| |
Story Solving
First, let me say that there is no answer to "what makes good art?". Only a feeling. And then a bet.
Why do I talk about film?
I have no desire to be a critic. I don”t read movie critics. Most people I know don”t even read the big ones, so do I expect people to come here looking for the ultimate word? No.
And I dislike that critics are often trying to get in their clever bits. You know, that quote that sums up the movie so nicely that it might appear on a poster. I am annoyed by things like Rotten Tomatoes, a site that attempts to math reviewer quotes into a percentage. But, when you read the quotes in context and look at the work, often the numbers don”t make sense.
Because art cannot be measured. Or can it? I have said in my book that it cannot.
I talk about movies because I”m trying to figure it all out, really. I see what works and what I like and what burns me artistically. So that”s why I talk about film on JSDC. That is why I like to discuss movies and see what you might think about them, too.
In pursuit of trying to figure it all out, I said this about the movie King Kong:
This version of beauty and the beast doesn”t snag me as it does some people, so perhaps I”m the wrong person to ask. I question how timely the telling of this tale is. (Which, I argue, is an important part of the evolution of myth.)
I received a fair amount of mail for that one.
“What do you mean?!” readers cried, exasperated.
“How could Beauty and the Beast be outdated?!”
It”s not outdated; it”s a timeless myth.
“How could a classic like Kong be outdated?!”
Uh, see these fucking tights. Kthanksitcanhappen.
No but really, I spent six minutes on an art site and fell upon a few visuals that show how Beauty and the Beast is timeless and how it can manifest itself in many different ways. One of these ways repeats:
Example One | Example Two
Can you think of other modern Beauty and the Beast stories? What about new ways in which the story might be told in a more timely fashion?
I might like to switch up the gender roles like Aladdin did for Cinderella, but of course way differently, my dear. Then I might like to ground the beast in modern day, i.e. a sort of beast that might be plausible in our times. Perhaps I”d genre it magical-reality.
Of course I”m not working on anything like that. So I won”t.
Anyway, is anyone else confused by the marketing for Tristan & Isolde?
1. “Before Romeo & Juliet, there was...” They think we need a reference in order to recognize a love story? Actually, the story is not that R&J-ish. It”s more Guinevere & Lancelot-ish. Or at least that”s what the trailer portrays.
2. Why the hell is there an Evanescence song in the trailer? Did they not have their score together or do they think that an over-played Evanescence will pull in young people?
Marketing stunts make me suspect that a film will be bad, which is too bad because I was going to see this one. Now, I”m waiting to see how reviews go, which usually means I”m not going.
I know it”s tricky, but,
Fredrick Douglas said,
It is not light that we need, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake.
Bring me thunder.
Bring me thunder, or nothing.
Comments (14) | Permanent Link | RSS
|
|
|
