What film character is most like you?

Nice opening. I wonder how you will close...

It's not that you're inflexible, it's just that you're right. It's not that you're argumentative, it's just you're just explaining how the other person is wrong. You're tolerant of everything but dispassion, disinterest, and contrary opinions.



This is why you're Burgos. You take film deadly seriously. You love it. It matters. God will not be mocked and your god is cinema. You have been touched by transcendent sublimity in filmic art. You're not a mediocre musician, but a true believer.

On my best days, I'm a goofy, bumbling gentle giant like Fezzik in The Princess Bride or Kronk in The Emperor's New Groove. On my worst days, I'm avoidant, overly defensive and too hard on myself like Matteo in The Best of Youth. On most days, I'm Seymour in Ghost World: constantly obsessing over my obscure and/or unpopular interests (I do like my interests, however).

__________________

I'm flexible about letting people approach film however they choose. I believe I'm correct in allowing this. Where is the incompatability?


Or are you going to argue that because I argue from my point of preference that im forcing this on anyone?


Or is just me having preferences you happen to disagree with or are confused by enough for me to be considered a zealot.



First of all, did I say I wasn't argumentative?


Second of all, are you saying you aren't?


Who's the one who came in here calling someone else a zealot. Or are you claiming that's a compliment? That I'm just full of zeal! How friendly!


And again, who am I calling wrong? Basically only those who are making demands on what an artist should be doing. That they should be appealing to the majority or else their worth is suspect. In short, those who are actually inflexible. Who expect art to cater to their specific needs.

All I am ever calling for are different types of audiences to have movies that speak to them. That aren't marginalized or delegitimize if their tastes don't align with the rest of the world.

And I also want to rest of the world to continue having the movies they like.

How very zealous of me.




I usually ignore dispassion and disinterest. I don't have any issue with contrary opinions.


I do have pretty low tolerance for constantly having to repeat and clarify my pretty clear and obvious points though.



I take it seriously. I don't know about the deadly part. I guess calling my seriousness something frightening does make your point better though



Lock me up!



I mock everything. I don't take anything completely seriously, not even the things or people I love. I completely grasp the absurdity of loving flickering images on a screen. It is fair to poke holes in its worth from time to time. And I've always tempered my obsessive enthusiasm with huge doses of self deprecation and jokes at my own expense. Because I have a sense of humor about all of this. Of the stupidity of the human condition. Of our need to see ourselves represented in little bits of celluloid.


But yes, I can also speak very strongly about the values I believe can be found in art. Yes I think they are important. Yes I articulate them at length.


But so what? This is a movie board. The question should be more, why is this considered such a strange thing? Frankly, we could use a little more passionate debate about this



Condescend much?




If I believe in anything, it is that art is the best of us. And it is the one remaining place where my faith in humanity can still be found. And I believe the act of creating and expressing oneself however one decides, and no matter how small the audience might be, is worth defending. And that is what I do, in hopes of opening the possibility of others seeing elements in a work they might not otherwise see or care about.


The actual art though is almost beside the point. It's just an artifact of the process of creating. From these attempts to make contact.


I'm not putting the actual art above anything. Which you would think would be a pretty heretical thing to say by such a zealot as me

Ah, so you're the one allowing, eh?

It's not really a compliment or a criticism, it's just where you're at. You're intense to the point of rage.

The proudest people boast of their piety. The most zealous people are often counter-zealots. The content of your belief does not directly dictate the mode of its expression and advocacy.

Yes, you are a true believer.
Right, your religion is one of subjective experience. If there were a cult Rorschach tests, you'd be in it (i.e., it's not the image, but the response that matters on your view).


I'm just saying you're more of a hardass than a mediocrity, so that's a sort of compliment.

Got any examples of me dictating what a movie is required to be? Would love to hear them? Or at least how you've completely mangled the meaning of whatever it is I actually said.

Allowing as opposed to confining.

I think confining art is a problem. Especially when those who are doing the confining are the ones most suspicious of art.


But I guess your brain can only view the word allow as some kind of negative, right? As if this is me appointing myself as a gatekeeper of some kind. That me saying I think artists should do whatever they want is some kind of necessary permission they need.

