Subject:
|
Re: Ecce Homo -- Mel Gibson's Passion (more fluff, sorta...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:54:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
154 times
|
| |
|
|
Looks like Mel caved after all...
The last bit I saw on this yesterday on CNN claimed the film would release on
Ash Wednesday next year with subtitles.
::sigh::
Maybe the DVD will release the originally intended, non-subtitled version. Then
again, while most DVDs have a subtitles on/off option, I guess it’s possible
they could release only a subtitles on version.
This sort of reminds me of an old love -- of comic books. In many of the
comics I loved as a youth there might occasionally be short or even long
passages of purely graphic narrative without any text whatever! Adding
subtitles to this film, apparently cinematographically intended to stand alone
and without subtitles, would be like adding in text to those previously textless
comic book passages. To my mind such a thing would diminish the work of the
many comic greats that occasionally employed the textless technique, such as
Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, Jim Steranko, Craig Russell, Berni Wrightson, Frank
Miller, Chester Brown, etc. -- just to name a few.
There’s every reason to make the artistic choice to omit words, or even to use
existing words as noise or a kind of aural landscape against which other
elements of a composition work. I have understood that Brian Eno uses words as
much for the sound of those words than as for their specific meaning. Now
maybe Eno is being falsely “artsy” but it’s a technique that has been picked up
in earnest by the likes of Throbbing Gristle and Philip Glass in whose music the
repetition or layered inaudibility of words is obviously intended to destroy the
meaning of the words used and point up the musical potential of the words as
sounds. It’s not really as complicated as it seems, this is very much like
listening to opera when you do not know the language in the music. I mean, I do
not understand much French myself, so when I listen to Delibes its mostly about
sound anyway -- even if that wasn’t an intended consequence on the part of the
composer.
I think the use of largely dead languages and Mel’s supposedly uncompromising
adaptation of the material were a kind of artistic masterstroke that is
obviously now being water-down by the usual art-killers a.k.a. distribitors and
censors.
It’s a pity.
I suppose it’s doubtful that Mel will make a public statement about how
accurately the resulting and released film actually reflects his original
intentions. There’s always that nagging need to make money even though he spent
his own money making the movie and doesn’t probably need any more money to live
rich the rest of his life. As far as I can see, Mel by reason of his wealth and
status as a famous and acclaimed actor/director had the means to maintain total
“Kubrick-like” control in this situation. Why did he cave?
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
22 Messages in This Thread:
   
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
