From: "Lita Coucher" <lita_coucher-AT-hotmail.com> Subject: Re: suffering sufferer suffers Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 11:10:00 -0500 How bout another one about van gogh and the ear? Seriously, I'd love to see a well made film about John Lennon (he did paint, too, you know. ) ":) ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Moretti <moretti-AT-mac.com> To: <film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:29 AM Subject: Re: suffering sufferer suffers > CNN is currently running a poll on "Which artist's story will make the most > compelling movie?" > > The choices (and their current ratings) are: > > Jackson Pollock (umbilical strangulation at birth/alcoholism) 18% > Georgia O'Keefe (claustrophobia?) 25% > Frida Kahlo (polio/bus accident/amputation/miscarriage/substance abuse) 50% > Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec (broken legs/deformity/alcoholism) 0% > > Thoughts? > > Michael > > on 1/4/01 7:55 AM, kenneth.mackendrick-AT-utoronto.ca at > kenneth.mackendrick-AT-utoronto.ca wrote: > > > On Wed, 3 Jan 2001 10:41:00 -0700 gary patrick norris <ngary2-AT-qwest.net> > > wrote: > > > >> 3a. Furthermore, since most confuse "the beautiful" with "the good," then > > folks think that suffering is good. And since we live in a moral society, no > > matter what the cynics think, some consider suffering necessary, moral and > > just. > > > > "No pain, no autonomous art, eh?" > > > >> 4. So, it makes sense to some that artists must suffer. Even when the > > suffering happens to be an excuse for living the life of an artist. You know, > > a > > mask. > > > > I think a notion of scenic understanding is worth exploring here, like the > > ever-present cinema cliche, you know the one, a sober conversation, a paternal > > figure getting up and walking away, the pause, <insert name-of-the-father> > > "X, thanks for that" - the humble but knowing nod, final turn, and off the > > set. > > > > The suffering artist is a bit like the cliche, a stereotype, a regressive > > image > > - paleosymbolic perhaps, certainly prediscursive. In general, this imagistic > > understanding is read backward: from the effect back to the cause. The more > > salient point being, to look at this effect as to what it causes. Take Woody > > Allen as an example. It isn't that his films are autobiographic, rather, Allen > > puts them together and then buys into his own script. He becomes what he > > writes > > about. Talk about "special" effects. The stereotype of the suffering artist > > *creates* suffering artists... not unlike the designated pathology of the last > > year "road rage" - once it has a name, everyone steps up to the namesake. > > > >> Maybe we should start by asking: is it suffering if you chose to suffer? > > > > Is a rose by another name still a rose? > > > > How many trees have to fall in a forest for it to cease being a forest? > > > > Of course. > > > > ken > > > > > > > > --- 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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005