Do you ever read anything in a not weird way?




I guess I'm only feeding into your shitty analysis of my personality when I tell you to **** off.




What a convenient little paradigm you've created for yourself here. I guess now you don't have to prove anything beyond the fact that I'm objecting to what your saying. I must be a zealot! I contradicted Yarns post!


For a guy who likes proof, you sure never have any.


For a guy who likes words, you sure don't know how to read them






Sure let's go back to this. Let's pretend that this is what I've ever said. That I reject any objective measures. That I don't employ them all the time.


I apologize that I can miraculously argue from both objective and subjective points of view. It's almost like I'm a complete person who has thoughts, knowledge and feelings. That I don't lose my mind over the fact that sometimes these things intersect.


And please, anytime you want to submit an objective analysis of a film I'll be listening. Because seriously, have you ever done this?




Soliari wasn't mediocre. He was good enough to understand his smallness when placed next to greatness. And that disparity consumed him.


But I guess you just took Solieri's word on being the patron saint of mediocrity. It's much more complicated and self lacerating than that. But you are only speaking about what lays on the surface (surprise surprise)


And calling me a hardass is better than zealot. Also more accurate. But that was the word you clearly wanted to use. Just like comparing my points in a previous thread to wooden nickels. Your condescending bullshit is clear as day. You clearly provoke these arguments. Probably because I'm the only one left stupid enough to respond to them.

Boundaries are a two-way problem. Too constrictive and you have a club that lets no one inside. Too broad and you become a kingdom of everything and nothing.

When the conception of art itself becomes hollow via overbroad ambitions, suspicion is warranted.

Search your feelings. You know it to be true.

The historical Salieri was not mediocre, true.



The Salieri of the film, however, was a mediocrity. In the film, the clueless king ("too many notes") cheers his work and he has a place in his court, but he is not respected by his peers. The priest cannot remember a single tune Salieri wrote. Salieri's music is not celebrated, not repeated, not remembered. When Mozart arrives he dissects the thinness of the Salieri's march with ease. At the masked ball, Mozart mocks Salieri by playing a thudding melody with no syncopation. Salieri also judges himself to be a mediocrity. In the eyes of Mozart, Salieri, his peers (and by extension the film itself), Salieri is a mediocrity.

But what does this do but expose the false humility of your confession in this thread? "I don't want this to be the case. But it's the case."

Here I was trying to rescue you from self-impugned mediocrity to embrace your zealotry and your ego has driven you to elevate yourself in apologia.

That is one piece of evidence, yes.

Not really. He yearned for greatness and found his desire mocked in a creature that oozed genius. At bottom, he was greedy (wanting the acclaim for himself - remember his sweet tooth?)

This is going to blow your mind, but sometimes a character tells you something directly and the basic meaning is on the surface. It's almost as if writers sometimes speak through characters (wacky, I know).


When we hear Mozart's laughter in the background as he is wheeled down the hallway of the asylum is that also on the surface? Or is it a 4-dimensional quantum laceration?

Maybe, but I think zealot pisses you off more.

I was merely noting why I was hesitant to accept your jubilant subjective declarations as legal tender.

I often feel as cool as the ICEBERG in James Cameron´s TITANIC.

Who draws that line? You?


How about we allow individuals to make up their mind over what resonates with them?



Who decides what is overbroad? You?


I'll just stick to deciding what films matter to me, for my reasons.


You go ahead and continue to pretend you know what you are talking about and what should qualify as art to everyone else.




I just searched them and they said 'block this insufferable prick'.


My feelings are wise.



Who is the one who recognizes Mozart's genius? Even after he's rejected by the Kings inner circle. Even when he's reduced to performing for the 'unwashed masses'.


We only understand Salieri through his opinion of himself. We never see his great successes that land him in the position as court composer. We only see his opinions of his own work after he realizes he's just been eclipsed by the seeming clown that is Mozart.


Whether he's a good composer or not is irrelevant. Only that whatever he is, it has been dwarfed by a talent he can only comprehend but never replicate.


Nice try though


I've elevated myself by saying I recognize my smallness. That the greatness of artists I love makes me feel irrelevant? That I can never compete?


