tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post4374693073270964927..comments2023-11-05T04:31:48.615-05:00Comments on Elusive Lucidity: Cases Closed / Problems OpenedZChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10211734319629732065noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-11752641103920424462011-10-27T14:38:54.432-04:002011-10-27T14:38:54.432-04:00There's no doubt, the dude is absolutely just....There's no doubt, the dude is absolutely just.your sexualhttp://www.jdzsb.net/by-internet/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-18428931430873740122011-10-26T16:43:57.202-04:002011-10-26T16:43:57.202-04:00I think that all what you said is very good and in...I think that all what you said is very good and interesting, it is a great topic for an open debate.xl pharmacyhttp://www.bestpharmacy.org/xlpharmacy.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-81454881387374051322011-09-02T22:32:58.480-04:002011-09-02T22:32:58.480-04:00David, sorry I'm responding to this comment so...David, sorry I'm responding to this comment so late - I just saw it. I find it easy enough to understand departures of taste, regarding Malick, which at least respect what the films in question are doing or <i>attempting</i> to do. My experience with <i>The New World</i> gave me some insight into what I suspect might be your point of view here, so I can understand the frustration. Or deflation. Still, I can't shake this sense Malick is usually on to something.<br /><br />As for Denis and Tsai - these are two filmmakers I love, both of whom made films in the middle of the past decade that made <i>me</i> wonder if they'd given up the ghost, only to happily reunite with them (e.g., <i>The Wayward Cloud</i> is great I think, and <i>35 Shots of Rum</i> is up there with Denis' best). But <i>L'Intrus</i> and <i>Goodbye Dragon Inn</i> are disappointing in execution if not on paper - to me anyway.<br /><br />And duly noted on Jancso. Hopefully I can devote a little more attention to him and write it up on EL. I like his work but have seen very little of it. (Even more drastically than is the case with Raul Ruiz, he seems like a great filmmaker whose body of work is limited to a tiny, tiny fraction for most of us.)Zachhttp://elusivelucidity.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-70999993726017595102011-09-01T01:04:40.938-04:002011-09-01T01:04:40.938-04:00Thanks for posting that excerpt from that Jancso e...Thanks for posting that excerpt from that Jancso essay; I think he's a genius who needs far more attention. <br /><br />The point about universalization in Jancso's films is intriguing. It clearly comes from a Hegelian standpoint (duh), but Jancso is very much like Godard in resisting the urge to particularize through *literary* means; at least from Red Psalm onward, all the human particularities come from the fact that it's human beings on the screen and not words on a page. Sometimes this leads Jancso into disaster: Hungarian Rhapsody does not work at all. But on the other hand, something like God Walks Backwards is extremely unsettling precisely because the actions of the people on screen are *not* wholly concrete. I think Levi's critique applies best to Red Psalm, which is an absolute masterpiece, and *perhaps* to Electra My Love, but I think it's putting Jancso into a box to extend it to his other films.<br /><br />On the other hand, I find Malick unbearably pompous, from Badlands to Tree of Life; as with Cassavetes, my problem is not with what he's doing but with my sense that he's not all that good at it. I watch the Color of Pomegranates, and then I cringe at a Malick film. So I think I'm in agreement with your basic point but just happen to have a different taste. The contemporary director working in this vein who does the most for me is probably Tsai Ming-Liang, who is very strange indeed. Possibly Breillat as well. Maybe Claire Denis, though I am very hot and cold on her work.David Auerbachhttp://www.waggish.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-60097685556700165682011-07-25T22:09:33.773-04:002011-07-25T22:09:33.773-04:00Meanwhile, the Stuart Klawans / Jonathan Rosenbaum...Meanwhile, the Stuart Klawans / Jonathan Rosenbaum 'universalized Americana' program reads like a culture studies parody. I follow and admire both critics, but this line of reasoning is totally unconvincing, like a rote exercise in implementing conservative America's caricatured notions of Political Correctness. It seems lazy, like a "way out" of unpacking or engaging with the film's challenging aspects.Will Snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-55192614154052037772011-07-25T21:47:00.349-04:002011-07-25T21:47:00.349-04:00Most of the sophisticated approaches to criticizin...Most of the sophisticated approaches to criticizing Tree of Life (sophisticated here meaning analysis beyond 'dull' or 'pretentious') have seemed especially tendentious or oddly desperate somehow. I'm genuinely fascinated by the Peter Tonguette / Dave Kehr tack, largely because the underlying logic is so bewildering and foreign to my own perspective. It strikes me as so self-apparently, anachronistically reactionary that I have to wonder if I'm missing some crucial component to the argument, given the respect I have for its proponents. Unfortunately re-readings haven't yielded much..