Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: elag <elag@cloud8.net>
Newsgroups: alt.surrealism
Subject: Re: Best surrealistic directors / movies?
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 00:43:12 -0500
Organization: turn on; tune in; drop out
Message-ID: <40457070.4D1DA2B2@cloud8.net>
Reply-To: elag@cloud8.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: 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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Lines: 114
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.surrealism:1109
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.
No, I meant "in light of", however, what I should have said was: I would
rather VIEW them in the CONTEXT of Cocteau's life rather than ignore
them because of unsavory aspects of his life.
I might say the same of Celine, Al Capp or G.G. Allin all of whom have
philosophical lead feet from my perspective.
In any case my comments weren't meant as a challenge... they're merely
thoughts I had about a filmmaker whose work I've enjoyed. Since his
work was called into question as "a joke" I thought I might venture a
few positive thoughts or points to ponder.
--
replace "8" with "9" to reply
|
| 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 |
|