In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
I know that for some reason you get upset about symbolisim in art but that's part of what we do.
I have no problem with symbolism in art. My problem is understanding the purpose (read: value) of intellectualizing entertainment. I would argue that there is as much social and political symbolism in a Roadrunner cartoon as in To Kill A Mockingbird, yet for some reason a film made with real actors is supposed to be taken more seriously, studied. Why? Both present situations and characters to invite our interest, and this regardless of the truth of the matter. That in cartoons animals are given speech, intelligence and purpose they obviously do not possess does not change the meaning or presentation of the symbolism contained in them; but were you to have a syllabus titled "The Social Implications of Daffy Duck" or "Political Symbolism in Bugs Bunny", I doubt support from a state-funded institution would be forthcoming (well, maybe not these days). My point is that the necessity and repute of a classroom environment to study what is basically meant as entertainment confuses the medium with the message, and that while perhaps interesting to some the worth of such enterprise is no more or less than cocktail party chatter, for which college credit is given.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
I know that for some reason you get upset about symbolisim in art but that's part of what we do.
I have no problem with symbolism in art. My problem is understanding the purpose (read: value) of intellectualizing entertainment.
The purpose of intellectualizing entertainment is to give intelligent people something to be entertained with.
Most of the movies mentioned in this thread are good movies. The trouble is that's all they are. They don't meet the stated criteria of (1) cutting edge cinematography (of the time) such as CITIZEN KANE, or (2) the sociopolitical example of INHERIT THE WIND.
No one has mentioned Howard Hughes movie HELL'S ANGELS. It surely was cutting edge cinema while the AVIATOR is merely an entertaining movie.
No one doubts RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK is one of the all time great movies, but it wouldn't make the cut under the criteria Sax listed.
Let people have their NASCAR, WWF, American Idol, and MEET THE FOCKERS, but let the intelligent people be entertained too by intellectualizing entertainment
Another point; Being degreed is not a sign of intelligence. I'm sure many people on here know of individuals that have all kinds of degrees but don't know to pour piss out of a boot.
ADDENDUM: Forgot to mention HELL'S ANGEL'S for the airborne photography.[:D]
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
The purpose of intellectualizing entertainment is to give intelligent people something to be entertained with.
And my point is that intelligent people know better than to do that.
quote:
Another point; Being degreed is not a sign of intelligence. I'm sure many people on here know of individuals that have all kinds of degrees but don't know to pour piss out of a boot.
And I'm sure many on here know of individuals who don't have any degree whatsoever who not only do not know to pour piss out of a boot but wear it on the wrong foot.
DWS- "I would argue that there is as much social and political symbolism in a Roadrunner cartoon as in To Kill A Mockingbird,..."
I agree. I have shown cartoons from the 1940s and 1950s to my art classes many times. One of my favorites has a cat and a mouse taking turns drinking "Miracle Grow" plant food which makes them get bigger and bigger. Made during the Cold War, this cartoon symbolizes the arms race. The Cat is the USSR (doofus who can't feed himself but is big and dangerous) and the mouse is the U.S. (wise cracking know it all). The "stuff" as they call it is nuclear weapons. In the end they are equal in size and call a truce.
On the suggestions, there have been some good ones and I appreciate everyone's interest. Birth of a Nation may be just too long. The class meets twice each week for a total of 2.5 hours and I like to show the entire film in one week.
....................................................................................................
Too old to live...too young to die...
quote:Originally posted by hughbetcha
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. Probably more symbolism, moralism and frontier realism than any other Western ever made.
You're missing the point, Hugh. That one can find symbolism in a cartoon or film or the image of the Blessed Virgin in a grilled cheese sandwich is of no consequence if it does not tie to anything beyond it. By way of example, consider:
On long winter nights, porcupines will often huddle together to share body heat against the cold. But they must take care in doing this so as not to poke each other with their quills. Now the same can be said for human society, as well; that we all need to live together and work toward a common good, but we must be careful not to infringe on our neighbors.
Now the symbolism of the porcupines is a charming way of illustrating a human characteristic, but the fact is that porcupines do not exhibit any such behavior; they are loners, and the behvior was made up to prove a point: That anything portrayed on the screen can have a point and be symbolic of anything we damn well choose, and this whether what is portrayed is true or not. So why do we need affirmation or illustration from a cartoon or movie of that which we already must know in order for the cartoon or movie to have a point? Simple: For friggin' entertainment. So let's not get all intellectual about what's going on in the dark with Raisinets and a $5.00 Coke, okay?
