From: "Karena G" <radchick7-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: What's wrong with mainstream sensibilities?
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 17:51:38 -0800


What great art can come out of a prosperous and happy life?  Look at the 
crap that comes from those kind of people versus the art that comes from 
say, Polanski, who has had tremendous amounts of pain through out his life, 
or Hitchcock who had a tortorous childhood.  While it may not be something 
we would like to believe true,(that one must suffer to be a great artist) I 
think for the most part it is.


>From: hugh bone <hbone-AT-optonline.net>
>Reply-To: film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>To: film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Subject: Re: What's wrong with mainstream sensibilities?
>Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 18:47:23 -0500
>
>Ken, and others,
>
>Mostly, I agree with these recent posts.
>
>True artists might be those who sometimes "suffer" because of their work,
>but might suffer more without it.
>
>Our opinions are unlikely to have any effect on the industry, but some List
>members are students who are going to make movies and may benefit from
>exchange of ideas.
>
>Others, myself included, would like to get tips on first-rate movies we
>haven't seen.  The media critics I trust most, sometimes recommend films I
>don't enjoy.  A recent example was "Remembrance".
>
>Hugh
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
>
> > On Tue, 2 Jan 2001 11:49:10 -0600 sakana-AT-stlnet.com wrote:
> >
> > > i've always been much more comfortable with "favorite" as opposed to
>"best."
> > who are we to decide what is "best"?  on what are we to base that
>judgment?
> >
> > Favorite runs into a similar problem. I'm tempted to say that the 
>question
>is
> > too abstract, but I know, in fact, it is too concrete. I suspect I'd
>prefer
> > something like "fancy" - because it has a distinct sense of trivial
>wimsicality
> > about it - and that's precisely what is being summoned in these kinds
> > questions. This is a film*theory* list after all.
> >
> > On Tue, 2 Jan 2001 13:43:51 -0500 hugh bone <hbone-AT-optonline.net> wrote:
> >
> > > We subscribers are the ones who are interested in the opinions of
>yourself
> > and others - when the media issue "bests" they are anticipating the
>Academy. No
> > one has to agree with the Academy.
> >
> > Yes but when we talk in terms of "best and worst" we all wink, right?
>Yeah, you
> > know it isn't *really* the best... and yet the "best and worst" end up
> > *determining* our show-biz reality for the next film-season. The "best
>dressed"
> > list hits the stores in three months (if not sooner). Sure, we get to 
>pick
>and
> > choose... sigh... which really means that we're marketed 15 flavours of
>the
> > same mulch, each with its own colour-coded brand name (so the saying 
>goes,
> > 'the media can't tell us what to think, but it can tell us what to think
> > about'). If we're actually interested in creating, recreating,
>constructing,
> > reconstructing, deconstructing the film industry, then we are pretty 
>much
> > logically obligated to censor ourselves --> no more "best and worst!" 
>Dare
>I
> > invoke some *political* hatred here?
> >
> > And, more than this: I think that distinct judgements about films can, 
>and
> > must, be made. Any film which exploits the performers is, without fail, 
>a
>*bad*
> > film. So much the worse if it gets nominated for an award!
> >
> > On Tue, 2 Jan 2001 13:39:06 -0500 Lita Coucher 
><lita_coucher-AT-hotmail.com>
>wrote:
> >
> > > Does one need to suffer to be a good actor?Director?Writer?  I hope 
>not.
> >
> > I hope not too! Anyone who holds the position that one must suffer for 
>the
>sake
> > of art is psychotic. No, really, I mean that. It inevitably boils down 
>to
> > making everyone else around suffer as well - and suffering for the sake 
>of
>art
> > eventually ends up being institutionalized... (errr... has been
> > institutionalized) and, to make matters bad to worse, suffering becomes
>*the*
> > essential criteria for the well-being of art. "Did the crafter suffer
>much?
> > Well then, it must be good!"
> >
> > One of the local art galleries in Toronto (just recently) waited until a
> > painter died (of cancer) before showing their work... because the price
>would
> > go up after the artist was dead. This isn't exactly motivating.
> >
> > ken
> >
> >
> >
> >      --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com



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