Replies

Gabler's points are all well-made. For the most part I agree. But it misses some of the point about why people go to a movie and what entertainment is about.

The formulaic approach is not something new. How many times did the damsel in distress get rescued from the oncoming train in the silent movies? How many times did Charlie Chaplin take a pratfall to elicit laughter from his audience? How many times did Moe poke Larry and Curly's eyes? How many times did Bob Hope and Bing Crosby go 'on the road?'

Formula is an intrinsic part of technique. Sometimes a film maker rises above formula and produces genuine art. More often we simply see repetition of the tried and true process. So what. That makes the exceptional movie that much more enjoyable.

For the moviegoer I suspect the problem is largely one of expectations. Do I expect great art when I see a movie from Schwarznegger or Stallone, Wesley Snipes, etc? Of course not. I would be a fool if I did. What I do expect and what they can deliver is the roller coaster ride that Gabler so derides. And just like the cool ride at the amusement park I can ride it over and over and still enjoy it. Repetitive? Formulaic? You bet. Do I have fun? Sure.

Is it art? It is certainly craft and that is fine by me. When I want something more out of the movies I go to a different kind of movie. Take 'Il Postino' for example. A genuine work of art. But I did not go expecting a roller coaster ride or even the edge of the seat mystery formula provided by Clancy or Grisham.

If I think of Austin Powers as high art then I am missing the point to the same extent as the person who demands that it be high art. Mike Myers and Adam Sandler are only vaguely amusing to me. But who gives me the right to say that someone else should not be allowed to enjoy them?

By Gabler's standards moviemaking may just as well have stopped after Citizen Kane. Lighten up. I can read Dostoevsky and I can read Clancy without confusing the two. And if I can't it would be my own problem.

If I think of Austin Powers as high art then I am missing the point to the same extent as the person who demands that it be high art. Mike Myers and Adam Sandler are only vaguely amusing to me. But who gives me the right to say that someone else should not be allowed to enjoy them?

I'm not saying that someone who thinks Austin Powers is great art should be prohibited from seeing it. But if they honestly think that then they ought to be able to defend that. Not to get on my high horse, but I think the big distinction in the way people look at art is they are either relativists of one stripe or another, or they are ..what's the term .. absolutist (people who think that artistic worth is independent of individual preferences). In other words, can works of art be compared? How do we know what (not if there are standards) aesthetic standards are good? etc. etc. I was much more a relativist in college, and in fact took a class on philosphy of art which was very interesting. The department was very big on analytic philosphy and almost the whole class was convinced that aesthetic relativism led to moral relativism. Not that they were 'conservative', mind you. Anywho, I come down on the non-relativist side now. I think that once you acknowledge that the mona lisa is better than Andy Warhol's soup cans, you have to be able to back it up. Not that people have to agree why its better, or that's its better. As long as they agree they're commensurable. Try this experiment - ask some of the women you know if they read romance novels. Then ask them if they're art. My 2 cents.