The entire strength of the movies is the technical aspect. This means, as soon the technology improves, they will do it better. Plus, really, if they do it again, there is no reason to believe they will use the same script (Jackson didn't had all freedom in the world when he started, adapting LoTR was tricky busines, I am sure he would expand the movies more if he could now, so a new movie could be completely different. For better or worst.Quote:
Originally Posted by mona amon
I have to say this new Hobbit film does fill me with much enthusiasm. How can you stretch that book to a trilogy of three-hour films? It could be turned into one two-hour film.
In addition to making this a trilogy, which is completely unnecessary, Peter Jackson is also releasing one version of "The Hobbit" that was filmed at 48 frames per second. Critics are divided on the success of this. Here are two opposing view points:
This one has a spoiler:
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/...review-48-fps/
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/06/why_...look_so_weird/
I did not finish LoTR, although I did start it when I was in high school. It moved too slowly for me. Maybe I'll try it again, sometime. My kids and I loved the movies. I'm sure that for me it had nothing to do with Viggo Mortenson as Aaragorn (stops for a moment to breathe) (:D).
"The Hobbit" on the other hand was completely adorable AND a great and exciting read. Can't go wrong with it. I wish Jackson had been able to restrain himself a bit.
Perhaps not the only reason in all cases, but take away the technical values and many of these films are extremely average in most other ways. Does anyone really watch GwtW for the extraordinary acting? It's neither Leigh's or Gable's best performance, as both are overwrought--melodrama acting to match the melodrama production. OK, so there's a lot of philosophical and cinematic interest in 2001, but take away its revolutionary depiction of space and future technology, the SFX showcase that is Beyond the Infinite, and you don't have much else; the best acting is done by a robot! Similar with Blade Runner, but it even lacks 2001's philosophical intelligence. Take away the neo-noir/cyberpunk setting and what else of worth is there? Star Wars has a great narrative? It has the same narrative as all "epic journey" stories! Little nobody discovers he has a secret past and a grand, unknown destiny and sets out to fulfill it. The new Star Wars did not have "superior F/X" if we're talking about historical context. Few films were as innovative in their time as the original Star Wars.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Says the person that think standards for acting and narrative apply universally; you'd be laughed at by any legitimate film critic. Everything is contextual.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
The art of film is images in time, so to say that a "set of pictures" can't make for a great film is just ignorance. Kiarostami's Five? Reggio's Koyaanisqatsi? Hell, Malick's Days of Heaven is a masterpiece solely because of the stunning "set of pictures" it has. The preeminence of "story" and "characters" is nothing but an unjustified bias. There are plenty of masterpieces where the story, characters, and acting are slight to non-existent.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
No, I specifically said you'd have to go back to Lang to get a similar "epic sweep." I was specifically thinking of his 5-hour Die Nibelungen. 2001, Blade Runner, et al. are much shorter and don't cover nearly the breadth of setting or narrative.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Who said anything about greatEST? I actually think DeMille is underrated, but that's another subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
How do you figure they aren't epic?Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
I didn't say epic scale alone was enough, but combine that with the great cinematography, and what I consider to be fine direction and writing and that most certainly is. First and foremost it's the epic experience of the films that make them memorable. The new Star Wars my strive towards a similar experience, but they certainly didn't achieve it.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
I said Lang's silent films. He scaled down considerably once he got to sound. I love M, so I don't know what your point is.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
There are no enduring themes in isolation, there are enduring renderings of themes. The LotR books say nothing that hasn't been covered by hundreds, if not thousands, of better writers before Tolkien. Take away the fantasy setting and nobody gives a crap about those themes, and it's the setting and the sweep that the films got right without resorting to pages of labored landscape descriptions. There are simply things that are better suited to novels than to films, and thematic rendering through character and narrative is better suited to literature, while visual conflicts like battles are better suited to film. Again, calculate the battle runtime in LotR and it's probably less in terms of runtime ratio than the battles in The Seven Samurai.Quote:
Originally Posted by WyattGwyon
I'm assuming "extremely average" is a joke!
