briand@tekig1.UUCP (Brian Diehm) (07/04/84)
{}
Well, Mr. Whitney rails against snob-class films, and since my flame
triggered him I guess I have to reply. The trouble is that he complained
originally against my intolerance, and then appears to desire to replace it
with his own brand of intolerance. Some real backlash here, I think.
Mr. Whitney feels that movies can be entertainment, and can be enjoyed
as such. Fine. Neat. I, too, enjoyed the "original" Star Wars, even though
there was nothing original about it - it was a clean, well executed return to
escapist moviemaking that was refreshing - in 1980.
Where the problem in Mr. Whitney's views comes in is that he thinks this
is the ONLY valid purpose for movies, and I sharply disagree.
> When movies start to preach social issues, or if a society becomes so
> simple-minded that a two-hour flick can change entire society's views
> on some big subject, then that is when movies get out of hand and their
> focus of purpose entirely lost.
C'mon, now. Movies are a form of literature. There is vapid literature (e.g.
Harold Robbins) and great literature. Literature can be effective as a cat-
ylist in forming societal opinions, and it doesn't have to be pretentious to
do so. For example, "1984" is a simple book, simplisticly told. It also had
untold effect upon an entire generation. It is literature.
When Mr. Whitney eliminates that pinnacle of literate achievement, he
limits the medium of movies (I don't know HOW he feels about books) to the
puerile level. There's more than that to it, and it is insulting to an art
form to imply it can't rise above the trivial. It is even insulting to imply
that the puerile level is the PURPOSE of that art form.
Yes, my original flame showed intolerance (perhaps the intolerance of an
ET doll in heat? :-) ), but this is totally unacceptable.
Perhaps the problem Mr. Whitney is having is in distinguishing pap from
content. For example, he holds up "Terms of Endearment" as a "snob-class" and
"pretentious" film, and cites as his references the "critics" and the Academy.
Well.
I, and many others, found this film to be nothing but a soap opera, and
one peopled by unattractive and morally weak characters. Further, it was a
very sexist film. As literature, it didn't rise much above the level of pure
entertainment, and as entertainment it was boring. Now this is my opinion,
but if I am to be chided for pushing "snob-class" and "pretentious" films, then
I should at least be allowed to select the films for which I am being criti-
cized. I found "Terms" to be pretentious, and very successful at putting one
over on the critics, but I hardly found it "snob-class", if by "snob-class"
Mr. Whitney means "beyond entertainment" and "attainment in literature."
My original flame was about endless net.movies comment on trivial films.
It was an attempt (though snide, I admit) at consciousness raising. Perhaps
my best argument for the necessity of this effort is the rather bigoted, and
ill informed, opinions expressed by Mr. Whitney. The very fact that he is
unable to differentiate between good and trivial literature of movies is
symptomatic of a societal morass.
Here's to literature, both for entertainment AND for involvement,
learning, caring, sharing, growing, and building.
-Brian Diehm
Tektronix, Inc.dwhitney@uok.UUCP (07/09/84)
#R:tekig1:-170200:uok:5100035:000:1794 uok!dwhitney Jul 8 19:05:00 1984 You think movies are supposed to be literature. Wonderful. Pick you favorite piece of literature (Paradise Lost, or maybe a Shakespearian play.) Give it a great big budget with your favorite studio, release it in the summer to give it plenty of exposure, and I can tell you how many people will see it. Five. The Director, The Producer, The Writer, The Studio President, and the Star. They will gather to pat each other on the back on the fine piece of literature they have made while the film moans like a beached whale at the box office because no one pays to see it. When push comes to shove, like it or not, the only movies that make money are entertainment movies, not political-social ones. (Thats why The Day After was on ABC and not released through the theaters, don't you suppose? Would there have been an audience for it at $5.00 a ticket?? Right. Everyone who believes that stand on their head.) I still stand behind my point. Individuals dont need Hollywood directors and producers telling them how to live, and the purpose of movies is to entertain. Somehow, I get this silly feeling I best know how to run my own life. Maybe that's not a popular position, and maybe I am totally incorrect in my assumption, but I feel most people would agree with me. Look at the receipts of the box office winners so far this summer. Which are making money, and which arent. Which arent even being made, because the studios know there is not an audience for them. (No, seven people does not constitute an audience.) Oh, well, I have belabored the point enough. I dont expect to change anyones mind, I just felt it necessary to reinforce my position. The successful films will always be entertainment-oriented ones, like it or not. David Whitney ctvax!uokvax!uok!dwhitney
alex@sdcsvax.UUCP (07/11/84)
Should we all get together and pool our money to get Whitney a "'" key? His terminal obviously lacks it.
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/12/84)
> You think movies are supposed to be literature. Wonderful. Pick you favorite > piece of literature (Paradise Lost, or maybe a Shakespearian play.) Give it > a great big budget with your favorite studio, release it in the summer to give > it plenty of exposure, and I can tell you how many people will see it. > Five. The Director, The Producer, The Writer, The Studio President, and the > Star. They will gather to pat each other on the back on the fine piece of > literature they have made while the film moans like a beached whale at the > box office because no one pays to see it. When push comes to shove, like it > or not, the only movies that make money are entertainment movies, not > political-social ones. Which fails to explain movies like China Syndrome, Z, Gandhi, Annie Hall, Life of Brian, 2001, Clockwork Orange, Dr. Strangelove, Citizen Kane, and hundreds more that were both successful and political/social/ intellectual/more-than-just-pap-for-people-who-want-to-be-entertained (i.e., would rather not have to think). Sorry, your statement holds no water. > I still stand behind my point. Individuals dont need Hollywood directors > and producers telling them how to live, and the purpose of movies is to > entertain. Somehow, I get this silly feeling I best know how to run my > own life. Maybe that's not a popular position, and maybe I am totally > incorrect in my assumption, but I feel most people would agree with me. Offering alternate perspectives or personal insights in a film is thought of by some as "telling me how to live". Obviously they know everything there is to know about life, and don't need books or films or even other people to offer them anything new. What's really ironic is that such people feel that this is being individualistic: "I know how to run my own life; I don't need anybody telling me how to do it by showing me other things I don't know about in films and books. I just want to be entertained and run my own life as an individual." What's ironic is that, with this line of thinking, such people wind up on the lines to see all the spineless "entertaining" films like "High School Sex Party" et al (which do, in fact, make even the most blatant moneygrabbing flicks seem like masterworks by comparison). A million people buying Kenny Rogers albums, or eating at McDonald's, or watching "Real People" has little or nothing to do with anything; it just means that millions of people have been taught to be spineless as well and to like whatever is thrown at them (and to *purchase* it!). > Look at the receipts of the box office winners so far this summer. Which > are making money, and which arent. My point exactly. > Oh, well, I have belabored the point enough. I dont expect to change > anyones mind, I just felt it necessary to reinforce my position. The > successful films will always be entertainment-oriented ones, like it or not. Except for the ones I've mentioned, the ones others will probably mention, and the as yet unheard of ones to come that are made by people who know it's easy enough to be entertaining (Hollywood/TV/music industry execs have it down to a science!!!), but difficult to both entertain and show some real worth. I really didn't intend for this article to have the nasty tone it does, because I feel more sorry for people who have learned only know-nothing anti- intellectual mentality than I feel angry at them. And I can't exactly believe that people choose to be that way voluntarily; it's a learned behavior, and probably hard to unlearn. -- This unit humbly and deeply apologizes for having and expressing opinions. This will not occur again. (BEEP) Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr