Trash, Art, and the Movies
From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia
| Revision as of 21:51, 17 June 2007 WikiSysop (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 10:33, 12 March 2020 Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) Next diff → |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Template}} | {{Template}} | ||
| - | The long essay entitled "[[Trash, Art, and the Movies]]", perhaps the closest [[Pauline 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. | + | "[[Trash, Art, and the Movies]]" is a long essay by [[Pauline Kael]] featured in ''[[Going Steady|Going Steady: Film Writings 1968-1969]]''. |
| - | == External link == | + | |
| + | 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 (film)|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 pretenses 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. | ||
| - | * [http://www.paulrossen.com/paulinekael/trashartandthemovies.html contains the full text of Kael's essay [[Trash, Art, and the Movies]]] | ||
| {{GFDL}} | {{GFDL}} | ||
Revision as of 10:33, 12 March 2020
|
Related e |
|
Featured: |
"Trash, Art, and the Movies" is a long essay by Pauline Kael featured 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 pretenses 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.
