Listen. The last man who said that to me was Archie Leach just a week before he cut his throat.
July 26, 2011 7:36 AM Subscribe
His Girl Friday - Between the Lines Edit is all of Howard Hawks's 1940 screwball comedy His Girl Friday that remains if you remove the dialogue. Created by Valentin Spirik.
I think it was Senior year that I thought it would be considered impressive if I could recite the newsroom scenes from His Gal Friday with my eyes closed while being spun around in an office chair.
That was also the year I stopped drinking tequila.
posted by The Whelk at 7:42 AM on July 26, 2011 [4 favorites]
That was also the year I stopped drinking tequila.
posted by The Whelk at 7:42 AM on July 26, 2011 [4 favorites]
In all honesty, I can't fathom why a person would do such a thing. The whole point of His Girl Friday is the fabulous, rapid-fire dialogue. (That plus a fabulous wardrobe.)
For the next pointless exercise, maybe the editor should cut all of the dialogue out of Hamlet or out of a Mamet screenplay. Or maybe cut all of the non-speaking scenes from 2001, just to prove that there really is no place for cinematography.
It's things like this that just confirm, over and over again, that I really don't understand the world and have absolutely no clue what is going on. Sigh.
posted by sardonyx at 7:54 AM on July 26, 2011 [6 favorites]
For the next pointless exercise, maybe the editor should cut all of the dialogue out of Hamlet or out of a Mamet screenplay. Or maybe cut all of the non-speaking scenes from 2001, just to prove that there really is no place for cinematography.
It's things like this that just confirm, over and over again, that I really don't understand the world and have absolutely no clue what is going on. Sigh.
posted by sardonyx at 7:54 AM on July 26, 2011 [6 favorites]
MeFi's own waxpancake has this in his near-definitive list of supercuts (previously).
posted by progosk at 8:00 AM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by progosk at 8:00 AM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
Cary Grant looks magnificent in that double-breasted grey suit. Wow, they knew how to dress back then.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:04 AM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by Ironmouth at 8:04 AM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
In all honesty, I can't fathom why a person would do such a thing. The whole point of His Girl Friday is the fabulous, rapid-fire dialogue. (That plus a fabulous wardrobe.)
The lack of dialogue in this cut highlights that.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:05 AM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
The lack of dialogue in this cut highlights that.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:05 AM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
It's like a very awkward first date with an undercurrent of passive–aggressive behavior.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 8:07 AM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by Foci for Analysis at 8:07 AM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
I was always surprised and delighted when she [SPOILER ALERT FOR A MOVIE RELEASED IN 1940] chooses Cary Grant's son-of-a-bitch editor and the job over Ralph Bellamy's milquetoast insurance salesman. Maybe a '40s audience saw it coming, but I didn't.
posted by griphus at 8:11 AM on July 26, 2011
posted by griphus at 8:11 AM on July 26, 2011
The lack of dialogue in this cut highlights that.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:05 AM on July 26
What I'm saying is that all you have to do is watch a minute or two of the movie to come to that realization. Spending hours recutting an entire movie seems like a pointless, waste of time. Heck, even watching the re-edit is a pointless waste of time. I couldn't go more than a few seconds into it before I had to shut it down.
Again, what point is it making? His Girl Friday is talky? Sure. So is The Thin Man. So is any episode of Two and a Half Men. So what?
Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean there is any value in doing it, or that you should do it. What is this bringing to the conversation or criticism that is new or revolutionary? Absolutely nothing. It's like staring at the sun until you go blind, just to make the point that the sun is bright. Sure you CAN do it, but why bother?
posted by sardonyx at 8:14 AM on July 26, 2011 [4 favorites]
In all honesty, I can't fathom why a person would do such a thing. The whole point of His Girl Friday is the fabulous, rapid-fire dialogue. (That plus a fabulous wardrobe.)
It's not pointless to see at all. It helps make you (especially if "you" means a high-school or college-age student) think of the film in new and mind-opening ways.
For a classic and immortal film that's coming close to 75 years old that could otherwise be ignored by younger generations, what bad outcome is there? Watching this, I saw the movie in new ways myself, and I've seen "His Girl Friday" multiple times. The full film is still there for anyone who wants to enjoy it.
For the next pointless exercise, maybe the editor should cut all of the dialogue out of Hamlet or out of a Mamet screenplay. Or maybe cut all of the non-speaking scenes from 2001, just to prove that there really is no place for cinematography.
It's not pointless at all. If it helps to expose people who've never seen "Hamlet" or a movie based on a Mamet screenplay or "2001," why not?
What is this bringing to the conversation or criticism that is new or revolutionary? Absolutely nothing. It's like staring at the sun until you go blind, just to make the point that the sun is bright. Sure you CAN do it, but why bother?
I totally disagree. And, sure, hell -- why bother doing anything new?
posted by blucevalo at 8:24 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
It's not pointless to see at all. It helps make you (especially if "you" means a high-school or college-age student) think of the film in new and mind-opening ways.
For a classic and immortal film that's coming close to 75 years old that could otherwise be ignored by younger generations, what bad outcome is there? Watching this, I saw the movie in new ways myself, and I've seen "His Girl Friday" multiple times. The full film is still there for anyone who wants to enjoy it.
For the next pointless exercise, maybe the editor should cut all of the dialogue out of Hamlet or out of a Mamet screenplay. Or maybe cut all of the non-speaking scenes from 2001, just to prove that there really is no place for cinematography.
It's not pointless at all. If it helps to expose people who've never seen "Hamlet" or a movie based on a Mamet screenplay or "2001," why not?
What is this bringing to the conversation or criticism that is new or revolutionary? Absolutely nothing. It's like staring at the sun until you go blind, just to make the point that the sun is bright. Sure you CAN do it, but why bother?
I totally disagree. And, sure, hell -- why bother doing anything new?
posted by blucevalo at 8:24 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
No, I think the point is that His Girl Friday is really one of the very talkiest films of all time. I mean, it doesn't stop. Proportionally, if you want to measure by weight, it must have one of the heaviest scripts of all time.
Not that scripts are measured in weight, they use volume. God, that was terrible -I am so sorry.
posted by ob at 8:25 AM on July 26, 2011 [3 favorites]
Not that scripts are measured in weight, they use volume. God, that was terrible -I am so sorry.
posted by ob at 8:25 AM on July 26, 2011 [3 favorites]
I'll watch this when I get home, but my initial reaction to the idea is like sardonyx's. I love this movie so much, and I love it so much for the dialogue. I'm interested to see this, but I don't initially get what the point would be.
posted by OmieWise at 8:25 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by OmieWise at 8:25 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
Anybody got a link to that edit of Planet of the Apes that is *only* Heston's lines? I was just telling someone about that the other day - I just about wet my pants laughing the first time I saw it.
posted by stinkycheese at 8:25 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by stinkycheese at 8:25 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
It helps make you (especially if "you" means a high-school or college-age student) think of the film in new and mind-opening ways.
posted by blucevalo at 8:24 AM on July 26
I don't remember how old I was when I first saw this film. Ten? Twelve? Certainly not any older. At that time I fell in love with it because it was smart and funny and talky.
Perhaps this is why I can't see the need to have to "dumb down" the movie for teenage or college-age kids. Should we be automatically making the assumption that "kids today" are stupid? That they can't cope with anything at a comprehension level that's more complex than a Smurfs cartoon?
