Altman's comments on the lowest common denominator

Started by SoNowThen, December 30, 2003, 10:57:38 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1 2
User actions

SoNowThen

December 30, 2003, 10:57:38 AM
I would like to put a ban on 14-year-old boys and not allow them to see any movies. If that happened for one year, the whole definition of what is a big movie and what is a little movie would flip-flop.


I see what he's getting at, but it's a little much, this comment. I certainly wasn't the smartest or most open-minded fellow at 14, but my interest in movies was just starting (a la Tarantino), and it would be the next few years that I would come to love cinema and embrace it as a career option (along the way I discovered The Player, Short Cuts, and Nashville -- all by the time I was 18 ).

So I'm sure he's just railing against some exec that told him him they need to sell to "14 year old boys", but to single that group out (especially when there's 13 year old girls supporting shit like Honey and Save The Last Dance, and middle-age women supporting every plastic romance J-Lo / Julia Roberts flick) is just plain unfair.

Thoughts???

(this is from the new Ebert interview, btw)
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

kotte

#1
December 30, 2003, 11:07:39 AM
Sounds like a comment out of anger but couldn't there be some truth to it?

Say we put a ban on all people under 16. What would happen to cinema then? Good things is my bet.

SoNowThen

#2
December 30, 2003, 11:12:12 AM
No, I'm betting just less intelligent older people.

Let's face facts: none of us started off in film by watching the most "challenging" or "important" works. In North America anyway, we came to cinema via commercial films. When we were younger. What I'm saying is maybe Altman has it the wrong way around, instead of banning the 14 year olds, try to sell the good films to younger people, and teach them to be more open-minded. It will never happen, I know, but I've decided to be utopian today...
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

kotte

#3
December 30, 2003, 11:15:19 AM
You're right.

I'm not at my most intelligent right now.

Gold Trumpet

#4
December 30, 2003, 01:48:40 PM
I don't think he is really serious about the comment. Maybe just an example of where all the attention in film promotion is going these days.

kotte

#5
December 30, 2003, 01:52:03 PM
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI don't think he is really serious about the comment. Maybe just an example of where all the attention in film promotion is going these days.

It does. How did it come to this? How did that group become the most vital one? Easier to please 14 year old boys than grown ups. How?

It saddens me when I get into a near empty premiere screening of a PTA film or when a PDL screening is filled with 14 year olds.

molly

#6
December 30, 2003, 01:54:10 PM
Quote from: SoNowThenNo, I'm betting just less intelligent older people.

Let's face facts: none of us started off in film by watching the most "challenging" or "important" works. In North America anyway, we came to cinema via commercial films. When we were younger. What I'm saying is maybe Altman has it the wrong way around, instead of banning the 14 year olds, try to sell the good films to younger people, and teach them to be more open-minded. It will never happen, I know, but I've decided to be utopian today...

it's hard to sell those films to 14 year olds because i've read somewhere that children can't really understand the concept of death till age 12. You can't expect them to understand more abstract things and subtle messages. You can test yourself: watch a movie(or read a book) that you saw last time when you were around 10, or 14. Try to remember what you thought of it then and what you think of it now. Children grow up and learn about the world from books (or picture books, fairy tales...) and they don't have informations to see things that grown ups do.
The problem is that lots of bad movies with agressive advertising become "must see" for teenagers. And "must see" in teen age means literally that.
Finding Nemo has a story told in a way that is appealing to children and grown ups, each of them seing different things and nobody feels neglected. It's hard to do that - people say that only the biggest have that ability to be simple but not stupid.

SoNowThen

#7
December 30, 2003, 02:05:02 PM
Very true.

However:
A lot of the stuff I consider "best" or "my favorite" now, I wouldn't have got when I was younger. Some of it I revisited and of course got greater depth out of it, but it was nice to have been exposed earlier, so that it had some time to sink in. A good example of this is Straw Dogs. I saw that when I was 15. Did I understand it? No, I liked seeing Susan George naked, and cheered for Dustin to kill the intruders. But just last month, after not watching it since (but remembering snippets) I had a conversation with someone who was kinda disgusted by it, particularily the scene   **SPOILER **   where Susan willingly allows herself to be raped. And at the time I was baffled by this, but now I've come to understand it in the context of the film, and somewhat trying to get into what the ideas were -- and I realized how perfect and precise and ballsy this scene was. Now I can't wait to revisit that film!!

