Mind you the final point - the will allow her to read it better part, while I generally agree with it, disagreement with it is the basis of many anti-intellectual arguments.
― Pete (Pete), Friday, 10 January 2003 11:24 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Friday, 10 January 2003 11:25 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Pete (Pete), Friday, 10 January 2003 11:28 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Friday, 10 January 2003 11:31 (twenty-one years ago) link
― mark s (mark s), Friday, 10 January 2003 11:37 (twenty-one years ago) link
Escape from freedom! (I think ILx could write a better version).
― Pete (Pete), Friday, 10 January 2003 11:45 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Friday, 10 January 2003 11:53 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Alan (Alan), Friday, 10 January 2003 12:04 (twenty-one years ago) link
Chapter 11 The Doctor's Plan
Chapter 12 Escape From Freedom
― Tom (Groke), Friday, 10 January 2003 12:12 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Friday, 10 January 2003 12:13 (twenty-one years ago) link
as in,surely it can't be that *right now*,its finally happened,we've reached the point in history when all great art has been made,and from now on people should just abandon the idea of trying to make an ambitious album/film/etc,and instead of trying to write the great british novel,the next dickens should scale it down a bit and aim for the mildly entertaining stoke-on-trent short story?i mean,i'm sure there were people after shakespeare,mozart,homer,writing saying right,that's it,this art form has achieved all it can,all this new fangled bollocks is just a fad,etc (in fact,i vaguely remember reading an essay from elizabethan times suggesting that drama was dead as an art form,and had been since sophocles)
― robin (robin), Friday, 10 January 2003 13:52 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Alan (Alan), Friday, 10 January 2003 13:55 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Pete (Pete), Friday, 10 January 2003 13:59 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Friday, 10 January 2003 14:00 (twenty-one years ago) link
*referring to my above post,but there have been several since...
― robin (robin), Friday, 10 January 2003 14:01 (twenty-one years ago) link
this is interestingbut it kind of creates a catch 22 situation-if we are stuck in a rut where a "classic" anything is impossible because everyone is trying to write one using the standard criteria,then the answer would appear to be that we need something to come along and change all this,point the way forewardbut then this would have to be exactly the sort of classic/important/event work of art we're so cynical about in the first place?do we just have to sit around and hope that someone will accidentally write the great american novel?
― robin (robin), Friday, 10 January 2003 14:02 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Tom (Groke), Friday, 10 January 2003 14:02 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Alan (Alan), Friday, 10 January 2003 14:03 (twenty-one years ago) link
I think you're better off writing for money than art.
(BTW - in Doctor Who, if the freindly local was you become a companion they would not have Cahpter 9: Betrayal, instead it would be replaced by Chapter 9: A Brief Respite - when they introduced them to the wonders of the Tardis).
― Pete (Pete), Friday, 10 January 2003 14:10 (twenty-one years ago) link
pete,i'm not really referring to people sitting down saying,right,i'm going to write the greatest book in the history of literaturei mean more if someone is writing an ambitious novel with a large scope,are they doomed to failureorare we doomed to have it pass us by because nowadays,if someone does write a 600 page novel dealing with major issues,it will be presented to us as "the first great american novel of the 21st century","the greatest book since the bible"etc by the publishers,papers,etc and thus we will be cynical about iti mean i know franzen announced that he was going to write the great american novel,but say something like gangs of new york,i dunno whether it is any good or not,and i seriously doubt it will be a truly amazing film,but even if it was because of its scope and ambition it will be so hyped its bound to be underwhelming...
― robin (robin), Friday, 10 January 2003 14:12 (twenty-one years ago) link
heh. both of us discussed this earlier in the week when martin let me borrow a couple of PKD novels and a Jim thompson one. and i thought abt that discussion when i saw the thread yesterday.
I think when we discussed SF movies we both agreed thta most of those weren't THAT good (though you praised the movie based on 'solaris'). Hollywood tends to take a couple of chapters and go off at a more 'entertaining' tangent.
As far as books go there is a lot of snobbery towards the SF/crime end of things. The 'classics' are definetetly preferred (hey they are longer, 600+ pages and more 'challenging'...yeah, right).
― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Friday, 10 January 2003 14:18 (twenty-one years ago) link
not in regard to being accepted into the "canon",just in terms of writing a great book* that deals with big themes and has a large scope,a book that *could* (or should) be regarded as "important/a classic",regardless of whether it is seen as such (ie accepted into the canon)
*or recording a great album,or whatever
― robin (robin), Friday, 10 January 2003 14:19 (twenty-one years ago) link
Have we had that entertainment vs art question yet?
― Pete (Pete), Friday, 10 January 2003 14:19 (twenty-one years ago) link
and then when i read it it turned out that it was basically a second rate sci-fi story interjected with middle aged men getting joyless blowjobs and having meandering,name/concept dropping philosophical discussions...but because it was presented as a literary novel dealing with the big questions,it was accepted as such
― robin (robin), Friday, 10 January 2003 14:25 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Friday, 10 January 2003 14:30 (twenty-one years ago) link
― robin (robin), Friday, 10 January 2003 14:31 (twenty-one years ago) link
Ha ha and he calls *me* arrogant.
― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 10 January 2003 14:31 (twenty-one years ago) link
I think you are probably right about City Of God being aimed to be bigger budget bigger scope (and it is based on a bestselling Brazillian novel as well which also ties it in that way). And of course me telling people to go and see it will instantly raise the suspicions of people who generally disagree with my taste in films. Wheras I don't think anyone else will probably see "Take Care Of My Cat" - and I don't want to big it up because I think its a film that just touched me in a certain mood. How do I tell?
― Pete (Pete), Friday, 10 January 2003 14:35 (twenty-one years ago) link
i know what you mean about not wanting to go on about something because it just touched you in a certain mood,and i suppose at the end of the day most films/books/albums that people will love,that will really mean something to them,are down to that,so i suppose what "great" works of art do is touch a nerve with most people,which i suppose is why they have to deal with the "big themes"
i suppose its just a question of how well its done,and maybe noone is doing it well at the moment,or,as i think is more likely,maybe the media requires it to look like someone is doing it to validate art/promote sales,so they look for someone who deals with universal issues,heap praise on it,and because we soon realise that these "great" things seldom live up to the hype,were all cynical about them,and this is what i mean,that the problem is not with the idea of the great american novel,its just that its become a boy who cried wolf situation...
― robin (robin), Friday, 10 January 2003 14:45 (twenty-one years ago) link
― robin (robin), Friday, 10 January 2003 14:53 (twenty-one years ago) link
But are people still reading The Bonfire Of The Vanities now?
― Pete (Pete), Friday, 10 January 2003 14:55 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Friday, 10 January 2003 14:59 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Friday, 10 January 2003 15:06 (twenty-one years ago) link
A weird point about the genre prejudice thing is music, where as far as a lot of mags and critics are concerned, the mainstream seems to equal white men with guitars. Other genres are treated tokenistically, as if each offers one person you have to acknowledge, and you can ignore the rest - Lee Perry is the reggae producer, Billie Holiday is the jazz singer, Otis Redding the soul singer. With black forms, it helps to wait twenty years or so...
― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Friday, 10 January 2003 19:52 (twenty-one years ago) link
i was more referring to ambitious projects which *could* become classics (as all classics were once) because of their scope
for example the roots album is (by all accounts-i wish i was more familiar with the specific examples being discussed here)hardly an attempt to merely copy classic hip hop like jurrassic five do (oh i now see where some confusion could have arisen-jurrassic five are trying to make a "classic"hip hop album,as in one that ties in with what is considered classic hiphop,but they aren't trying to make a classic in the sense that it will be regarded as a hip hop milestone)it is an attempt,from what i've read,including an interview with the band itself,to create an album that goes beyond normal hiphop,ie an important,future classic albumis it just me or are people cynical about people like the flaming lips,roots,etc in their efforts to redefine their chosen medium,whereas mike skinner can actually write a song called "lets push things foreward" and get away with it?because the roots are an established group,(or scorsese an established director)should they not try to do something that raises the bar?
― robin (robin), Friday, 10 January 2003 20:15 (twenty-one years ago) link
I am all in favour of great ambition, and I don't see it as any more problematical these days than most enterprises are in a PoMo world.
― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Friday, 10 January 2003 20:34 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 10 January 2003 21:25 (twenty-one years ago) link
― robin (robin), Friday, 10 January 2003 21:40 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Saturday, 25 October 2003 18:47 (twenty years ago) link
― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 27 October 2003 11:37 (twenty years ago) link
I think second guessing your audience is potentially problematic, especially if you are trying to create a classic. (Especailly if you are going to write it in an attic).
― Pete (Pete), Monday, 27 October 2003 12:01 (twenty years ago) link
Loads of classic-y stuff dates very quickly, and pulp stuff like 'Out of the Past' is still golden -- on the other hand stuff that has gone out of fashion sometimes comes back.
There aren't too many rules.
― Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 27 October 2003 12:06 (twenty years ago) link
― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 27 October 2003 12:29 (twenty years ago) link
Basically, when I'm in charge the first act of state will be to transfer every film in the history of the world on to DVD. Then we can decide what's classic. Till then we don't have a chance.
― Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 27 October 2003 12:40 (twenty years ago) link
(Also missing out the films which simply do not exist any more...)
― Pete (Pete), Monday, 27 October 2003 12:50 (twenty years ago) link
By definition, any sense of the word that rejects those two films is useless.
― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 27 October 2003 12:51 (twenty years ago) link
Well sure, yeah, you're right. But it would be nice to have more than exists, like Renoir's 'Nana', or Murnau's 'The Last Laugh' or, or, or, and not have to travel on the Red Bus to see stuff late at nite.
― Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 27 October 2003 12:55 (twenty years ago) link
― Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 27 October 2003 12:57 (twenty years ago) link
I am interested to see how much the Matrix's classic rep is going to be damamged by the sequels. I am already gratified to see that Star Wars currency is finally going down due to the prequels (and the Star Wars babies finally getting over twenty one and being needlessly vocal about a kids movie).
Can we perhaps invent the idea of an influential film (a film which brooks imitation, or from an economic point of view is seen as worthy of imitation)? Certainly COG and Matress would fit into this defn.
― Pete (Pete), Monday, 27 October 2003 13:04 (twenty years ago) link
'Westworld''On the Town''Pepe Le Moko''Fast Times at Ridgemont High'
― Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 27 October 2003 13:07 (twenty years ago) link