Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The difference between taste and judgment emerges in this way: You can recognize that some films are good even if you don’t like them. You can declare Birth of a Nation or Citizen Kane or Persona an excellent film without finding it to your liking."
Hmm... I will read the essay, but I disagree with this statement. It tacitly requires that one admits two things that I object to. That 1) we should "know better" than to rank emotional affinity on the same par with "intellectual" disinterestedness; and, 2) that such a thing as intellectual disinterestedness even exists. For example, we both admired A Most Wanted Man for its intellectually astute plot and emotionally riveting portrait of one aging, forgotten, noble but detached, protagonist. It's a thriller with a heart.
The argument that we should admire Citizen Kane because we "know" it's better than our gut may concede is specious. It (or any) film about a morally unchanged or bankrupt protagonist is the intellectual equivalent of watching my wall for two hours: nothing has changed. My gut reacts to heroes or anti-heroes who suffer and change or at least suffer and learn. This proscribes whole genres: mob stories and plots where an unthinking criminal is supposed to fascinate. I considered Before the Devil Knows You're Dead an exercise in squalor--as I also consider There Will Be Blood or any other "he-SO-bad" movie that makes no additional point. ("Drive" and "The Place Beyond the Pines" are recent He-SO-Bad movies that offer additional points.)
So I disagree that intellectual disinterestedness can exist at all, because what my gut or ethics admire, my mind admires, and what my gut or ethics disrespect, my mind disrespects.
Hmm... I will read the essay, but I disagree with this statement. It tacitly requires that one admits two things that I object to. That 1) we should "know better" than to rank emotional affinity on the same par with "intellectual" disinterestedness; and, 2) that such a thing as intellectual disinterestedness even exists. For example, we both admired A Most Wanted Man for its intellectually astute plot and emotionally riveting portrait of one aging, forgotten, noble but detached, protagonist. It's a thriller with a heart.
The argument that we should admire Citizen Kane because we "know" it's better than our gut may concede is specious. It (or any) film about a morally unchanged or bankrupt protagonist is the intellectual equivalent of watching my wall for two hours: nothing has changed. My gut reacts to heroes or anti-heroes who suffer and change or at least suffer and learn. This proscribes whole genres: mob stories and plots where an unthinking criminal is supposed to fascinate. I considered Before the Devil Knows You're Dead an exercise in squalor--as I also consider There Will Be Blood or any other "he-SO-bad" movie that makes no additional point. ("Drive" and "The Place Beyond the Pines" are recent He-SO-Bad movies that offer additional points.)
So I disagree that intellectual disinterestedness can exist at all, because what my gut or ethics admire, my mind admires, and what my gut or ethics disrespect, my mind disrespects.
The technical superiority of Citizen Kane in it's day is undeniable, even if you don't like it. It's quantifiable. There really is no argument.
The technical superiority of Citizen Kane in it's day is undeniable, even if you don't like it. It's quantifiable. There really is no argument.
Well, I saw it once, which gave me the right to comment about it without being a total internet arsehole. In that respect, having seen it is good, but I don't think highly of Orson Welles. There were probably lots of men whose potential to helm films was prevented back in the day by Welles' celebrity (definitely males, in that era). It's the Emperor's New Clothes, the way I see it. He was cool because lots of people got together and said he was cool, and they were powerful and affluent and dictated the definition of brilliance. George Lucas' family thought he was a loser until 1977. George Lucas' first two Star Wars films were religious experiences for me, so I developed a strong affinity for cinematic (and other) losers.
Last edited by Purplecow; 12-05-2014 at 09:47 PM..
Reason: spelling
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