<br /><br />The brand of cinephile with this type of essentialist commitment to specific (usually CHC) formal paradigms, a given set of continuity editing norms, etc. reminds me of the musicians and record collectors I've met that fetishize analogue technology or listen exclusively to genres like 60s garage rock and its off-shoots. Seems sad and unnecessarily parochial.Will Snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-83014754939316485802011-07-24T19:21:42.798-04:002011-07-24T19:21:42.798-04:00You came to provoke a response, provoked a respons...You came to provoke a response, provoked a response, and succeeded? Congratulations. I hope you found it fulfilling.JeanRZEJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04530242176130470336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-32918998867097331722011-07-24T09:23:50.258-04:002011-07-24T09:23:50.258-04:00Jean:
Ok. Cool, I just wanted to see if we were l...Jean:<br /><br />Ok. Cool, I just wanted to see if we were living on the same world, aka Jean's solipsistic pleasure machine. We are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-79234722521695877772011-07-24T04:26:25.022-04:002011-07-24T04:26:25.022-04:00There's quite a difference between acknowledgi...There's quite a difference between acknowledging these facts and finding them personally interesting. In fact, I find them to be quite impersonal and distancing. I have any interest in which aspects of my friends' personalities travels well to others or how their legacy will live on after they die, I care about friendship, that direct relationship between myself and those I care about. The same is true of art. These other subjects mentioned are merely sociological, and I find the sociological aspects of both of these subjects to be quite banal and quite distanced from questions of human happiness. You imply that this relationship I am speaking of with art is 'mathematical', but, then, of course, this is pretentious, by definition, since you are speaking on the pretense of knowing how I feel. As it stands - you have described only the way I relate to that which I have professed a deep disinterest. This is not to say that I have no interest in sociology or politics, but these seem to me quite trivial questions. Your 'study of mediations' is to me a study of conjecture, which is not at all a study of actual art. Let me just address your final point to point out how absolutely ridiculous it is to ascribe such a position to me, and if the rest doesn't follow to you then both a.) I probably haven't made a full statement of the foundation of my beliefs (and don't feel like it is necessary) and b.) you certainly won't do much but display a great arrogance at attempting to fill in these gaps in your understanding with such nonsensical conjecture.<br /><br />'Otherwise you are in the uncomfortable position of saying that culture is a sort of magical activity where magic objects come down from geniuses/mediums/witches like Malick or Goethe and we can only dance around them in sublime adoration.'<br /><br />I am aware that people made this film, and that this film could have been otherwise (in fact every film could have been every other film, and every other possible film), and what I can know of these circumstances is so far removed from the film and so minimal, ineffectually comprised, and, in my opinion, irrelevant that I fail to see the supposed great loss. The issue is not one of ignorance but of interest, and your silly straw man displays evidence of a preponderance of the former and an utter lack of the latter, otherwise you may have actually displayed some knowledge and inquisitiveness. Apparently neither of these interested you, so all you have is ignorance.JeanRZEJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04530242176130470336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-15368088694015245762011-07-23T13:26:24.748-04:002011-07-23T13:26:24.748-04:00Jean:
Forget politics... Can't you see that t...Jean:<br /><br />Forget politics... Can't you see that the TRANSMISSION, and success over generations of cultural material depends on factors completely unrelated to the Text? It's never just you having some platonic experience with some mathematical object. Culture is made of stuff, some stuff travels well and has depth and resonance, some never goes anywhere and vanishes over time. If, for example, The Tree of Life had had Woody Allen playing Mr. O'Brien, I think that we can safely say that we would be dealing with a completely different object, no? How the word becomes flesh, that is, the study of mediations, is a crucial part of any sort of non-naive engagement with culture. Otherwise you are in the uncomfortable position of saying that culture is a sort of magical activity where magic objects come down from geniuses/mediums/witches like Malick or Goethe and we can only dance around them in sublime adoration.