![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
loloteheDan and I had a conversation a while back about the responsibility of the artist. We hit some weird points.
Dan says that an artist who cannot be properly transcribed to another medium has failed to get his message across. Examples on this front are the film adaptations of Vonnegut's “Breakfast of Champions” and “Slapstick”. I'd come back on this and argue “Slaughterhouse Five”, but I think this is more a directorial decision to play something for laughs, rather than straight. “Slaughterhouse Five” is a fine film whereas the others are not. The others try to be comedies, which is why they fail.
Let's keep this all in anime, though. I had said a few weeks ago that Neon Genesis Evangelion was good and I enjoyed it. Dan disagrees because it played over the heads of its audience. I agree with him on this front.
As I have said before, the end of NGE works if you understand some gnostic and quabbalistic teachings. If you have that background, it does make a lot of sense. If you have not, it's just a mess of symbols that signify jack-shit. You should not require a doctorate in metaphysics to enjoy an anime. This is a failure of assumption: that the symbology would be cool enough to get past the confusion.
This was also one of the major failings of the last Matrix film. Having watched Joseph Campbell's “Theory of Myth” on PBS many Sunday afternoons, I can say the story does agree with the formula set forward. However, I can can totally understand why someone who had not seen and/or read that would be confused. Again, we have a failure of assumption on the part of the creator on what the audience has and has not been exposed to.
The exposure does not have to be academic. A couple months ago, I watched David Lynch's Dune with my folks, both of whom are over 75. My dad, who had read Dune when it was first serialized in Analog magazine, had no problem following along. My mom, who had not read the source material, was asking questions every five minutes. She did not understand that the stage-three Guild navigator was a human being; and—when it was explained—asked in a exasperated voice when the film had been made. It is moments like this that I am grateful for the “pause” function on DVRs, because we might not have made it thirty minutes at the rate we were going.
We'd had similar experiences with watching the Sci-fi Channel's mini-series of Dune. Yes, it was more true to the book and Mom did not ask as many questions, but even she agreed that Lynch had told a better story. Even though she had to have major concepts explained to her, once she had them, she was more satisfied with the narrative. One was true to the material; one told the story.
Sadly, the Facedancers did have to be explained, as the Sci-Fi channel kinda screwed the pooch on that one .
Oddly enough, growing up, it had always been that I would watch the art-films with Mom and the shoot-em-ups with Dad. Mom and I went and saw The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, Her Lover (and came out of the midnight viewing absolutely ravenous). Dad and I went and saw Total Recall and bemoaned the lack of Hoslt's The Planets in the soundtrack.
Guess which parent thought The Handmaid's Tale was a good book.
Going back to the responsibility of the artist: I absolutely adore 2001, by Stanley Kubrick. Dan and I have had a major argument about this one, namely because of the twenty-minute “Stargate” sequence. Personally, I don't have an issue with it, but Dan is upset that Kubrick spent so much time building a universe only to dick away with the last third of the film. I am more forgiving in this example, thinking that Kubrick had been given a time-limit and budgetary restraints that did not allow him to show what he really wanted.
Well, let's think about that.
Kubrick did spend a lot of time building his universe. He was very careful to hold our hands for most of the film, only to let us free to randomly wander the darkness the last few minutes. This is so out of character for the director, that I honestly believe he was forced to end things before he thought they should end. Seriously, the guy who made Barry London got all trippy and said, “It is what you want”. Bull. He was forced to wrap things up and tried to play it off. I don't buy it.
What I am more willing to buy is Jorodosky experimenting at the end of Holy Mountain. For the most part, Jorodowsky kept in the confines of a Western when he made El Topo.
There's a narrative that we're used to and can work within. It's not like we're talking about some Fehérlófia level mythology, where you have to understand who the gnomes are. You understand a Western: bad-guy, good-guy, conflict
[EDIT: a Wastern is a Western that takes place in a apocalyptic landscape, like Six String Samurai. Typos are funny like that.]
In El Topo, we have some pretty basic characters: the gunslinger, his love, the bad-guy. El Topo goes through and defeats the bad-guys one at a time until he only has to face himself and society. So, in El Topo, Jorodowsky stays in the confines of the Western story and tells it effectively and disturbingly. This is not the case in Holy Mountain, where most of the conflict is internal.
Jorodowsky does not care what you think, incidentally. He has his own thing going on and he's got Moebius to help him along the way. If you like it or not is of no concern to them; they are going to make fine art, with or without your blessings.
But, at the end of the day, how are you going to talk about what you just saw? Personally, I think the artist should leave you asking, “What did he mean?” not “What did he say?”
Let's look at the ending of the psychological drama Triangle, versus Red Versus Blue and their own examination of time travel. Which one seems more likely?
Yeah...thought so.
