elag wrote:
> john adams wrote:
>
>>"Dale Houstman" <dmh7@citilink.com> wrote in message
>>news:403A02A0.1030905@citilink.com...
>>
>>>
>>>john adams wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Parry" <parry@perfectOMITmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:4033F095.FCE@perfectOMITmail.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Andreas Moss wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks for a GREAT answer Parry.
>>>>>>Well, surrealism or surrealistic.. I don't really care. To me its just
>>>>>
>>a
>>
>>>>>>keyword to finding movies I seem to enjoy. (Even though I would argue
>>>>>
>>on
>>
>>>>>>early Lynch not being surrealism.., but thats not important..)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>May I add some questions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1. Why is Jean Cocteau a joke? I haven't seen anything with him, but I
>>>>>
>>>>heard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>he's done some good movies? Could you elaborate?
>>>>>
>>>>>He's a director who, in ancient times, would wrongly be labeled
>>>>>"surrealist." Surrealists hate him for being a pretentious,
>>>>>religionistic "fake poet."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I still think Blood of a Poet is great now and especially for its time.
>>>>
>>>>"..."
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I think he made several interesting films, including "Beauty and the
>>>Beast" and "L'Enfants Terribles" but after reading his memoirs, I
>>>discovered he was an appalling lover of Nazi parties, luxury, and
>>>celebrities, a social-climber, and an elitist aesthete.
>>
>>That's what I've heard. Not very much to be proud of, unless you
>>like nazi parties, celebrities, luxury, and elitism.
>
>
>
> Still, I enjoy his films, such as they are, and I should view them,
> rather than ignore them, in light of Cocteau's life. The same might be
> said of "Olympia" or "Triumph of the Will" (admittedly extreme
> examples). These all have at the least a historical value.
>
Any film will. But I don't see that I - or anyone else- is particularly
repulsed by his work. All the negative comments have been about his
lifestyle, which I find suspect. But first you tell us to separate the
work from the worker, and now you suggest we should see the work in
light of the worker. Seems a bit confusing to me.
I've seen both Olympia and Triumph: terrific films, but I think it is
almost impossible - especially in those cases - to separate out the work
from the worker, since the work so deeply reflects her Nazism. So if we
do as you (contrarily) suggest and consider the work in light of the
worker, it comes off worse: she is known to have used slave labor in at
least one of her films. These are both films of glorification, and have
to be seen in light of what she is glorifying. D.W. Griffith is in much
the same boat. One can praise Birth Of A Nation for its invention of the
modern cinematic tools, but it is silly not to notice its glorification
of the KKK as being somehow significant. I haven't noticed - in
particular - that this sort of error occurs in Cocteau, so perhaps it is
an easier pill to swallow. But I don't think - from a surrealist point
of view - that one can praise a beautiful image from the mind of a
fascist, and feel good about it in the morning.
dmh
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 |
|