Yet, you immediately isolate them and contradict yourself. Could you name one or two writers who have more effectively covered the specific themes I mentioned?Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Once again you isolate theme from setting, contradicting your initial thesis. Of course no one cares about them apart from the novel in which they appear because they form an integrated whole with the setting and other elements. As someone once said: "There are no enduring themes in isolation, there are enduring renderings of themes." LotR renders its themes in a way that seems quite ready to endure.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Thematic rendering through character is just as important in film and equally suitable to the medium.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
The issue isn't the run time of battles. It is that the extra battles just make the films flabby and add nothing but cheap thrills. The films would have been far better had they used other material from the books (The Scouring of the Shire, especially) rather than asinine redundancies like getting Aragorn lost twice rather than once. The reason they needed to do this?: because they needed a way to make another extra battle seem like it had some point and weight within the plot of the film—an objective at which they failed, by the way. The battle in Osgiliath was equally pointless and redundant and done at the expense of more important business.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Perhaps? It is amazing. You once more make a ridiculous claim and instead of acknowledging it you keep digging deeper, trying to justify such “silly”kind of claims. Not only you said that when I was specifically talking about the technical aspects of LoTR being the only awesome part of the movie and how special effects do fade with time, as you clearly made the silly claim.Quote:
Perhaps not the only reason in all cases, but take away the technical values and many of these films are extremely average in most other ways.
Then you made it worst. How in the name of hell will any of those movies get any worst? How someone can make this claim? Your argument is based on some ridiculous hypothetical non-sense. Good. Kaput.
I dare you to find any critical to basis Vivien Leigh acting anything but near perfection. It is considerable hard, as she one of the best actress of XX century. And who cares – what kind of argument is this – if it is her 2th, 3th best acting ever? Still a great acting. Of course I didn’t claim GwTW is only watched due her performance – the movie is filled with dialogues that are remarkable, Scarlett and Rthett are quintessenscial pair of Hollywood. The story is good enough, the cast is filled with quality. The characters are charismatic. 10 years after, the technical aspects of GwTW were already a bit irrelevant, yet, the movie popularity just keep on. There is absolutely ridiculous to claim, people keep watching this movie because the technical aspect. The interest is another.Quote:
Does anyone really watch GwtW for the extraordinary acting? It's neither Leigh's or Gable's best performance, as both are overwrought--melodrama acting to match the melodrama production
This is even more non-sense. The space is just a scenary for the story and Kubrick directing. It is not fundamental at all. Hence we still watch the movie and do not mind there are mistakes caused by the impact of Moon travel 1 year after it. You just do not need to remake 2001, all is told there. It is not the f/x that made the waltz in the space, it is Kubrick proper direction, music use and all else. Plus, it is ironic you try to attack HAL, considering with red lamp the script and direction of Kubrick just gave us an non-human character that is more remarkable than even the ‘so praised’ Gollum.Quote:
OK, so there's a lot of philosophical and cinematic interest in 2001, but take away its revolutionary depiction of space and future technology, the SFX showcase that is Beyond the Infinite, and you don't have much else; the best acting is done by a robot!
Trying to reduce 2001 to technical aspects is certainly a great way to show I do not know the art of filmmaking.
You must be really desperate to try to prove yourself right about your silly claim to go down to this level. What is this “Philosophy intelligence?”?Philip K.Dick is a metaphysical writer, Arthur Clarke has a scientific-realistic approach. One is proposing a model for evolution (not just living evolution), which is ultimately a ID model. The other is asking what consists of being human and having a soul, which also is a ID model. I have no idea how you can measure the intelligence of either. But the most amazing part of the argument is that it is irrelevant if it is less or more intelligent than 2001. It can be, but this would not deny the fact that the movie status is also because the metaphysical theme of the story, which is portrayed greatly. It is good also to know, this story also survives without images, so claiming there is nothing beyond this is a bit silly. Mostly, anyone who know the movie story, also knows it was a failure and the video renting made it a cult, mostly because of the ambiguity of the characters and the stories and not the special effects (hardly true astonishing when compared the blockbusters of the time). The cyberpunk-noir helped, but that is hardly a technical achievement (how they did it is a technical achievement, constructing a storyline on those settings nope).Quote:
Similar with Blade Runner, but it even lacks 2001's philosophical intelligence. Take away the neo-noir/cyberpunk setting and what else of worth is there?
But yes, Blade Runner IS NOTHING but a cyberpunk setting. Kaput.
The same narrative? Oh, don’t tell me! How this make it not have a decent structure for the narrative? (I advise you to quote me correctly. If I wanted to claim a great narrative, I would have said it.). So, what if it has the same narrative of several traditional narratives? Since when this is remotely relevant? Or a way to measure quality? Stars Wars do have a decent structure for their narrative: the movie script is very basic, but unlike the new Star wars, there is no pace breaking due poor written romantic dialogues or for videgame scenes. It works more like a old tv series, with short cuttings and giving room for the characters to get the audience identification.Quote:
Star Wars has a great narrative? It has the same narrative as all "epic journey" stories! Little nobody discovers he has a secret past and a grand, unknown destiny and sets out to fulfill it. The new Star Wars did not have "superior F/X" if we're talking about historical context. Few films were as innovative in their time as the original Star Wars.
And I am not talking about historial context and the new star wars has poorer special effects. They obviously survive on the account that was beyond their first impact (the fanboys often love the characters, be then LoTR, trekkies, warsies, potters, etc). And I will just pretend you didn’t said one more irrelevant line, trying to create impact… The first sound movie, the first 3-d movie, the first outside shooting movie, the first colored movie… Yes, so what.
Pffft...Quote:
Says the person that think standards for acting and narrative apply universally; you'd be laughed at by any legitimate film critic. Everything is contextual.
So let’s see what this not legitimate film critic is doing here.
“Performances tend to get lost in productions like this. I particularly noticed how easily Cruise got buried in the role of Jack.
Here is the talented young actor from "Risky Business," where he came across as a genuine individual, and this time he's so overwhelmed by sets and special effects that his character could be played by anybody.”
What is Robert Ebert afraid of the laugh when he compares the acting in a teen comedy with a fantasy movie (Legend)? No, he does not. You know why? Because you seems to not realize that when a critic is giving a nod to a genre movie acting, be it horror, western, gangster, comedy he is already downgrounding it. It is a bit when we say: Conan Doyle is a great writer of detective stories. It is implied the standard, which he cannot achieve. He applies the standards, he does not deny it. It exists, after all, genre does not “really” exist. When Jack Nicholson and Stanley Kubrick go to play with horror genre, they do not forget home their talent just to make fair with Tobe Hopper and Peter Cushing.
Of course, if LoTR acting was the only criticism I made, I would be exaggerating. It is not.
As Narrative – I said dialogues, it is not the same (narratives do have standards universal values, as any kid know, you can tell how good was Candide, Lolita or Dom Quixote despite their different genres), and sorry, bad dialogues are bad in any genre.
While some people do claim Five is more than a set of pictures, Koyaanisqatsi is certainly more than this (the music of the movie is almost as famous and hailed as the movie alone), I should be more obvious to mention movies like LoTR, with the primary function of a narrative. But your mention of Malick seems more a copy-paste of their critics. I don’t call it a masterpiece, but saying Days of Heaven does not have a good directing, a decent script, that the photography of the movie is not just to show a pretty scenery, but to set the tone of the movie, there is good acting, is just way off. It is even funny, considering the higher status of the movie now is exactly because people found qualities beyond Malick usual stunning movies.Quote:
The art of film is images in time, so to say that a "set of pictures" can't make for a great film is just ignorance. Kiarostami's Five? Reggio's Koyaanisqatsi? Hell, Malick's Days of Heaven is a masterpiece solely because of the stunning "set of pictures" it has. The preeminence of "story" and "characters" is nothing but an unjustified bias. There are plenty of masterpieces where the story, characters, and acting are slight to non-existent.
Nope, you listed in a single sentence 3 aspects and then in a next one, you said we had to go back to Fritz Lang. Albeit, I was being ironic, because the claim seemed so silly… yet, no idea yet how you were using the word epic.Quote:
No, I specifically said you'd have to go back to Lang to get a similar "epic sweep." I was specifically thinking of his 5-hour Die Nibelungen. 2001, Blade Runner, et al. are much shorter and don't cover nearly the breadth of setting or narrative.
I was really giving you some credit. You are a Milton fan and all. But you are really using epic only for the movie length. I do not know how pointless it is.
“Hey, I saw a great movie, had 1:30 half.”
“I saw one better. 2 hours and half.”
I do not know what is more ridiculous. Claiming the length of a movie is a good quality somehow or the notion that those movies are the longest movies of all time. I mean, Cleopatra –a crap movie – has alone about 4 hours. It must be the greatest movie of Hollywood, 1 movie, almost the length of the two Niebielung movies of Lang…
Those are not even the longest movies of all time. Imagine claiming it was something never done, since mute movies… Oh, geez.