I honestly don't have the answers to those questions. Part of me wants to say "yes, kids are stupider today and less able to understand anything that isn't part of their immediate world," but I'm sure if I posted that, I'd be shot to flames here in about ten seconds. Part of me, however, disagrees with that sentiment. I'm sure there are kids out there today who could sit down and watch the film and enjoy it for what it is, without having to have the film explained to them in such a condescending, pandering way.
posted by sardonyx at 8:35 AM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by blucevalo at 8:24 AM on July 26
I don't remember how old I was when I first saw this film. Ten? Twelve? Certainly not any older. At that time I fell in love with it because it was smart and funny and talky.
Perhaps this is why I can't see the need to have to "dumb down" the movie for teenage or college-age kids. Should we be automatically making the assumption that "kids today" are stupid? That they can't cope with anything at a comprehension level that's more complex than a Smurfs cartoon?
I honestly don't have the answers to those questions. Part of me wants to say "yes, kids are stupider today and less able to understand anything that isn't part of their immediate world," but I'm sure if I posted that, I'd be shot to flames here in about ten seconds. Part of me, however, disagrees with that sentiment. I'm sure there are kids out there today who could sit down and watch the film and enjoy it for what it is, without having to have the film explained to them in such a condescending, pandering way.
posted by sardonyx at 8:35 AM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
I love this, because it's one of my favorite fast-talker films of all time, and because Rosalind Russell is my one true goddess of the universe (not discounting the lesser angels, mind you).
Part of how I came to be drawn into the church of Pomplamoose was that they used clips from this glorious film in their early effort, "Expiration Date" (at 1:17, 2:24, and 2:36).
Thankya most kindly for this.
posted by sonascope at 8:37 AM on July 26, 2011
Part of how I came to be drawn into the church of Pomplamoose was that they used clips from this glorious film in their early effort, "Expiration Date" (at 1:17, 2:24, and 2:36).
Thankya most kindly for this.
posted by sonascope at 8:37 AM on July 26, 2011
In all honesty, I can't fathom why a person would do such a thing.
To see what happens! It's not an effort to make an improved version of the film, it's an effort to transform the source material in an unconventional way to produce a different kind of filmic artifact.
posted by cortex at 8:40 AM on July 26, 2011 [6 favorites]
To see what happens! It's not an effort to make an improved version of the film, it's an effort to transform the source material in an unconventional way to produce a different kind of filmic artifact.
posted by cortex at 8:40 AM on July 26, 2011 [6 favorites]
What happens is that I can;t stop looking at Russel's hat. It's like a portable totem.
posted by The Whelk at 8:42 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by The Whelk at 8:42 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
Wu Ming on Spirik's edit:
"CARY GRANT'S STYLE AS REVEALED BY VALENTIN SPIRIK'S EXPERIMENTAL EDIT OF HIS GIRL FRIDAY
As a further contribution to the comprehension of Cary Grant's style (which we investigated in our novel 54), we uploaded on YouTube an interesting video experiment by Valentin Spirik (right)
Spirik took the 1940 movie His Girl Friday (with Cary and Rosalind Russell) and cut out all the dialogue, leaving only gestures, actions, and movements. As a result, we've got eight minutes of pure body language, facial expressions, coordinated moves, and passages from one space to the next.
Once put the emphasis on the kinetic element of Cary's acting, which in 1940 was still a little over the top, we can see that he already leaned forward to that "subtle, controlled and stylized performance" (Barbara Grespi) which is typical of the latest phase of his career.
In this movie, "transparency" and the "invisibility of the artifice" still have to contend for primacy with a few frills left from Cary's circus upbringing, however, these are already the values he's fighting for, we can see him working on them -- literally -- between the lines.
As to Rosalind Russell, she's simply astounding."
Also, Peggy Nelson over at Hilobrow:
"In this piece of brilliant editing by Valentin Spirik, His Girl Friday, the Cary Grant vehicle, clocks in at only 8 minutes — exactly what remains when all the dialogue goes missing. It’s worth noting that even in a genre (screwball comedy) defined by its witty repartee, the core remains. How much of language is movement? How much of communication is, literally, embodied?
Recent research has suggested that users of Botox might be chipping away at their capacity for empathy, as the mirroring of muscular micro-movements actually goes some way toward creating a state of empathy for the creature, or the communication, so mirrored.
HiLobrow would love to see additional examples of the new silent cinema, should any reader feel so inclined… Tree of Life, anyone?"
posted by progosk at 8:46 AM on July 26, 2011 [7 favorites]
"CARY GRANT'S STYLE AS REVEALED BY VALENTIN SPIRIK'S EXPERIMENTAL EDIT OF HIS GIRL FRIDAY
As a further contribution to the comprehension of Cary Grant's style (which we investigated in our novel 54), we uploaded on YouTube an interesting video experiment by Valentin Spirik (right)
Spirik took the 1940 movie His Girl Friday (with Cary and Rosalind Russell) and cut out all the dialogue, leaving only gestures, actions, and movements. As a result, we've got eight minutes of pure body language, facial expressions, coordinated moves, and passages from one space to the next.
Once put the emphasis on the kinetic element of Cary's acting, which in 1940 was still a little over the top, we can see that he already leaned forward to that "subtle, controlled and stylized performance" (Barbara Grespi) which is typical of the latest phase of his career.
In this movie, "transparency" and the "invisibility of the artifice" still have to contend for primacy with a few frills left from Cary's circus upbringing, however, these are already the values he's fighting for, we can see him working on them -- literally -- between the lines.
As to Rosalind Russell, she's simply astounding."
Also, Peggy Nelson over at Hilobrow:
"In this piece of brilliant editing by Valentin Spirik, His Girl Friday, the Cary Grant vehicle, clocks in at only 8 minutes — exactly what remains when all the dialogue goes missing. It’s worth noting that even in a genre (screwball comedy) defined by its witty repartee, the core remains. How much of language is movement? How much of communication is, literally, embodied?
Recent research has suggested that users of Botox might be chipping away at their capacity for empathy, as the mirroring of muscular micro-movements actually goes some way toward creating a state of empathy for the creature, or the communication, so mirrored.
HiLobrow would love to see additional examples of the new silent cinema, should any reader feel so inclined… Tree of Life, anyone?"
posted by progosk at 8:46 AM on July 26, 2011 [7 favorites]
I am in love with Cary Grant even when he only makes funny noises.
posted by JanetLand at 8:48 AM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by JanetLand at 8:48 AM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
I first saw this movie back when AMC mostly showed only classic movies (oh, those were the days!) and I think I was in my teens. It's one of the reasons I love journalism. Also, I almost always want to have a cigarette before, during, and after watching it. AND, I yearn to have a day where everyone stands up for me when I enter a room, banter with me, treat me as an equal, and cower before my prowess.
Hildy, you are awesome.
posted by TrishaLynn at 8:59 AM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
Hildy, you are awesome.
posted by TrishaLynn at 8:59 AM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
Perhaps this is why I can't see the need to have to "dumb down" the movie for teenage or college-age kids.
I was NOT talking about "dumbing down" the film for college kids or teenagers. I was, if anything, talking about enhancing their experience of the film by opening and giving them a different frame to look at it through -- preferably in conjunction with the full film itself. That's what this experiment helps to do. It would be absurd to suggest that any film, especially a Howard Hawks film, should or could be dumbed down for anyone.
posted by blucevalo at 9:03 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
I was NOT talking about "dumbing down" the film for college kids or teenagers. I was, if anything, talking about enhancing their experience of the film by opening and giving them a different frame to look at it through -- preferably in conjunction with the full film itself. That's what this experiment helps to do. It would be absurd to suggest that any film, especially a Howard Hawks film, should or could be dumbed down for anyone.
posted by blucevalo at 9:03 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
Again, what point is it making? His Girl Friday is talky? Sure. So is The Thin Man. So is any episode of Two and a Half Men. So what?
