Post by drystyx on Aug 15, 2018 18:08:45 GMT
Modern movies, meaning movies released pretty much after 1965, lacked "inspiration" that was so prevalent in prior films.
Critics cared more about a certain brand of rifle being from the same historical period down to the exact year, a car having the correct license plate, things that there is no way a sane person could care about.
They also detested three dimensional characters, and especially characters the audience could care about. Critics, and the directors they lauded, were such control freaks, that they demanded people like their hatred, and if we didn't like it, we were the problem. Hacks like Leone and Coppola dished out crap with not one iota of inspiration or strategy or credible characters, which is why the drug crazed critics of the day liked them so much. Journalism was being taken over by the mob, people with no inspiration, who simply said what the wanted.
Remember Hunter Thompson? No inspiration, no strategy. He just shoved his way around like a mobster, spouting absolute nonsense, and the drug crowd called it "poetry", but it wasn't "poetry". It was just words put together in no inspired way, just forced together like a monkey putting blocks of words together.
"Inspiration" was not just placed second on the list. It was shunned totally. Sure, there were a few inspired movies, but the critics mostly pushed the "mechanical manipulations" made by mobsters to keep the multitudes in line.
They were herding the sheep into submission.
What is a good example of "inspiration" vs. "mechanical manipulation"?
Take ALL ALONG THE WATCHTOWER. Even though Dylan applauded the version of Hendrix, there is no comparison. Dylan's version may not be as "mechanically correct", but it was inspired. One can hear the theatrics in the voice.
In contrast, Hendrix just looked cute in his headband and did the mechanics correct, but his swagger was totally uninspired. He didn't "feel" the emotion of the song, and couldn't relate it. He only related a drug induced feeling. He feigned emotion, but it only fooled the feeble minded.
Musicians are the worst of other songsters. First, they're incredibly jealous of the inspiration of others, as one can see by "musician picks" of the works of other artists. The "picks" are never the most inspirational ones. They're picks that the other artists feel they can compete well with.
Secondly, musicians are too concerned with mechanics. It doesn't matter if a guitarist can play a song with two fingers moving in ten seconds, or with five fingers moving every second. If it's inspired, it's inspired. If it sounds great, it sounds great. Even amateur musicians focus too much on how difficult it is to play a piece and admire the mechanics too much over the "inspired artist".
Same for films. Take pieces that required less than huge Hollywood budget, like THIS IS NOT A TEST and BURY ME AN ANGEL, two shoestring budget films which were totally inspired and gave us credible characters in remarkable stories and switch endings that are undeniably better than most of the big budget ones.
Mechanical manipulation doesn't even have to have a coherent story. Take the muddled mess of the Godfather trilogy, of 2001 A Space Odyssey, of Hamburger Hill, movies that cannot possibly make sense without reading a synopsis of what these piles of crap are trying to convey. They just show a bunch of muddled looking scenes and call it "realism". Like Hunter Thompson throwing a bunch of words together and calling it "something that isn't s..it".
I don't mind the mechanics being good as long as inspiration isn't sacrificed, but the critics have totally discarded inspiration, which means they really didn't care about mechanics or realism. They only hated artistry.
Critics cared more about a certain brand of rifle being from the same historical period down to the exact year, a car having the correct license plate, things that there is no way a sane person could care about.
They also detested three dimensional characters, and especially characters the audience could care about. Critics, and the directors they lauded, were such control freaks, that they demanded people like their hatred, and if we didn't like it, we were the problem. Hacks like Leone and Coppola dished out crap with not one iota of inspiration or strategy or credible characters, which is why the drug crazed critics of the day liked them so much. Journalism was being taken over by the mob, people with no inspiration, who simply said what the wanted.
Remember Hunter Thompson? No inspiration, no strategy. He just shoved his way around like a mobster, spouting absolute nonsense, and the drug crowd called it "poetry", but it wasn't "poetry". It was just words put together in no inspired way, just forced together like a monkey putting blocks of words together.
"Inspiration" was not just placed second on the list. It was shunned totally. Sure, there were a few inspired movies, but the critics mostly pushed the "mechanical manipulations" made by mobsters to keep the multitudes in line.
They were herding the sheep into submission.
What is a good example of "inspiration" vs. "mechanical manipulation"?
Take ALL ALONG THE WATCHTOWER. Even though Dylan applauded the version of Hendrix, there is no comparison. Dylan's version may not be as "mechanically correct", but it was inspired. One can hear the theatrics in the voice.
In contrast, Hendrix just looked cute in his headband and did the mechanics correct, but his swagger was totally uninspired. He didn't "feel" the emotion of the song, and couldn't relate it. He only related a drug induced feeling. He feigned emotion, but it only fooled the feeble minded.
Musicians are the worst of other songsters. First, they're incredibly jealous of the inspiration of others, as one can see by "musician picks" of the works of other artists. The "picks" are never the most inspirational ones. They're picks that the other artists feel they can compete well with.
Secondly, musicians are too concerned with mechanics. It doesn't matter if a guitarist can play a song with two fingers moving in ten seconds, or with five fingers moving every second. If it's inspired, it's inspired. If it sounds great, it sounds great. Even amateur musicians focus too much on how difficult it is to play a piece and admire the mechanics too much over the "inspired artist".
Same for films. Take pieces that required less than huge Hollywood budget, like THIS IS NOT A TEST and BURY ME AN ANGEL, two shoestring budget films which were totally inspired and gave us credible characters in remarkable stories and switch endings that are undeniably better than most of the big budget ones.
Mechanical manipulation doesn't even have to have a coherent story. Take the muddled mess of the Godfather trilogy, of 2001 A Space Odyssey, of Hamburger Hill, movies that cannot possibly make sense without reading a synopsis of what these piles of crap are trying to convey. They just show a bunch of muddled looking scenes and call it "realism". Like Hunter Thompson throwing a bunch of words together and calling it "something that isn't s..it".
I don't mind the mechanics being good as long as inspiration isn't sacrificed, but the critics have totally discarded inspiration, which means they really didn't care about mechanics or realism. They only hated artistry.