If you really simply want to use movies that have socio/political content, I would suggest an older movie: Orwell's 1984.You should be able to find it on DVD at a larger rental store.
There is so much packed into that book and movie, that it should give rise to lots of discussion and reaction among the students.
"Stalingrad" - Some very striking cinematography. The image of a squad of soldiers dragging an artillery piece across a frozen wasteland in a blizzard is one you dont soon forget. Same with the extended pan over row after row of injured and dying soldiers. Its one of those few war films where, unlike in Saving Private Ryan, the cavalry does not come to save the day.
DWS- As you wish. You are free to ignore political and social messages in art. You seem not only determined to do it but quite vehement about denying the value of said analysis. Please deny and ignore all you want.
But you'd get an F in my class.
Some people don't like their art to be complicated. They like pretty pictures that look like something recognizable and that's fine with me. Everyone has their own notion of what art is, should be, or what it does. But the people who really appreciate it when we deny the progaganda value in art are those who use art to manipulate us. If you think art isn't used for manipulation then why are so many people with Ph.D.s in art history employed in the advertising industry? And why has Hollywood turned out so many films over the years pushing whatever cause in on their list that day?
I'm sorry if it bothers you that people intellectualize over art, but it's not even your field so why do you care a flying fig, anyway?
....................................................................................................
Too old to live...too young to die...
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
I'm sorry if it bothers you that people intellectualize over art, but it's not even your field so why do you care a flying fig, anyway?
Sorry, but this very much is my field and rather than simply insist such enterprise has merit I was hoping you would address my view. I guess not, and I guess I am not surprised, lest your intent is to deliberately mislead your charges. The point is: Intellectualism does not exist in art; it exists only in the minds of those who view it; it is merely an articulation of personal response, nothing more, and the truth of any of it hardly matters. That to you the snow in Robert Frost's "Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening" symbolizes death is merely a statement of how you feel about it, and this whether or not it was Frost's intent. Similarly, stating that Duchamp's "L.H.O.O.Q." exemplifies the rebellion of early 20th century daddaists against traditional masters like daVinci is also a statement of personal sentiment. That such activity is pleasant and evokes thought and may actually enhance appreciation is certainly not in question; rather, what is in question is whether such rewards warrant college credit or the claim that one now knows something about art that one did not know before. It is here where we part company, and where I make a distinction between art appreciation and ca-ca. You want to appreciate art? Stop talking about it and try instead to duplicate the light in a Monet or the complexity of meter in a Gerard Manley Hopkins poem.
I wonder sometimes if the artists aren't given too much credit for inserting symbolism, and if their works aren't overanalyzed by...well, overanalysts.
Movie critic: "It seems self-evident that the destruction of the agricultural cooperative building in one of the later scenes is representative of corporate agribusiness enterprises becoming so top-heavy that they succumb to their own dead weight. The director's grasp of complex business structuring issues is uncanny, and delivers a scathing blow to the current administration's disregard for sound fiscal policy."
Movie maker: "Hey, wouldn't it be cool to blow something up here?"
I wonder sometimes if the artists aren't given too much credit for inserting symbolism, and if their works aren't overanalyzed by...well, overanalysts.
Movie critic: "It seems self-evident that the destruction of the agricultural cooperative building in one of the later scenes is representative of corporate agribusiness enterprises becoming so top-heavy that they succumb to their own dead weight. The director's grasp of complex business structuring issues is uncanny, and delivers a scathing blow to the current administration's disregard for sound fiscal policy."
Movie maker: "Hey, wouldn't it be cool to blow something up here?"
quote:Originally posted by hughbetcha
I like Robert Frost. I thought the snow symbolized the weight of duty upon the shoulders of the man travelling on an important mission?
And of course you are right, as would Saxon be right if he said it instead symbolizes death. I mean, how can you guys be wrong about how you feel about something? Of course, how you feel about something don't mean squat except to you and those who might share your view, but just because your view is shared don't make it true. Fact is, the symbolism in a movie or any work of art does not add to what we already know about the thing it is said to symbolize, so let's stop talking like it does or confusing one thing for the other.
But that simply is the subtlty of ambiguity in art and film. Without a clear message, the only response that you can reasonably expect is subjective at best. If this is your goal: to show that there is no one right answer, then a pletora of films depicting animals, cartoons and human situations is just what you need. But it seems it would miss an important point. That point is that the creator of each of these mediums does indeed have a point. I have yet to see any film that made a point by accident.