Maybe the point is to point out that a lot of acting and artistry happens without dialogue.
posted by ZeusHumms at 9:03 AM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
Maybe the point is to point out that a lot of acting and artistry happens without dialogue.
posted by ZeusHumms at 9:03 AM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
Also, guess how disappointed I was to find neither of the offices of the New York Times OR The New Yorker looked ANYTHING at all like the office in his Girl Friday?
|_________O___________|
this much.
posted by The Whelk at 9:06 AM on July 26, 2011 [6 favorites]
|_________O___________|
this much.
posted by The Whelk at 9:06 AM on July 26, 2011 [6 favorites]
I, too, really don't see the point of this edit. Art and theory as practiced these days seem to have so little to offer, and to be so bereft of ideas, that the simple mechanical act of subtracting from celebrated works is lauded as something worthwhile. It's like using MS Word to do a find and replace on Shakespeare and calling it a fascinating conceptual exercise. Ever so delightfully post modern, I'm sure we can all agree, but in this day and age, when art could be doing so much, it is absolutely woeful that it is doing so little, and by such a contented academy of navel gazers.
That said, Rosalind Russel is teh hot. I could watch her all day.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 9:24 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
That said, Rosalind Russel is teh hot. I could watch her all day.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 9:24 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
I was very keen on this trend during Dune Without Words but this, not so much.
posted by robself at 9:29 AM on July 26, 2011
posted by robself at 9:29 AM on July 26, 2011
I thought this was brilliant, and I don't think it was an idea with a tendentious point, either -- it was an experiment, and a fascinating one. I loved to see how much of the story was discernible without dialog, and how much of the Grant-Russell relationship was non-verbal.
posted by dhartung at 9:32 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by dhartung at 9:32 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
I am only looking at the spaces between the comments in this thread.
posted by benito.strauss at 9:46 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by benito.strauss at 9:46 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
AND, I yearn to have a day where everyone stands up for me when I enter a room, banter with me, treat me as an equal, and cower before my prowess.
TrishaLynn, do you typically stand up when an equal enters the room? And cower before them?
Feminism != desire for equality. But it should.
posted by IAmBroom at 9:48 AM on July 26, 2011
TrishaLynn, do you typically stand up when an equal enters the room? And cower before them?
Feminism != desire for equality. But it should.
posted by IAmBroom at 9:48 AM on July 26, 2011
I, too, really don't see the point of this edit. Art and theory as practiced these days seem to have so little to offer, and to be so bereft of ideas, that the simple mechanical act of subtracting from celebrated works is lauded as something worthwhile. It's like using MS Word to do a find and replace on Shakespeare and calling it a fascinating conceptual exercise. Ever so delightfully post modern, I'm sure we can all agree, but in this day and age, when art could be doing so much, it is absolutely woeful that it is doing so little, and by such a contented academy of navel gazers.
A certain aspect of art, ever since the beginning of the 20th century, is an interrogation of what 'art' means, and where it is, and why. Hence Duchamp, and Warhol, and etc. Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q. is almost a hundred years ago, now. Is that art? Isn't it?
A work of art doesn't have to be about anything. It doesn't have to mean. I feel like the arts have been failed spectacularly by the American education system, which all too often tries to turn every work into the equivalent of a five-paragraph essay. You're handed a poem and asked, What does this mean? What is the artist saying? Like art is a coded message. Which is bullshit. A poem is a collection of language which expresses itself, and then an audience interacts with it. A painting is a collection of pigment which looks the way it looks, and then an audience interacts with it. A film is a series of images and sounds which look and sound they way they look and sound, and the audience interacts with it.
What is His Girl Friday? What's it about? To some degree, some facet of it is about a man trying to keep his ex-wife from leaving the newspaper business. But it's also not about that-- it's about jokes, and language. But it's also about watching charismatic movie stars deliver lines like machine-gun fire. It's about a lot of things.
So, then, what is His Girl Friday - Between the Lines Edit about? In a lot of ways it's about the same things His Girl Friday is about, because it contains a lot of the same images and sounds. But inasmuch as those same images and sounds are recontextualized, the audience interacts with them differently-- you pay more attention to how many times Rosalind Russell picks up the telephone, or to the funny sounds Cary Grant makes when he's not talking. You think about the absence of the dialogue. You try to remember or imagine what was just said that made Russell make that face. You pay more attention to Russell's face. Maybe you hear some funny pattern of sounds emerge for a moment, which no one intended, because what you're watching is the result of a mechanical process of elimination, but nevertheless the pattern is there, and emergent systems are beautiful and weird. You look up what the original runtime of His Girl Friday is, because then you'll know how much total time is taken up with dialogue. Maybe you calculate what percentage of the film is dialogue. Maybe while you're doing this, you have the video playing in the background and it starts to sound like dance music. Maybe none of these things happen, but the next time you watch His Girl Friday and someone watching with you says 'Jeez there's a lot of dialogue in this, how much would be left if they took it all out?' and you say, 'Eight and a half minutes.' Maybe thinking about these things makes you re-approach Hawks's film and you find yourself listening to those funny noises Cary Grant makes, and then you hear him making them in Charade and North by Northwest. That's what this video is about. And I think that's interesting. And isn't that art?
posted by shakespeherian at 10:28 AM on July 26, 2011 [9 favorites]
A certain aspect of art, ever since the beginning of the 20th century, is an interrogation of what 'art' means, and where it is, and why. Hence Duchamp, and Warhol, and etc. Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q. is almost a hundred years ago, now. Is that art? Isn't it?
A work of art doesn't have to be about anything. It doesn't have to mean. I feel like the arts have been failed spectacularly by the American education system, which all too often tries to turn every work into the equivalent of a five-paragraph essay. You're handed a poem and asked, What does this mean? What is the artist saying? Like art is a coded message. Which is bullshit. A poem is a collection of language which expresses itself, and then an audience interacts with it. A painting is a collection of pigment which looks the way it looks, and then an audience interacts with it. A film is a series of images and sounds which look and sound they way they look and sound, and the audience interacts with it.
What is His Girl Friday? What's it about? To some degree, some facet of it is about a man trying to keep his ex-wife from leaving the newspaper business. But it's also not about that-- it's about jokes, and language. But it's also about watching charismatic movie stars deliver lines like machine-gun fire. It's about a lot of things.