Dan says that an artist who cannot be properly transcribed to another medium has failed to get his message across. Examples on this front are the film adaptations of Vonnegut's “Breakfast of Champions” and “Slapstick”. I'd come back on this and argue “Slaughterhouse Five”, but I think this is more a directorial decision to play something for laughs, rather than straight. “Slaughterhouse Five” is a fine film whereas the others are not. The others try to be comedies, which is why they fail.
Let's keep this all in anime, though. I had said a few weeks ago that Neon Genesis Evangelion was good and I enjoyed it. Dan disagrees because it played over the heads of its audience. I agree with him on this front.
As I have said before, the end of NGE works if you understand some gnostic and quabbalistic teachings. If you have that background, it does make a lot of sense. If you have not, it's just a mess of symbols that signify jack-shit. You should not require a doctorate in metaphysics to enjoy an anime. This is a failure of assumption: that the symbology would be cool enough to get past the confusion.
This was also one of the major failings of the last Matrix film. Having watched Joseph Campbell's “Theory of Myth” on PBS many Sunday afternoons, I can say the story does agree with the formula set forward. However, I can can totally understand why someone who had not seen and/or read that would be confused. Again, we have a failure of assumption on the part of the creator on what the audience has and has not been exposed to.
The exposure does not have to be academic. A couple months ago, I watched David Lynch's Dune with my folks, both of whom are over 75. My dad, who had read Dune when it was first serialized in Analog magazine, had no problem following along. My mom, who had not read the source material, was asking questions every five minutes. She did not understand that the stage-three Guild navigator was a human being; and—when it was explained—asked in a exasperated voice when the film had been made. It is moments like this that I am grateful for the “pause” function on DVRs, because we might not have made it thirty minutes at the rate we were going.
We'd had similar experiences with watching the Sci-fi Channel's mini-series of Dune. Yes, it was more true to the book and Mom did not ask as many questions, but even she agreed that Lynch had told a better story. Even though she had to have major concepts explained to her, once she had them, she was more satisfied with the narrative. One was true to the material; one told the story.
Sadly, the Facedancers did have to be explained, as the Sci-Fi channel kinda screwed the pooch on that one .
Oddly enough, growing up, it had always been that I would watch the art-films with Mom and the shoot-em-ups with Dad. Mom and I went and saw The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, Her Lover (and came out of the midnight viewing absolutely ravenous). Dad and I went and saw Total Recall and bemoaned the lack of Hoslt's The Planets in the soundtrack.
Guess which parent thought The Handmaid's Tale was a good book.
Going back to the responsibility of the artist: I absolutely adore 2001, by Stanley Kubrick. Dan and I have had a major argument about this one, namely because of the twenty-minute “Stargate” sequence. Personally, I don't have an issue with it, but Dan is upset that Kubrick spent so much time building a universe only to dick away with the last third of the film. I am more forgiving in this example, thinking that Kubrick had been given a time-limit and budgetary restraints that did not allow him to show what he really wanted.
Well, let's think about that.
Kubrick did spend a lot of time building his universe. He was very careful to hold our hands for most of the film, only to let us free to randomly wander the darkness the last few minutes. This is so out of character for the director, that I honestly believe he was forced to end things before he thought they should end. Seriously, the guy who made Barry London got all trippy and said, “It is what you want”. Bull. He was forced to wrap things up and tried to play it off. I don't buy it.
What I am more willing to buy is Jorodosky experimenting at the end of Holy Mountain. For the most part, Jorodowsky kept in the confines of a Western when he made El Topo.
There's a narrative that we're used to and can work within. It's not like we're talking about some Fehérlófia level mythology, where you have to understand who the gnomes are. You understand a Western: bad-guy, good-guy, conflict
[EDIT: a Wastern is a Western that takes place in a apocalyptic landscape, like Six String Samurai. Typos are funny like that.]
In El Topo, we have some pretty basic characters: the gunslinger, his love, the bad-guy. El Topo goes through and defeats the bad-guys one at a time until he only has to face himself and society. So, in El Topo, Jorodowsky stays in the confines of the Western story and tells it effectively and disturbingly. This is not the case in Holy Mountain, where most of the conflict is internal.
Jorodowsky does not care what you think, incidentally. He has his own thing going on and he's got Moebius to help him along the way. If you like it or not is of no concern to them; they are going to make fine art, with or without your blessings.
But, at the end of the day, how are you going to talk about what you just saw? Personally, I think the artist should leave you asking, “What did he mean?” not “What did he say?”
Let's look at the ending of the psychological drama Triangle, versus Red Versus Blue and their own examination of time travel. Which one seems more likely?
Yeah...thought so.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-03-19 04:06 am (UTC)At any rate, many times the artist is the person who is LEAST capable of determining the "meaning" of his or her work.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-09 03:22 pm (UTC)