






     --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---