So, then, what is His Girl Friday - Between the Lines Edit about? In a lot of ways it's about the same things His Girl Friday is about, because it contains a lot of the same images and sounds. But inasmuch as those same images and sounds are recontextualized, the audience interacts with them differently-- you pay more attention to how many times Rosalind Russell picks up the telephone, or to the funny sounds Cary Grant makes when he's not talking. You think about the absence of the dialogue. You try to remember or imagine what was just said that made Russell make that face. You pay more attention to Russell's face. Maybe you hear some funny pattern of sounds emerge for a moment, which no one intended, because what you're watching is the result of a mechanical process of elimination, but nevertheless the pattern is there, and emergent systems are beautiful and weird. You look up what the original runtime of His Girl Friday is, because then you'll know how much total time is taken up with dialogue. Maybe you calculate what percentage of the film is dialogue. Maybe while you're doing this, you have the video playing in the background and it starts to sound like dance music. Maybe none of these things happen, but the next time you watch His Girl Friday and someone watching with you says 'Jeez there's a lot of dialogue in this, how much would be left if they took it all out?' and you say, 'Eight and a half minutes.' Maybe thinking about these things makes you re-approach Hawks's film and you find yourself listening to those funny noises Cary Grant makes, and then you hear him making them in Charade and North by Northwest. That's what this video is about. And I think that's interesting. And isn't that art?
posted by shakespeherian at 10:28 AM on July 26, 2011 [9 favorites]
The Whelk: "What happens is that I can;t stop looking at Russel's hat. It's like a portable totem."
I know! Now that you've said that, I can't unsee the hat, and how absurdly tall it is. They could cut a good three, four inches off of that thing and it would be less distracting. Also, I don't like the shape, though the brim is lovely and flattering.
What she really wants is something more understated and elegant, like this, I think (in black, of course).
But then, looking at it realistically, she's supposed to be an ex-reporter about to be married, visiting the old workplace in an effort to impress an ex, whose intent is to dress to the nines, but who is normally not the kind of gal who spends a lot of her time fretting about the latest fashion.
So it stands to reason that she would just end up buying the most dramatic, even ostentatious hat she could find, to complete her "I just stopped in to show you how well I am doing without you all now," look.
yes, yes, I am absolutely over-thinking this.
I wish women still wore hats and veils and nice suits with stockings and gloves to go out to lunch and such. Though I would droop and melt in them, anyway. And I only ever have lunch with my family and my cats. And the cats would snag the stockings. And also, possibly, the veil.
posted by misha at 10:36 AM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
I know! Now that you've said that, I can't unsee the hat, and how absurdly tall it is. They could cut a good three, four inches off of that thing and it would be less distracting. Also, I don't like the shape, though the brim is lovely and flattering.
What she really wants is something more understated and elegant, like this, I think (in black, of course).
But then, looking at it realistically, she's supposed to be an ex-reporter about to be married, visiting the old workplace in an effort to impress an ex, whose intent is to dress to the nines, but who is normally not the kind of gal who spends a lot of her time fretting about the latest fashion.
So it stands to reason that she would just end up buying the most dramatic, even ostentatious hat she could find, to complete her "I just stopped in to show you how well I am doing without you all now," look.
yes, yes, I am absolutely over-thinking this.
I wish women still wore hats and veils and nice suits with stockings and gloves to go out to lunch and such. Though I would droop and melt in them, anyway. And I only ever have lunch with my family and my cats. And the cats would snag the stockings. And also, possibly, the veil.
posted by misha at 10:36 AM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
yes, yes, I am absolutely over-thinking this.
Nah, I always thought half the visual comedy in the movie was that she's wearing such an ostentatiously impractical getup to do all this scheming and running around. That kind of overthinking is what a good costume department does.
posted by The Whelk at 10:38 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
Nah, I always thought half the visual comedy in the movie was that she's wearing such an ostentatiously impractical getup to do all this scheming and running around. That kind of overthinking is what a good costume department does.
posted by The Whelk at 10:38 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
His Girl Friday is talky? Sure. So is The Thin Man.
You need to rewatch The Thin Man then. There's whole scenes of quiet. For example when Nick (and Asta) goes poking around the laboratory. Practically silent the whole time.
posted by eoden at 10:50 AM on July 26, 2011
You need to rewatch The Thin Man then. There's whole scenes of quiet. For example when Nick (and Asta) goes poking around the laboratory. Practically silent the whole time.
posted by eoden at 10:50 AM on July 26, 2011
This is weird, like eating a pie comprised of nothing but empty crust.
posted by kinnakeet at 11:00 AM on July 26, 2011
posted by kinnakeet at 11:00 AM on July 26, 2011
TrishaLynn, do you typically stand up when an equal enters the room? And cower before them?
Feminism != desire for equality. But it should.
Way to take a lighthearted vamp on what Rosalind Russell's presence does in the movie and turn it into a turgid political downer.
posted by blucevalo at 11:18 AM on July 26, 2011 [3 favorites]
Feminism != desire for equality. But it should.
Way to take a lighthearted vamp on what Rosalind Russell's presence does in the movie and turn it into a turgid political downer.
posted by blucevalo at 11:18 AM on July 26, 2011 [3 favorites]
A work of art doesn't have to be about anything. It doesn't have to mean. I feel like the arts have been failed spectacularly by the American education system, which all too often tries to turn every work into the equivalent of a five-paragraph essay. You're handed a poem and asked, What does this mean? What is the artist saying? Like art is a coded message. Which is bullshit. A poem is a collection of language which expresses itself, and then an audience interacts with it. A painting is a collection of pigment which looks the way it looks, and then an audience interacts with it. A film is a series of images and sounds which look and sound they way they look and sound, and the audience interacts with it.
shakerspearian, you just summed up for me why I don't believe art should be taught in schools.
posted by magstheaxe at 11:24 AM on July 26, 2011
shakerspearian, you just summed up for me why I don't believe art should be taught in schools.
posted by magstheaxe at 11:24 AM on July 26, 2011
And I think that's interesting. And isn't that art?
Yes! And no! As I alluded above, in a post-modern landscape, everything is art, which is both liberating and, I think, more than a little stultifying. It is, of course, a canard to say that the "mere mechanical process" of someone spending an evening deleting the dialogue from His Girl Friday is not art, while I have no problem viewing Warhol's mechanical processes as art (an especially marked inconsistency given that he not only was physically disengaged from its production, but, in fact, advertised the fact by calling his atelier the Factory). Yes, I am large. I contain multitudes.
So yes, of course, this is art. FFFFFound is art. Youtube is art. The design of the imprint the mail metering machine makes on my letters is art. This is liberating. Beauty is everywhere. Everyone is a genius.
As has always been the case with art, if you don't like what I like, it's reducible to the fact that you just don't "get it," which is very sad for you, and I will say a prayer for you when I go to bed tonight. I assume you will do the same for me. "Good art" is whatever has the loudest proponents at a given time. Because of the schismatic nature of the internet and its tendency to produce echo chambers, there is an ascendancy of everything; every artifact has its own corner where its proponents speak the loudest. Not only is everything good art, but it's the best art. This is what strikes me as stultifying.
I don't propose we need an academy to tell us what's good; precisely the opposite. But I find that we're left in a world where art doesn't matter anymore, which I bemoan. Since everyone is an artist and, what's more, a genius, people seem to think that they don't have to try very hard at whatever it is that they do. People are lazy, and output suffers. Great, someone thinks it will be interesting to take out the dialogue from His Girl Friday. Double great, someone else agrees. Fantastic. So what?
That's what I'm continually left wondering. So what? It may be that in a post modern world, there never is a "what" there. No, art doesn't need to be about anything. But, of course, art always is, and always will be, about something. Clearly, it doesn't have to be representational, or figurative, but it is always about something, even supposedly "antitheatrical" works that don't presume to invite an audience. Everything is about something, but little wearing the mantle of art these days seems to leave us with more than we started with. Russell and Grant didn't need dialogue to tell the story. Maru likes to play in a box. GlaDOS may or may not be Chell's mother. This Pittney Bowes meter has a stamp that's slightly different than previous models.
