The Secret of My Success (Herbert Ross, 1987)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Message
Author
User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Secret of My Succe$s (Ross, 1987)

#26 Post by Mr Sausage » Thu May 06, 2010 2:04 am

Nothing wrote:it is generally understood that the use of the word 'aesthetics' in a discussion of cinema does not refer to the literary content of the film (the dialog, the narrative, the characterisation). If it did, the term would have no use.
Then it is your position that terse, spare dialogue in a noir film makes no aesthetic difference than long, flowery, eloquent dialogue. On top of which, you've also implied that plays have essentially no aesthetics whatsoever beyond the stage trappings, unless it is your position that dialogue, narrative, and characterization only (and magically!) cease to be aesthetic elements when photography is involved.

Rather than "move beyond" pedantry, I'm going to move in into it. I think it's fruitful to show that you have no coherant working idea of aesthetics, let alone a decent definition, by showing how you haven't even understood the details.
Nothing wrote:
Mr_sausage wrote:Sound is not seperable from sense in spoken language
If this were true, there would be no such thing as a foreign language.
Don't be solipsistic. A sound which you do not understand is not therefore devoid of sense.
Nothing wrote:The sounds are perceived, the language is then interpreted from the sounds
An interpretation is a perception of meaning. Stop trying to pretend that language apprehension is not empirical and that cogitation is unconnected with the senses ("Ineluctable modality of the audible"). I can't believe this needs requoting: "c. To interpret or look on (a thing, situation, person, etc.) in a particular way; to regard as, consider to be."

User avatar
NABOB OF NOWHERE
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:30 pm
Location: Brandywine River

Re: The Secret of My Succe$s (Ross, 1987)

#27 Post by NABOB OF NOWHERE » Thu May 06, 2010 8:40 am

As a small voice sniping from the margins may I suggest we rename this thread 'Every time I hear the word aesthetics I reach for my Webster's" ?

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The Secret of My Succe$s (Ross, 1987)

#28 Post by domino harvey » Thu May 06, 2010 10:21 pm

Love it

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: The Secret of My Succe$s (Ross, 1987)

#29 Post by mfunk9786 » Thu May 06, 2010 11:28 pm

Webster'$

Nothing
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:04 am

Re: The Secret of My Succe$s (Ross, 1987)

#30 Post by Nothing » Fri May 07, 2010 2:17 am

Mr_sausage wrote:Then it is your position that terse, spare dialogue in a noir film makes no aesthetic difference than long, flowery, eloquent dialogue.
The duration and delivery of the dialogue are part of the aesthetic content (terse, spare, long, flowery, etc). The linguistic meaning of the dialogue is not.
Mr_sausage wrote:On top of which, you've also implied that plays have essentially no aesthetics whatsoever beyond the stage trappings, unless it is your position that dialogue, narrative, and characterization only (and magically!) cease to be aesthetic elements when photography is involved.
Choreography, lighting, set design, costume design, physical casting (the appearance of the actors), musical accompaniment, sound mixing / manipulation of acoustics (where used) - these are the core aesthetic components in a stage play.
Mr_sausage wrote:A sound which you do not understand is not devoid of sense.
The definition of 'sense' (abridged):
1a/ A perception or feeling produced by a stimulus; sensation.
5a/ A meaning that is conveyed, as in speech or writing; signification.

Aesthetics refers to the first definition - ie. the actual sound of the word, as perceived by the senses; the overall sensory impression created. 'Sense', in the context of your sentence above, refers to the latter definition - which is something different altogether.

By your definition, what are the NON-aesthetic components of a film or play? The rigging that holds the set in place? The bulb in the projector...? By your definition, there is no meaningful difference between 'aesthetic content' and 'content' - the word aesthetic may as well not be used at all. In which case, one would simply replace it with the rather more longwinded 'formal visual and auditory attributes' (or something similar) and the argument (which this entire sophistic enterprise is an attempt to distract from) would remain the same.

addendum in regards to the actual topic of the thread:
caught up with Hannah & her Sisters yesterday, and, whilst solidly and professionally shot, it is far less visually impressive than The Secret of My Succe$s. +1 to the idea that Di Palma had a free hand to shape the visual approach here - was, in essence, an uncredited co-director (albeit one who couldn't protect himself from some dodgy montage + musical choices in the editing room).