Really backtrack here too, say you meant epic in the way people claim LoTR is an epic, etc. Not being it is a long movie. It not even kaput.
Forget, Epic here means epic themes, etc. Not movie length. You could not understand the irony with this kind of vocabulary.Quote:
Who said anything about greatEST? I actually think DeMille is underrated, but that's another subject.
Quote:
How do you figure they aren't epic?
You won. I would never figure they were epic because together both movies have 5 hours. How many hours together have Porkys?
Absolutely. You said the memorable aspects of the movie are stunning productions value and cinematography, the best green capture acting on Gollum and the length of the movie. You say fine direction now (which aspects of fine directing Peter Jackson show? Besides hiring a extremely competent technical team I mean), you already said he dialogue is silly (so you can not know come with fine writing, be coherent, as dialogue is a great part of writing). And you still… have little… I mean… You called me for not knowing about movies for saying LoTR main marks are technical and surprise, when I asked about them, you named cinematograph and the amazing use of new tech to produce a animated character… and length… It is a bit ridiculous no? Except for not know length is that relevant, you just agreed with me. Ironic isn’t?Quote:
I didn't say epic scale alone was enough, but combine that with the great cinematography, and what I consider to be fine direction and writing and that most certainly is. First and foremost it's the epic experience of the films that make them memorable. The new Star Wars my strive towards a similar experience, but they certainly didn't achieve it.
Again, the irony is lost. Does not work in a world where epic translateS to movie length.Quote:
I said Lang's silent films. He scaled down considerably once he got to sound. I love M, so I don't know what your point is.
The Hobbit is, i believe, the prequel of LOTR, so it should be different by a little bit, may be it's like the history of the Ring itself. Reading the LOTR series after reading 'The Hobbit' would've bettered the reader's interest I suppose.
How did I contradict myself? I said there are memorable renderings of themes and that other writers have rendered those themes better than Tolkien; that's not a contradiction. EG, one could say that God is an "enduring theme" of art, but that would imply that modern Christian rock music is on the same level as Bach and Handel, or that your average church poet is on the level of Donne and Milton, which is absurd. Secondly, as for writers who've rendered the conflict between the thirst for knowledge and the lust for power better, I'd mention Blake, Goethe, Dante, just off the top of my head. If you started a thread about this, I'm sure others could give you plenty more examples.Quote:
Originally Posted by WyattGwyon
That's not what you originally said; you originally said that films miss the enduring themes of the books. My point was that the main attraction of the books is the fantasy setting, not the enduring themes. Nobody reads LotR the first time through and is blown away by its startlingly original and profound ideas and themes, unlike, say, Blake or Dostoevsky or Melville etc. You can't separate Blake from his themes and philosophy because his works are very thoroughly worked out allegories. Tolkien has said he didn't design LotR as any kind of allegory, though I'm sure he knew that people would find them anyway. What interested Tolkien was the mythology, and that's where the focus of the books are.Quote:
Originally Posted by WyattGwyon
No. Film is infinitely more compressed than literature is, putting more emphasis on what can be suggested through cinematic language. It's why people write entire novels about the themes of 2001, despite its dearth of interesting characters through most of its runtime, and not about most traditional character-driven film dramas.Quote:
Originally Posted by WyattGwyon
Funnily enough, I've only seen fans of the books argue this. I thought the scouring of the Shire was a horrible way to end the books. People who like the films or saw them before reading the books hardly ever make these complaints.Quote:
Originally Posted by WyattGwyon
The claim wasn’t silly and I stand by what I said; take away the technical aspects of those films and they are often average, at best, on other standards. Of course special effects technology advances, but that doesn’t mean that people stop appreciating innovation. Most viewers today can’t even recognize the innovations of films like Sunrise, Battleship Potemkin, or Birth of a Nation, but those films are still watched by lovers of cinema. Same thing with the original Star Wars, despite the fact that its effects are quite dated. However, there are people that can appreciate such innovations in context. It doesn’t mean that they’re suddenly appreciating these films for any other reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