Does any of this matter anymore? I like it, you like it, I buy it, you sell it, we all blog about it. But seriously, so what? I don't think any of us are the better for it, even after hearing Cary Grant's funny grunts.
Wake me when art matters again.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 11:44 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
Yes! And no! As I alluded above, in a post-modern landscape, everything is art, which is both liberating and, I think, more than a little stultifying. It is, of course, a canard to say that the "mere mechanical process" of someone spending an evening deleting the dialogue from His Girl Friday is not art, while I have no problem viewing Warhol's mechanical processes as art (an especially marked inconsistency given that he not only was physically disengaged from its production, but, in fact, advertised the fact by calling his atelier the Factory). Yes, I am large. I contain multitudes.
So yes, of course, this is art. FFFFFound is art. Youtube is art. The design of the imprint the mail metering machine makes on my letters is art. This is liberating. Beauty is everywhere. Everyone is a genius.
As has always been the case with art, if you don't like what I like, it's reducible to the fact that you just don't "get it," which is very sad for you, and I will say a prayer for you when I go to bed tonight. I assume you will do the same for me. "Good art" is whatever has the loudest proponents at a given time. Because of the schismatic nature of the internet and its tendency to produce echo chambers, there is an ascendancy of everything; every artifact has its own corner where its proponents speak the loudest. Not only is everything good art, but it's the best art. This is what strikes me as stultifying.
I don't propose we need an academy to tell us what's good; precisely the opposite. But I find that we're left in a world where art doesn't matter anymore, which I bemoan. Since everyone is an artist and, what's more, a genius, people seem to think that they don't have to try very hard at whatever it is that they do. People are lazy, and output suffers. Great, someone thinks it will be interesting to take out the dialogue from His Girl Friday. Double great, someone else agrees. Fantastic. So what?
That's what I'm continually left wondering. So what? It may be that in a post modern world, there never is a "what" there. No, art doesn't need to be about anything. But, of course, art always is, and always will be, about something. Clearly, it doesn't have to be representational, or figurative, but it is always about something, even supposedly "antitheatrical" works that don't presume to invite an audience. Everything is about something, but little wearing the mantle of art these days seems to leave us with more than we started with. Russell and Grant didn't need dialogue to tell the story. Maru likes to play in a box. GlaDOS may or may not be Chell's mother. This Pittney Bowes meter has a stamp that's slightly different than previous models.
Does any of this matter anymore? I like it, you like it, I buy it, you sell it, we all blog about it. But seriously, so what? I don't think any of us are the better for it, even after hearing Cary Grant's funny grunts.
Wake me when art matters again.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 11:44 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
the study of art is the study of history, politics, science and technique, religion, practical problem solving and the cultivation of aesthetic appreciation. I think all students would benefit from having to try to mix their own paint and given a lesson on chemistry, the availability of materials (a history of trade and commerce) the symbolism and significance of color choice and the practical experience of having to mix, eye-match color and then apply it. It's about getting a grade, it's about deepening your knowledge of how things work and how they connect to each other, how to solve problems, how to pick at the question "okay this interests me, why?" That's what education should be, a steady practice in asking questions and making connections.
posted by The Whelk at 11:44 AM on July 26, 2011
posted by The Whelk at 11:44 AM on July 26, 2011
You need to rewatch The Thin Man then. There's whole scenes of quiet. For example when Nick (and Asta) goes poking around the laboratory. Practically silent the whole time.
posted by eoden at 10:50 AM on July 26
I knew I was going to get caught out on that. I almost added: *except for scenes with Asta* but in the end decided it wasn't worth it. But when it's talky, it's very, talky and very, very quick. Actually it's in much the same vein as Bringing Up Baby in that aspect: very, very talky, rapid fire dialogue scenes intermixed with a few very quite scenes, also frequently involving a small dog (or a big cat).
Actually I love a lot of films from that era precisely because of the way they treat dialogue. It drives the plot, it serves as comedic release, it acts as a weapon in the hands of characters (see Philadelphia Story), it entices the audience in and holds them until the end. I know it's very artificial, but when well written and well acted well it's an art form.
posted by sardonyx at 11:44 AM on July 26, 2011
posted by eoden at 10:50 AM on July 26
I knew I was going to get caught out on that. I almost added: *except for scenes with Asta* but in the end decided it wasn't worth it. But when it's talky, it's very, talky and very, very quick. Actually it's in much the same vein as Bringing Up Baby in that aspect: very, very talky, rapid fire dialogue scenes intermixed with a few very quite scenes, also frequently involving a small dog (or a big cat).
Actually I love a lot of films from that era precisely because of the way they treat dialogue. It drives the plot, it serves as comedic release, it acts as a weapon in the hands of characters (see Philadelphia Story), it entices the audience in and holds them until the end. I know it's very artificial, but when well written and well acted well it's an art form.
posted by sardonyx at 11:44 AM on July 26, 2011
Does any of this matter anymore?
When they ask me why I paint my nails green, and I do paint my nails green, I say I think it's pretty
I think it's pretty.
posted by The Whelk at 11:46 AM on July 26, 2011
Actually I love a lot of films from that era precisely because of the way they treat dialogue. It drives the plot, it serves as comedic release, it acts as a weapon in the hands of characters
It's like Michael Bay, but WITH WORDS!
posted by mikelieman at 11:58 AM on July 26, 2011
It's like Michael Bay, but WITH WORDS!
posted by mikelieman at 11:58 AM on July 26, 2011
But when it's talky, it's very, talky and very, very quick.
I would like to see this done to a Seinfeld episode, now that I think about it.
posted by cortex at 11:58 AM on July 26, 2011
I would like to see this done to a Seinfeld episode, now that I think about it.
posted by cortex at 11:58 AM on July 26, 2011
Things "matter" and are "relevant" in proportion with how much the context they exist in depends upon them. We say that Hitchcock's films are important because of the techniques he demonstrated, because those techniques were adopted by later cinematographers and are now standard. That all happened after Hitchcock did those things; he didn't plan for it to happen, and if you watch his films without knowing what they influenced, they're just okay.
So, if you want to make art relevant again, make more derivative works that build upon the art you want to make relevant. Stuff like in this FPP is maybe not the best example, because it draws attention to parts of the original work that the original work isn't really the best example of, like nonverbal acting--it would make more sense, if you're into nonverbal acting, to make new silent films.
posted by LogicalDash at 11:59 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
So, if you want to make art relevant again, make more derivative works that build upon the art you want to make relevant. Stuff like in this FPP is maybe not the best example, because it draws attention to parts of the original work that the original work isn't really the best example of, like nonverbal acting--it would make more sense, if you're into nonverbal acting, to make new silent films.
posted by LogicalDash at 11:59 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
Seriously, my hypothesis is that all this greatness is due to the fact that the people involved also spent a lot of time on the stage....
posted by mikelieman at 11:59 AM on July 26, 2011
posted by mikelieman at 11:59 AM on July 26, 2011
When they ask me why I paint my nails green, and I do paint my nails green, I say I think it's pretty
I think it's pretty.
That's great. To me, it feels like you want it both ways--the study of art is "the study of history, politics, science and technique, religion, practical problem solving and the cultivation of aesthetic appreciation" that spurs the question "okay this interests me, why?" But, assuming that painting your nails is art (and who could deny it!), the only reason is that it's "pretty."
