Well, I'd say yes in general. There are, I think, some things we can learn/respect about that film, but in general, I think that Radcliffe and d pointed out it's major flaw in contemporary viewings: it's value is determined more so by nostalgia than any critically important technical or narrative quality. It's imaginative, but so was The Hills Have Eyes 2.

Ultimately, though, I think I stand more on the "who gives a shit about The Wizard of Oz" side of things though. Lord knows why I felt the need to interject my "opinion".

Just saw Down By Law. Jarmusch's films come close to clicking for me but they never fully do.

Elegy, starring Ben Kingsley and Penelope Cruz. Great movie, although the ending is a bit melodramatic.

watched the new Punisher last night....ok for a campy, violent killfest.

pretty great

Yeah can't wait to see this. Criterion soon.

Just watched:



which is a look at sex trafficking, which is a reality in the world. Its kinda a hard view, so beware on that front.

pretty slight movie but good enough to be an entertaining 90 minutes

about to watch...

Its on my netflix queue. My friend just reviewed the BluRay and had nothing but good things to say about it. It certainly has been written about enough in 2009. I feel like its going to be like George Washington.

I'm not even sure what the discussion is here. Should we even judge this movie on modern criteria? A 70-year-old kids movie? Of course we can, but why would we?

I'm surprised anyone has any strong feelings on it either way, really. For me, it sort of just is what it is. I can't really say that I "like" it, and were I to force myself to sit through the whole thing, I doubt I'd be inclined to complain about my lack of enjoyment. I think of it as more of a cultural artifact than something that we still need to evaluate artistically.

But of course I have no idea what I'm talking about. Sorry to "fool" you with my "attitude".

At what point does film transition from "art" to "cultural artifact"? Can't it be both at the same time? If once a piece of art, shouldn't it perpetually be evaluated as such? If it is not, or you would not describe it as art from the start, what was it to begin with? I dunno. I get what you're saying, but that doesn't really make a lot of sense to me.

That Sistine Chapel is just a remnant, a cultural-religious artifact. No sense in evaluating it artistically.

Yes, I know, I (in)effectively just compared Wizard of Oz to the Sistine Chapel. Not a great analogy, but you know what I am saying. Art is art whether it's good or bad and because it is art it should be evaluated artistically (always). Not to say you can't glean cultural information from it as well.

Ramble, over.

Actually, you begin to uncover some good points about how art is evaluated there.

How do we evaluate the Sistine Chapel artistically? We evaluate its formal qualities, the methods used to create it, and we talk about the historical context and the working conditions under which it was made. Those are very necessary in understanding it and evaluating it as art. It was, in fact, created as something of a decoration to display the Pope's vanity and opulence. It wasn't created as "art" as we understand it today, something created as an end in itself, that of just being art. It was a commissioned project that does not contain any kind of "artistic statement" on Michelangelo's part.

What I'm getting at is that you can't really evaluate art outside of its context, and you can't use the same set of criteria to evaluate everything. Well, you can, but then you're really saying more about the changes in culture and thought than you are about what it is you're trying to evaluate. The Wizard of Oz may have indeed been viewed as "crappy" in its own time, and that is totally relevant to a fair artistic evaluation of it, if you're really interested in one. Also relevant would be the other films of that same time that critics did like, as well as how the movie related to popular culture and film-making techniques of the time. Was it really innovative, visually or in any other sense?

Just the simple fact that it's had a lasting cultural impact enhances its artistic value, I think, and that's sort of why I say "it is what it is". You can pick it apart, criticize the acting, the writing, the directing, editing, whatever, and if all of those are truly bad (and I suspect the first two are probably pretty bad while the latter two are at least good for the time), then I suppose you've got a "bad movie", technically. But even a technically bad movie can be good, or have artistic value, in spite of that.

It's not a matter of being a historical artifact or a work of art; it's that pieces of art that have become historical artifacts cannot be disregarded as such.

Yeah, that could have done with some editing.

Basically, you shouldn't evaluate the Sistine Chapel with the same criteria that you'd use to evaluate contemporary art, either. And in terms of how we talk about contemporary art, something like the Sistine Chapel sort of transcends "good" and "bad".

coming next, can't wait!

Food Inc. - Pretty good, although it didn't really tell me anything I didn't already know. It came very close to becoming too preachy though.

Hopefully I can find time to watch Gommorah sometime next week.

I am watching Taken right now. Liam Neeson specializes in GANKIN.

Parts are a bit preposterous, but DAMN! They should make a series of prequels to this based on what his character did before.

this movie is truly hilarious. love the underlying virgin/slut message and the lengths this guy goes to protect his daughter's "purity"

bourne identity for retirees.

Bourne wouldn't have shot the French dude's wife in front of him. Gets a bump of a full star just for that move.

I do love how there's no resolution about the friend. The girl never even asks what happened to her....

I didn't know what to think about this when I got it from Netflix. Was it going to be on-par with Rocky Horror Picture Show in its campiness and outright disregard for good taste? Brian DePalma wrote and directed this, so was it going to follow his aesthetic lensing techniques? Paul Williams is in it and wrote the songs--they'll be good, right?

I've never heard of this film previously--at least not formally. I was on a blog recently that puts up stills from obscure films, and this one caught my fancy. It looked amazing, visually. I read that critics panned it pretty universally originally, and unless you lived in Winnipeg, you probably didn't see it upon original release. However, now critics have switched their stances and hail it. So, why is it that it lingers in obscurity? Who knows.

The fact is, that the film is much better than Rocky Horror. Its songs are better (just not as memorable on a sing-song get together level), and the sets and acting is head and shoulders better. This is essentially the story of Faust, Phantom of the Opera and the Portrait of Dorian Gray all wrapped into one another, and it works. Paul Williams plays a record producer who is behind every major musical movement since the 50s. Yes, he was even behind the Beatles according to the film, which is fun because the character has definite Spector qualities. William Finley is Winslow Leach whose songs become the object of desire of record producer Swan (Williams). When Swan steals them and disregards Leach, which ultimately leads Leach to become the Phantom.

Also, this film features on of the coolest fake record label logos, and I'm really tempted to buy one:

<--- lived in Wpg. at the time. Saw the movie. Owned the soundtrack. Don't know why everyone in that town went apeshit over it. My theory is the outpost quality of the city coupled with a general starvation for anything that came close to hard rock in mainstream media.

I saw this a few days ago and loved it. It was tough to sit through at times, though.

http://www.phantomoftheparadise.ca/why.html

interesting article on the phenomenon.

RE: Precious

Yeah I have no desire to ever see that shit again. I understand why it's getting the praise it's getting and it's deserved I suppose but my overwhelming feeling walking out of the theater was not one of inspiration of someone enduring the unendurable, rather one of fuck humanity.

Totally depressing.