Sort of writing this review offering perhaps less review and more so a glimpse into our present culture. Particular it seems because as evidenced to a slice of Americana if a given set of views whether art were truly bad art or not, it seems in certain spheres most judgement would be reserved with exception to few candidates...unfortunately this sort of reservation in judgement it seems has also led to any number of problems regarding censorship at times in recent past, but a form of personal liability. Generally speaking if at times the surreal and illogical works of any candidate work only having provided at sometime an interpretative structure to a time frame, for instance, in historical drama. Unfortunately the presence of 'nubile' s and dramatization while neither appealing to certainties of character...never mind here often times the paradox of, for instance, any person brainwashed into believing one thing while on the other hand in the prior sense having known completely the opposite. Illogical and irrational human behavior has littered human history throughout the ages, and then even the absurdities of seemingly illogical behavior in fiction and works of art.
Only it seems strange to me saying this because at least a critic would have acknowledged some aspects of 'fine art'...on the one hand, if a movie appealing as much to the convention of entertaining a certain audience of movie go er, Django Unchained, entertained so much but neither appealed strictly in the absolutist sense of providing honesty to the better half of an audience offended by so much absurdity in one context while simultaneously entertained by it in another context, it would seem there just weren't so much of an audience to review a film here being a lesser known work one should imagine. The dark narrative seems unashamed in some form of bias and full of indictment, or at least selectively dramatic in presentation here. If it were un apologetic in offense, it would only seem that plenty fairness has been given to those in power to write history often times and having it censored at the same time. Never mind, the absurd horrors and veneer of appeal to social conventions and laws of a given time, that speak of so much the paradox having born at times brainwashed neurosis. Why were it possible that destitute people in another part of the world bought into the idea that their lives would possibly so much greater in another country such as America if they might have heard or known in some ways before all manner of outcomes possible for a given future. Didn't paradoxically something exceptional ring in the hearts that any freedom of any idea were better then the freedom of the certain reality, and that such freedom of idea entertained all sorts of imagined possibilities?
But this illustrates another point in judgement, leading me to how one claims to judge: good versus bad art? Is it because the artist appears so contemptuously haphazard in some appeal, having provided so much work with respect to costuming, and some work with respect to music direction. Strange hearing a 70s Gothic horror sounds to Chopin, while the flowing costumes of the young dancers reminds of old vintage footage that I could recall in a Fritz Lang movie. Of course, in some ways I might have appealed by way of convention to a history itself on these matters, a 'finishing' school were select enough and only perhaps a small cross section of this society, not sure how this compared to potential of abuse in power, or that at least cultures engaged in liberalizing socially would still deal with potentials of abuse excused on this premise, or whether or not writer's convention, or shades of truth in history appealed with respect to conveying the tragedy of victims, that damage meant one's being were irreparably harmed. Of course, this seemingly plays into so much contradictions. Social liberalization ingratiating the emotive centers of sensuality while on the other hand restrained in another sense, homosexuality weren't exactly tolerated in the more clear and open sense, but at least some old perverted woman could use the pretence of Greek classicism to appreciate a young female. Here the paradox of revivals, liberalization allowing for much greater chance of personal intimacies while girls coveted in boundaries of sexual space...and opportunity for contact with men more likely traumatic if not by chance, if only a life being reserved to a selected man in the way of sexual servitude on the topic of slavery, much of this master's mentality of the world were in the brewing as a pretext to our world wars: weren't the prince of this film something of a representation of the masters of that culture? I might be interested in a way to know more about this subject matter from the historical perspective, as to the narrative, it very well maybe modern interpretation on a lesser known subject. In a way the movie has all the appearance of a movie that might have been done in the 70s as opposed to in our new century, and sometimes I wonder if there weren't a conspiracy to release old shelved films in some ways?! :) But if it seems something of the trend to the experience of history as lens ed in the vintage as compared to historical drama, the film itself might not be so much of a revelation alongside anything else produced, except saying something else maybe. As to the topics of psychological and sociological survey's I'd profess enough my own ignorance on this subject matter. It would seem aspects of this film should seem in some ways like the sorts of narrative conventions of b rated 70s horror while on the other hand providing stark contrast and the backdrop of drama concerning an unsettling history...at least one could claim a group of peoples did some of their work in the period representations aspect here, or if this movie failed miserably, appealing too much to the convention of attempting at face value entertainment while weaving itself into the corner of cliches...then it were nothing more then the façade of fine art left in the retro 70s b horror camp, as to cult film, no. In fairness, to another critic, you know, ironically I were attracted to the film because of the title and in fairness it were a bit of 'bait and switch', not sure if I had outgrown those old late night cinemax days, and obviously there were something of a cleverness here. If it were set to offend, why these attempts have been done for a long time what's new these days? And anyway s, how does this historical drama provide illustration to our generation. Technically speaking, I were too young to have experienced my parent's liberalization, their experimentations with sex and drugs, too young to experience their path to enlightenment, too young to experience their trips to India (well technically my mother and father only made it as far as a small college town in Kansas and as to sex and drugs??), but old enough to have experienced something of ensuing angst in later years. Therein it seems while having recalled so much the liberalization with respect to openness in cultures, are we living amidst something of revelations or merely pretense to resurrections of witch hunts, or at least previous generational parallels may neither be well served here? If only at face value, one were left with what should seem period film with period filming techniques, maybe this were merely on the surface conventional novelties for culture, or in better fairness, maybe it were in giving chance to any previous generations film maker the film desired in filming? Sort of tire in saying this, but emphasis on being victim's of your parent's liberalization runs along the lines of generalization, I honestly hadn't felt so traumatized when I secretly chose to watch Sin e max at the age of twelve on late night television, and then in some round about way, sometimes I wonder...maybe a misread.