This seems like the reductio ad absurdum of all discussions about art, and I don't think it adds to the conversation. The video is pretty, your nails are pretty, my legal structure chart is pretty. The professional white background on MeFi is pretty (so is the green, of course).
"Pretty" is pretty low hanging fruit.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 12:06 PM on July 26, 2011
I think it's pretty.
That's great. To me, it feels like you want it both ways--the study of art is "the study of history, politics, science and technique, religion, practical problem solving and the cultivation of aesthetic appreciation" that spurs the question "okay this interests me, why?" But, assuming that painting your nails is art (and who could deny it!), the only reason is that it's "pretty."
This seems like the reductio ad absurdum of all discussions about art, and I don't think it adds to the conversation. The video is pretty, your nails are pretty, my legal structure chart is pretty. The professional white background on MeFi is pretty (so is the green, of course).
"Pretty" is pretty low hanging fruit.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 12:06 PM on July 26, 2011
Art is that which one puts on display for aesthetic purposes. Art can do whatever you want it to or nothing at all. Art can mean whatever you want it to mean or nothing at all. If you want art that does something or means something, you can look for art that does something or means something and you'll find a lot. If you want art that's a conversation with the artist you can find that. If you want art that encourages highly individualized interpretations you can find that. It's up to you.
posted by LogicalDash at 12:09 PM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by LogicalDash at 12:09 PM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
the study of art is the study of history, politics, science and technique, religion, practical problem solving and the cultivation of aesthetic appreciation. I think all students would benefit from having to try to mix their own paint and given a lesson on chemistry, the availability of materials (a history of trade and commerce) the symbolism and significance of color choice and the practical experience of having to mix, eye-match color and then apply it. It's about getting a grade, it's about deepening your knowledge of how things work and how they connect to each other, how to solve problems, how to pick at the question "okay this interests me, why?" That's what education should be, a steady practice in asking questions and making connections.
Students can learn all these thing by studying history, politics, science, religion, problem-solving, chemistry, trade & commerce, design theory, and critical thinking skills. They don't have to study art to learn any of those things.
posted by magstheaxe at 12:11 PM on July 26, 2011
Students can learn all these thing by studying history, politics, science, religion, problem-solving, chemistry, trade & commerce, design theory, and critical thinking skills. They don't have to study art to learn any of those things.
posted by magstheaxe at 12:11 PM on July 26, 2011
Again, what point is it making? His Girl Friday is talky?
For me the fascinating thing about this cut is that, even without the cracking dialogue, so much of the film still makes sense. The little glances, the blocking, the actions, it all serves to give us most of the story (or atleast the relationship between characters) without the need to speak a word. Given the amount of exposition in so many modern films I wish more people would see this cut first.
I was once told about a director who (time permitting) liked to run big, emotional scenes again, same camera moves, same blocking, only this time he forbade his actors to speak, they had to communicate everything through looks and body language. He did it just to add more potentially useful cut aways, but his actors loved him for it by all accounts. I've never had a chance to try it out for myself - maybe my time keeping just isn't good enough - but I'd love to one day.
posted by ciderwoman at 12:45 PM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
For me the fascinating thing about this cut is that, even without the cracking dialogue, so much of the film still makes sense. The little glances, the blocking, the actions, it all serves to give us most of the story (or atleast the relationship between characters) without the need to speak a word. Given the amount of exposition in so many modern films I wish more people would see this cut first.
I was once told about a director who (time permitting) liked to run big, emotional scenes again, same camera moves, same blocking, only this time he forbade his actors to speak, they had to communicate everything through looks and body language. He did it just to add more potentially useful cut aways, but his actors loved him for it by all accounts. I've never had a chance to try it out for myself - maybe my time keeping just isn't good enough - but I'd love to one day.
posted by ciderwoman at 12:45 PM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
I don't propose we need an academy to tell us what's good; precisely the opposite. But I find that we're left in a world where art doesn't matter anymore, which I bemoan. Since everyone is an artist and, what's more, a genius, people seem to think that they don't have to try very hard at whatever it is that they do. People are lazy, and output suffers. Great, someone thinks it will be interesting to take out the dialogue from His Girl Friday. Double great, someone else agrees. Fantastic. So what?
I do think everyone's an artist, or at least capable of being an artist, and that's precisely why we don't need an academy to tell us what's good. I don't think that everyone's a genius, and in fact I react pretty strongly against the word 'genius' in art, because it's an Academy word that exalts a fairly narrow range of dead white guys to the detriment of all art that is dissimilar to that. I think the issue is that, because of the widespread 'genius' Academy understanding of art in the western world, we grow up with the idea that art needs to be important or meaningful or special or original, and that's what stifles creativity and what keeps a lot of people from expressing themselves in the ways in which they're able.
I don't think that the linked video is the Greatest Art of All Time, and I don't think I'll even necessarily remember it midway through next week, but I think that to see that as detrimental to the work is borne of a false idea of what art is and should be in culture. Art should be multitudinous; art should exist free of any narrow ideas of canon except for those ways in which we're discussing influences and context. That doesn't mean that certain works aren't better than others-- I think that Citizen Kane is better art than Transformers 2-- but it does mean that it's unnecessarily limiting to look at any piece of art and say 'So what.'
The importance of art is that it's stimulating, and that an audience is able to interact with it. The ways in which we are stimulated by it, the ways in which we interact with it, are the So What. It's ridiculous to say that Citizen Kane is great art, full stop. It's ridiculous to say that Transformers 2 is bad art, full stop. The conversation(s) that we have about these films, however, the ways in which they invite us to consider things, the ways in which we're stimulated to tear them apart and analyze them to see how they work and how they work on us-- this is how the value of a work is established, and what makes it 'matter.'
The video is pretty, your nails are pretty, my legal structure chart is pretty. The professional white background on MeFi is pretty (so is the green, of course).
Any of these things could be art, of course, but that depends on whether someone draws attention to them and allows them to be recontextualized in such a way that we are interested enough to have a conversation about them, to maybe try to look underneath them to see what prompted them to be constructed in the way that they are, to explore their logic or the ways in which they speak to us. I think it's a shame that there's a popular conception that art belongs enshrined somewhere, untouchable and pristine, looked upon reverently because it's been imbued with genius by its Genius Creator. I think that prettiness has value. I think that highlighting something overlooked and spurring a discussion about whether it's interesting has value, even if I don't remember it later, because that ability to become interested in things that I otherwise thought were uninteresting grows me as a person. Looking at things in funny ways grows me as a person, and I appreciate people who come up with ideas that allow me to look at things in funny ways. When they do it on purpose, we call them artists.
posted by shakespeherian at 12:50 PM on July 26, 2011 [3 favorites]
I do think everyone's an artist, or at least capable of being an artist, and that's precisely why we don't need an academy to tell us what's good. I don't think that everyone's a genius, and in fact I react pretty strongly against the word 'genius' in art, because it's an Academy word that exalts a fairly narrow range of dead white guys to the detriment of all art that is dissimilar to that. I think the issue is that, because of the widespread 'genius' Academy understanding of art in the western world, we grow up with the idea that art needs to be important or meaningful or special or original, and that's what stifles creativity and what keeps a lot of people from expressing themselves in the ways in which they're able.
I don't think that the linked video is the Greatest Art of All Time, and I don't think I'll even necessarily remember it midway through next week, but I think that to see that as detrimental to the work is borne of a false idea of what art is and should be in culture. Art should be multitudinous; art should exist free of any narrow ideas of canon except for those ways in which we're discussing influences and context. That doesn't mean that certain works aren't better than others-- I think that Citizen Kane is better art than Transformers 2-- but it does mean that it's unnecessarily limiting to look at any piece of art and say 'So what.'
