In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff


We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.







Try Advanced Search


  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...


CultureBlogs
• Sasha Castel
• AC Douglas
• Out of Lascaux
• The Ambler
• PhilosoBlog
• Modern Art Notes
• Cranky Professor
• Mike Snider on Poetry
• Silliman on Poetry
• Felix Salmon
• Gregdotorg
• BookSlut
• Polly Frost
• Polly and Ray's Forum
• Cronaca
• Plep
• Stumbling Tongue
• Brian's Culture Blog
• Banana Oil
• Scourge of Modernism
• Visible Darkness
• Seablogger
• Thomas Hobbs
• Blog Lodge
• Leibman Theory
• Goliard Dream
•
Third Level Digression
• Here Inside
• My Stupid Dog
• W.J. Duquette


Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
• Andrew Sullivan
• The Corner at National Review
• Steve Sailer
• Samizdata
• Junius
• Joanne Jacobs
• CalPundit
• Natalie Solent
• A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
• Rational Parenting
• Public Interest.co.uk
• Colby Cosh
• View from the Right
• Pejman Pundit
• Spleenville
• God of the Machine
• One Good Turn
• CinderellaBloggerfella
• Liberty Log
• Daily Pundit
• InstaPundit
• MindFloss
• Catallaxy Files
• Greatest Jeneration
• Glenn Frazier
• Jane Galt
• Jim Miller
• Limbic Nutrition
• Innocents Abroad
• Chicago Boyz
• James Lileks
• Cybrarian at Large
• Hello Bloggy!
• Setting the World to Rights
• Travelling Shoes


Miscellaneous
• Redwood Dragon
• IMAO
• The Invisible Hand
• ScrappleFace
• Daze Reader
• Lynn Sislo
• The Fat Guy
• Jon Walz

Links


Our Last 50 Referrers







« Free Reads -- Coulter | Main | Times passes, art changes »

August 16, 2002

Movies, Painting

Michael

Why are movies so darn variable in quality/vibe? I mean, Raphael paintings are better and worse, but they're all sort of a piece. Rubens and El Greco paintings even more so. Whereas movies seem much more dependent on luck, or something. The quality of somebody's last movie is a very poor predictor for how much you'll like their next movie. Maybe if movies were made by stable teams of writers, directors, designers, actors they would be more, well, "artistic."

I grant you, the importance of such an issue has faded a good deal for me since college, but discussing it beats working.

Cheers,

Friedrich

posted by Friedrich at August 16, 2002




Comments

If you look at a painting you're looking at the work of one man, the talent of one man, the ideas of one man, the thousand judgements and choices one man made during its creation, one man's perspective, one man's beliefs, etc. When you look at a movie you're looking at a conglomeration of talent, ideas, choices, judgements, perspectives, blah, blah, blah. Every movie is the result of a different conglomerate, and even if you could get exactly the same group working together from start to finish, you couldn't get the kind of consistant recognizability that you're thinking of, because of differences in how the various levels of power in a project shift and remold themselves, and also at the varying rates that each individual and group withing the project matures and learns as opposed to the steady improvement and growth of an individual.

Posted by: Alley Writer on August 16, 2002 11:14 PM






Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:



Remember your info?