Trash, Art, and the Movies
From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia
| Revision as of 20:23, 7 June 2007 WikiSysop (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 20:24, 7 June 2007 WikiSysop (Talk | contribs) Next diff → |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Template}} | {{Template}} | ||
| - | The long essay entitled "[[Trash, Art, and the Movies]]", perhaps the closest Kael comes to a manifesto defining her personal aesthetics in regards to movies. It was published in ''[[Going Steady|Going Steady: Film Writings 1968-1969]]''. In the essay, Kael dissects, compares, and contrasts the merits of "trash" films that are nevertheless entertaining, as well as "art" films that are uninteresting. In doing so, Kael lambastes "art" movies such as [[Kubrick]]'s [[2001]], concluding her treatment of that particular film by declaring: "If big film directors are to get credit for doing badly what others have been doing brilliantly for years with no money, just because they've put it on a big screen, then businessmen are greater than poets and theft is art." The essay is divided into ten parts, ranging from discussions of ''[[The Thomas Crown Affair]]'' to ''[[Petulia]]''. Kael's overriding theme is to dismantle the intellectual pretences of those who deride movies deemed to be "trash" on the basis of dubious aesthetic concerns, notwithstanding the entertainment appeal a particular "trash" film might possess. | + | The long essay entitled "[[Trash, Art, and the Movies]]", perhaps the closest Kael comes to a manifesto defining her personal aesthetics in regards to movies. It was published in ''[[Going Steady|Going Steady: Film Writings 1968-1969]]''. In the essay, Kael dissects, compares, and contrasts the merits of "[[trash]]" films that are nevertheless entertaining, as well as [[art film|"art" film]]s In doing so, Kael lambastes "art" movies such as [[Kubrick]]'s [[2001]], concluding her treatment of that particular film by declaring: "If big film directors are to get credit for doing badly what others have been doing brilliantly for years with no money, just because they've put it on a big screen, then businessmen are greater than poets and theft is art." The essay is divided into ten parts, ranging from discussions of ''[[The Thomas Crown Affair]]'' to ''[[Petulia]]''. Kael's overriding theme is to dismantle the intellectual pretences of those who deride movies deemed to be "trash" on the basis of dubious aesthetic concerns, notwithstanding the entertainment appeal a particular "trash" film might possess. |
| {{GFDL}} | {{GFDL}} | ||
Revision as of 20:24, 7 June 2007
|
Related e |
|
Featured: |
The long essay entitled "Trash, Art, and the Movies", perhaps the closest Kael comes to a manifesto defining her personal aesthetics in regards to movies. It was published in Going Steady: Film Writings 1968-1969. In the essay, Kael dissects, compares, and contrasts the merits of "trash" films that are nevertheless entertaining, as well as "art" films In doing so, Kael lambastes "art" movies such as Kubrick's 2001, concluding her treatment of that particular film by declaring: "If big film directors are to get credit for doing badly what others have been doing brilliantly for years with no money, just because they've put it on a big screen, then businessmen are greater than poets and theft is art." The essay is divided into ten parts, ranging from discussions of The Thomas Crown Affair to Petulia. Kael's overriding theme is to dismantle the intellectual pretences of those who deride movies deemed to be "trash" on the basis of dubious aesthetic concerns, notwithstanding the entertainment appeal a particular "trash" film might possess.
