Re: citizen kane

Win Boogie (WinBoogie@aol.com)
Tue, 14 Apr 1998 13:46:22 -0400 (EDT) 

In a message dated 98-04-14 03:47:37 EDT, you write:

<< 
 very briefly in my defense: yep, we studied it as in saw it several 
 times for a film studies class, and read enormous amounts of theory on 
 it, and so on, and i think robert has it right that it's all about 
 historical context as far as film technique and social reaction. though 
 i was very aware of the importance of the sled and the familial context 
 and how that played out, it just didn't seem as all-encompassing of his 
 life as it led me to believe it would be. on the other hand, malcs, your 
 points are really interesting and inspire me to see it again. so thanks 
 all.
 -emily
  >>
  It seems that I wish I had emphasized my second point a bit more. That being
that an opinion you have on a piece of art cannot be "wrong."   It seems like
there are endless lists of records or books or films or coffees that the
modern enlightened young person is suppose to be familliar with. I think this
is bunk. I have often come home to my roomate watching my Bunnuel films as if
he is studying for an exam rather than just watching a movie. This pains me
very much, nearly as much as when I'm asked to explain Charles Mingus to
someone. Just listen to it or watch it or read it or taste it, if it moves you
it is good. 
    Not to say that we can't develop our ability to be discerning. Seymour
talks about being undiscriminating, followed purely, as being the Way of the
Tao. Proposing that he would have to move beyond preferences for any poetry,
liking bad poetry equally with good poetry. I don't think this is what any of
us are shooting for, to embrace crap. I think that if you develop your
critical mind occassionally you'll come across a Citizen Kane or a Glass
Family ( another one for you Brendan) that you just don't care for. A lot of
times you may be moved to say " Why am I not getting this?"  As if there
something wrong with your ability to comprehend or appreciate someone's work.
Just experience as much stuff as you can you'll get what your supposed to and
realize what makes something groovy or not. 
     "An elephant's only big if it's next to something ...."  this is what I
see as the problem with educating people formally in humanities. By it's
nature instructors are foisting what they believe to be important pieces of
work on their minions. When one of these poor academic serfs is left cold by a
piece they've been shown in film class they scurry off to their analyst to get
their head examined. It's a pity that we don't give ourselves more credit in
the first place. This whole string has got me riled up. I'm sorry.  Best of
luck to you Emily. I'm sure there will be adequate assitance available here
when one of you poor suckers doesn't have a esctatic experience while watching
Rashoman. 
                                                    Best,
                                                         Robert