Posted on 09/24/2017 12:04:34 PM PDT by EveningStar
It was stunning and spectacular. The last time I had seen it before that was at a Sci-Fi convention in the 1980s.
Nabakov is wrong. You are wrong. Tying complexity into greatness is failing to understand both words. Great art knows what it is and does it well. Sometimes it can be incredibly simple. Sometimes it can be complex. The important part is that it understand what it is and be that. If what it is is simple then it should be simple very well. If your song is the Sex Pistol’s Anarchy in the UK don’t try to turn it into a King Crimson song. If your song is supposed to be this big ol noodle jam of intricate chord progression don’t try to squeeze it into 2 minutes of angst. Great art is what it should be.
The fact that 12 Monkeys is not mentioned is sinful.
Interstellar was indeed very twisty.
The gist of it is, that not all complexity is great but greatness is always complex.
Inception is a great example of complexity that sucked.
And that is WRONG. Greatness can be VERY simple.
That’s your hangup with Nolan. Similar to my hangup with Spielberg. Except I’m right and you’re full of beans ;)
Greatness can SEEM simple. :) My hangup with Nolan is that he writes flat characters and flat dialogue which he heavily relies for exposition since he can’t tell stories visually.
Wrong. Greatness can BE simple. I’ve already given you example of great simplicity, I can spend days on that. But you’re addicted to Nabakov’s silly idea that greatness must be complex, so you won’t get it.
Much like you’re addicted to not liking Nolan and therefore you insist he’s bad. You’re wrong on that one too. Somebody you should learn to understand that just because you don’t like doesn’t make it bad. It just means it’s not your thing.
“I defy anyone to watch the Emperor on the escalator bit, for example, and not bust a gut laughing. “
I have it saved as a “favorite” on YouTube for whenever I need a laugh. It’s great. The Emperor is sort of like Ari on HBOs Entourage - at least to me anyway.
Your example of the Bad Company song doesn’t matter because I don’t regard pop music as high art. Even really good pop music. I love the song ‘Johnny B Goode’ but I wouldn’t defend it as great art. Popular art I guess? I realize that this sort of distinction is very out of fashion in the postmodern age. And I gave a very specific reason why I dislike Nolan’s films. Anyway, I sort of like ‘The Prestige’.
There you are being all reductive, and snobby. Of course pop music can be high art.
But really that’s besides the point. There TON of simple great art. Look at Die Hard, generally considered to be the most technically perfect action movie ever. And you can’t get more simple.
Yes you specific reason for DISLIKING Nolan. None of which show they aren’t GREAT movies. You just don’t like them.
Snobbery is the chastity of the perfectionist. Anyway, as far as action films go, I would take The Warriors over ‘Die Hard’ any day. Not to mention ‘The Road Warrior’. But I like John McTiernan in general - he really knows how to compose for the wide screen really well. His remake of ‘The Thomas Crown Affair’ is beautifully shot and beats the hell out of the original. And no I don’t regard any of those films as great art. The question of whether or not film can even be great art is not at all settled. I’m not sure actually. But that’s a separate issue.
No, snobbery is being a douchebag for no good reason.
We’ve already discussed The Warriors, it’s a piece of crap. And you even admitted the dialog sucks.
At this point what we know is that what you consider great art is probably the dumbest list in the world. Basically it has to be complex, and it can’t be popular. Of course film can be great art, anybody that thinks that’s even a question has crawled up their own ass into stupid land.
The issue with film is this...if you think of the greatest films ever made (whatever you consider them to be), do they even bear comparison with the greatest works of other media? Hitchcock vs Proust? Kurosawa Vs. Mozart? Lubitsch Vs Rembrandt? The filmmakers look bad in comparisons like that. I think it has something to do with the fact that film is a collaborative medium where the expressive weight is diluted (acting, writing, photography, music).
That’s not an issue. The filmmaker looks fine in comparison. That’s one of those over contemplating their naval things lit majors participate in which is why people don’t like them. It has to do with a group of people being snobs and unwilling to admit awesome things can be popular. They like their high art to be obscure and unloved by the masses, it’s helps them feel special. As soon as we start to admit high art can be enjoyed by the masses the literati are no longer special.
It has nothing to do with popularity or obscurity. A lot of great literature, music etc is also very popular. In regards to music I was using the word ‘popular’ in the technical sense: Serious music is where the notated score transcends any single performance. Any time that’s not the case, it’s popular music.
Oh it ABSOLUTELY has to do with popularity and obscurity. The literati are the original hipsters, they’re all about being into things others never heard of. That’s their ego stroke. They give exceptions to things that haven’t been popular in 100 or more (more is better) years, but they love the crap that nobody else does. Remember when Amadeus hit and all of a sudden the literati start “reconsidering” Mozart, because the masses were suddenly into it and that made him not obscure anymore.
“Serious music” is a false label created by snobs. Plenty of stuff can be popular and be great because of the notated score not the performance. That’s a purely made up and 100% dumb either/ or to construct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.