Comments on: What Price Fetish? http://forwardtoyesterday.com/2007/01/07/what-price-fetish/ It's hip to be moribund! Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:33:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: bob http://forwardtoyesterday.com/2007/01/07/what-price-fetish/#comment-3062 bob Tue, 23 Jan 2007 06:11:34 +0000 http://forwardtoyesterday.com/2007/01/07/what-price-fetish/#comment-3062 Better late than never, Harry -- thanks for stopping by and for the interesting remarks. As you might expect, I haven't seen a huge number of truly experimental films, but this one sounds pretty interesting. As for my personal favorite bores, they're relatively mainstream and with the exception of Shinji Aoyama's "Eureka", the subject of my second post in your blogathon, pretty well known -- but still, widely regarded as boring by a good number/the vast majority of civilian filmgoers who see it by accident...a few that come to mind are "2001" (someone once called a $20 million experimental film and I don't think that's far wrong), "Contempt," "Dodeskaden," "Fantasia" -- I'm sure there are lots of others but I can't seem to think of too many right now. In a way, though, what I'm thinking of is the sad fact that many great films that are anything but boring to me are to a lot of regular folks. "The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp" is to me a film that anyone should enjoy but I've found that to be, sadly, not the case. And then there was the time I tried to get my nephews to watch "The Day the Earth Stood Still"...from their reaction you would have thought I had brought over...yes...a boring art film. The sad fact is that to too many people, "Stagecoach" is a boring art film -- only three action sequences, you know. Better late than never, Harry — thanks for stopping by and for the interesting remarks. As you might expect, I haven’t seen a huge number of truly experimental films, but this one sounds pretty interesting.

As for my personal favorite bores, they’re relatively mainstream and with the exception of Shinji Aoyama’s “Eureka”, the subject of my second post in your blogathon, pretty well known — but still, widely regarded as boring by a good number/the vast majority of civilian filmgoers who see it by accident…a few that come to mind are “2001″ (someone once called a $20 million experimental film and I don’t think that’s far wrong), “Contempt,” “Dodeskaden,” “Fantasia” — I’m sure there are lots of others but I can’t seem to think of too many right now.

In a way, though, what I’m thinking of is the sad fact that many great films that are anything but boring to me are to a lot of regular folks. “The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp” is to me a film that anyone should enjoy but I’ve found that to be, sadly, not the case.

And then there was the time I tried to get my nephews to watch “The Day the Earth Stood Still”…from their reaction you would have thought I had brought over…yes…a boring art film. The sad fact is that to too many people, “Stagecoach” is a boring art film — only three action sequences, you know.

]]> By: HarryTuttle http://forwardtoyesterday.com/2007/01/07/what-price-fetish/#comment-2940 HarryTuttle Mon, 22 Jan 2007 05:53:40 +0000 http://forwardtoyesterday.com/2007/01/07/what-price-fetish/#comment-2940 (long overdue comment) Thank you for contributing to the blogathon with your thoughts, Bob! Even though you're not a total fan of "boring artfilms", I appreciate your explanation about the image fetish and the audience patience. That's an interesting perspective. I'm curious, what is your "personal favorite bores right now"? ;) Personaly, when I watch an old film on a bad print, I forget for a moment the immediate comfort of an hypothetical pristine remastered print, and I try to stay aware of the aging of the film as a timecapsule. The dust and the scratches just make the film more authentical. Did you see an experiemental film called <b>Decasia</b> by Bill Morrisson? It's a collage of really old film strips rotten and decayed by chemical reactions and mishandling. It is extremely moving to still perceive the faces of people from a century ago through the alterations of time. They are like fossils. But the image is alive, not fixed for ever. And we can see it aging just like the portrait of Dorian Gray... The fetishization of the image might have to do with the cult of novelty too : Only freshness, only brand spanking new. What do you think? (long overdue comment)

Thank you for contributing to the blogathon with your thoughts, Bob! Even though you’re not a total fan of “boring artfilms”, I appreciate your explanation about the image fetish and the audience patience. That’s an interesting perspective.

I’m curious, what is your “personal favorite bores right now”? ;)

Personaly, when I watch an old film on a bad print, I forget for a moment the immediate comfort of an hypothetical pristine remastered print, and I try to stay aware of the aging of the film as a timecapsule. The dust and the scratches just make the film more authentical.
Did you see an experiemental film called Decasia by Bill Morrisson? It’s a collage of really old film strips rotten and decayed by chemical reactions and mishandling. It is extremely moving to still perceive the faces of people from a century ago through the alterations of time. They are like fossils. But the image is alive, not fixed for ever. And we can see it aging just like the portrait of Dorian Gray…

The fetishization of the image might have to do with the cult of novelty too : Only freshness, only brand spanking new.

What do you think?

]]>