The Village Voice and OAL... (1 Viewer)

[Holadem]

--
H

 

[Stu Rosen]

Before I say anything else, I should say that I disagree with the Voice article. But I think the author was going for something a little more subtle than "P&S is an improvement over widescreen."

I think the author didn't care much for Lawrence of Arabia for precisely the way the story -- in his view, turgid, bloated and inflated -- is therefore a slave to the demands of the widescreen format, and thus the P&S version inadvertently cuts the story back down to a manageable size and scope.

Again, I don't agree with this, so back off, man. But I thought out of fairness, we ought to be precise about what we're going to flame about.

 

[Robert Harris]

Sorry, but I disagree.

Having now seen a print copy of the article with the accompanying graphics, the piece is not about widescreen per se, but rather...

about breasts.

RAH

 

[Jeff_HR]

about breasts

 

[Daniel J.S.]

Having read that L.A. Times article about semiotics in film, I ask just what is wrong with viewing films in that way. The article talks about viewing films as a cultural practice and I think that's a valuable study. It's also worthwhile to consider the role of the viewer in film. In short, I don't consider semiotics a waste of time when studying all forms of art (music is my specialty in terms of this kind of study). I'm kinda disappointed that people like Roger Ebert are so hostile to it, dismissing it as over-intellectualized claptrap. Of course the article intimates that these theorists feel film can only be looked at in this way, which I DON'T agree with. Film is equal amounts cultural product, artistic expression and simple entertainment. And I can definitely sympathize with the view that the esoteric language serves to exscript those who are not part of the "ivory tower", although I'm not too angry about it since I read this kind of language all the time and if I don't understand a particular word, I can easily find out it's meaning. Anyway, in a nutshell, these theorists are doing worthwhile work, although they need to realize that the hard way isn't always the best way.

Oh yeah, OAR is the only way to go.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Daniel: What I got from the article wasn't a rant against semiotics itself but rather the nature in which it is presented, and its emphasis over the much more valuable (from a career standpoint atleast) production classes. Forcing students to use the Russian Formulist terms for story and plot rather than just "story" and "plot" serves absolutely no purpose except to make yourself look smarter than those who use "story" and "plot." What ever lectures, forums, and discussions they may be having could almost certainly be carried out in the contempory, mainstream vernacular without losing much if anything from the discussion. And it would have the added benefit of involving more of the audience into whatever was being talked about since if it was done in layman's terms everyone would have a clue about what is being said.

Anyway, in a nutshell, these theorists are doing worthwhile work, although they need to realize that the hard way isn't always the best way.

Are they, though? They're discussion is so abstract and so limited in audience that it would be interesting to see what advantage it gave whom ever was exposed to it over those who were blissfully unaware. That matched with faculties that are apparently focused on force-feeding radically left propaganda to their student bodies makes me wonder if they are not causing more damage by turning these students away from more practically-applicable course than is made up for by the broader outlook created by seeing things from such alternative viewpoints.


And the Village Voice has always been, to varying degrees, a pretentious elitist paper; marked by excellent writers with fluid prose that never the less has very little worthwhile to say. This is merely, in my opinion, a more elitist example than the par.

 

[Norman Matthews]

I think Stu hit the nail on the head about what's going on in the article.

It doesn't appear to me that he is advocating pan and scan presentations in general, but rather criticizing Lawrence of Arabia and Spartacus in about as roundabout, and viciously exaggerated, a way as possible. Effectively, he's saying, "These films are so bloated and graceless that they've actually made me appreciate the hackwork of panning and scanning."

And, like Stu, I don't agree, I just think we should be talking about what's actually been said.

 

[Jason Walstrom]

did you ever notice when HBO or cinemax or one of the premium movie channels is showing what is going to exclusively premiere in the next month all of the film clips are letterboxed? off topic but i just needed to get that out.

 

[Daniel J.S.]

The tone of the article throughout seems dismissive of the whole idea of examining films in terms of semiotic value. Take this passage for example:



The article comes across as hostile to this view, but films ARE cultural artifacts! They are works of creative expression but they also reflect the "society that produced them" and I see no reason to disparage people who think film should be studied in those terms. A later quote refers to "artist intention" no longer being considered, but should analysis end with what the artist intended? Should we not also account for the ways these images are being received and why they being received in that way? I mean, I and many others think that seeing racist stereotypes in the "Star Wars" prequels is a huge stretch, but does that mean those charges should be dismissed out of hand? Why not investigate these charges in order to learn exactly what these people see as racist and why they see it that way? I find none of this "elitist psychobabble" as one source claims it to be and I find such views to be limiting. I was most angry at Roger Ebert claiming that no one with any taste or intelligence would teach these courses; such a narrow-minded view was very off-putting to me. Learning the "nuts and bolts" of art is great, but I think we also need to address the cultural issues that arise from it. This kind of study helps shed light on our views of society as a whole. I'm firmly convinced that our world views are manifested in the art we create. However, I will agree that less obfuscating language may be called for. And I'm not too bothered with far-left propaganda since I and probably most of the film school student body are liberal anyway.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

My take on this article is that the guy just doesn't like widescreen 2.21:1 - 2.76:1 compositions, and that's fine, for decades there have been naysayers against widescreen systems.

And I think that the Spartacus and Lawrence remarks are tongue-in-cheek and designed to instigate a debate amongst fans... which it has!

Just another journalist's opinion in another once-great paper:
"Artist Of The Decade: Neil Young" - Village Voice, 1979. Yeah, they used to be cool!


Gordy

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I was most angry at Roger Ebert claiming that no one with any taste or intelligence would teach these courses; such a narrow-minded view was very off-putting to me. Learning the "nuts and bolts" of art is great, but I think we also need to address the cultural issues that arise from it.

It all depends what your aims are. Someone who wants to work as a camera operator or gaffer or lighting technician probably doesn't need or want to be force-fed a doctrine on how to interpret film. He would want courses that teach him (or her, for that matter) how to perform in such tasks.

 

[Stacie]

It all depends what your aims are. Someone who wants to work as a camera operator or gaffer or lighting technician probably doesn't need or want to be force-fed a doctrine on how to interpret film. He would want courses that teach him (or her, for that matter) how to perform in such tasks.

As a musician and sometime teacher of music history (which can include semiotic analysis, along with any number of other interpretive techniques drawn from literary theory), I can't entirely agree with this statement. Practitioners of any art form (be they performing musicians or filmmakers) should understand something about the history and cultural significance of their art form. Obviously good technical education is crucial, but I believe that it is important for contributors to an artistic product to have some context for the work they are doing.

For those who truly aspire only to do technical work, with the larger vision behind it always supplied by someone else, I concede that knowledge of history/cultural significance isn't as important. But for anyone who aspires to have more to do with the making of art than simply the technical details of its execution, such study should be indispensable (whether it is achieved through formal coursework or in some other way).