prelude to the afternoon of a chili dog
good grief it's close here. 79 °F, and dew point is 74 °F. and it's 8:00 a.m.
yesterday ms. cicadashell and i went to the movies (more on that later) and when we got out of the theatre at quarter of seven we were met with this ridiculous blast of hot, moist breeze. and the hazy sunshine and the waving ornamental grasses outside the quality-16 had me thinking i was already down in coastal north carolina, save for the smell of the brackish sediments of the estuarine cape fear river. and then later, sitting out on the deck grilling a ribeye, and just steaming there with an almost cold bell's amber listening to the annual cicadas buzzing it up, in one tree or another, passing the buzz song from tree to tree and going around my head better than any quadrophonic setup could, or even a dolby 5.1 whatever the hell that is anyway. certain moments can only occur here in late july, or at least they occur most often then, and that was certainly one of them.
so we saw war of the worlds, which i had very much wanted to see as i like everything by mr. spielberg. i had read mixed reviews but don't really put much stock into the movie writing that goes into the newspapers. i did read about some backlash from new yorkers and others close to the wtc attacks and while it struck me as petty i understood how deeply affecting that experience must have been and i wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt, and see the movie before weighing in on the subject.
well, after seeing the movie i can understand the feeling of violation. mr. spielberg made full use of images whose evocative power was not, i believe, widely understood by the public, nor by most film directors, prior to the attacks. the images that moved me probably the most at the time were pictures of dozens of persons gazing up in horror at the unfolding scene. certainly, interviewers understand the power of the "reaction shot", and have used it to great effect, but i can't really recall a commercial action/disaster film in which the camera lingered over shocked and bewildered and fearful faces in this same way. and then the dust everywhere, the white dust on mr. cruise's face - persons in the demolition business knew about the dust already (friends who watched the implosion of the hudson's building in detroit from an adjacent 12th-floor office window tell incredible stories about the dust) but again, it wasn't really used to the same effect. another image clearly taken from those events, but that did not ring true in this film, was a wall of handmade signs, looking for so-and-so, so-and-so is missing, has anyone see this man? both my wife and i thought the same thing - where would people find the time to make these signs? they were all fleeing the horrible tripods.
so. is this okay? i have always championed the artist's need to remain insulated from the subjective response of the "audience"; indeed, for many artists the purpose is the provoke, or at least evoke, something in the viewer. you can't really follow your ideas if you are concerned about hurting people's feelings, or offending their sensibilities, or (shudder) making them feel guilty about themselves. this principle becomes muddled somewhat, however, when an artistic medium like film is used also as a commercial medium, distributed to the masses with some expectation of commonality of experience in the same way we are all expected to eat at mcdonald's together. there ends up being some give and take, although i suspect it is mostly between the director and the studio and the ratings board.
so i think a film director of mr. spielberg's abilities needs to be free to use whatever imagery he feels will best tell his story; indeed, his work is all about images and he is very, very good with them. but i can't help feeling that if he were more connected to new york (like martin scorsese or spike lee) he might have approached this a little differently. there is no requirement, i believe, to consider your audience's feelings. but it would be totally human to do so.
yesterday ms. cicadashell and i went to the movies (more on that later) and when we got out of the theatre at quarter of seven we were met with this ridiculous blast of hot, moist breeze. and the hazy sunshine and the waving ornamental grasses outside the quality-16 had me thinking i was already down in coastal north carolina, save for the smell of the brackish sediments of the estuarine cape fear river. and then later, sitting out on the deck grilling a ribeye, and just steaming there with an almost cold bell's amber listening to the annual cicadas buzzing it up, in one tree or another, passing the buzz song from tree to tree and going around my head better than any quadrophonic setup could, or even a dolby 5.1 whatever the hell that is anyway. certain moments can only occur here in late july, or at least they occur most often then, and that was certainly one of them.
so we saw war of the worlds, which i had very much wanted to see as i like everything by mr. spielberg. i had read mixed reviews but don't really put much stock into the movie writing that goes into the newspapers. i did read about some backlash from new yorkers and others close to the wtc attacks and while it struck me as petty i understood how deeply affecting that experience must have been and i wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt, and see the movie before weighing in on the subject.
well, after seeing the movie i can understand the feeling of violation. mr. spielberg made full use of images whose evocative power was not, i believe, widely understood by the public, nor by most film directors, prior to the attacks. the images that moved me probably the most at the time were pictures of dozens of persons gazing up in horror at the unfolding scene. certainly, interviewers understand the power of the "reaction shot", and have used it to great effect, but i can't really recall a commercial action/disaster film in which the camera lingered over shocked and bewildered and fearful faces in this same way. and then the dust everywhere, the white dust on mr. cruise's face - persons in the demolition business knew about the dust already (friends who watched the implosion of the hudson's building in detroit from an adjacent 12th-floor office window tell incredible stories about the dust) but again, it wasn't really used to the same effect. another image clearly taken from those events, but that did not ring true in this film, was a wall of handmade signs, looking for so-and-so, so-and-so is missing, has anyone see this man? both my wife and i thought the same thing - where would people find the time to make these signs? they were all fleeing the horrible tripods.
so. is this okay? i have always championed the artist's need to remain insulated from the subjective response of the "audience"; indeed, for many artists the purpose is the provoke, or at least evoke, something in the viewer. you can't really follow your ideas if you are concerned about hurting people's feelings, or offending their sensibilities, or (shudder) making them feel guilty about themselves. this principle becomes muddled somewhat, however, when an artistic medium like film is used also as a commercial medium, distributed to the masses with some expectation of commonality of experience in the same way we are all expected to eat at mcdonald's together. there ends up being some give and take, although i suspect it is mostly between the director and the studio and the ratings board.
so i think a film director of mr. spielberg's abilities needs to be free to use whatever imagery he feels will best tell his story; indeed, his work is all about images and he is very, very good with them. but i can't help feeling that if he were more connected to new york (like martin scorsese or spike lee) he might have approached this a little differently. there is no requirement, i believe, to consider your audience's feelings. but it would be totally human to do so.
posted by cicadashell at
11:50 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home