Donald, You must favor the second explanation, then, since you see the intra-group differences as larger than the inter-group differences. Thanks for your comment, Norm Holland On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Larsson, Donald F <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > I don't really understand the question you pose or your respondents' > replies. As provisional as any categorization of the earlier directors may > be (see David Bordwell's description of the "art cinema as a mode of > production" in "Narration in the Fiction Film"), the second group seems > less coherent in historical terms. I don't know much of Ruiz's work, > except that he was amazingly prolific and diverse in style in his short > lifetime and is best known for his filmed-for-tv costume epic "The > Mysteries of Lisbon." Tarkovsky made only a handful of films in his short > life and has been dead for almost 26 years. Tarr's films differ in style, > and he has claimed influence by Fassbinder, who himself is stylistically > difficult to pigeon-hole. And Lynch is, well, Lynch. > > As far as "high status" goes, certainly Tarr and Tarkovsky do not fit the > first response group's explanation as appealing (!) to "people who want > immediate sensation and emotion." Take the "e" (electronic/digital media, > I assume) out of that group's characterization of critics and audiences > conditioned by "a computerized, media-ized, and e-musicked world," and it > seems to me that their reply is far better suited in various ways to the > earlier group of directors (especially the Antonioni of "Blow-Up" and > "Zabriskie Point" and early Godard). (And, of course, many critics had and > still have trouble watching or analyzing those directors' films.) > > If Tarr, Tarkovsky and Lynch at least have anything in common, it may be > that their aims are more metaphysical than existential and psychological or > overtly political. But even then the distinctions aren't hard and fast. > (Are they ever?) Antonioni's avowed aim to was to probe the mysteries of > the surface of the world, after all. > > Don Larsson > > ___________________________________________________ > "I don't deduce. I observe." > --Roger O Thornhill > > Donald F. Larsson, Professor > English Department, Minnesota State University, Mankato > Email: [log in to unmask] > ________________________________________ > From: Film and TV Studies Discussion List [[log in to unmask]] on > behalf of Norman Holland [[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 9:31 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: [SCREEN-L] Query / Answers > > A few days ago, I sent around a query (see below). Why the high status > accorded films by Ruiz, Tarr, Tarkovsky, and Lynch compared to 50s and 60s > auteurs like Bergman, Fellini, or Antonioni? And is there a way to set > one's mind to enjoy them? If you're curious, I got basically two lines of > response. > > One group said that this change in taste reflected a computerized, > media-ized, and e-musicked world in which people want immediate sensation > and emotion and don't care any more about traditional ideas of motivation, > character, plot, or timing. > > A much smaller, but to me more subtle group, said that this was a > difference of degree, not kind. To quote one of my respondents, "Is Lynch > any more alienating than Godard though? . . . . Are the longeurs in Béla > Tarr so much different from those in Antonioni?" I think this is an > intriguing point of view. > > I still, however, have great difficulty in either enjoying these films or > analyzing them. Let's see how it all plays out, whether their current high > reputation will continue and what critics write about them in the future. > > --With warm regards, > > Norm > normholland(at)gmail.com > > > A query. As I review non-Hollywood films for our local Film Club, I am > > struck by the admiration and awards accorded filmmakers in the style of > > Raoul Ruiz, Bela Tarr, Andrei Tarkovsky, or David Lynch. They seem to me > > to be occupying the place in the pantheon that Bergman, Fellini, or > > Antonioni occupied in the '60s. Yet they also seem to me to have almost > > totally abandoned conventional ideas of story, character, and motivation > > while providing extraordinary effects in individual shots and scenes. > > Bergman famously said of Tarkovsky, that he had developed "a new > language, > > true to the nature of film, as it captures life as a reflection, life as > a > > dream." > > > > Do you have any explanation for this change in taste? And how does one > > set one's mind to enjoy this kind of film? > > > > ---- > Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the > University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu > ---- > Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite > http://www.ScreenSite.org > ---- Learn to speak like a film/TV professor! Listen to the ScreenLex podcast: http://www.screenlex.org