Drusilla ,'Conversations with Dead People'
A place to talk about movies--old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.
and I think both her and Bob really gained a new appreciation for it.
I like when that happens.
There are times, like with this latest Coen, that I can appreciate that a movie was well-made and that it deeply touched/affected a lot of people without it being personally enjoyable or something I'd want to see again. Just because something doesn't speak to me doesn't mean it's not exquisite for someone else.
I recall seeing The Deer Hunter
Oh, lord, that's a whole different level. I mean, I definitely see how you'd feel that way; I was just thinking of things more like when I saw Edward Scissorhands in high school and one scene cut too close to the bone. Er, so to speak.
I think that when it comes to plot holes or too much deus ex machina in a movie that otherwise grabs me and hauls me along for the ride, I will abstain from the "thinking too much," at least along those lines. In many cases, I can excuse something like Frodo not taking an eagle taxi to Mount Doom because that blip allowed for a damned good story.
Also, the only thing hurt was my suspension of disbelief, which may have suffered a wee bit of joint strain.
Moff's Law is important, IMHO, in cases where ignoring the problem goes hand-in-hand with ignoring something that is actively problematic outside of the world of the film. Handwaving some applied phlebotinum generally doesn't hurt anyone. Handwaving the fact that a movie gives another example of Mighty Whitey and reinforces some truly skeevy imperialistic and/or racist thinking does hurt people. It may also implies that maybe some people are handwaving or flat-out refusing to examine some truly problematic thinking in real life as well.
I think Moff's Law is important, because if we don't fight against the folks who think the best way to be a consumer of media is to turn off your brain and just stare at the bright colors, we're gonna end up at "Ow! My Balls!" in no time.
I usually need the half-hour or so post-movie to process enough to actually be able to talk about it, but after that, I'll usually chatter on with whomever. I do like talking about all forms of art, though. It's part of what makes it art.
f we don't fight against the folks who think the best way to be a consumer of media is to turn off your brain and just stare at the bright colors, we're gonna end up at "Ow! My Balls!" in no time.
So what about the folks who sometimes think the best way to consume media is to dial down the brain and enjoy the ride? 'Cause I enjoyed Die Hard and I don't feel that I've lost my credentials as an intelligent being by snickering at the obvious jokes and impossible stunts, then grinning at Hubby at the end and saying, "That was fun."
That reminds me...Corwood, bunk, are y'all ever bringing "The Hat" back? Because that's one place where I felt okay about mindfucking stuff. Because I do get that not everyone digs that. Even I don't *always* want to.
or mayhap El Knaverino, in the manner of the Spaniard, if brevity be not in thy soul nor wit.
Brilliant.
Well, first, Die Hard is a GREAT movie.
I think that saying that analyzing is part of enjoying art does not mean that it HAS to be done. I can look at a great painting and just enjoy it as something deeply pleasing to the eye and, if I choose, I can also analyze the use of color and line and think about where the painting fits in Art History.
I can do either or both. I think Moff's law and cornflake-pissing come in where one person insists the other HAS to approach the art the way they do.