Originally posted by Capo de La Cosa Nostra:
The technical term for critically "ripping apart" is [b]deconstruction.[/b]
EXCELLENT defintion.
The same applies to poetry. And even paintings. Just as the director has constructed this piece, so we as an audience must [b]deconstruct it, in order to find things that the director intended--and didn't intend. [/b]
(Somewhere, at a random American cinema in late May 1977) "And the stormtrooper banged his head on the Death Star door
because?"
As a personal preference, the most rewarding films for me are the ones which you can go back to and watch again and see the same film which offers different things from the last viewing.
"As a personal preference, the most rewarding films for me are the ones" are the ones which, through the strength and beauty of their narrative construction, manage to pull you into their world successfully (through 'escapsim'
) and make you
genuinely feel for the characters, (be it love them, hate them, terrified of them, or pity them), and the situations they finds themselves in.
You watch it, you enjoy it, you watch it again, enjoy it again, but the viewing doesn't evolve, doesn't provoke any further thought or emotion. Same thing with Scarface (1983).
I suppose here is where we discuss an individaul film and differ, but I do feel
Scarface succeeds to a degree as a intriguing (and certainly entertaining) observation of the trials of an immigrant and is epic in scope, bolstered by an assured direction and a rousing preformance by Pacino.
To me, art is entertainment. If it doesn't entertain me, I don't like it. ...But it's still art.
EXACTLY! That's personal preference! I do think
Plan 9 From Outer Space is a very low budget film of certain merit, and my friends dismiss it as utter crap.
In that sense, I fully agree with Plaw; that art and escapism are "not mutually exclusive".
It is an interesting idea...!