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Secret of My Succe$s (Ross, 1987)

#31 Post by Mr Sausage » Fri May 07, 2010 1:36 pm

Nothing wrote:The duration and delivery of the dialogue are part of the aesthetic content (terse, spare, long, flowery, etc). The linguistic meaning of the dialogue is not.
Right. Because the manner in which you talk has no effect on the meaning of your speech.

Your dualism in this matter is a false construction and the real sophism here. Who could deny that, for example, the imagery of a poem is part of its aesthetic and part of any aesthetic consideration of it; and yet these images are no differently apprehended than the "linguistic meaning" of words. They, too, are "interpreted" from the sound of the language, and yet you would have us believe such an interpretation is non-aesthetic. So much for the imagery of poets: whatever they may be, Nothing assures us they not aesthetic.
Nothing wrote:Choreography, lighting, set design, costume design, physical casting (the appearance of the actors), musical accompaniment, sound mixing / manipulation of acoustics (where used) - these are the core aesthetic components in a stage play.
Those things create sensory impressions, yes. But aesthetics is more than just simple sense impressions. Again, I will quote the Phililogical Museum: "Perception in general is something very different from [aesthetics,] that peculiar and complex modification of it which takes cognizance of the beauties of poetry and art. Esthetics would naturally designate the doctrine of perception in general."

Aesthetics is a "doctrine" of perception and not simple perception itself, of which aesthetics is a "peculiar and complex modification." Not only that, but as expressely stated, aesthetics is a specific school which takes "cognizance" of the beauty of poetry and art. Your whole sophistical point has been to try to pretend the mind and the senses operate distinctly from on another and that any attempt to use the mind to understand a thing (like language, as tho' one didn't apprehend the sound and the sense simultaneously, like there was a gap between the processes!) suddenly shuts off your senses altogether and is performed in some giant brain-vacuum. Nonsense. You do not understand aesthetics.

The whole point of appreciating poetry aesthetically--plays included--is to appreciate the sound and the sense working together and to understand the effect the words have on your emotions and thoughts. Your inability to understand this point is mystifying and I'm going to assume you're doing it entirely for the sake of argument. There is no dualism on this point. There is no legimitate aesthetic appreciation of poetry or drama which treats it like a piece of uncomprehensible, non-representational music, and thinks its meaning is non-formal and beside the point. Aesthetic criticism is all about understanding the way that your taste and your emotions and your thoughts have been affected by the culmulative impressions made on you by the art-object in and of itself; it is active, not passive; it requires thought and interpretation. Read Walter Pater and John Ruskin. You will not find any aesthetic understanding in them that matches your narrow conception of it.
Nothing wrote:Aesthetics refers to the first definition - ie. the actual sound of the word, as perceived by the senses; the overall sensory impression created. 'Sense', in the context of your sentence above, refers to the latter definition - which is something different altogether.
No, that would be nothing more than a simple perception. In your defintion, there is nothing that distinguishes "aesthetic" from simple sense perception at all. Casually and uninterestedly looking in front of me as I walk is as "aesthetic" a moment as watching Tarkovsky. What a debasement of the term! It is you who've made the word aesthetic pointless.

Aesthetic, as I've been trying, in vain, to get you to understand, is a peculiar and particular receptiveness and cogitation upon the impressions created by an object of art based upon the function of its elements (yes, words included, those things most calculated to make impressions). Until you understand this you will not understand aesthetics nor your own argument.
Nothing wrote:By your definition, what are the NON-aesthetic components of a film or play?
The political or historical context of the piece. Theoretical or ideological approaches to the material. Extrapolations from the material. Anything not part of the formal construction of the thing, really.

