I'd happily go. Cuba's beautiful.Barmy wrote:
I can accept fans of virtually any other director, but any supporter of this atavistic, drunken tosspot should be banished to Cuba.
59th Cannes Film Festival
-
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:04 pm
- John Cope
- Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
- Location: where the simulacrum is true
So I guess since I adore both Oliveira and Loach I must be on your permanent shit list, right Barmy?
Also, I have to respond to this even though I know I shouldn't...
I've never understood this line of reasoning, other than as glib nihilism. For one thing, relatively speaking, very few people worldwide know or care about Tarkovsky, Dumont or Loach now, let alone in a few hundred years. And dare I risk elitist sentiment if I suggest that if, in fact, no one knows about these figures in the future it will be a poorer future? I mean, using that logic why should anyone ever devote themselves to exacting, often isolating artistic endeavor rather than, say, marketing (where the money is!)? If temporary, personal satisfactions are all that count we're all really kidding ourselves I'll admit. Oddly perhaps, I don't believe that.
Also, I have to respond to this even though I know I shouldn't...
ugetsu wrote: Anyway, it's all pretty meaningless, isn't it. Look at Tarkovsky's lack of a Palme d'Or... and in a few hunded years, no-one will even care who Tarkovsky is (or Dumont or Loach or any of us)...
I've never understood this line of reasoning, other than as glib nihilism. For one thing, relatively speaking, very few people worldwide know or care about Tarkovsky, Dumont or Loach now, let alone in a few hundred years. And dare I risk elitist sentiment if I suggest that if, in fact, no one knows about these figures in the future it will be a poorer future? I mean, using that logic why should anyone ever devote themselves to exacting, often isolating artistic endeavor rather than, say, marketing (where the money is!)? If temporary, personal satisfactions are all that count we're all really kidding ourselves I'll admit. Oddly perhaps, I don't believe that.
- pzman84
- Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 4:05 pm
- zedz
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
After all, nobody reads Fulmerford today.John Cope wrote:I've never understood this line of reasoning, other than as glib nihilism. For one thing, relatively speaking, very few people worldwide know or care about Tarkovsky, Dumont or Loach now, let alone in a few hundred years. And dare I risk elitist sentiment if I suggest that if, in fact, no one knows about these figures in the future it will be a poorer future?ugetsu wrote: Anyway, it's all pretty meaningless, isn't it. Look at Tarkovsky's lack of a Palme d'Or... and in a few hunded years, no-one will even care who Tarkovsky is (or Dumont or Loach or any of us)...
- HerrSchreck
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
Barmy wrote:Ken Roach fans consist exclusively of pretentious losers. I can't think of a more po-faced, cinematically boring, "director". Hello, but Stalin was voted out of office in the 50s.
I can accept fans of virtually any other director, but any supporter of this atavistic, drunken tosspot should be banished to Cuba.
Recently I've developed increasing hatred for the absurdly repetitous Won Kar Wai. Man, do I feel justified.
http://www.pukeplanet.com/images/barf.jpg
-
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:35 am
- Location: Hong Kong