You also understand this is a large component of Salieri's pathology, right? Oh, that's right, you just demonstrated you don't understand this.


Or understand anything I've said.


But please continue rescuing me, you giant fraud.


No shit he was greedy. Do we need to witness his sweet tooth to recognize this? Or is this you pretending to be a movie critic?


Of course not. Because you don't do that.




And it's almost like there is also information about characters that isn't explicitly stated by those characters.


You'll catch up one day (no you won't)



I'm mostly annoyed at myself for not recognizing you're a troll.


You were merely being a dick.

Corax is the Salieri to Crumbs Mozart.

Pretty much

That's not so much the question as, "Is there even a discussion being had about where to draw the line?" A steering wheel that only turns in one direction cannot course-correct.

Anyone may do as they please in private. In public, however, we negotiate when it comes to the "we." How do "we" feel about that? How does that resonate with "us"? We are all voices in the chorus, and ours, as is so often the case in aesthetics, a harmony of discord (ours is a hard problem), and so we rankle, argue, and contradict, because the work is hard.

No individual does.

But when you scream at other people for getting it wrong, you will need to have more to stand on than your personal preference.

Well, if I am insufferable, I suppose that would be wise. Why trouble yourself?

Mozart (the Mozart of the film) is excluded because of his obnoxious behavior (he makes enemies), because of his debts, and because of the gatekeeping of the Kings inner-circle. And Salieri is a key member of that circle who craftily engineers Mozart's exclusion. Indeed, all the members of the circle recognize his genius, but they cannot stand him (do an Opera in German and the next thing you know women will be wearing pants!).



Salieri's curse is that he is a mediocre composer while also being a true lover of music. Everyone, however, could see Mozart's genius. Some were amused by it, some were threatened by it, some merely wished to exploit it, but his genius was undeniable. Did Salieri have a deeper appreciation of Mozart than the King? Sure. Than the masses? Sure. The masses can't tell you why they like a song (in terms of music theory and vocabulary), they can only tell you that they like it. Nevertheless, Mozart was recognized as a standout talent.

This is not true. We see him struggle to produce a childish march to honor Mozart. We see him mocked and laughed at at the masked ball. We see he is forgotten when the priest cannot remember a single tune that he wrote.

We're not meeting the historical man here. Rather, we're meeting the man-in-literature.

Salieri is a bit a repressed clown himself. It's not that he wants God to be honored through music, but rather that he wants to be a rock star. He prays to be God's instrument in an attempt to negotiate his vain aspirations. Underneath it all, Salieri is a greedy sensualist. Remember that sweet tooth. Remember Salieri's outrage when Mozart stole the songbird he was lusting over.



But yes, Salieri thought very highly of himself until he saw what true top talent really looks like.

If he wasn't good, he wouldn't have his position. But he's not great. There is a whole sea of people who are "good" at what they do. Relative to his aspirations, the long-view of history, the pantheon of truly great composers, etc., he is a mediocre talent.

Anytime a person talks about what they love or don't love or have already forgotten about, they have drawn a line.

We can discuss where they have drawn that line. We can agree. We can disagree. But we never need to agree on this line.

But what we can certainly disagree with are those people (cough) who keep demanding a line be drawn that we all can clearly see and abide by.

It's literally the only stupid dumb thing you can do in a conversation about art, and it's literally the only conversation you seem like you ever want to have.

Oh, and let me guess what direction that steering wheel turns. You're great with the clunky and embarrassing metaphors.

How kind of you to allow us our shame rooms to like the movies we like behind closed doors.


If "we" were all required to wait for the "we" when it comes to art, nothing would ever change. It would just keep cranking out the same shit forever.

And somewhere in the distance I hear you **** in delight at such a beautiful thought.

You like to think its me who can't deal with the rankling and the contradictions but....

And my approach to writing about film hasn't been hard? I've spent up to six months working on how to articulate my thoughts on some films.

All I do is think about these kinds of things. Stop condescending that it's you doing hard work here when I never have read a single ****ing thing you've ever written about a film, outside of you contradicting other people who actually put in some kind of effort.