User avatar
Dylan
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:28 pm

Re: The Secret of My Succe$s (Ross, 1987)

#32 Post by Dylan » Fri May 07, 2010 4:25 pm

Hannah marked a first for Woody Allen in how heavily it utilized long single takes containing numerous camera movements (often going from one composition to the next in the same shot). That said, I think what you're looking for is something more visually elaborate in terms of lighting and composition. September, Alice, Radio Days, and Shadows and Fog might have more of what you're looking for.

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: The Secret of My Succe$s (Ross, 1987)

#33 Post by cdnchris » Fri May 07, 2010 4:40 pm

Mr_sausage wrote: Right. Because the manner in which you talk has no effect on the meaning of your speech.
This sentence creates a paradox for my sarcasm detector and it may never fully recover.

Nothing
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:04 am

Re: The Secret of My Succe$s (Ross, 1987)

#34 Post by Nothing » Mon May 10, 2010 2:08 am

Mr_sausage wrote:Who could deny that, for example, the imagery of a poem is not part of its aesthetic
But I think you have to work with the possibility that definitions can shift and/or diversify over time, especially in relation to such different mediums as poetry and cinema. That, in the 275 years since the word was first coined, there has never been a philosophical consensus on the definition of the word 'aesthetic' anyway.
Mr_sausage wrote:Your whole sophistical point has been to try to pretend the mind and the senses operate distinctly from on another
No, I'm saying that, whilst we are taught from an early age to think in words, the mind is also capable of perceiving, understanding and ordering the world in ways that cannot be put into words. That 'image intelligence', 'aural intelligence', etc, are distinct from traditional linguistic intelligence. That, in a discussion of cinema, it is useful to separate the sensory content from the linguistic content, and that the word 'aesthetic' seems like a useful tool for this task.

To come back to the starting point here - the word 'aesthetic' was used (not by me) to explain this community's preference for Wong and Weerasethakul over Ghobadi and Mendoza, and this seems to refer, almost exclusively, to the visual approach - that the fragmented, experimental approach of the former is prefered to the unadorned approach of the latter, regardless of the greater claim to truth, sincerity and political and social insight that the latter filmmakers hold. On the other hand, to use your definition, I suppose one could argue that the lack of sincerity, the bourgeois milieu, of the former is actually part of the aesthetic - although if that is a prerequisite for a film to gain approval on this board then God help us all... In any case, perhaps in future we should replace the word 'aesthetic' with 'visual/aural aesthetic', to avoid any further confusion (and any further digression).

Incidentally, it is interesting that you mention Tarkovsky. Tarkovsky, on many occasions, stated that Russian poetry is untranslatable. Now, given that Russian poetry plays a part in many of his films, does this mean that all non-Russian speakers are, in fact, incapable of grasping Tarkovsky's cinema also? Or, in fact, is it possible that a divide exists between Tarkovsky's cinematic aesthetic - which can be grasped universally without resort to language - and the qualities of the poetry used in his films, the untranslatability of which does not affect our wider visual/aural understanding?

User avatar
John Cope
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
Location: where the simulacrum is true

Re: The Secret of My Succe$s (Ross, 1987)

#35 Post by John Cope » Mon May 10, 2010 3:42 am

Nothing wrote:To come back to the starting point here - the word 'aesthetic' was used (not by me) to explain this community's preference for Wong and Weerasethakul over Ghobadi and Mendoza, and this seems to refer, almost exclusively, to the visual approach - that the fragmented, experimental approach of the former is prefered to the unadorned approach of the latter, regardless of the greater claim to truth, sincerity and political and social insight that the latter filmmakers hold.
I would dispute the qualitative distinction you are proposing is as cut and dry as you would have it.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Secret of My Succe$s (Ross, 1987)