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-2511661111460328812011-07-22T23:08:05.430-04:002011-07-22T23:08:05.430-04:00'I think questions of manufacture can and ofte...'I think questions of manufacture can and often do influence experience, and more importantly, if we're interested in talking about the role that Tree of Life might actually play in terms of politics, in terms of culture industry (which is not the only thing to talk about, but it's not taboo either), then that is why I think it's not only useful but crucial to discuss its manufacture.'<br /><br />Ahh, well, it has always been my goal to never worry about art's relationship to politics, so this is probably why I am so averse to using such terms. From a sociological standpoint it is intriguing but brings mostly despair at the senselessness and fear of the influence of the masses. Thus, for me anyway, culture industry is the greatest taboo!JeanRZEJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04530242176130470336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-67124387912898015292011-07-22T09:37:44.541-04:002011-07-22T09:37:44.541-04:00Regarding the "universalism" of Malick: ...Regarding the "universalism" of Malick: Isn't the whole philosophical point of Job that to universalize a theodicy from experience is folly - in the story, you have a bunch of guys doing irreconcilable literary criticism from different schools on God's actions and smashing up against the intentional fallacy every time. I'd suggest, with Zach, that a film that starts off with that particular quote is doing some sort of critique of universalism rather than engaging in it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-50224667791250863822011-07-21T21:32:06.389-04:002011-07-21T21:32:06.389-04:00Thanks for the kind words, Brian - and I agree wit...Thanks for the kind words, Brian - and I agree with you on that final point.<br /><br />Jean - I think questions of manufacture can and often do influence experience, and more importantly, if we're interested in talking about the role that <i>Tree of Life</i> might actually play in terms of politics, in terms of culture industry (which is not the only thing to talk about, but it's not taboo either), then that is why I think it's not only useful but <i>crucial</i> to discuss its manufacture. And the reason I bring up the question of its sociopolitical significance is largely in response to those critics who suggest, usually through innuendo, that the film is somehow badly and baldly "universalist" (which means, in this context, patriarchal, milquetoast, etc.). That's why I keep mentioning it.ZChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10211734319629732065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-45903204687065792292011-07-21T21:13:46.940-04:002011-07-21T21:13:46.940-04:00'But my point is that to call The Tree of Life...'But my point is that to call The Tree of Life or any other complex or even explicitly political film a "product" does not reduce it to the low level of social utility that a film like Zookeeper has.'<br /><br />It just seems an odd word to use to me in this context since the word refers to its manufacture rather than experience, and thus has a closer implicit relationship to a marxist/capitalist ideological frame of reference than an impressionistic, experiential frame of reference. The latter is not ideological but aesthetic, whereas the term is anything but aesthetic. I still don't understand why either of you are using such a term for an aesthetic context - does it even matter that it is 'a product' to the discussion? All films are, in this context, products, so it really doesn't distinguish them, and since their existence as a product isn't relevant to the aesthetic experience I can't see how such a term could be anything other than a reference to an ideological frame of reference. Now, when Zach says that 'we should approach this question politically' - twice - and that is a point I have never agreed with or understood the argument for. I see it often in blockbuster circles, of how the profits will drive the kinds of movies that get made in the near future, and that seems to be the same line of reasoning you're taking, but I don't watch many films in the multiplex, so it doesn't really matter to me. In fact, I tend to prefer watching films that were banned in their home countries and never shown, films whose status as products existed longer in rumor than in proven fact, and not with reference to this but merely because those things that push the boundaries past the breaking point tend to be interesting for the very reasons that a discussion of potential ripoffs of The Tree of Life doing well in the multiplex is not (originality, singularity, opacity - the things that a Ruizian conversation is made of).JeanRZEJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04530242176130470336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-66145319043617379812011-07-18T17:52:43.490-04:002011-07-18T17:52:43.490-04:00Zach, I eagerly await seeing your name someday on ...Zach, I eagerly await seeing your name someday on the spine of a brilliant book!