![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackSo, is it artistic or is it just pretentious?
And at what point can I offer an authoritative opinion on that? There are certainly books I thought were just pretentious at the time, but later decided were clever, and conversely books that at the time I thought were clever and later decided were overlaying interesting cliche ideas with a veneer of looking-clever.
(Please, someone provide examples, none come to mind.)
What makes a movie seem clever? I can think of three aspects:
* Saying something complicated (eg. Memento)
* Creating a sense of mystery (eg. Lost)
* Throwing together a lot of random shit and expecting the audience to put it together. (Naming no names)
Of course, #3 can support either #2 or #1. The difference is, if #2 is what you want, then that's what #3 gives it. But basing #1 on #3 is basically cheating -- people are saying "Well, I didn't understand it, and other movies I didn't understand were doing something really clever."
So, #2 is a skill. But if you spend four seasons dragging things out by pretending there's a big overarching plot the audience are supposed to work out, and then wrap it up in a lame get-out, people can be bitter. You can legitimately claim such a thing is "beautiful", but I don't think it qualifies for "clever" in the same way #1 does.
Eg. I think people forget how good Matrix 1 really was. Philosophically it had one really simple message "we could be living in a matrix". And it explained that well -- they discussed and showed implications of it, and just before you're told that, you should in theory be able to work it out. Matrix 2 and 3 *tried* to do that with predestination, but just made up mystical sounding bullshit.
Eg. Babylon 5 always had something mysterious going on. But you kept finding out more and going "aha". Whereas I'm assured X-files descended into pretending you were going to find out more, but was actually just a string of randomly chosen clues to give the impression there was somewhere to go.
Eg. A mystery novel. If it's done well, the true answer is the only possible answer. If it's done badly, you just string a lot of random clues together and assert there's only one solution, without that being in any way deducible.
Eg. Hyperion. The sequel does a *quite* good job of explaining the mysteries. But the true strength is in the mysteries of the first novel -- they'd have the same impact whether they had resolutions or not.
Where does Thomas Crown fit? The first time I saw it I thought it was mainly pointless. Now I thought it was quite enjoyable, the references to paintings, TC's motivations, etc all quite beautiful.
It feels like it's making some kind of overall point. But I don't think it is, I think the message is just "Thomas Crown is cool". Which comes across well, so I class it as a "good #2".
And at what point can I offer an authoritative opinion on that? There are certainly books I thought were just pretentious at the time, but later decided were clever, and conversely books that at the time I thought were clever and later decided were overlaying interesting cliche ideas with a veneer of looking-clever.
(Please, someone provide examples, none come to mind.)
What makes a movie seem clever? I can think of three aspects:
* Saying something complicated (eg. Memento)
* Creating a sense of mystery (eg. Lost)
* Throwing together a lot of random shit and expecting the audience to put it together. (Naming no names)
Of course, #3 can support either #2 or #1. The difference is, if #2 is what you want, then that's what #3 gives it. But basing #1 on #3 is basically cheating -- people are saying "Well, I didn't understand it, and other movies I didn't understand were doing something really clever."
So, #2 is a skill. But if you spend four seasons dragging things out by pretending there's a big overarching plot the audience are supposed to work out, and then wrap it up in a lame get-out, people can be bitter. You can legitimately claim such a thing is "beautiful", but I don't think it qualifies for "clever" in the same way #1 does.
Eg. I think people forget how good Matrix 1 really was. Philosophically it had one really simple message "we could be living in a matrix". And it explained that well -- they discussed and showed implications of it, and just before you're told that, you should in theory be able to work it out. Matrix 2 and 3 *tried* to do that with predestination, but just made up mystical sounding bullshit.
Eg. Babylon 5 always had something mysterious going on. But you kept finding out more and going "aha". Whereas I'm assured X-files descended into pretending you were going to find out more, but was actually just a string of randomly chosen clues to give the impression there was somewhere to go.
Eg. A mystery novel. If it's done well, the true answer is the only possible answer. If it's done badly, you just string a lot of random clues together and assert there's only one solution, without that being in any way deducible.
Eg. Hyperion. The sequel does a *quite* good job of explaining the mysteries. But the true strength is in the mysteries of the first novel -- they'd have the same impact whether they had resolutions or not.
Where does Thomas Crown fit? The first time I saw it I thought it was mainly pointless. Now I thought it was quite enjoyable, the references to paintings, TC's motivations, etc all quite beautiful.
It feels like it's making some kind of overall point. But I don't think it is, I think the message is just "Thomas Crown is cool". Which comes across well, so I class it as a "good #2".
no subject
Date: 2007-07-30 02:43 pm (UTC)Instead, the Matrix presents a single jump out of an apparent reality into an underlying real one, and never even contemplates the question of which one if either is really real. This says to me that its aim was not to present interesting philosophy, but to set up a world in which superhero stories could be told without (as is more usual) founding it on one or more huge counterfactuals about the laws of physics. Which, modulo the occasional grating against the disbelief of really computer-savvy viewers and the egregious liberty taken with conservation of energy, it basically managed.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-30 06:15 pm (UTC)But I think it *did* do it well. I think that first mental hurdle, to get to "what if this world was all imaginary" is the biggest one, and it dragged most of the western world over it :)
There's lots more to be said, but once you've got the idea, you can consider it yourself, and I think many of those questions are implicit in the film -- not because they thought to raise them, but because they're natural follow ons to the idea, and any good example of the main idea can be used by extension as an example of further questions.
PS. They did consider "Does it *matter* if you live in a matrix" with Cypher's speech. I didn't think it was explored very well or very much, but it was the only implication mentioned.
(Or maybe a non-mathematician wouldn't generalise their existential doubt to the outside-of-matrix world. But I think they'd understand it, whereas many people don't really get the matrix idea until they're provided with a really good example.)
no subject
Date: 2007-07-31 11:44 am (UTC)The book that I have read more than once and most changed my mind about on the second reading was Orlando. The first time round I hated it - didn't get in the spirit of it I guess, but I reread it a few years later and really enjoyed it. Although I don't think it would claim to be clever.