As DWS was speaking about, in a sense, or take it a little further I think, is that if all the message does is solicit an emotional response then the door is wide open to interpretation. When visual stimuli is used with out some particular verbiage, then all of the observer's particular life experience comes into play, and has a causal effect on the interpretation. But with some guidance, it seems that individuals can get to a point where an inward thought might be: "Oh... I understand." rather than understanding what it "means to me". I think that meaning is rather important when attempting to transmit thoughts and ideas. (I didn't say I was good at it, I just said it was important.)
So if the point of the class is to examine how these different mediums make these socio/political points, you will need to be sure that the observers can even see the point. But to simply show how it is that these visual/aural exercises make points using various methodologies, sounds like a good class for hopeful filmakers.
So I take it that your aim isn't necessarily any social or political points in particular, but in a more general, tangental way, and that your point is to show the use of "propaganda" maybe in its various useful forms?
It seems it would be interesting to show something that does not show its point clearly and then show others that do make their points clear.
quote:Originally posted by amsptcds
So I take it that your aim isn't necessarily any social or political points in particular, but in a more general, tangental way, and that your point is to show the use of "propaganda" maybe in its various useful forms?
No, my point is that it's not just that we don't know anything more about the symbolized social or political points when the movie leaves us; it's that we don't know anything more about them than when the movie found us. Such symbolism only states explicitly what anyone would already have to know in order for the movie to have a point. But just because the movie has a point says nothing about the truth of the social or political points being made. So just what is Saxon's enterprise? To me it evidences a confusion between cinematography and sociology or political science; that what is portrayed on screen is mistaken for something real rather than the reaction of the director or audience to something real. This is an important distinction, because knowing how these social and political points are made in film doesn't matter unless you want to make movies yourself rather than just prattle on about how "Death of a Salesman" symbolizes such-and-such.
quote: Such symbolism only states explicitly what anyone would already have to know in order for the movie to have a point. uh-hu, But what a film does is create meaning from a refrain, and its on the wings of this meaning where politics resides. So, it is not a worthless persuit. The refrain helps mark the territory of the political areana, there is a rhythem to the codes from which we derive significance.
The Third Reich used this phenomena expertly, with its grand symbolic extravaganzas. Here the medium became one with German politics. Of course there were certain soon-to-be-dead intlectualizing intelectuals who pointed out these shows were just mindless propaganda, showing that being critical of entertainment can be fatal.
One thing tou can do when intelectualizing about entertainment is cut out the BS. If you recall "The Trail Of Billy Jack" was about people hating Indians. One could argue that this was just a bunch of ballyhoo and very few people hate Indians like the film portrayed. The filmakers point was too far fetched to work...unless everyone Wants it to.
Or you could say that you loved the part in "Brazil," where the guy vanishes in a storm of paperwork on the street. "Wow, the guy's indentity is now paperwork without a body. Man, I feel just like that."
Its not insignificant.
I think DWS make some good points, but fails to grasp the pragmatics of the refrain.
quote:Originally posted by nomadictao
But what a film does is create meaning from a refrain, and its on the wings of this meaning where politics resides. So, it is not a worthless persuit. The refrain helps mark the territory of the political areana, there is a rhythem to the codes from which we derive significance.
I literally have no idea what you are talking about. How do you "create meaning from a refrain", and how does meaning have wings? Come to think of it, how is refrain even being used in this context? I'm afraid that all intellectual discussion of the social and political points symbolized in film occupies a vague kind of no-man's-land between the technical aspects of film making and the social and political points themselves, and so serves neither purpose; it is merely a discussion of what is portrayed and perhaps how, and this is neither cinematography nor social science, instead a pointless articulation of statements along the lines of "Don't you think the giant ants in Them! precisely represents the fear and suspicion of nuclear testing on the part of many Americans in the early 1950's?" Uh, OK. So where do we go from there? Answer: Nowhere, except to compare the same fear and suspicion as represented some years later in Godzilla. BFD. And what has this to do with art or filmaking or sociology or political science? Answer: Nada. Zip. Zilch. Not one iota; it is merely the banter of dilettantes "legitimized" under the auspices of the state higher education system.
Easy Rider. Excellent social commentary, a no-pulled-punches glimpse of the counterculture of the 1960s. Also a true "low budget" gem. Beautiful scenery and symbolism (especially when Fonda and Hopper fix the Captain America's flat while the two farmers reshoe a horse in the background) and amazing (for its era and budget) action photography. Plus an awesome, and topical, soundtrack.
DWS- You are correct my friend, here's where we part company.