Only it seems strange to me saying this because at least a critic would have acknowledged some aspects of 'fine art'...on the one hand, if a movie appealing as much to the convention of entertaining a certain audience of movie go er, Django Unchained, entertained so much but neither appealed strictly in the absolutist sense of providing honesty to the better half of an audience offended by so much absurdity in one context while simultaneously entertained by it in another context, it would seem there just weren't so much of an audience to review a film here being a lesser known work one should imagine. The dark narrative seems unashamed in some form of bias and full of indictment, or at least selectively dramatic in presentation here. If it were un apologetic in offense, it would only seem that plenty fairness has been given to those in power to write history often times and having it censored at the same time. Never mind, the absurd horrors and veneer of appeal to social conventions and laws of a given time, that speak of so much the paradox having born at times brainwashed neurosis. Why were it possible that destitute people in another part of the world bought into the idea that their lives would possibly so much greater in another country such as America if they might have heard or known in some ways before all manner of outcomes possible for a given future. Didn't paradoxically something exceptional ring in the hearts that any freedom of any idea were better then the freedom of the certain reality, and that such freedom of idea entertained all sorts of imagined possibilities?
But this illustrates another point in judgement, leading me to how one claims to judge: good versus bad art? Is it because the artist appears so contemptuously haphazard in some appeal, having provided so much work with respect to costuming, and some work with respect to music direction. Strange hearing a 70s Gothic horror sounds to Chopin, while the flowing costumes of the young dancers reminds of old vintage footage that I could recall in a Fritz Lang movie. Of course, in some ways I might have appealed by way of convention to a history itself on these matters, a 'finishing' school were select enough and only perhaps a small cross section of this society, not sure how this compared to potential of abuse in power, or that at least cultures engaged in liberalizing socially would still deal with potentials of abuse excused on this premise, or whether or not writer's convention, or shades of truth in history appealed with respect to conveying the tragedy of victims, that damage meant one's being were irreparably harmed. Of course, this seemingly plays into so much contradictions. Social liberalization ingratiating the emotive centers of sensuality while on the other hand restrained in another sense, homosexuality weren't exactly tolerated in the more clear and open sense, but at least some old perverted woman could use the pretence of Greek classicism to appreciate a young female. Here the paradox of revivals, liberalization allowing for much greater chance of personal intimacies while girls coveted in boundaries of sexual space...and opportunity for contact with men more likely traumatic if not by chance, if only a life being reserved to a selected man in the way of sexual servitude on the topic of slavery, much of this master's mentality of the world were in the brewing as a pretext to our world wars: weren't the prince of this film something of a representation of the masters of that culture? I might be interested in a way to know more about this subject matter from the historical perspective, as to the narrative, it very well maybe modern interpretation on a lesser known subject. In a way the movie has all the appearance of a movie that might have been done in the 70s as opposed to in our new century, and sometimes I wonder if there weren't a conspiracy to release old shelved films in some ways?! :) But if it seems something of the trend to the experience of history as lens ed in the vintage as compared to historical drama, the film itself might not be so much of a revelation alongside anything else produced, except saying something else maybe. As to the topics of psychological and sociological survey's I'd profess enough my own ignorance on this subject matter. It would seem aspects of this film should seem in some ways like the sorts of narrative conventions of b rated 70s horror while on the other hand providing stark contrast and the backdrop of drama concerning an unsettling history...at least one could claim a group of peoples did some of their work in the period representations aspect here, or if this movie failed miserably, appealing too much to the convention of attempting at face value entertainment while weaving itself into the corner of cliches...then it were nothing more then the façade of fine art left in the retro 70s b horror camp, as to cult film, no. In fairness, to another critic, you know, ironically I were attracted to the film because of the title and in fairness it were a bit of 'bait and switch', not sure if I had outgrown those old late night cinemax days, and obviously there were something of a cleverness here. If it were set to offend, why these attempts have been done for a long time what's new these days? And anyway s, how does this historical drama provide illustration to our generation. Technically speaking, I were too young to have experienced my parent's liberalization, their experimentations with sex and drugs, too young to experience their path to enlightenment, too young to experience their trips to India (well technically my mother and father only made it as far as a small college town in Kansas and as to sex and drugs??), but old enough to have experienced something of ensuing angst in later years. Therein it seems while having recalled so much the liberalization with respect to openness in cultures, are we living amidst something of revelations or merely pretense to resurrections of witch hunts, or at least previous generational parallels may neither be well served here? If only at face value, one were left with what should seem period film with period filming techniques, maybe this were merely on the surface conventional novelties for culture, or in better fairness, maybe it were in giving chance to any previous generations film maker the film desired in filming? Sort of tire in saying this, but emphasis on being victim's of your parent's liberalization runs along the lines of generalization, I honestly hadn't felt so traumatized when I secretly chose to watch Sin e max at the age of twelve on late night television, and then in some round about way, sometimes I wonder...maybe a misread.
No comments:
Post a Comment