The Shoutbox
Originally Posted by Chypmunk
Yeah, editing is very much a part of Advance Shouting
Get in line now,
Get in line now,
Stay in time with the rhythm and rhyme.
Get around town,
No need to stand out,
Add your voice to the sound of the shout....
Ooh-oooohhh that sound. The sound of shouts around you.
In shoutbox quote deep dives, you really need a kick to pull you back out else you risk getting trapped in your quote's subconscious mind.

BWAAAAAH
bom bom bom bom bom
bwah-bwah BWAAAAAAAHmm
Yeah, editing is very much a part of Advance Shouting
I wanted to edit ‘extend’ so it became ‘extent’, but I’m not touching that ‘edit’ button ever again.
Ok, I’m done. I don’t know what’s going on.
Originally Posted by AgrippinaX
Originally Posted by Iroquois
Originally Posted by AgrippinaX
Originally Posted by Iroquois
Originally Posted by AgrippinaX
Yes, but not every work has an inherent sense of meaning beyond being a story where a sequence of events leads to a thematic conclusion. There’s a lot to be said for the aesthetic approach. Beauty in architecture and even human proportions has objective parameters, such as the golden ratio. No such objective measures exist to determine whether a film or a novel possess the quality of beauty. But I would say that while every work of art has an ideology, that comes from the author and his beliefs, preconceptions and prejudices. It doesn’t always translate to the work itself, and it’s perfectly possible to create a narrative that is just a narrative, with little or no moral compass or a ‘point’ to make. It’s up to anyone to like or dislike such a work, but art itself does not inherently carry a message. I don’t think that ‘anything goes’ in interpreting a given work of art, as some interpretations can be plain wrong, but some works of art do not exist to be interpreted at all and constitute pure entertainment. That should not, in my view, take away from their validity and right to exist, though to engage or not engage with them is a personal choice. I would say that approaching a film or a novel at face value and analysing how it works in terms of storytelling, without taking into account its message if such exists, is viewing it in an abstract manner.
A fair point, though I would think that also calls into question at what point you delineate between art and entertainment - depending on the piece in question, it can have as much (or as little) of a point as possible. Even films that do aim to be pure entertainment without intending any deeper message can end up compromised not just by ideology but by their aesthetics (whether related to ideology or not).
Yes, it is certainly not a given that a work of art that aims to be pure entertainment does not also make a point of carry a message. But some films clearly appear to have none beyond telling a story (unless you delve deep into dubious sacral interpretations). Off the top of my head, a film I’d be hard pressed to find a message in is ‘Ocean’s Eleven’, beyond the usual heist film logic whereby several skilled guys outsmart a smug guy and live happily ever after. I think it’s ultimately a personal choice to look or not look for a message in art.
Soderbergh seems like the kind of filmmaker who's clever enough to add at least some subtext even to his lighter films (e.g. Logan Lucky or Magic Mike) but I'm not sure I could tell you what the Ocean's movies in particular are about. That may explain why I never liked them.
I’m not too fond of Soderbergh myself. The best thing he’s made, in my opinion, is ‘Sex, Lies and Videotape’. But I think we got here by exploring to what extent an abstract approach to art is possible. You don’t have to like Soderbergh, but his prominence and the success of both the ‘Ocean’ stuff and ‘Magic Mike’ shows there is an audience for such films. I don’t think we can just dismiss that audience.

On a separate note, I think almost all films, from ‘The Sound of Music’ and ‘Cabaret’ to Star Wars’ are about a connection between human beings, loss, love and so forth. Virtually any film will touch on these common denominators. The question then is which films do it more effectively and why, in which case ‘Star Wars’ probably loses and ‘The Sound of Music’ probably wins, though even that is just an opinion. I’d be interested to hear your definition of what any film of your choosing is about, just so I could see what exactly you mean by ‘about’.

I remember reading a discussion about whether the Harry Potter books should be part of the school syllabus to encourage children to read. Luckily, the majority of the participants said ‘no’. But then those that said ‘yes’ made a creepily convincing argument about how Harry Potter touches on friendship, love and loss in ways that are probably more accessible to children than Shakespeare. I know it’s not exactly relevant, but it just shows that all art is about the same things in some sense.
Why on Earth is my post there twice?!
That’s a lot of reading.
Originally Posted by Iroquois
Originally Posted by AgrippinaX
Originally Posted by Iroquois
Originally Posted by AgrippinaX
Yes, but not every work has an inherent sense of meaning beyond being a story where a sequence of events leads to a thematic conclusion. There’s a lot to be said for the aesthetic approach. Beauty in architecture and even human proportions has objective parameters, such as the golden ratio. No such objective measures exist to determine whether a film or a novel possess the quality of beauty. But I would say that while every work of art has an ideology, that comes from the author and his beliefs, preconceptions and prejudices. It doesn’t always translate to the work itself, and it’s perfectly possible to create a narrative that is just a narrative, with little or no moral compass or a ‘point’ to make. It’s up to anyone to like or dislike such a work, but art itself does not inherently carry a message. I don’t think that ‘anything goes’ in interpreting a given work of art, as some interpretations can be plain wrong, but some works of art do not exist to be interpreted at all and constitute pure entertainment. That should not, in my view, take away from their validity and right to exist, though to engage or not engage with them is a personal choice. I would say that approaching a film or a novel at face value and analysing how it works in terms of storytelling, without taking into account its message if such exists, is viewing it in an abstract manner.
A fair point, though I would think that also calls into question at what point you delineate between art and entertainment - depending on the piece in question, it can have as much (or as little) of a point as possible. Even films that do aim to be pure entertainment without intending any deeper message can end up compromised not just by ideology but by their aesthetics (whether related to ideology or not).
Yes, it is certainly not a given that a work of art that aims to be pure entertainment does not also make a point of carry a message. But some films clearly appear to have none beyond telling a story (unless you delve deep into dubious sacral interpretations). Off the top of my head, a film I’d be hard pressed to find a message in is ‘Ocean’s Eleven’, beyond the usual heist film logic whereby several skilled guys outsmart a smug guy and live happily ever after. I think it’s ultimately a personal choice to look or not look for a message in art.
Soderbergh seems like the kind of filmmaker who's clever enough to add at least some subtext even to his lighter films (e.g. Logan Lucky or Magic Mike) but I'm not sure I could tell you what the Ocean's movies in particular are about. That may explain why I never liked them.
I’m not too fond of Soderbergh myself. The best thing he’s made, in my opinion, is ‘Sex, Lies and Videotape’. But I think we got here by exploring to what extend an abstract approach to art is possible. You don’t have to like Soderbergh, but his prominence and the success of both the ‘Ocean’ stuff and ‘Magic Mike’ shows there is an audience for such films. I don’t think we can just dismiss that audience.

On a separate note, I think almost all films, from ‘The Sound of Music’ and ‘Cabaret’ to Star Wars’ are about a connection between human beings, loss, love and so forth. Virtually any film will touch on these common denominators. The question then is which films do it more effectively and why, in which case ‘Star Wars’ probably loses and ‘The Sound of Music’ probably wins, though even that is just an opinion. I’d be interested to hear your definition of what any film of your choosing is about, just so I could see what exactly you mean by ‘about’.

I remember reading a discussion about whether the Harry Potter books should be part of the school syllabus to encourage children to read. Luckily, the majority of the participants said ‘no’. But then those that said ‘yes’ made a creepily convincing argument about how Harry Potter touches on friendship, love and loss in ways that are probably more accessible to children than Shakespeare. I know it’s not exactly relevant, but it just shows that all art is about the same things in some sense.