Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 6, 2018 13:47:07 GMT
2. Hitler was the best orator of the twentieth century.
3. Most modern minimalists write music of little long term worth.
4. Current Tarantino projects are often as self indulgent and up the director's own arse as were middle period (1968 +) Godard.
5. If it is really true that 'people kill people, not guns', then there is no argument for asking N Korea or other rogue states not to acquire as many nukes as they want.
With 2. I think you could replace "modern minimalists" with any artistic genre and it would be true; what gets remembered is a tiny fraction of what's produced. I like some minimalist music though (different stuff by Reich, Glass, and Eno especially).
4. would be interesting to discuss. Tarantino's and Godard's indulgences are almost opposites: Godard was indulging in experimental film forms spurred by his philosophical and political views and a desire to be more didactic than entertaining. Tarantino's indulgences are all cinematic, his desire to ape all the genres and films he grew up with. Tarantino in all his indulgences remains an entertainer because it's all in the name of fun and escapism, while Godard was anti-escapism; he wanted his audiences aware they were watching a film, watching something that was manipulated and manipulative so they could confront and address the (to him) serious and more-important real-life subject matter. Thankfully, Godard pulled out of his '68-'79 death spiral to return with some great films in the 80s and after. As great as his 60s period was, 80s-and-on Godard holds a special place for me because of how incomparably beautiful, poetic, dense, and challenging it is. I've never encountered films that I was so enraptured by aesthetically, while having so little clue as to what the hell was going on narratively!