Also, sometimes when you're young, 1% of the really good stuff can slip through and you actually understand it (however this happens, I dunno). I got into Dickens fairly young, when many others my age were bored to death with him, and that's stayed with me.

I dunno, I just wanna expose as much good stuff to as much people as possible, and see what sticks. Cos some of it eventually will, it's inevitable.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

godardian

#8
December 30, 2003, 02:44:55 PM
I like Altman's comment. Sometimes you need to tug extra hard in the cultural tug-of-war when you have such a hard, hard pull from the other end, and I think that's what he's doing. Do you think Johnny Rotten would have actually murdered the Queen of England? No, but he might've thought about it, and at that time and place, it was very important that someone speak up, even if their vehemence seemed out of proportion. I like people who speak up, particularly when it's about the elephant in the room thatnobody will acknowledge.

As far as picking on the boys vs. the girls, more teenage boys than teenage girls go to movies, and more teenage and young adult men go to movies than any other group. It's a Catch-22, because the idealistic (Altman-esque) way of looking at it is that if that weren't the case, you would actually have more of the other groups coming to movies, because movies would be made with them in mind as an audience, and though a huge rise in the overall quality of cinema wouldn't automatically follow, there might be more openings for different kinds of movies. The people who need to sell the movies would be able to believe they could sell more kinds of (and even better quality) movies.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

SoNowThen

#9
December 30, 2003, 02:46:12 PM
Poppycock, I say.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Pas

#10
December 30, 2003, 06:55:43 PM
Quote from: godardianI like Altman's comment..

Oh yeah, banning certain groups of society based on their age, sex or race from culture and information is really a good idea. Someone else tought about it before Altman and you though,

kotte

#11
December 30, 2003, 07:03:43 PM
godardian will pick up where Adolf left off, I'm sure.

godardian

#12
December 30, 2003, 07:36:14 PM
Quote from: Pas Rapport
Quote from: godardianI like Altman's comment..

Oh yeah, banning certain groups of society based on their age, sex or race from culture and information is really a good idea. Someone else tought about it before Altman and you though,

How embarrassing for you that I have to point out that Altman's admirably curmudgeonly tongue was, obviously, firmly in cheek, while Hitler's just as obviously wasn't. He was being disproportionate as a little joke to make a point. Subtitles for the humor-impaired, Pas?

It's actually pretty gross and irresponsible to compare Altman's obviously facetious comment to Nazism; it's exactly that kind of overreacting attitude that right-wingers are always accusing the so-called "politically correct" of, but when such a joke comes from farther left on the spectrum, the person making it is fucking Hitler!!! Dull, dull, dull.....
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

soixante

#13
December 30, 2003, 09:00:46 PM
Altman is always right.  Nobody has more integrity than Altman, and he shoots from the hip.  What's great is that instead of mellowing with age, he is launching verbal ICBM's at the world of commerce.  The worst thing that has happened in the history of cinema is the 80's, in which all films were aimed at kids and teenagers.
Music is your best entertainment value.

Pas

#14
December 30, 2003, 09:06:04 PM
Quote from: godardian
Quote from: Pas Rapport
Quote from: godardianI like Altman's comment..

Oh yeah, banning certain groups of society based on their age, sex or race from culture and information is really a good idea. Someone else tought about it before Altman and you though,

How embarrassing for you that I have to point out that Altman's admirably curmudgeonly tongue was, obviously, firmly in cheek, while Hitler's just as obviously wasn't. He was being disproportionate as a little joke to make a point. Subtitles for the humor-impaired, Pas?

It's actually pretty gross and irresponsible to compare Altman's obviously facetious comment to Nazism; it's exactly that kind of overreacting attitude that right-wingers are always accusing the so-called "politically correct" of, but when such a joke comes from farther left on the spectrum, the person making it is fucking Hitler!!! Dull, dull, dull.....

Admit his comment was dumb at once. I'm sure you'd scream scandal if the Farelly brothers (or whatever) said that intellectuals should be banned from theaters so we would have only 'entertaining' movies. It's the same thing, except not in an elitist bastard way.
Print
Go Up Pages1 2
User actions