The importance of art is that it's stimulating, and that an audience is able to interact with it. The ways in which we are stimulated by it, the ways in which we interact with it, are the So What. It's ridiculous to say that Citizen Kane is great art, full stop. It's ridiculous to say that Transformers 2 is bad art, full stop. The conversation(s) that we have about these films, however, the ways in which they invite us to consider things, the ways in which we're stimulated to tear them apart and analyze them to see how they work and how they work on us-- this is how the value of a work is established, and what makes it 'matter.'
The video is pretty, your nails are pretty, my legal structure chart is pretty. The professional white background on MeFi is pretty (so is the green, of course).
Any of these things could be art, of course, but that depends on whether someone draws attention to them and allows them to be recontextualized in such a way that we are interested enough to have a conversation about them, to maybe try to look underneath them to see what prompted them to be constructed in the way that they are, to explore their logic or the ways in which they speak to us. I think it's a shame that there's a popular conception that art belongs enshrined somewhere, untouchable and pristine, looked upon reverently because it's been imbued with genius by its Genius Creator. I think that prettiness has value. I think that highlighting something overlooked and spurring a discussion about whether it's interesting has value, even if I don't remember it later, because that ability to become interested in things that I otherwise thought were uninteresting grows me as a person. Looking at things in funny ways grows me as a person, and I appreciate people who come up with ideas that allow me to look at things in funny ways. When they do it on purpose, we call them artists.
posted by shakespeherian at 12:50 PM on July 26, 2011 [3 favorites]
I almost added: *except for scenes with Asta* but in the end decided it wasn't worth it. But when it's talky, it's very, talky and very, very quick. Actually it's in much the same vein as Bringing Up Baby in that aspect: very, very talky, rapid fire dialogue scenes intermixed with a few very quite scenes, also frequently involving a small dog (or a big cat).
Specifically the same dog. Asta is in both.
posted by eoden at 1:00 PM on July 26, 2011
Specifically the same dog. Asta is in both.
posted by eoden at 1:00 PM on July 26, 2011
I would like to see this done to a Seinfeld episode, now that I think about it.
I was thinking West Wing.
posted by dirtdirt at 1:01 PM on July 26, 2011
I was thinking West Wing.
posted by dirtdirt at 1:01 PM on July 26, 2011
Anybody got a link to that edit of Planet of the Apes that is *only* Heston's lines? I was just telling someone about that the other day - I just about wet my pants laughing the first time I saw it.
Stinkycheese, it was called "Heston of the Apes", and it was an edit by Mike Olenick, like in 2000. I'd watched the video online before, but now it seems to have disappeared. Pity, as you're right, it was hilarious.
posted by xedrik at 1:09 PM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
Stinkycheese, it was called "Heston of the Apes", and it was an edit by Mike Olenick, like in 2000. I'd watched the video online before, but now it seems to have disappeared. Pity, as you're right, it was hilarious.
posted by xedrik at 1:09 PM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
Specifically the same dog. Asta is in both.
posted by eoden at 1:00 PM on July 26
I wondered about that while I was posting. I mean in my mind, they seem like the same dog, but not having watched the movies back-to-back or not having looked up the dog's listing in IMDB, I couldn't be sure.
posted by sardonyx at 1:15 PM on July 26, 2011
posted by eoden at 1:00 PM on July 26
I wondered about that while I was posting. I mean in my mind, they seem like the same dog, but not having watched the movies back-to-back or not having looked up the dog's listing in IMDB, I couldn't be sure.
posted by sardonyx at 1:15 PM on July 26, 2011
it was called "Heston of the Apes", and it was an edit by Mike Olenick, like in 2000. I'd watched the video online before, but now it seems to have disappeared.
SEE IT IN GLORIOUS 160*120 QUICKTIME
posted by cortex at 1:20 PM on July 26, 2011 [3 favorites]
SEE IT IN GLORIOUS 160*120 QUICKTIME
posted by cortex at 1:20 PM on July 26, 2011 [3 favorites]
I'd rather watch a movie than a different kind of filmic artifact, any day of the week. Asta is the stage name of Skippy, the fox terrier.
posted by Ideefixe at 1:44 PM on July 26, 2011
posted by Ideefixe at 1:44 PM on July 26, 2011
Well YEAH but we know the dog as Asta.
Don't you tell me different!
posted by eoden at 2:17 PM on July 26, 2011
Don't you tell me different!
posted by eoden at 2:17 PM on July 26, 2011
shakespeherian, I think we're largely saying the same things, but at the same time, I feel like you're having a conversation with someone else. I've tried to make clear that I really do feel that art is everywhere, and that everyone is an artist, and I'm not a member of hoi polloi who think art just kinda petered out after Van Gogh. (Those poor rubes; do let's both say our prayers for them tonight amirite?) Where I think we may disagree is whether art per se need an audience; I don't think the irreducible essence of art is that an audience needs to interact with it. Art is, Art will be, forever and ever, amen--regardless of whether you or I or the Whelk ever see it, or find it interesting, though certainly that's part of it.
I'm happy if you want to create a new category of art that you'll remember next week, and I'd be even more happy to say that I had stumbled upon something that would make me say the same thing. It has been a while though. Like you, I've seen something that was thought provoking for half an hour, and, if I'm lucky, something that I'd mention to my SO that night. I usually can't say that I often remember it the next day. I wish that were not the case.
I will remember this conversation, though, and I'm glad for that. (I'll also remember this as the day I got nothing whatsoever done at work.)
posted by Admiral Haddock at 2:26 PM on July 26, 2011
I'm happy if you want to create a new category of art that you'll remember next week, and I'd be even more happy to say that I had stumbled upon something that would make me say the same thing. It has been a while though. Like you, I've seen something that was thought provoking for half an hour, and, if I'm lucky, something that I'd mention to my SO that night. I usually can't say that I often remember it the next day. I wish that were not the case.
I will remember this conversation, though, and I'm glad for that. (I'll also remember this as the day I got nothing whatsoever done at work.)
posted by Admiral Haddock at 2:26 PM on July 26, 2011
What I'm trying to explain is why, in my opinion, your 'so what' about this sort of thing is a direct descendant of the thinking particular to the hoi polloi. I'm not saying you need to like this specific work, or any specific work, but your assertion above that '"pretty" is low hanging fruit' seems to suggest that art needs to be Grander Than This Piffle.
posted by shakespeherian at 2:31 PM on July 26, 2011
posted by shakespeherian at 2:31 PM on July 26, 2011
I think it's looped around the other end, though reasonable minds may differ. Art is art, and it surrounds us. With no understatement, I can say art is life and vice versa. Art clearly doesn't need to be created by Great Artists from the Academy, and this is not proven by Important Outsider Artists like Cornell and Darger, but because, I believe, everyone is an artist and lives their lives in the creation of art, whether or not they, or you, or I think to slap a label on it. I think it's art whether it's highbrow or low, commercial or not, meant to be viewed or meant to be hidden, preserved or destroyed. Art doesn't need to have meaning; I would think that's well settled (though, as I said above, I think art is always about something).
Believe me, I get it. But I think your view is as derriere garde as you think mine is. Movements come and go; ars gratia artis, once enshrined, does not have dominion on aesthetics forevermore. I think we can find art in everything and then still ask, so what? You call it retrograde; I think eliding the question is complacent. Hoi polloi vs. special snowflakes. Comme ci, comme ça.
