Ugh; what to do? What to say? The less financial purpose or investment into personal expression the more pure that expression that is? No; I can list several hundred artists who are finer, more articulate expressers than children ever could be.
I'd love to see a child come up with something like the measured tension of
Duel or
Jaws, the creative, imaginative set-pieces of
Raiders of the Lost Ark, the sheer ferocity of
Saving Private Ryan, the - nah, actually, you're right. What am I
thinking?
LONG LIVE CHILDREN!!!!!!! I should probably kill myself now, since I outgrew childhood years ago.
Children are fantastic artists because they don't really worry about what others will think. At least not nearly as much as adults do. Children don't really care about all the rubbish that comes with creating the expression, they just care about making that expression. But, with age comes a superior conscience, as do insecurities. And, whether we acknowledge it or not, our fears of what others will think
do hinder our ability to express, as we will bring ourselves back to modify the original image in order to sweep away negative conceptions that may come from our peers.
And I think that my initial statement, the one you first commented on, answers the bit about financial gain corrupting art. It doesn't necessarily corrupt art. It can, but it doesn't have to. I'm not sure if that's the case with Spielberg. sometimes it is, and other times it isn't. I just can't really connect with his lavish way of presenting things, among several other issues that I hold against him. But, even the films that people hail as his masterpieces, I've never found myself moved by any of them. svsg once commented that he makes a spectacle of nothing, and I'm not sure if that's correct or not; There is a play, the title to which I cannot remember (but I'm certain you or someone else will know what I'm talking about) in which nothing significant happens. It's just two men talking in the middle of the road. Waiting for something that never comes. Someone or something... It just never comes. Is that making a spectacle of nothing? Or does that do the opposite? Does it present it for what it is? Does it introduce it as nothing? Or is it playing down something ultimately significant? Whatever the case, it was much more enjoyable than whatever it is that Spielberg is doing.
Read, by the way,
this book. It comes with two warnings: it was written by an adult, and it is very, very long, but delving into it might be beneficial to your approach to Hollywood Cinema (since Spielberg might well be the epitome of its aesthetic), which right now struggles to break the boundaries of disdain.
When was it established that
length is something to turn me off?