<br /><br />Jean, what I meant was that I don't see the recognition of a film text as product as "another punitive structure," in the sense that setting up the author as a straw (wo)man for the sake of moralizing ideological critique is a punitive structure. This is the distinction to me--it lies in the act of criticism. I do not believe that a work of art can be considered apart from its circulation as timeless aesthetic object; I mean to contrast criticism that views it as such versus criticism that accounts for, as Zach brings up, its material/embodied existence in history.<br /><br />As to the statement on which you wish me to expand: I say that we cannot separate out the idea of art from the reality of art's circulation as commodity, but this is not as strict as it might sound. Commodities have varying social functions, varying use-values, varying revolutionary potentiality. Consider that Benjamin looked to the world of commodities for the revolutionary spark that would "awaken" the proletariat. This analogy is not perfect, as Benjamin's commodities were not made to fuel social revolution whereas Nostalgia for the Light (which may not be a commercial film but was something I paid to see in Cleveland despite its Chilean/European origins and thus must be considered in the framework of the global economy) has political intent behind it. But my point is that to call The Tree of Life or any other complex or even explicitly political film a "product" does not reduce it to the low level of social utility that a film like Zookeeper has.<br /><br />Lastly, Zach--a small point. What sets apart The Tree of Life apart from "just another art movie" is the sheer number of people seeing it who haven't built up the art-movie viewing habits enough to enjoy it. To compare two consecutive Palme d'or winners, Uncle Boonmee and The Tree of Life are more or less categorized together by audiences today--as "art cinema," though one is foreign and one domestic--but Uncle Boonmee isn't confronting too many viewers outside the art cinema-going populace here (I would think) whereas TToL (probably thanks to Pitt and Penn) is. I wonder how often this happens, where a film as anti-multiplex as TToL sneaks into multiplexes and theaters have to put up signs saying "This is a very philosophical film. No refunds will be given." (That happened, though I paraphrased.)Brian H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06805059995882953756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-58449399000878231152011-07-18T10:23:43.897-04:002011-07-18T10:23:43.897-04:00This is not to say that the film is evil or reacti...This is not to say that the film is evil or reactionary for existing within this particular modernist-romantic paradigm. I'm saying that the very sense that a film can, and should, do this is predicated upon an aesthetic history which - if antithetical to "Hollywood" - is nevertheless still contained within the Eurocentric, imperialist biases of reading practices and taste hierarchies. (And this is where the comparison with <i>Nostalgia for the Light</i> might be, err, illuminating.) So what I'm saying is that it's not a "pure" film, there's no "pure" art even - but that we should approach this question politically, as materialists even, and no as the parish priests of our own personal Temples of Taste. This is why I've argued against the laziness of the unfleshed-out implication that "Malick universalizes." (And, relatedly, why I think those who dismiss Malick for "failing" in a classical storytelling idiom have simply missed the boat, period.) This tendency to weigh Terrence Malick, Auteur (TM) on the scales and find him lacking - or not - is, for me, quite unimportant when the questions of politics or aesthetics come up. If we want to discuss how the film works, we should recognize its register for what it is. If we want to bring up the material question of politics (and we should), the question is not, “Is Malick Good/Bad?” but “What roles are played by the insertion of this somewhat older, more 'serious,' perhaps more complex model of art & aesthetics into a multiplex today? What results, if any at all, can come of it? Or will it function mainly as just another art movie?” (Probably.)ZChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10211734319629732065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-43522389374482789012011-07-18T10:23:40.095-04:002011-07-18T10:23:40.095-04:00Jean, my point is that our "actual experience...Jean, my point is that our "actual experience" of a film is never ethereally, or possible to disarticulate from the conditions in which we see (consume?) an art object. There is not experience of art that is not embodied, and furthermore, embedded in history. Though <i>Tree of Life</i> may make for "bad Hollywood product" (though thank you, anonymous commenter, for pointing out that it's <i>not</i> an utter box-office failure) because of its romantic-modernist sensibility.