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 ...

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
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
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
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

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

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

August 16, 2002

Movies, Painting


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.



posted by Friedrich at August 16, 2002


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

Email Address:



Remember your info?