Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 8 Oct 1998 16:20:36 -0700 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Jason Lapeyere writes:
>a film is defined by popular critics as "realistic" if it
>shows an audience what they believe to be true about themselves at the
>time that they see it. The recent trend in Hollywood cinema of showing
>the President of the U.S. as incompetent and ineffective in films like
>"Absolute Power", "Primary Colours" and "Armageddon" - this representation
>is acceptable to American audiences of the late '90s but probably wouldn't
>have washed in the late '50s. Why? I think a simplistic answer would
>look at the disillusionment of American culture with big government and
>the perception of politicians as cut off from the public. In that sense,
>it is "realistic", but bear in mind it's a constantly shifting definition.
True enough: any work that plays the game (form or content) can be called
realistic nowadays. This is however quite the opposite of Courbet and his
Stonebreakers (not a rock group). *Realism* then introduced the other as a
subject for art in a way that terrified the painting world. At that time
*realism* was a revolutionary tool: no wonder it got quickly domesticated
into a parody of its former self!
Jean-Pierre
----
To sign off SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]
|
|
|