Randy A. Riddle wrote in response to Curtis Wilcox:
>>>Filmmakers who go into an entire career with only a knowledge of recent
>>>American pop culture are setting their work up to quickly disappear with
>>>all of the other "junk food" generated by our so-called "entertainment
>>>industry". Critics and viewers that limit themselves in this way (and
>>>you defensive people know who you are) are missing out on alot of media
>>>food not generated in New York and Hollywood that's not only _good_ but
>>>_good for you_, too!! :)
I wouldn't say Quentin Tarantino could be among the "junk food" generated by,
if there's one that can be homogenized in a formula, "entertainment
industry." What a film director, rather than a "maker" - and I still don't
understand the difference between film-maker and movie-maker put by James
Tichenor ([log in to unmask]) - has to go through to realize its
cinematographic objectives by default requires the necessary knowledge to a
successful career. "One idea in your head and a camera on your shoulder"
don't consider all the other aspects of a production. Specially because
distribution is a thing of its own.
>> Bullshit. Plenty of great literature has been written by people with no
>> knowledge of literature so it is certainly the case for filmmaking as
Definetely one could never compare those two media. Film is the ultimate
collective industrial art form that even incorporates literature and many
other media in its process.
Cinema is made out of make-believe supported by the hidden aspects of its
apparatus. The technique for making a cinematographic piece is based on the
way that the director creates a world that is consistently authentic - the
best directors can be studied by their authenticity and style, even when
absurdity is the important part of the film's content. As authentic I mean
the capacity of a movie to seduce and convince the audience on the "veracity"
of the world displayed on screen. The illusion that causes different types of
emotional states in the audience that is composed of different individuals:
some mere consumers of the cultural good, i.e. movie, others dedicated to
study the medium based on many methodology and reasons.
>>There is also the matter of glorifying a cool, post-modern wallow in gore
>>violence and defending it as "satire" or "comment" on such matters. It is
>>fast becoming the "gangsta rap" of film criticism.
Violence is a concept developed during the civilization process. It is
definetely one of the key aspects of recognition by a human being. That's why
it's so much in the media. It's a way of self-recognition and, sometimes,
sublimation of being civilized. Nature is naturally violent and that's
nature. Comments on violence and on the display of violence is always
affective. If the comment is authentic, of course.
> << many of the comments I'm seeing [about Pulp Fiction] are based on recent
> American pop culture and a film, for me at least, has to have a little more
> depth than that to get my adrenaline going.>>
See it first than criticizing, a lesson I learned. Depth in a movie can be
also created by the spectator. Oh well:-) Definetely a responsible director
can't try to amuse everyone. Many spectators will disagree for whatever
reasons about something on any movie, others simply don't care. Although,
what is the most important thing for audiences in general is the
identification of its collective uncounsciousness with the audio-visual
metaphors and values in the movie.
Claudio Fernandes - [log in to unmask]