From: "Karena G" <radchick7-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: What's wrong with mainstream sensibilities?
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 16:59:16 -0800


Well Lisa-- I see we disagree on one major point.  My description of 
Speilberg would be very far from stellar.
I do agree however that suffering is a religious idea (being raised Catholic 
how could I deny it), however it is not to be ignored.  The power of 
suffering on artists across the board is significant and dates back as far 
as we have knowledge of.  Lets not forget a soul so torchered he severed his 
own ear.

I am not proposing that the only type of art I enjoy is "sad or traumatic", 
I find great joy in exploring my own life through the suffering of others, 
and anaylizing it.  I also enjoy the "no-brainers" and selective pop tunes, 
but I would hesitate to call it great art.


>From: Lita Coucher <lita_coucher-AT-hotmail.com>
>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: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 08:36:06 -0500
>
>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 ---

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



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