| Re: Best surrealistic directors / movies? |
Posted via Supernews, ht .. |
| Dale Houstman (dmh7@citilink.com) |
2004/03/01 10:10 |
Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Dale Houstman <dmh7@citilink.com>
Newsgroups: alt.surrealism
Subject: Re: Best surrealistic directors / movies?
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 11:10:50 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <40436E9A.6080503@citilink.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BC56C26F.1105B%a-moss@online.no> <403291CE.6F35@perfectOMITmail.com> <BC597A15.111D9%a-moss@online.no> <4033F095.FCE@perfectOMITmail.com> <CRh_b.8348$J84.5401@fe1.texas.rr.com> <403A02A0.1030905@citilink.com> <h3s_b.10029$J84.6025@fe1.texas.rr.com> <403E4087.281D172B@cloud8.net> <40411A9E.2060203@citilink.com> <csJ0c.22956$OH4.20138@fe2.texas.rr.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Lines: 124
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.surrealism:1104
john adams wrote:
> "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.
Possibly. But one point still remains: nobody was saying they wouldn't
see Cocteau's films because of his "lifestyle" only that it was
impossible to consider him a surrealist because of same. After all,
surrealism is more than the "product" and Cocteau's celebrity-baiting
and war activities preclude his consideration, even if he had wanted to
hang with such a bunch of poor people. The films can be viewed on their
own merits, but his surrealist "credentials" cannot.
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 |
|
|