You are wrong when you say intellectualism, symbolism or analysis only exists in the minds of the viewers. Nothing in art is accidental and there is no doubt that artists do indeed create art with the intention of conveying intent beyond the surface of the art.
As soon as you start balbbering about the light in a Monet painting you told me all I need to know about your appreciate and knowledge of art. I am so tired of these dried up old art instructors and critics yammering on about the quality of the light, the thickness of the paint strokes, yadda yadda yadda. All that garbage is meaningless unless all one wants is a pretty picture on the wall with no context or insight.
Like I said before, if that's what you want, that's fine by me. Many people share you view. But please stop insulting my intelligence by pretending that you know all about art. You do not.
Also, everytime I respond to one of your comments you complain that I don't address the issue, that I didn't understand your point, or that I can't follow along with your idea. OK, I guess you're right. So I won't try again.
This thread has served its purpose and maybe a bit more than needed or wanted.
....................................................................................................
Too old to live...too young to die...
Comments
I know that for some reason you get upset about symbolisim in art but that's part of what we do.
I have no problem with symbolism in art. My problem is understanding the purpose (read: value) of intellectualizing entertainment. I would argue that there is as much social and political symbolism in a Roadrunner cartoon as in To Kill A Mockingbird, yet for some reason a film made with real actors is supposed to be taken more seriously, studied. Why? Both present situations and characters to invite our interest, and this regardless of the truth of the matter. That in cartoons animals are given speech, intelligence and purpose they obviously do not possess does not change the meaning or presentation of the symbolism contained in them; but were you to have a syllabus titled "The Social Implications of Daffy Duck" or "Political Symbolism in Bugs Bunny", I doubt support from a state-funded institution would be forthcoming (well, maybe not these days). My point is that the necessity and repute of a classroom environment to study what is basically meant as entertainment confuses the medium with the message, and that while perhaps interesting to some the worth of such enterprise is no more or less than cocktail party chatter, for which college credit is given.
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
I know that for some reason you get upset about symbolisim in art but that's part of what we do.
I have no problem with symbolism in art. My problem is understanding the purpose (read: value) of intellectualizing entertainment.
The purpose of intellectualizing entertainment is to give intelligent people something to be entertained with.
Most of the movies mentioned in this thread are good movies. The trouble is that's all they are. They don't meet the stated criteria of (1) cutting edge cinematography (of the time) such as CITIZEN KANE, or (2) the sociopolitical example of INHERIT THE WIND.
No one has mentioned Howard Hughes movie HELL'S ANGELS. It surely was cutting edge cinema while the AVIATOR is merely an entertaining movie.
No one doubts RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK is one of the all time great movies, but it wouldn't make the cut under the criteria Sax listed.
Let people have their NASCAR, WWF, American Idol, and MEET THE FOCKERS, but let the intelligent people be entertained too by intellectualizing entertainment
Another point; Being degreed is not a sign of intelligence. I'm sure many people on here know of individuals that have all kinds of degrees but don't know to pour piss out of a boot.
ADDENDUM: Forgot to mention HELL'S ANGEL'S for the airborne photography.[:D]
The purpose of intellectualizing entertainment is to give intelligent people something to be entertained with.
And my point is that intelligent people know better than to do that.
quote:
Another point; Being degreed is not a sign of intelligence. I'm sure many people on here know of individuals that have all kinds of degrees but don't know to pour piss out of a boot.
And I'm sure many on here know of individuals who don't have any degree whatsoever who not only do not know to pour piss out of a boot but wear it on the wrong foot.
AND Treasure Island.
"Rebecca" already mentioned, but Alfred deserves two mentions
Patch of Blue (Compassion)
Flawless (Character portrayal at its very best)
The Grifters (Greed and desire)
This Boy's Life (Desperation)
Clouder..
I agree. I have shown cartoons from the 1940s and 1950s to my art classes many times. One of my favorites has a cat and a mouse taking turns drinking "Miracle Grow" plant food which makes them get bigger and bigger. Made during the Cold War, this cartoon symbolizes the arms race. The Cat is the USSR (doofus who can't feed himself but is big and dangerous) and the mouse is the U.S. (wise cracking know it all). The "stuff" as they call it is nuclear weapons. In the end they are equal in size and call a truce.
On the suggestions, there have been some good ones and I appreciate everyone's interest. Birth of a Nation may be just too long. The class meets twice each week for a total of 2.5 hours and I like to show the entire film in one week.
Too old to live...too young to die...
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. Probably more symbolism, moralism and frontier realism than any other Western ever made.
