The artist doesn't owe you anything, either. Artists should make the kind of art they really want to make - but I wouldn't want to see them starving for it, either. Would you?
Not if there's no other way. But most of the time, this is not an either/or situation. Even the directors from the list you posted before are proof of that. Most worked under a strenuous studio system with stringent requirements as to what they could and couldn't do. And yet, they excelled at creating works of art under such tough conditions. It was the fact they knew they had to give it their all that mattered, too. They knew they might lose their job if they did goof, so they tried. That's beside the main point, anyway.
Aren't we just incredibly fortunate to live in an era where so many great films from decades past are (for the most part, anyway) easily and readily accessible? We should hope they would become even more easily accessible!!
Yes, it's an amazing era. I always frown upon people saying they wish they had been born before. This only makes sense if you want to see a 70s band live. When it comes to access to stuff, it's never been easier than now.
The most powerful ideas are the ideas that spread rapidly and become stuck on people's minds.
The power of an idea or artwork isn’t solely determined by its popularity or “virality.” Many impactful ideas or artworks don’t reach a wide audience immediately. The rapid spread can be due to factors like marketing or trends, not just inherent value. Innovative ideas often come from artists challenging the status quo, even if their work isn’t immediately popular. Many films now thought to be classics/masterpieces were panned at release.
I learned about him because of of the Oscars
Many people did. But you're an exception in how you branched out to his other films. Most normies watched Drive My Car and forgot about Hamaguchi, to seek the next big thing. That being said, it's good Hamaguchi won the Oscar because people like you were introduced to him. The downside is that many normies were introduced to him, too, and cinephiles had to tolerate normies' shenanigans. As usual, though, some time passed and normies already forgot while those who didn't were introduced to a great new filmmaker. I don't think Hamaguchi winning an Oscar is a bad thing in general. I think it's a good thing. But the ballyhoo it created shortly after was ridiculous to watch.
This is a really good point. Especially in the age of the Internet.
In the era of countless copycats of the few well-regarded elitist cinephiles, one needs to have a way to see if they really like what they like, or just ostensibly pose as strict film raters to feel better about themselves. They sure don't do it to have fun like
some people do.
But then, you have the normies that don't even aim as high. They just feel like giving a high rating to a well-regarded masterpiece just because. Such people who don't get those films are in a lose-lose situation, though. If they give a low rating, then they risk coming off as normies and abderites. They're in a really tough spot if they want to navigate the world of film and care about others' opinions at the same time. The simple solution is to do what I did and stop caring about other people's opinions about their ratings but they won't.
So you're saying there's never been a better time to be an elitist snob?
There was in France in the 50s and 60s among the Cahiers crowd. But then they turned Maoist and shit hit the fan.
@
Little Ash
WARNING: "Evil Does Not Exist" spoilers below
Yeah, I think you're reading into it too much for your own good. You do get the general idea right, though. In the car, they talk about the deer and crossing their path and creating a 3 meter fence, and the diseases the deer carry. And how the deer that's gut-shot will attack a human even though deer usually fear humans and don't confront them. is like a deer. He'll attack only if no other option presents itself. But the most important point was how they say that gut-shot deer is LIKE A PARENT. This is an obvious harbinger of the final scene.
I think it was as follows:
1. They see the girl. She's standing in front of the deer.
2. The city dweller tries to meddle in so the father stops him.
3. As expected, the deer attacks the girl.
The details aren't that important, I think. The main idea is pretty clear.
The disease part is meant to show that there's that divide between man and nature. You aren't even supposed to TOUCH them.
Yeah, I think you're reading into it too much for your own good. You do get the general idea right, though. In the car, they talk about the deer and crossing their path and creating a 3 meter fence, and the diseases the deer carry. And how the deer that's gut-shot will attack a human even though deer usually fear humans and don't confront them. is like a deer. He'll attack only if no other option presents itself. But the most important point was how they say that gut-shot deer is LIKE A PARENT. This is an obvious harbinger of the final scene.
I think it was as follows:
1. They see the girl. She's standing in front of the deer.
2. The city dweller tries to meddle in so the father stops him.
3. As expected, the deer attacks the girl.
The details aren't that important, I think. The main idea is pretty clear.
The disease part is meant to show that there's that divide between man and nature. You aren't even supposed to TOUCH them.
Reply to Topic
