Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on Jul 13, 2009 17:21:54 GMT
To what extent can serious art of any form be free from commentary on social and class issues? Serious art cannot be exempt from questions of reality. Make of that what you will. I'll offer more precise answers to more precise questions. I was reading a few selections of film theory focusing on the question of reality. One guy argued that film in order to be in its true form, had to show reality, more like a documentary, but I don't think limited to that. He didn't like the German Expressionist films like Dr. Caligari or Metropolis because they weren't real. He went so far as to sugges that this culture of ignoring the reality led to an acceptance of Hitler in Germany.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Jul 13, 2009 17:34:49 GMT
He didn't like the German Expressionist films like Dr. Caligari or Metropolis because they weren't real. He went so far as to sugges that this culture of ignoring the reality led to an acceptance of Hitler in Germany. That just blew my mind.
|
|
Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on Jul 13, 2009 17:37:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by The Ghost of LLC on Jul 13, 2009 18:09:38 GMT
I hate art. Totally going to build nukes for a living.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jul 13, 2009 21:23:42 GMT
I was reading a few selections of film theory focusing on the question of reality. One guy argued that film in order to be in its true form, had to show reality, more like a documentary, but I don't think limited to that. The question of representing reality has to allow for allegory. Saying that, if Star Wars has any social or political relevance, I'd then ask why it was set in a galaxy far, far away. Though that last part is quite a leap in logic, I'd be very interested in reading more. I've only read a bit of Kracauer. (Is it a coincidence that American politics continues to offer us little light at all, and that Hollywood has hit a creative low?)
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jul 13, 2009 21:33:06 GMT
Actually, considering how much Kracauer has written and published on German Expressionism, I very much doubt he'd say he didn't like those films.
|
|
Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on Jul 13, 2009 21:38:38 GMT
The question of representing reality has to allow for allegory. Saying that, if Star Wars has any social or political relevance, I'd then ask why it was set in a galaxy far, far away. Maybe that is where antireal art gets its power. It forms us subconsciously. We don't recognize some aspect of ourselves until we look at it in a totally new way, a way that might even be considered non-realistic, and, on the surface, is not real. I don't know anything about Star Wars though. But the alien coming down to us The Day the Earth Stood Still fits. Something outside of the everyday norms we take for granted impacted us enough to stir a change. It is, without a doubt, a very incomplete picture of the rise of Hitler and Fascism in Germany, but I think he could certainly have some angle on art and maybe what it failed to do. I think the wsws.org definitely thinks artists have a responsibility, and when they fail to live up to it, they get grated.
|
|
Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on Jul 13, 2009 21:44:34 GMT
Actually, considering how much Kracauer has written and published on German Expressionism, I very much doubt he'd say he didn't like those films. Just because he wrote about them? He says that "abstract experimental film . . . . 'photoplays' or theatrical films . . . German expressionist films" should "be called less 'cinematic' than films concentrating on physical existence[.]" Unless he approves of the Third Reich, I think it's safe to say that, however enjoyable the movies may be, he disaproves of their making.
|
|
Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on Jul 13, 2009 22:36:30 GMT
The notion that a classless society is a utopian dream is only defendable on the grounds of impatience. Socialism can't happen overnight. Stalinism shows the dangers in approaching it so. Here is an interesting exchange I had on the BB about this. That was a pretty good exchange. I don't think it's illogical to invoke human nature arguments in these kind of questions though, despite the fact that slavery was once thought of as natural. That doesn't mean that nothing is natural or that we can't infer that anything is natural. A person that works harder and earns more than someone who works less seems justified, a nice fit into the natural order of things (more energy, more work, more production). We're dealing with human beings, not numbers and mathematics. There is no formula for government or politics that makes everything more equal. I can just as well argue that capitalism could be the best option if we just ignore some unfortunate histories and work on our patience. It's not illogical to look at socialist governments and be worried out of our minds that that is what some want. That is completely rational. And it's completely rational to look at our imperfect countries and realize that the foundation is good, despite some serious problems that must be addressed.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jul 13, 2009 22:56:34 GMT
On the contrary.
The serious problems that must be addressed stem from the fact that the foundation is bad.
|
|
Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on Jul 13, 2009 23:11:04 GMT
We strongly disagree then. I look at the United States and other representative democratic Western countries and see freedom and opportunity like never before achieved in recorded human history. I want that remained.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jul 13, 2009 23:17:08 GMT
Me too.
But I don't think one person's "freedom" should be at another's expense . Freedom is a right, not an economic privilege.
|
|
Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on Jul 13, 2009 23:19:30 GMT
Agreed.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jul 13, 2009 23:21:55 GMT
And so any foundation that determines that some people have freedom and others do not, and that the divide between them is a gulf, is fundamentally unjust.
Freedom is a very broad term, at any rate.
|
|
Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on Jul 13, 2009 23:25:31 GMT
Agreed. Equality under the law and basic rights to every citizen is a must for any good system of government.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jul 17, 2009 19:06:43 GMT
I re-read a chapter from the book Jenson gave a link to last night; mine is reprinted in this book. The chapter is called "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari". Kracauer insightfully reveals the origins of Caligari's script; originally, the delusional fantasy element is absent: what is in the film revealed to be a dream was actually meant as a stand-alone narrative, without the bookends. In the original script, without the dream revelation, the same actor plays both Dr. Caligari and the director of the mental institution; thus the tyranny of authority wears the same mask, whatever the role. What was a revolutionary script was commercialised into something more status quo, a false celebration of authority and its humane care for the mentally insane. Kracauer also highlights the false critical assumptions at the time; while critics lauded the film for this pro-establishment stance, they failed to note that the expressionistic set design, comprising the whole aesthetic and moral construction of the filmic world, instead of reassuming normality in the bookends, remained askew, which adds a sinister ambiguity to the finished product. From what I gather, Kracauer isn't necessarily condemning the film for being made; he sees in it a social allegory for Germany at the time. On the one hand, there is tyrannical authority (and Hitler is on his way); but on the other, the idea of freedom is problematic, because any social order in the film is depicted as chaotic, without form.
|
|
Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on Jul 17, 2009 20:19:11 GMT
That's the book I have, except it's the second edition of it, from 1979. I got it for $2.50 at a used bookstore.
Have you read other essays from the book? If so, which ones did you especially like? I've read the entire Film and Reality section.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jul 24, 2009 0:07:41 GMT
Have you read other essays from the book? If so, which ones did you especially like? I've read the entire Film and Reality section. Have you read Andrew Sarris, and the other stuff on the auteur theory?
|
|
Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on Jul 24, 2009 10:43:54 GMT
Nope. I'm currently making my way through the film language section, like Eisenstein's focus on montage and Andre Bazin. Bazin's last article was much more accessible than I thought it would be. Hopefully his other works are similar because he has a number of articles in the book.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jul 24, 2009 11:13:05 GMT
I remember being given Eisenstein's to read in one of my first lessons at university. Everybody came back wondering whether or not to drop the course, lmfao.
|
|