You're missing the point, Hugh. That one can find symbolism in a cartoon or film or the image of the Blessed Virgin in a grilled cheese sandwich is of no consequence if it does not tie to anything beyond it. By way of example, consider:
On long winter nights, porcupines will often huddle together to share body heat against the cold. But they must take care in doing this so as not to poke each other with their quills. Now the same can be said for human society, as well; that we all need to live together and work toward a common good, but we must be careful not to infringe on our neighbors.
Now the symbolism of the porcupines is a charming way of illustrating a human characteristic, but the fact is that porcupines do not exhibit any such behavior; they are loners, and the behvior was made up to prove a point: That anything portrayed on the screen can have a point and be symbolic of anything we damn well choose, and this whether what is portrayed is true or not. So why do we need affirmation or illustration from a cartoon or movie of that which we already must know in order for the cartoon or movie to have a point? Simple: For friggin' entertainment. So let's not get all intellectual about what's going on in the dark with Raisinets and a $5.00 Coke, okay?
Mountain man is hired by Russian surveyors.
There is so much packed into that book and movie, that it should give rise to lots of discussion and reaction among the students.
You'll get a lot of mileage out of that one.
But you'd get an F in my class.
Some people don't like their art to be complicated. They like pretty pictures that look like something recognizable and that's fine with me. Everyone has their own notion of what art is, should be, or what it does. But the people who really appreciate it when we deny the progaganda value in art are those who use art to manipulate us. If you think art isn't used for manipulation then why are so many people with Ph.D.s in art history employed in the advertising industry? And why has Hollywood turned out so many films over the years pushing whatever cause in on their list that day?
I'm sorry if it bothers you that people intellectualize over art, but it's not even your field so why do you care a flying fig, anyway?
Too old to live...too young to die...
I'm sorry if it bothers you that people intellectualize over art, but it's not even your field so why do you care a flying fig, anyway?
Sorry, but this very much is my field and rather than simply insist such enterprise has merit I was hoping you would address my view. I guess not, and I guess I am not surprised, lest your intent is to deliberately mislead your charges. The point is: Intellectualism does not exist in art; it exists only in the minds of those who view it; it is merely an articulation of personal response, nothing more, and the truth of any of it hardly matters. That to you the snow in Robert Frost's "Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening" symbolizes death is merely a statement of how you feel about it, and this whether or not it was Frost's intent. Similarly, stating that Duchamp's "L.H.O.O.Q." exemplifies the rebellion of early 20th century daddaists against traditional masters like daVinci is also a statement of personal sentiment. That such activity is pleasant and evokes thought and may actually enhance appreciation is certainly not in question; rather, what is in question is whether such rewards warrant college credit or the claim that one now knows something about art that one did not know before. It is here where we part company, and where I make a distinction between art appreciation and ca-ca. You want to appreciate art? Stop talking about it and try instead to duplicate the light in a Monet or the complexity of meter in a Gerard Manley Hopkins poem.
Movie critic: "It seems self-evident that the destruction of the agricultural cooperative building in one of the later scenes is representative of corporate agribusiness enterprises becoming so top-heavy that they succumb to their own dead weight. The director's grasp of complex business structuring issues is uncanny, and delivers a scathing blow to the current administration's disregard for sound fiscal policy."
Movie maker: "Hey, wouldn't it be cool to blow something up here?"
Movie critic: "It seems self-evident that the destruction of the agricultural cooperative building in one of the later scenes is representative of corporate agribusiness enterprises becoming so top-heavy that they succumb to their own dead weight. The director's grasp of complex business structuring issues is uncanny, and delivers a scathing blow to the current administration's disregard for sound fiscal policy."
Movie maker: "Hey, wouldn't it be cool to blow something up here?"
I like Robert Frost. I thought the snow symbolized the weight of duty upon the shoulders of the man travelling on an important mission?
And of course you are right, as would Saxon be right if he said it instead symbolizes death. I mean, how can you guys be wrong about how you feel about something? Of course, how you feel about something don't mean squat except to you and those who might share your view, but just because your view is shared don't make it true. Fact is, the symbolism in a movie or any work of art does not add to what we already know about the thing it is said to symbolize, so let's stop talking like it does or confusing one thing for the other.
