Originally posted by Capo de La Cosa Nostra:
Everything, in how we judge a film, is shaped by our desires and our memory, whatever they may be. And I think many underestimate the power of the unconscious connection which memory fulfills.
I totally agree, Mick. In fact I was talking about "our" masterpieces lists. There ain't no absolute truth, no given dogma in a most subjective issue like that.
Originally posted by Capo de La Cosa Nostra:
The most ridiculous paradox ever was something I read along the lines of, "It never hit me emotionally, but I thought the cinematography was amazing." Amazing? In order to think that, it must have connected some way on an emotional level, no?
well, as for the technical sides, I guess there can be some kind of objectivity though. Technics don't necessarily imply emotions. You can use technics to stress the emotional issues, but you can do it even in a neutral way, if you know what I mean. A movie plot can be shallow, or a plain bore, or lousily acted, still the cinematography can be technically perfect and I don't see why it shouldn't be recognized.
Originally posted by Capo de La Cosa Nostra:
Just because it can't be voiced in words, doesn't mean it doesn't exist:
[b]"Cinema has a language of its own, and it's a damned shamed to have to translate that back into words." - David Lynch [/b]
I agree with both you and David Lynch. In this order...
