From: "Adams, Michael" <MAdams-AT-gc.cuny.edu>
Subject: RE: What's wrong with mainstream sensibilities?
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 08:50:13 -0500 


No joy in Hitchcock?  I just watched To Catch a Thief for the 20th-25th time
on Jan. 1, and I can think of no more joyous way to start the new year.
There is mindless pleasure, and then there is what Nabokov, in Lolita, calls
"asethetic bliss."  At least half of Hitchcock's films provide tons of such
bliss, and Polanski does as well in Knife in the Water and Chinatown.

Michael Adams

-----Original Message-----
From: Lita Coucher [mailto:lita_coucher-AT-hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 8:36 AM
To: film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Subject: Re: What's wrong with mainstream sensibilities?


What about someone like Spielberg?  He had a normal childhood and a great
adulthood, and makes stellar films.  I think necessary suffering is a
religious idea that has permeated society in other realms, art being just
one.  There are times when learning and truth do come from suffering, but I
hope it does not need to be so.

I just read a great interview with Bono from U2 regarding their new album.
He made the point that the band tried very hard to make a JOYOUS record, one
that celebrates life, love, etc., instead of the usual "rainy Irish" music
they generally make.  Even the more serious songs, such as the one about
Michael Hutchins's suicide, are set to upbeat music that makes the audience
smile inside.  Polanski and Hitchcock are great filmmakers, but what JOY is
there in their work?  While I realize most of you might this this is
puerile, I just saw "Roadtrip" for the 2nd time this week.  What an
accomplishment in comedy!  Celebrating young men being young men.
Celebrating the FUN we can have in life.

I love films that shake me up, but I refuse to restrict myself to enjoying
those that are only sad or traumatic.

lc
lita_coucher-AT-hotmail.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Karena G <radchick7-AT-hotmail.com>
To: <film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: What's wrong with mainstream sensibilities?


> 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 ---
>


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


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