|
|
[ Log In ] [ Register ]
 means the user is online now!
VERY nice two cents there, Post Grant. I would even call it a good buck fifty. I hope you don't mind if I still add some more currency of my own. ^_^
Yes, the world was of a more prudish nature back in Hitchcock's day, but Hitchcock's films were also much milder in terms of sex and violence than most thrillers of the current era. It is my opinion that the reason Hitchcock was once shunned had more to do with his movies being perceived as popular pulp, and not for the artistic elite. It is also my opinion that this mentality still lives today.
Look at "Titanic". When it first was released it did so to a flurry of mostly rave reviews (sans Kenneth Turan) and even swept the Oscars. But as the movie became more and more the apple of the teenage eye and broke all the box office records there was a huge backlash against the film as being sedimental teen pop. Did the film change? No, but it was no longer perceived in the critic community as being worthy of their praise.
What film critics consider to be artistically viable has changed, yes, but that doesn't mean their sight isn't any less narrow, they're just looking in a different direction. Take "The English Patient". It was not a good film from my eyes. There was no creativity in the movie at all, from the photography to the performances but it became a critical darling because it pushed all the right buttons and had all the things that in their view a good movie should have.
I believe critics still needlessly shun great films. On their current hit list is sentimentality and computer effects. Jurassic Park had an okay script and some good actors, but the real stars were the dinosaurs. The film recreated life-like living creatures, replicating the beauty, power, and frighting nature of living animals. To me, that is an artistic accomplishment but rarely will you hear that sort of comment from a critic. It has become a cliche to hear someone complain that a movie was "all special effects" and therefore terrible ignoring the artistry in the special effects themselves. I don't think Leonard Malten is the best example of the critic community as he has become more of a television celebrity and is not taken seriously himself. As a whole, Jurassic Park and movies like it don't get good reviews because their accomplishments aren't what critics deem worthy to accomplish- which is just as limited a view as it was when they turned away from Hitchcock and his very popular methods of psychological suspense.
Yes people want the critics to like them, for one thing that sometimes leads to larger box office. It's also nice to be part of the creative elite.
Just take a look at the Oscars. You never see a wide variety of genres and film styles on the best picture roster. I think that shows little has changed. Techniques and styles have been studied and altered, but the need to form clicks of haves and have nots is still alive and well.
Of course that's just my opinion. I realize this is subjective as the actual reviews of the movies themselves. Like anyone else all, I can do is call it as I see it- and hope my opinion hasn’t been tainted by what those around me have already concluded ;-)
At 1:45:34 AM on 5/11/2001, Post Grant said:
Ah but the thoughtsa of cinema making has changed throughout the years. Peoples idead change alng with society itself thus the cinema is obviously going to be effected. critics back in the days of Hitchcock were old fasioned who didnt like sexual references or explicit violence in movie and thus judegd it harshoy. they were unaware of the cinematic conventions used and their implications in the film. Now, we are more broad minded and we can see how revolutionary his films were and how his techniques emphasised the mechanisms in the plot. We understand film language a lot more and the cinematic process has evolved to a point where any critic can understand the use of unconventional nmethods.
And nopw critics know what theyre looking for. Its not because they none of them "finger on the pulse of creative integrity" its because they have seen so many films they are looking for something different. Jurassic Park was released and it was given 3 and a half stars out of 4 by leonard malten because of its revolunionary techniques to emphasis the films portrayal of dinosaurs and its genre itself. The Matrix recieved a less impressive 2 and a half stars. I disagree with his rating becuase i have my own feelings but it was basically given because the film itself had a high "MJQ" (mumbo jumbo quotent) and a tendancy to change its own rules, and if a critic acan understand what the hell is going on he obviously has a high understanding on the issues at hand and in turn the artistic implecations a film like this attempts to display. Not through lack of creative integrety. Why do you think the opinions of critics are often highly sort after? Because they know what theyre looking for, theyve seen it all. If theyre given bad ratings it doesnt matter because its what they think that matters not the critics. but if a good review is given it obviously has something special to prove that earned that judgement. My two cents.
At 12:59:48 AM on 5/11/2001, Bullitt said:
Well said.
At 12:58:47 AM on 5/11/2001, kiyone said:
Exactly. Some fancy movies are good, some action movies are good. The critics are mostly in their own little club, none of them ever really have their finger on the pulse of creative integrity. History is a far better judge of what worked and what didn't than the critics of the time. Look at Hitchcock. In his day the reviewers HATED him because his style of film making didn't exist within the boundaries of what they thought was artistically viable. Now we know quite well what a genius he was.
