"Dale Houstman" <dmh7@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:40411A9E.2060203@citilink.com...
>
>
> 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.
I'm gambling that Elag meant in spite of instead of "in light of"
up above.
|
| 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 |
|