<br /><br />But. The romantic-modernist sensibility, the very proposition that a work of art should be approached and judged on the basis of its minute "textual" or formal patterns in order to arrive at a fuller understanding of what it is even trying to do, with the full privileges that <i>Tree of Life</i> demands (and which 99.99% of Hollywood can't and won't demand so fully) … this is itself an <i>aesthetic</i> with real, historical, political roots. For instance, Hollywood has long deliberately aimed for a 'layering' of addresses that would cross various demographics: from relative sophisticates to "slow Joe in the back row" or whatever. <i>The Tree of Life</i> does not really operate on this multi-register mode of address. (Which is not the same thing, of course, of saying it doesn't work on multiple levels.) But it presumes a certain amount of interest, patience, diligent attention, broad curiosity, willingness not to teehee because it uses classical music pieces (since these are almost only ever used parodically in multiplex fare, anyway) ... and this requires a lot of a viewer. It “buries” references; there is a <i>lot</i> of factual content, a lot of evocation, that can be drawn from the film. (Contra those who say it's poorly managed, I call shenanigans. I've seen it three times: it's well-structured, well-organized, and highly economical. It's just that its “economy” is not predicated upon maintaining a space or a set of actions within a single shot. I digress.) But it is asking for a different structure of attention, a different posture from the viewer, to which most multiplex and even arthouse viewers are not accustomed. This is <i>particularly</i> true for viewers who are fixated upon plot as a necessary condition for any and every movie ever made (<i>The Tree of Life</i> has content, feelings, acting, structure, meaning … but not really a “plot” … Ruiz might be proud!).<br /><br />(And it's not just that <i>Tree of Life</i> is like an “art film.” I suspect that the gulf in implied spectatorial practices between most art films and commercial films is significantly smaller than the gulf between recent Malick and either of those groups.)ZChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10211734319629732065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-22316524296542552332011-07-17T01:58:02.433-04:002011-07-17T01:58:02.433-04:00Uh, not that it matters, but it's actually NOT...Uh, not that it matters, but it's actually NOT clear that TOL is really any kind of financial disaster -- its already made its (quoted) production cost back almost exactly @ $32M global, and it has passed The New World -- it's doing just fine for a wack-ass trippy art film that just happens to star Jolie's husband. To compare somewhat cruelly, the latest masterwork from Gaspar Noe: Cost 16M, global BO: 754K<br /><br />Just saying...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-22236400609706951082011-07-17T00:07:30.158-04:002011-07-17T00:07:30.158-04:00@Brian:'...though to speak of The Tree of Life...@Brian:'...though to speak of The Tree of Life as product is more an ideological critique of the broader circulation of art and the related institutions than an ideological critique of the text itself, if we can make that distinction.'<br /><br />I agree with your distinction, and wouldn't mean to imply otherwise, but Zach's statement below seems to imply that the distinction you make is in fact impossible, unless the history of art is in this context necessarily opposed to the experience of that art, which seems to me to be an odd way to approach matters. Furthermore, since the entirety of the post was in favor of a more direct engagement with the film and the avoidance of muddling these things which can be distinguished then it seems contradictory.<br /><br />'The history of art, as we think of it as such, is absolutely inextricable from the movement of products, from commerce.'<br /><br />But, then, when you say, 'I have to disagree with you and suggest that their respective statuses as product are not, as you say, incidental to the experience of the works, but neither does that common status tie the two texts together at the ankle.' - I have to disagree entirely. So perhaps there's no crossing that divide. Could you expand on this a bit more? Perhaps it's merely semantics, but perhaps it will be a more interesting divide.JeanRZEJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04530242176130470336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-79737497394693975862011-07-16T19:08:26.951-04:002011-07-16T19:08:26.951-04:00@Jean