As DWS was speaking about, in a sense, or take it a little further I think, is that if all the message does is solicit an emotional response then the door is wide open to interpretation. When visual stimuli is used with out some particular verbiage, then all of the observer's particular life experience comes into play, and has a causal effect on the interpretation. But with some guidance, it seems that individuals can get to a point where an inward thought might be: "Oh... I understand." rather than understanding what it "means to me". I think that meaning is rather important when attempting to transmit thoughts and ideas. (I didn't say I was good at it, I just said it was important.)
So if the point of the class is to examine how these different mediums make these socio/political points, you will need to be sure that the observers can even see the point. But to simply show how it is that these visual/aural exercises make points using various methodologies, sounds like a good class for hopeful filmakers.
So I take it that your aim isn't necessarily any social or political points in particular, but in a more general, tangental way, and that your point is to show the use of "propaganda" maybe in its various useful forms?
It seems it would be interesting to show something that does not show its point clearly and then show others that do make their points clear.
So I take it that your aim isn't necessarily any social or political points in particular, but in a more general, tangental way, and that your point is to show the use of "propaganda" maybe in its various useful forms?
No, my point is that it's not just that we don't know anything more about the symbolized social or political points when the movie leaves us; it's that we don't know anything more about them than when the movie found us. Such symbolism only states explicitly what anyone would already have to know in order for the movie to have a point. But just because the movie has a point says nothing about the truth of the social or political points being made. So just what is Saxon's enterprise? To me it evidences a confusion between cinematography and sociology or political science; that what is portrayed on screen is mistaken for something real rather than the reaction of the director or audience to something real. This is an important distinction, because knowing how these social and political points are made in film doesn't matter unless you want to make movies yourself rather than just prattle on about how "Death of a Salesman" symbolizes such-and-such.
The Third Reich used this phenomena expertly, with its grand symbolic extravaganzas. Here the medium became one with German politics. Of course there were certain soon-to-be-dead intlectualizing intelectuals who pointed out these shows were just mindless propaganda, showing that being critical of entertainment can be fatal.
One thing tou can do when intelectualizing about entertainment is cut out the BS. If you recall "The Trail Of Billy Jack" was about people hating Indians. One could argue that this was just a bunch of ballyhoo and very few people hate Indians like the film portrayed. The filmakers point was too far fetched to work...unless everyone Wants it to.
Or you could say that you loved the part in "Brazil," where the guy vanishes in a storm of paperwork on the street. "Wow, the guy's indentity is now paperwork without a body. Man, I feel just like that."
Its not insignificant.
I think DWS make some good points, but fails to grasp the pragmatics of the refrain.
But what a film does is create meaning from a refrain, and its on the wings of this meaning where politics resides. So, it is not a worthless persuit. The refrain helps mark the territory of the political areana, there is a rhythem to the codes from which we derive significance.
I literally have no idea what you are talking about. How do you "create meaning from a refrain", and how does meaning have wings? Come to think of it, how is refrain even being used in this context? I'm afraid that all intellectual discussion of the social and political points symbolized in film occupies a vague kind of no-man's-land between the technical aspects of film making and the social and political points themselves, and so serves neither purpose; it is merely a discussion of what is portrayed and perhaps how, and this is neither cinematography nor social science, instead a pointless articulation of statements along the lines of "Don't you think the giant ants in Them! precisely represents the fear and suspicion of nuclear testing on the part of many Americans in the early 1950's?" Uh, OK. So where do we go from there? Answer: Nowhere, except to compare the same fear and suspicion as represented some years later in Godzilla. BFD. And what has this to do with art or filmaking or sociology or political science? Answer: Nada. Zip. Zilch. Not one iota; it is merely the banter of dilettantes "legitimized" under the auspices of the state higher education system.
Nothing about the wings, though. Cheap-a** encyclopedia.
You are wrong when you say intellectualism, symbolism or analysis only exists in the minds of the viewers. Nothing in art is accidental and there is no doubt that artists do indeed create art with the intention of conveying intent beyond the surface of the art.
As soon as you start balbbering about the light in a Monet painting you told me all I need to know about your appreciate and knowledge of art. I am so tired of these dried up old art instructors and critics yammering on about the quality of the light, the thickness of the paint strokes, yadda yadda yadda. All that garbage is meaningless unless all one wants is a pretty picture on the wall with no context or insight.
Like I said before, if that's what you want, that's fine by me. Many people share you view. But please stop insulting my intelligence by pretending that you know all about art. You do not.
Also, everytime I respond to one of your comments you complain that I don't address the issue, that I didn't understand your point, or that I can't follow along with your idea. OK, I guess you're right. So I won't try again.
This thread has served its purpose and maybe a bit more than needed or wanted.
Too old to live...too young to die...