|
Post by nickhaffieemslie on Feb 2, 2007 12:17:45 GMT -5
Here's David Bordwell (of the Theorywood supercouple Bordwell & Thompson) on sensationalism in idie filmmaking. He thinks Matthew Barney's innard fixation and Dakota Fanning getting raped are just a little too much of the same unimaginative schock therapy, and nostalgically pines for "Ozu, Mizoguchi, Naruse, Dreyer, Renoir, Ford, Tati, Keaton, Hou Hsiao-hsien, Kiarostami" who present unique visions of the world without the entrails. He's not against dark films per se, but he seems to be reacting against it as a sales technique. It's all well and good to criticize the sellouts, but do we really have to be cynical about the fact that the grotesque sells? Is the grotesque and abject something we like to consume but shouldn't? Or is there something legitimately theoretically/artistically/whateverly interesting about the grotesque that renders it worthy of our consideration and reflection as a phenomenon on its own (i.e. films like these that are about grotesqueness)?
|
|
rymo
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by rymo on Feb 4, 2007 16:22:46 GMT -5
I saw an interview with Terry Gilliam earlier this morning where this notion of "line stepping" came up. Gilliam's films never recieve much critic praise yet they always seem to work their way into the fabric of society (look how many Fear and Loathing posters you see on the walls of well mannered fratboys). Gilliam said that he is happy to be one of the artists who pushes the boundaries of acceptability: He made a splitting motion with his hands and went "rrrrryaaargh, gimme some room!"
The grotesque is what borders on the limits of repulsion and since most borders are porous there are monsters of the grotesque that slip through to the acceptable side of the border. Laws of diffusion etc. The choice is then up to the artist to test the borders to see what the reaction of the society is. And if one chooses to see Matthew Barny's movie that has graphic child rape in it, and apparently some other relevant elements in it, later deciding that "Hey that wasn't so bad, in fact it made me more disgusted with the people who rape children through experiencing it. I'm going to go punch R.Kelly in his teeth." (Who's bordering on the grotesque now?) it was probably a border that was ready to be tested. Again, the other side of this is the problem that you CAN make a movie that hurts so bad that very few sympathize with it and you never get funding again. Its a tricky game but if one can play it right and hold the wide angled dirty mirror up to the face of society, society sees it's grotesque self and can take the first step by buying some Windex.
|
|
|
Post by fraser on Feb 5, 2007 14:35:34 GMT -5
The way you paraphrase Bordwell, it seems like a question of taste. For most people, it's a question of ethics or morality. At the core, they're really the same thing. Both resolve around questions of universal v. personal standards. Society, I guess, falls in between -- to acknowledge societal standards of 'taste' or morality is to acknowledge a multiplicity of socially constructed systems of understanding. But most societies accept practices that are clearly immoral, or even evil --- from our perspective at least. Is there an absolute morality? Absolute standard of taste, a good film, a bad film? I totally want there to be, but as soon as you start to write down rules you run into all sorts of trouble.
I don't know.
For the most part I dig Bordwell's aesthetic. (His strict adherence to it though, hints at some sort of repression.) I want there to be a line. I've just no idea where it is or how to find it.
|
|
|
Post by fraser on Feb 5, 2007 14:38:05 GMT -5
And yes, the grotesque is absolutely necessary for bringing all that repressed stuff to the surface so we can windex it. Awesome metaphor...
|
|