At 10:27:43 PM on 5/10/2001, Post Grant said:
Sorry Tim.
True. Who gives a flying rockmellon what the critics think? Not many of the general public thats for sure.
Liet them have their fancy movies. I say, bring on the action!
At 4:55:06 PM on 5/10/2001, kiyone said:
*sigh* boys will be boys, I guess ;P
I seem to recall the French government calling for a ban on Jurassic Park and dinosaur toys and junk back when the first film is released, stating the dinosaurs represented the souring influence of western culture on their more refined diet (of Jerry Lewis, I guess).
*sigh* the French will be French, I guess.
My impression of Cannes is that it's one big shmooze-fest, but in the actual competition it's art flicks only. Popcorn movies like JP3 should stay clear, they're there to get hype, not good reviews- even if it was finished.
As far as I'm concerned there are good art house films and bad ones, just as there are good and bad popcorn movies. It's silly to call one genre superior to another. When people ask me what kind of movies I like, I tell them "good ones".
There, I've said my piece ^_^
At 4:43:51 PM on 5/10/2001, Tim said:
was just making a point that's all......
At 2:47:07 PM on 5/10/2001, Post Grant said:
Find yourself a girlfriend...
At 1:49:36 PM on 5/10/2001, Tim said:
Ah hell..Who am I kidding..I'd rather see naked
chics anywhere, anytime!
At 1:48:17 PM on 5/10/2001, Tim said:
That is, If I were in France..
At 1:47:43 PM on 5/10/2001, Tim said:
I'm sorry guys...but I will have to admit, I would
rather see the naked chics on the beach rather then the jp///
poster..
At 1:04:35 PM on 5/10/2001, Post Grant said:
At last a discussion thats in my fortey.(sp?)
Ah good point but with a new director on the film the movie will no doubt be subject to different points of interest by the critics based on judging the film on some original standards. The film will have some points that were made by Joe himself and not Spielberg, and since the two directors have their own techniques and methods of creating film, no doubt will be judged under a new light. It is sure to be heralded as an action movie, so no doubt there will be many critics, being skilled in the area, of classifying this as a needless sequel, but there will be those who may see it as a project breathing life into an old film, and perhaps given the judge of a "fitting ending." Im sure the citics may see this as a sort of mixed bag.
But yes releasing this film with heavy promotion is nessassary. Let the audience know how good this film is. My friend was not sure what it was gonna be like. He used to be a dino nut and liked both JP and TLW, but he wasnt sure on a 3rd. After seeing the trailer on the net his faith is complete.
But showing in Cannes might have proven usefull by displaying its potential and courage. Joe Johnstons' not the type to tentatively raise his hand say "Erm, guys, i have a film id like to show. Its not bad, its, erm, called Jurassic...*wince*Park...3?"
Its a "YES! THIS IS MY FILM! AND IT IS GOOD! I CALL IT...JURASSIC PARK ///! YEEHA!"
Ok that last line didnt help my point but oh wells.
At 11:16:09 AM on 5/10/2001, Glen said:
It would have been VERY unwise to show JP3 at Cannes. It would have most likely been the victim of many heavy critical attacks, many critics there expect artisic masterpieces and JP3 would most likely fail to please the critics (most of them are French, whose opinions can be very hard on such movies. It would only spread negative word about JP3 weeks before it's theatrical release and these negative comments would have plenty of time to spread through press and moviegoers. So the decision just to heavily promote JP3 is a great idea. as 100s of movie stations and magazines will do coverage on Cannes. + Lets not forget, Universal has the best promotional possibilities, as they have been bought up buy a French company (Vivendi/Canal+)which also have the exclussive right to air live from Cannes. So you can expect lots of promotion during the next two weeks at the festival.
<a href="http://jp3.cjb.net"><b>Glen</a></b>
At 2:05:14 AM on 5/10/2001, Post Grant said:
Sweet! I absolutely adore film fetivals. Im hoping to end up getting some kind of movie of my one getting shone there.
How cool would it be if a bunch of people are dining at tables on the jetty when the Spinosaurus just bursts out of the water and starts terrorising everyone? Thatd rock.
Sorry, you must be logged in to post a comment
|
|
Add DJP3P to your newsreader!
|