She is one of the best actressed of the 20th century, undoubtedly, but GwtW was Selznick’s film and he cared about production values more than anything else, and it’s precisely those technical production values that come through loudest in the film. Leigh has much better performances that are largely forgotten because they’re in much more modest films.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
This has nothing to do with Ridley Scott’s rendering. Scott is a visualist, not a thinker. Whatever themes there are in BR are leftovers from the novel and was never foremost in Scott’s mind. Look at any of his other sci-fi films for proof of this: Alien is a triumph of production design and shock horror, similar with Prometheus. Hell, even The Duelists is a good example of how Scott’s only real strength is his visual eye. Whatever the philosophy of the novel, it’s completely watered down in the film, essentially reduced to banal questions like “what is it to be human?” and the equally banal suggestion that “memories make us human.” It may appear profound to budding intellectual teenagers, or maybe even adults who are moderately intelligent and have never taken a course in philosophy, but it certainly doesn’t impress anyone beyond that. What survives is the setting, the atmosphere, and both are a part of the technical achievements, the production design, lighting, cinematography, music.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
I guess it would depend on one’s threshold for the completely banal. Star Wars’ narrative is exactly that because it does absolutely nothing new with the age-old hero’s journey. If one doesn’t mind a complete lack of innovation, then I guess one could say it was “decent.” Still, considering the hundreds of works that use the same archetype, what is it, exactly, that sets Star Wars a part and made it memorable?Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Ok… it seems like you’re agreeing with me here insofar as real critics take genre standards into account when critiquing any aspect of films. Ebert has admitted before that he does this, quite explicitly when he explained to Siskel why he gave Full Metal Jacket a thumbs down while giving Benji thumbs up. You seem to now be agreeing that the acting in LotR should be critiqued on the standards of other fantasy films, and, if so, I think it’s perfectly fine on that level. It’s certainly better than Star Wars.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Star Wars dialogue is bad, still a great film.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Again, you seem to miss the point that “collections of pretty pictures” can be a primary draw for great films. It’s not to say that any of these films—Five, Koya, DoH—don’t have other worthwhile qualities, but merely that if you take the “pretty pictures” away they are entirely different films that lose what makes them special. It’s the same with LotR; yes, it has a narrative with characters and dialogue, but it’s the setting, cinematography, production design, epic sweep, etc. that makes them worthwhile and special.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Let’s not get into another debate about words: the word “epic” has a distinctly different meaning outside of epic poetry that typically refers to length and the overall grandness of concept. There are plenty of films people refer to as “epic” that has nothing to do with being modeled on the Homer/Virgil/Dante/Milton tradition, and considering I was using it in a cinematic concept, I figured you knew I wasn’t referring to its “epic poetry” meaning.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
I’m claiming neither, but keep stabbing that strawman. Length can be a virtue if the material makes use of it; LotR does, a film like Satantango does as well. Length becomes an integral part of the experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
You think it’s easy managing that size of a crew for that length of time? Most directors would crumble under the pressure.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
What’s ridiculous is that you can’t seem to accept that people can appreciate films for these things and that if one appreciates, eg, the production design and cinematography they may also appreciate the length.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Sorry, to make it less epic, because when Ebert is making no distiction on his critic between genres and you go claiming he is, there is no need to keep arguing. You are kaput. But before it: since when "what people can appreciate" is an good argument if a movie is good or not? Since when I am telling people to like or not something? People like Dan Brown too. Of course, not length. That is an inovation. I suppose they will rename the Oscar to "Longest Movie of the year" and make art quality a matter of metric.
Kaput.
