Subject:
|
Re: TPM Rules
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.starwars
|
Date:
|
Thu, 1 Jun 2000 16:35:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
452 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.starwars, Shaun Sullivan writes:
> > >
> > > I could go on, but it's getting sort of late. It may seem that I'm
> > > nitpicking, but these things really bothered me while watching the film. I
> > > know George is selling to the N64 generation, and he's not concerned with
> > > nebulous issues like strategy and logic, but come on, George!
> >
> > Lots of reasonable questions - see my other post ('what's wrong with TPM'
> > thread) for the long version of why I see all these questions and criticisms
> > as moot. I really think that considering the movie as a film is erroneous,
> > and it should more appropriately be considered a piece of art. Which you can
> > still criticize of course, but it's always pretty self-defeating; "the artist
> > should or shouldn't have done this" doesn't hold much water when you're
> > referring to an individual expression of a vision. It's kind of like saying
> > "your opinion is wrong", or "you shouldn't like that color".
>
> Oh, come on! Calling it a piece of art sounds a lot like a smokescreen tactic
> intended to remove the film from discussions of quality. Even if it is "a
> piece of art," why can’t it also be considered a film, which it most certainly
> is? You are, in essence, saying that art cannot be evaluated in any way,
> which is absolutely untrue.
That's not what I said at all in the original post that I referred you back to.
Of course you can evaluate art - stylistically, aesthetically, and in many other
ways - but nobody can sit there and say that the artist should have done this or
shouldn't have done this with any degree of credibility. You can say "I would
have liked it better if [fill in the blank]". My point was that it makes no sense
to say that Lucas did a "poor job".
With regards to the film-vs-non-film comments, I'd agree that it certainly is a
film in terms of its media and distribution. However, it most certainly is *not*
a film with regard to the practices in contemporary entertainment - no review
boards, no sponsorship, no external influences, no "bottom line" ....
> Beyond that, I’m also trying to consider it as a piece of literature,
> which can be analyzed and discussed rationally and in terms of plot, story,
> character, narrative, pace, voice. My points, and my consistent complaints,
> deal with these matters. I would feel comfortable discussing the novel in
> these terms; why wouldn’t I also discuss the film this way?
Again, refer to the original referenced post. You can certainly analyze it in all
of criteria, and we all do - my point was that it is silly to look at an artist's
work and say he could have done it better. This film, as well as ESB and ROTJ, is
one of the closest things to a realized artistic vision that the movie industry
has ever seen. I honestly believe that TPM is more akin to a painting or a
sculpture or a bedtime story than it is to a TV show or a movie or a novel.
My main arguments are really only focused on a couple of points - that even if you
hate the movie, you can't really say that Lucas did a "bad job" or that he
"should/shouldn't have added X or Y". This was basically the brainchild of one
person[1], exactingly tailored to his satisfaction, and not to anybody else's.
Assuming that he fulfilled that requirement (which he says he did), then he by
default did a good job and every element that is in the movie should be there, and
vice versa.
I don't consider myself as having paid to see a movie, so much as I paid an
entrance fee to glimpse a creation.
> I grant you, the
> film has things to consider that the book does not, such as acting and special
> effects, but these can likewise be discussed in terms of effectiveness.
> Having said all that, I’m certainly not going to deny that TPM is a
> beautiful film, well-photographed.
Agreed. I don't like it nearly as much as the original three, since I enjoy the
dark boding ambiance of Imperial control. But I certainly enjoyed watching it,
and talking about it, and yes, even analyzing it ;)
-s
[1] with a supporting cast of thousands, of course
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: TPM Rules
|
| (...) Oh, come on! Calling it a piece of art sounds a lot like a smokescreen tactic intended to remove the film from discussions of quality. Even if it is "a piece of art," why can’t it also be considered a film, which it most certainly is? You are, (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jun-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
20 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