#36 Post by Mr Sausage » Mon May 10, 2010 12:55 pm

Nothing wrote:No, I'm saying that, whilst we are taught from an early age to think in words, the mind is also capable of perceiving, understanding and ordering the world in ways that cannot be put into words.
I'm not going to dispute this with you anymore, except to say that if a work of art--play, novel, film--is ordering the world by ordering words then anyone perceiving said piece is experiencing and perceiving that verbal order, which is an aesthetic order. It makes no difference what other elements are at play, or what other modes of ordering are present, those words are giving experience structure and said structure must be accounted as an aesthetic componant since it must be experienced aesthetically.
Nothing wrote:But I think you have to work with the possibility that definitions can shift and/or diversify over time, especially in relation to such different mediums as poetry and cinema. That, in the 275 years since the word was first coined, there has never been a philosophical consensus on the definition of the word 'aesthetic' anyway.
Yes, yes, agreed. Nevertheless, even you must admit that a word like this is subject to a kind of misuse that would drain it from having any relevant or coherant meaning, hence I tried to locate my definition historically rather than through possible but illegitimate current usages.
Nothing wrote:Incidentally, it is interesting that you mention Tarkovsky. Tarkovsky, on many occasions, stated that Russian poetry is untranslatable. Now, given that Russian poetry plays a part in many of his films, does this mean that all non-Russian speakers are, in fact, incapable of grasping Tarkovsky's cinema also? Or, in fact, is it possible that a divide exists between Tarkovsky's cinematic aesthetic - which can be grasped universally without resort to language - and the qualities of the poetry used in his films, the untranslatability of which does not affect our wider visual/aural understanding?
The untranslateability of this or that national poetry is a commonplace. Whether or not this is true and, if so, whether it effects a non-Russian's ability to truly experience Tarkovsky is something I'll leave to the experts.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: The Secret of My Succe$s (Ross, 1987)

#37 Post by zedz » Mon May 10, 2010 3:29 pm

Nothing wrote:To come back to the starting point here - the word 'aesthetic' was used (not by me) to explain this community's preference for Wong and Weerasethakul over Ghobadi and Mendoza, and this seems to refer, almost exclusively, to the visual approach - that the fragmented, experimental approach of the former is prefered to the unadorned approach of the latter, regardless of the greater claim to truth, sincerity and political and social insight that the latter filmmakers hold.
Just thought you'd smuggle that in there, huh? You see, this kind of amateur hour stuff is why people here can't take your arguments seriously.

Nothing
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:04 am

Re: The Secret of My Succe$s (Ross, 1987)

#38 Post by Nothing » Mon May 17, 2010 1:24 pm


Zot!
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:09 am

Re: The Secret of My Succe$s (Ross, 1987)

#39 Post by Zot! » Mon May 17, 2010 3:39 pm

Well, out of morbid curiosity I caught SoMS last night to see what caused this heated discussion about aesthetics. Ugh, this thing was repellent, and this is coming from someone who enjoyed Risky Business and a host of other fluff. I'm not quite clear what the argument is here? I see plenty of movies that have been worked on by legions of talented people and look extremely "good", but it is typically what people call veneer. There are plenty of beautiful tampon commercials and music videos, but a film is supposed to be something different. Obviously a lot of it is subjective, but good taste shouldn't be. Wong Kar-Wai is a good example. I would say that his early films are fantastic, whereas Blueberry Nights is horrific, yet they all share many of their aesthetics (though Chris Doyle wisely sat this one out). Yes, you could reedit SoMS into a postmodern Night and Fog, and maybe you should, but the movie, as it stands, should be forgotten.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The Secret of My Succe$s (Ross, 1987)

#40 Post by domino harvey » Mon May 17, 2010 4:42 pm

My mom watched this all the time when I was a kid and all I can remember is Michael J Fox talking to his mom from a phonebooth while a shootout is occurring in the background and a horribly protracted bedroom farce scene set to the "oh oh" song from Ferris Bueller. I can't even summon up nostalgia for it-- and I'm nostalgic for every piece of shit I grew up on

User avatar
Cold Bishop
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 9:45 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: The Secret of My Succe$s (Ross, 1987)

#41 Post by Cold Bishop » Tue May 18, 2010 2:51 am

It's called the "Day Bow Bow" song

Post Reply