Oh, now I'm screaming at people? (or am I just fed up specifically with you?)

And keep trolling on the fact that I just spew personal preference.


I'm a masochist?

What frames the movie? Who is narrating this story? Where is he narrating it from? Are we listening to a man who is completely deranged by feelings of inadequacy and jealousy?


Do you think maybe this has some factor in how he views himself and his talents when Mozart comes into the room?


noooooo shiiiiiiit


What is your point?


I wasn't comparing myself to Salieri because I thought he was some admirably misunderstood genius artist. I was comparing myself to him through his pettiness.



Or is that my giant ego talking again, you complete misunderstander of humanity.


Oh my god! I agree with something you just said.



And it's almost like that something is the reason I compared myself to him.


Again, yes. So why the **** are you disagreeing with me on this point?



Oh, that's right, it's because being a contrarian pain in the ass is your last grasp at anyone listening to you.


Seriously, just be better. You certainly used to be.

True, but we're talking about the meta-discussion about line-drawing, drawing lines about how to draw lines, the refereeing of boundary disputes. And in these conversations there is a pronounced tendency to legislate on the side of openness, allowing more in rather than keeping things out. And it is in this sense that the wheel is broken, as it only steers on way. That's bad.

You tend to side with openness because of your sense that the audience's response is really where it is at. It fits with typical liberal sensibilities about opening up art, democratizing it--but the price of reaching for everything is the outcome of achieving nothing.

It is "a" conversation that I want to have, especially when people object to the closures I propose. It is inevitable.

The wheel turns in both directions. There are moments when we need to correct to the left, moments when we need to correct to the right. And if you have a better metaphor, feel free to offer it.

The move from "I" to "We" is one that demands demonstration. Demonstrations require criteria. Criteria draw a line between that which is in and that which is out. When you enter into the room and start attempting to get others to see the world differently, you are no longer in the unassailable realm of your personal take on a movie. You have to produce reasons and evidence. You have to start sorting better from worse, more right from more wrong, clear from unclear. But you tend to balk when the line enters the conversation. So it goes.

We don't get to "We" until the end of your demonstration (if it is successful). The group does not begin in agreement with you. We move from view A to view B by means of proof C. You still have to provide the proof. You can't just leap from A to B defensively complaining about how stiflingly conservative it all would be to to require that everyone see everything the same way. If you want to change minds, you have have to engage in the art of rhetoric and dialectic.

Sounds like you need a laxative.

This is mere chest-thumping.

Well, I'm no Salieri, but I've written plenty.

I'd like to think that I am unique, but alas I have seen you go off on many poster. I think you may have anger-management issues.

The conversation with the priest.

Technically, there isn't a narrator. There is, for example, a narrator in Barry Lyndon, but not in Amadeus. The framing device of the asylum confession is a bit of narration by proxy. Salieri tells his story to the priest, but as a character still bound within space and time (not a timeless voice addressed directly to us). A private room with a priest.

Maybe you are Salieri after all...

Salieri is pretty high on himself before Mozart enters the picture.

Mr. Abraham, whose first starring film role this is, is very fine as Salieri, initially secure - ''Everybody liked me,'' he remembers, ''and I liked myself'' - and then increasingly lunatic as he plots Mozart's downfall.

I grant that you are petty. Am I not generous?

I think I'm a combination of two characters.

60% Michael Keaton's Betelgeuse



40% Simon Pegg's Jack from A Fantastic Fear of Everything

R.P. McMurphy

(One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest)

__________________
https://www.youtube.com/c/LoyalOpposition

It's all fun and games until somebody picks this guy ☝️

My wife will testify in court, under oath, that this character and I are symbiotic twins.

__________________
"If it was priggish for an older generation of reviewers to be ashamed of what they enjoyed and to feel they had to be contemptuous of popular entertainment, it's even more priggish for a new movie generation to be so proud of what they enjoy that they use their education to try to place trash within the acceptable academic tradition." -- Pauline Kael

When it comes to discussions I find the one who throws insults loses the debate, even if he's in the right, as soon as he throws insults his credibility drops in the discussion. Truth be told vulgarity commands as much respect as a peasant would amongst gentlemen.