You aren’t specific enough with the themes. Which of these addresses the values of militaristic states versus those founded on respect for learning and knowledge? By the way, I don’t doubt that others have used these themes, and I am sure you would find some if you kept looking—I was mostly just irked that you claimed hundreds, if not thousands, better rendered the same themes, guessing that you would be hard pressed to find even a few.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
When I wrote “LotR renders its themes in a way that seems quite ready to endure,” I was referring to the books, not the films.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
I suspect most readers are cognizant of the themes the first time through, and I never claimed they are particularly original, let alone startlingly so—only that they are integral to the work and enormously relevant to current events. Sacrificing them for the sake of redundant violence diminishes the films.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Tolkien was primarily concerned to forestall specific allegorical readings, especially those connecting the war of the ring with WWII. One needn’t read LotR in allegorical terms to find the themes relevant to our times. Yes Tolkien was interested in the mythology, but also the languages, cultures, themes, history, plot and characterizations. It is you who wants to limit the focus because you think it furthers your argument; It is easy to argue against a caricature of the author rather than a balanced appraisal.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
The poor characterization in the films can’t be excused by the medium. Good acting can more than compensate for the compression, and the number of words spoken by Faramir, for example, is not the problem. The problem is that they are the wrong words. The problem isn’t what can be suggested by cinematic language, it’s what is actually said in spoken language—it is called a script.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
No, it was a perfect ending. In case you missed this: the primary perspective of the books is a hobbit’s-eye perspective, and that is where the primary identification of readers is throughout the whole trilogy. The final indignity of returning to a ravaged homeland and having to put it to rights without the help of wizards, elves, and mythical warriors brings things down to a human (well, Hobbit, that is) level. The loss of a handful of hobbits in the scouring is far more affecting than the loss of thousands in the larger war.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
By the way, I disagree with JCamilo's too strong disparaging of the films also, but only have energy to answer one of you:-)
I do not think you disagree about the movies, you just disagree with me how little I vallue movies because their technical aspect over other aspects such as a script that allows you to deal with themes in a more representative way. I do think if I was a director, I would want Peter Jackson producing it with his crew. However, I would not want him directing my stories. Somehow, it was what saved George Lucas reputation, he quit directing to produce movies. He was much better on that.
I think we agree about the shortcomings of the films. They could have been considerably better; but I give Jackson and crew lots of credit for all that was well done, and for taking on the risk of the project to begin with. If I didn't know the books, I would probably have been more satisfied with the films. But it is not because I need or expect them to be faithful to the text. It is because some of the best qualities of the book put in relief what is lacking—and simply overstuffed—in the films.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Oh, no doubt. Jackson has all credits for managing the production. It was risk, complicated, he jumped from almost 0 to be a major name in the industry. Today he has the freedom to multiply the movie hobbit and i am sure he was restricted to do so with LoTR before. He didnt fail to produce a movie (or 3).
I think, perhaps, we just value different things in filmmaking, overall. I've had this same debate with people over Titanic before, a film I love because I feel it's a triumph of production design of the type that we haven't seen since Hollywood's Golden Age. Of course it's flimsily propped up by a flaccid love story and trite characterizations and conflict, but I'm really at a point in my life where I'm less concerned about those aspects. I tend to feel that when it comes to depicting characters, narrative, and conflict, film will always lag behind novels and plays. On the other hand, the core strength of film is in the visual aspect, and if a director gets that part right, then I'm not as concerned about the rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Goethe's Faust sets up quite clearly the conflict between a life founded on knowledge coming to desire power (state-lead, if not exclusively militaristic) instead and, yes, Faust is an infinitely superior work of literature. Blake repeatedly presents how militaristic states dominate over the desire for knowledge (and creativity) as well, and how both things actually get subsumed and appropriated in such states. Again, that's just off the top of my head; it's not as if one tends to make note of every example they come across unless they're doing research into the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by WyattGwyon
Most "enduring themes" in art are eternally relevant to current events because they represent the conflicts that manifest in nearly every generation in one form or another. As for how integral they are to the work, we can agree to disagree on that, but the point I would make is this: there are some works where people are drawn to the themes and ideas regardless of the setting. One can love Melville's depiction of obsession and mysticism in Moby Dick without giving a damn about whaling, eg. However, I don't think the same could be said about LotR, meaning that people would be interested in those themes were it not for their attraction towards the fantasy setting and mythology. People can find "enduring themes" in Saturday Morning Cartoons, but it doesn't mean that they're watched and enjoyed because of those themes.Quote:
Originally Posted by WyattGwyon
Language, culture, history, plot, and characters are subsumed under the overarching interest in the mythology itself; they become what make up the mythology, so of course he was interested in them as well. I didn't mean to be limited by just saying "mythology," because Blake was just as interested in "mythology," the difference being that Blake was overtly allegorical; his mythology was always in service of his themes. In Tolkien, it's the reverse.Quote:
Originally Posted by WyattGwyon
"Dialogue should simply be a sound among other sounds, just something that comes out of the mouths of people whose eyes tell the story in visual terms." - Alfred HitchcockQuote:
Originally Posted by WyattGwyon
"I write scripts to serve as skeletons awaiting the flesh and sinew of images." - Ingmar Bergman
The importance of script and dialogue is vastly overrated in cinema.
We'll agree to disagree on that as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by WyattGwyon