From: "Colin" <filmmakerguy-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: What's wrong with mainstream sensibilities?
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 09:33:30 -0500


Great art is merely the honest expression of emotional experience by the 
creator and should serve as an excorcism for the artist of that emotion.  
Often great art comes out of getting out all that which is dark, turbulent 
and painful in our lives, and it attracts us only because we as a society 
rarely face these things within ourselves.  However, the notion that the 
artist must suffer in order to make a great work is preposterous.  He/she 
mustn't do anything but feel what he/she is feeling.  If it's honestly 
expressed, joy and pain can stir an audience equally.  Film moves us because 
of our voyeuristic nature and fascination with our own lives.  The well 
expressed emotion is the cornerstone of our art.  Unfortunately, however, 
most great artists are tortured souls because our culture doesn't support 
their ritual of getting truly honest.  We are a bunch of escapists who will 
go to great lengths, even worship of others to avoid living our own lives.  
Therefore, great artists often depict their loneliness on film, while 
commercial movies satisfy our need for escape with mushy cheeseball happy 
endings and dumbed down subject matter.  I feel that there needs to be more 
affirmativity in cinema these days.  We all know the martyr suffering 
storyline.  It's 2001 years old!!!!!  Lets get creative and show a hero 
actually overcoming an obstacle by using his intelligence, creativity and 
instinct rather than brute force just before being sacrificed for the 
dramatic climax.  Or not even resolve the situation and be content with 
continuing the search.  No matter how you do it, as long as it's real, it'll 
move people.  But, if you really look into it, you'll see that the whole 
idea of experiencing suffering as a necessary step to great art is neurotic 
and incredibly stupid.


>From: Karena G <radchick7-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: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 17:17:55 -0800
>
>it is my opinion that there is "pop" which is mainly entertainment and
>"art"; that is not to say that one cannot cross over into the other.  but
>films like Dude, where's my car (which I plan on seeing) are not even
>claiming to be art.  I am not proposing that this makes them any less
>important to society.
>In a discussion of "art" it is impossible to ignore the amount of suffering
>endured my artist, whether by the hand of fate or there own tortured minds.
>I wonder what the works of some artists would be like if they had not
>experienced the things they had.
>
>(it is of interest to me to look at Tori Amos, her music as "Why Kan't Tori
>Read" is poppy and lacking in real substance, then she matures a bit and
>gets raped, then her music evolves to what we know today.)
>
>>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: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 07:36:35 -0500
>>
>>why would you hesitate to call pop art?  And what if Van gogh just had an
>>earache?
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: Karena G <radchick7-AT-hotmail.com>
>>To: <film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
>>Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 7:59 PM
>>Subject: Re: What's wrong with mainstream sensibilities?
>>
>>
>> > 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 ---
>> >
>>
>>
>>      --- 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 ---

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



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