...though to speak of The Tree of Life as p...@Jean<br /><br />...though to speak of The Tree of Life as product is more an ideological critique of the broader circulation of art and the related institutions than an ideological critique of the text itself, if we can make that distinction. And that critique doesn't have to be a punitive one--opposition to capitalism does not necessarily entail a full rejection of all of capitalism's fruits, of course. And so we can call The Tree of Life a product, placing it within that particular analytic framework, without damning it as such. I like Zach's juxtaposition of TToL and Zookeeper because it demonstrates the incredible variability of "product." I have to disagree with you and suggest that their respective statuses as product are not, as you say, incidental to the experience of the works, but neither does that common status tie the two texts together at the ankle.<br /><br />(Damn, I want to erase "ankle" and write "tibia" for the alliteration, but that would be just too ridiculous.)Brian H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06805059995882953756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-71715715494921945042011-07-16T17:10:48.806-04:002011-07-16T17:10:48.806-04:00'It may be a bad product, but it nevertheless ...'It may be a bad product, but it nevertheless also exists in the same world as, say, the new Kevin James zoo movie.'<br /><br />- or Le quattro volte (I can see all three in the same theater TODAY).<br /><br />Somehow you take this complete disconnect between the two to imply that there is some meaningful connection between them, whereas I take it to mean that all of their statuses as a 'product' is entirely incidental to the actual experience of these works, and to even speak of it as a 'product' seems to me to be a matter of ideological critique. Following your lead - I find it irrelevant to the actual experience of the film, which is what film criticism is supposedly about. Another punitive structure. Maybe you disagree, but as I saw it the way you brought it up seemed entirely incongruous with the rest of the piece, and I was befuddled.JeanRZEJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04530242176130470336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-62175507776601047672011-07-15T22:50:12.086-04:002011-07-15T22:50:12.086-04:00Brian - yes, it often seems so (which is why autho...Brian - yes, it often seems so (which is why authorship is a good punitive structure even for those who might otherwise say they're uninterested in authorship as a way of thinking about film). <br /><br />Jean, the film is a product in the sense that it is part of a culture industry. Hollywood funds go into this film, which in turn is exhibited in places of business, and the press assign it reviews, devote interviews, etc. It will come out on DVD/Blu-Ray with a standard price tag and you or I will be able to buy it from Amazon.com or Best Buy or wherever. The fact that it is a prestige film, and the fact that Malick's financiers showed a certain amount of liberality in funding a project that was sure to fail at the box office, still does not mean the movie is not a product like any other. It may be a bad product, but it nevertheless <i>also</i> exists in the same world as, say, the new Kevin James zoo movie. (For all the giant gulf of difference between them.) The history of art, as we think of it <i>as such</i>, is absolutely inextricable from the movement of products, from commerce. Virtually all the great Renaissance masterpices: products, commissioned by specific people for specific reasons (not always aesthetic), and in turn re-purposed as valuable "goods" which is how we know of them at all in the first place ...ZChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10211734319629732065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-89487601987171903212011-07-15T22:36:15.722-04:002011-07-15T22:36:15.722-04:00You make a lot of great points, and Brian H. as we...You make a lot of great points, and Brian H. as well, but when you say that The Tree of Life is a 'product' I don't really understand. If it were a product it would have been taken out of theaters as 'defective' due to the pain it is causing theaters due to ridiculous amounts of walkouts and people demanding refunds. If it were really a product then there would have been some quality control steering it back toward commercial mediocrity. The guy was handed a bunch of money to make a film that would never sell without any strings attached - if that is a 'product' to any degree then all communist films are propaganda, to the same degree, even when the majority of the great ones are explicitly opposed to its tenets. Too much noun in that description, not enough verb describing what it is that the film does. Generate money, sure, just as Le quattro volte and stolen paintings do, but that's how people relate to the film rights, not the content of the film. Just seems an odd way to cap a discussion focusing on the way that a viewer interacts with the content of a piece of art, by ignoring the art.JeanRZEJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04530242176130470336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-75346633485334245362011-07-15T18:13:43.569-04:002011-07-15T18:13:43.569-04:00Ideological critique is difficult to sustain witho...Ideological critique is difficult to sustain without setting up a sort of authorial straw man to which the critic can ascribe intention. <br /><br />This is related to the ideas that the ideological critique of something as complex and internally self-contradictory as a film must be somewhat reductive, and that the purpose of the author function is basically to reduce and simplify a polysemous mass of meaning into a coherent unity.Brian H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06805059995882953756noreply@blogger.com