20 thoughts on “Lent: Part 37

  1. shabubu

    Ryan, ever seen the Czech version of Alice?

    If you like weird movies…Alice in Wonderland done with taxidermed (sp?) animals. Interesting…

    Reply
    1. MacCrocodile Post author

      I saw most of it once years ago, late at night. We were all, it turned out, much too tired for European surrealism. I’ll watch it again sometime, but man, that was some weird Czech film.

      Reply
      1. shabubu

        Yea, quite weird…thing is, to me, it got more of the original feel of Alice in Wonderland across than any other retelling I’ve seen of it. Quite awesome, quite awesome…

        Reply
        1. MacCrocodile Post author

          I’m reluctant to make that kind of statement about an adaptation. For one thing, there’s little to no joy in simply repeating what has already been written; adaptation should be an adaptation to style, not just medium. A director who doesn’t make a movie his own work might as well just be a photocopier, running copies of the book off for people to read.

          Also, saying something has the original feel of the story is akin–in my mind–to claiming that I have interpreted the Bible in the only correct way, or claiming to know the intent of the founding fathers in things they didn’t write explicitly.

          Maybe we could say that you and this Czech guy had similar impressions of Alice.

          Reply
          1. shabubu

            Hmmm…I agree that my original sentence has some poor wording but, I think it’s still valid.

            “Feel” implies a personal sense already (I’ve always thought as such) – so, me saying “this feels right” – might feel like “omg, this is so wrong” to you (although, I’m sure our thoughts would be the exact opposite if you change one thing).

            I feel that this Czech guy got across the same feeling that the original Alice in Wonderland book got across, to me.

            In my opinion, one of the amazing things about humans is that we can each read the same book and each get a totally different experience out of it (or movie, song, conversation, play, etc) – I don’t plan on clarifying that for each sentence. 😛

            Your suggested sentence, might not be accurate either – with that, I’d be putting thoughts and impressions into the mind of that Czech dude. He might have hated Alice in Wonderland, only doing the film cause he had nightmares telling him to do so.

            I’ve been called out much more often on putting thoughts into someone’s mind, than blanket statements of something that is, almost 100% of the time, relative.

          2. MacCrocodile Post author

            No, you’re right. I overthought what you’d said, but I’ve often found myself in conversations defending film and television as legitimate art forms on the same level as the written word.

          3. MacCrocodile Post author

            Oh, I try not to get into that, but since you asked…

            I admire art that clearly took time, effort and skill. As such, I don’t care for Jackson Pollock. Maybe I’m uncultured, but when I look at his stuff, I can’t figure out what separates it from an accident. But I still let people call it art. Art is one of those infinitely subjective things that will never be defined, and so I don’t take Artists too seriously. Especially not the ones who take themselves seriously.

            On the other hand, I just hate to hear people always comparing film adaptations to the source material. No, it will never be the exact same thing. If it ever is, it means it’s too long, and it’s not so much a film as a book on tape for people too lazy to read.

          4. shabubu

            To me, art is something that was created that causes an emotional response to someone.

            Art is relative, your midget story – SOMEONE thought it was something more than a midget with a sign.

            Art doesn’t matter matter if it was willfully done, I believe nature can make works of art – it’s organized matter just like a painting.

            Art doesn’t matter if it was paid for or not. Most of the “masters” would have an empty portfolio, if whatever church didn’t pay them for it. And Mucha would be nothing without cigarette ads.

            Art could be almost anything. Kind of silly, but why can’t a lecture or speech have an artistic “feel” to it?

            That’s my take on art – and there are many to disagree.

            You’ve got a story coming out? When did this happen? Where is it for me to read?

          5. MacCrocodile Post author

            I definitely agree with you on your points. I just try not to define art, or I start to sound like an Artist.

            Anyway, we all agreed that if the man in the picture were the one submitting it, we’d put it in; it was his action that was artistic. There was another photo sent in, this one of a glass votive candle holder. It was very pretty, and we spent a long time trying to figure out if the glass or the photo was the art in question. If the artist had blown the glass himself, we’d have put it in the magazine. Ultimately, we concluded somehow that it was just someone taking a picture of a pretty thing he’d found, and that was also trashed.

            The trick in discussing art is giving credit where credit is due. That can be almost impossible when art becomes formalized.

          6. shabubu

            Cool! It possible to read your story?

            Btw, you make it hard to troll for ‘debate’ on art, when you just agree with outlandish claims of “this is art”.

            I’m sad.

          7. MacCrocodile Post author

            I dislike Artists enough that I don’t want to get into an argument with any of them. It’s about as futile as debating evolution with a creationist. So I just smile and nod, and agree that anything people want to be art is art. Whether I like it or not is another argument entirely.

          8. MacCrocodile Post author

            Sorry, I have a bit of a one-track mind today.

            I still have the full text of the story on my computer, but I thought I’d wait until it’s officially published and make everyone read it on the officially published website.

          9. MacCrocodile Post author

            I was on the art selection committee for the school’s literary magazine (the same one that’s about to publish my story). We came across a photo someone had submitted. The picture was of a midget (dwarf, little person, or whatever they call themselves now) holding a sign that said “FREE HUGS”. The editor loved that picture, and it made it through several rounds of elimination processes.

            Finally, someone asked, “Yes, it’s cute, but what did the photographer do to make it art?” We looked at the picture very carefully, and while it was competently shot and processed, there was nothing remarkable about it other than the central subject. We immediately trashed it.

  2. thebluewillow

    Apparently modern germen filmmakers aren’t able to create they way they did before WWII due to an overwhelming, and often unconscious amount of guilt. Instead they make… really uh.. out there, but incomprehensible films. Or crap.

    Reply

Leave a Reply