By your own token, "the importance of art is that it's stimulating," but you seem to resent the viewer's question "is this stimulating?" I actually find my conception of art to be broader than yours; I don't think the audience is required. You say Citizen Kane is better art than Transformers 2; is this really any different than watching both films asking "so what?" after Transformers 2 and think "Ah, that's what" after Citizen Kane? I'd venture no.
Again, reasonable minds may differ.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 3:30 PM on July 26, 2011
Believe me, I get it. But I think your view is as derriere garde as you think mine is. Movements come and go; ars gratia artis, once enshrined, does not have dominion on aesthetics forevermore. I think we can find art in everything and then still ask, so what? You call it retrograde; I think eliding the question is complacent. Hoi polloi vs. special snowflakes. Comme ci, comme ça.
By your own token, "the importance of art is that it's stimulating," but you seem to resent the viewer's question "is this stimulating?" I actually find my conception of art to be broader than yours; I don't think the audience is required. You say Citizen Kane is better art than Transformers 2; is this really any different than watching both films asking "so what?" after Transformers 2 and think "Ah, that's what" after Citizen Kane? I'd venture no.
Again, reasonable minds may differ.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 3:30 PM on July 26, 2011
By your own token, "the importance of art is that it's stimulating," but you seem to resent the viewer's question "is this stimulating?"
It's possible I misunderstood you-- if your 'so what' was meant as a sincere question, rather than a dismissal, I didn't read it that way. And if so, I attempted to answer your question.
posted by shakespeherian at 4:12 PM on July 26, 2011
It's possible I misunderstood you-- if your 'so what' was meant as a sincere question, rather than a dismissal, I didn't read it that way. And if so, I attempted to answer your question.
posted by shakespeherian at 4:12 PM on July 26, 2011
Someone do this to the Gilmour Girls and I might consider watching it.
posted by not_on_display at 4:19 PM on July 26, 2011
posted by not_on_display at 4:19 PM on July 26, 2011
It sounds like a recording of someone sleeping.
I wonder if that means something.
posted by jiawen at 10:50 PM on July 26, 2011
I wonder if that means something.
posted by jiawen at 10:50 PM on July 26, 2011
IAmBroom: Feminism != desire for equality. But it should.
Though His Girl Friday is definitely a feminist-ish sort of movie, that really wasn't what I was thinking about when I described what Walter Burns and the news reporters do when they're around Hildy Johnson. I was just describing exactly what I saw and felt from their actions. Incidentally, the scene in question starts at/around 1:40 in the clip, and I misremembered that only one of the other reporters stood because the rest were playing poker. But I guess that goes more towards the "treating her like an equal" part of my description, because they probably would have ignored another male reporter if he'd entered the room.
blucevalo was correct in that I was aiming to be more light-hearted. But since you did mention feminism, lemme write a few paragraphs on that. (You brought it upon yourself!)
There are only four women in this movie, three with speaking parts: Hildy Johnson, the nightclub singer/prostitute-ish woman, Mollie Malloy, and Bruce Baldwin's mom. There is no time at which this movie passes the Bechdel test, because all of Hildy and Mollie's scenes have them talking about Earl Williams and all of Hildy and Bruce's mom's scenes involve them talking about Bruce. And yet, I do feel as if this is an important movie in the list of "Films Women Who Like Feminism Should See" because it's a great example of what many feminists like me want: The ability to be treated as an equal while still maintaining some aspects of traditional femininity.
I imagine that when she was working for Walter Burns, he paid Hildy just as much as the other star reporters on his staff. He wanted her back because she was the one who got away, but he also valued her writing abilities. The scene where the reporters read her unpublished article about Earl Williams (which she wrote in under an hour!) and how impressed they are show that she's got real talent. She gets to wear an amazing dress/coat/hat combination for the entire movie. And in the end, Hildy gets the guy she really wanted, because in the end she does prefer to have a life that's a little chaotic, with a little too much emphasis on work, and she gets to write again.
To expand your statement, you wrote "Feminism does not equate to a desire for equality." I believe it does, because that's the kind of feminist I am.
posted by TrishaLynn at 4:03 AM on July 27, 2011
Though His Girl Friday is definitely a feminist-ish sort of movie, that really wasn't what I was thinking about when I described what Walter Burns and the news reporters do when they're around Hildy Johnson. I was just describing exactly what I saw and felt from their actions. Incidentally, the scene in question starts at/around 1:40 in the clip, and I misremembered that only one of the other reporters stood because the rest were playing poker. But I guess that goes more towards the "treating her like an equal" part of my description, because they probably would have ignored another male reporter if he'd entered the room.
blucevalo was correct in that I was aiming to be more light-hearted. But since you did mention feminism, lemme write a few paragraphs on that. (You brought it upon yourself!)
There are only four women in this movie, three with speaking parts: Hildy Johnson, the nightclub singer/prostitute-ish woman, Mollie Malloy, and Bruce Baldwin's mom. There is no time at which this movie passes the Bechdel test, because all of Hildy and Mollie's scenes have them talking about Earl Williams and all of Hildy and Bruce's mom's scenes involve them talking about Bruce. And yet, I do feel as if this is an important movie in the list of "Films Women Who Like Feminism Should See" because it's a great example of what many feminists like me want: The ability to be treated as an equal while still maintaining some aspects of traditional femininity.
I imagine that when she was working for Walter Burns, he paid Hildy just as much as the other star reporters on his staff. He wanted her back because she was the one who got away, but he also valued her writing abilities. The scene where the reporters read her unpublished article about Earl Williams (which she wrote in under an hour!) and how impressed they are show that she's got real talent. She gets to wear an amazing dress/coat/hat combination for the entire movie. And in the end, Hildy gets the guy she really wanted, because in the end she does prefer to have a life that's a little chaotic, with a little too much emphasis on work, and she gets to write again.
To expand your statement, you wrote "Feminism does not equate to a desire for equality." I believe it does, because that's the kind of feminist I am.
posted by TrishaLynn at 4:03 AM on July 27, 2011
To expand your statement, you wrote "Feminism does not equate to a desire for equality." I believe it does, because that's the kind of feminist I am.
TrishaLynn: Good. Your reply is far more even. I too often encounter "feminists" who are only interested in the rewards of equality, and not the full responsibilities... a very human, if wrong, selfishness.
And, blucevalo: I'm sorry that you are offended by a desire for equality. Would you have called my comment out if the genders had been reversed? Or is only misogyny offensive to you?
posted by IAmBroom at 4:56 AM on July 27, 2011
TrishaLynn: Good. Your reply is far more even. I too often encounter "feminists" who are only interested in the rewards of equality, and not the full responsibilities... a very human, if wrong, selfishness.
And, blucevalo: I'm sorry that you are offended by a desire for equality. Would you have called my comment out if the genders had been reversed? Or is only misogyny offensive to you?
posted by IAmBroom at 4:56 AM on July 27, 2011
IAB: Dude, let it go. He/she was just telling you that he/she thought you were misinterpreting the intent my comment, which you were.
posted by TrishaLynn at 6:25 AM on July 27, 2011
posted by TrishaLynn at 6:25 AM on July 27, 2011
« Older God's Own Warden | The Atlantic: Fiction 2011 Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
"Sold American!"
posted by eoden at 7:40 AM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]