Trash, Art, and the Movies  

From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 10:38, 12 March 2020
Jahsonic (Talk | contribs)

← Previous diff
Revision as of 10:40, 12 March 2020
Jahsonic (Talk | contribs)

Next diff →
Line 1: Line 1:
{| class="toccolours" style="float: left; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 2em; font-size: 85%; background:#c6dbf7; color:black; width:30em; max-width: 40%;" cellspacing="5" {| class="toccolours" style="float: left; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 2em; font-size: 85%; background:#c6dbf7; color:black; width:30em; max-width: 40%;" cellspacing="5"
| style="text-align: left;" | | style="text-align: left;" |
-"It’s a monumentally unimaginative movie: Kubrick, with his $750,000 centrifuge, and in love with gigantic hardware and control panels, is the [[David Belasco|Belasco]] of science fiction. The special effects—though straight from the drawing board—are good and big and awesomely, expensively detailed. There’s a little more that’s good in the movie, when Kubrick doesn’t take himself too seriously—like the comic moment when the gliding space vehicles begin their Johann Strauss walk; that is to say, when the director shows a bit of a sense of proportion about what he’s doing, and sees things momentarily as comic when the movie doesn’t take itself with such idiot solemnity. The light-show trip is of no great distinction; compared to the work of experimental filmmakers like [[Jordan Belson]], it’s third-rate. 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."--"[[Trash, Art, and the Movies]]" () by Pauline Kael +"It’s a monumentally unimaginative movie: Kubrick, with his $750,000 centrifuge, and in love with gigantic hardware and control panels, is the [[David Belasco|Belasco]] of science fiction. The special effects—though straight from the drawing board—are good and big and awesomely, expensively detailed. There’s a little more that’s good in the movie, when Kubrick doesn’t take himself too seriously—like the comic moment when the gliding space vehicles begin their Johann Strauss walk; that is to say, when the director shows a bit of a sense of proportion about what he’s doing, and sees things momentarily as comic when the movie doesn’t take itself with such idiot solemnity. The light-show trip is of no great distinction; compared to the work of experimental filmmakers like [[Jordan Belson]], it’s third-rate. 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."--"[[Trash, Art, and the Movies]]" (1969) by Pauline Kael
|} |}
{{Template}} {{Template}}
-"[[Trash, Art, and the Movies]]" is a long essay by [[Pauline Kael]] featured in ''[[Going Steady|Going Steady: Film Writings 1968-1969]]''. +"[[Trash, Art, and the Movies]]" is a long essay by [[Pauline Kael]] originally featured the February 1969 issue of [[Harper's Magazine]] and later collected 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 the essay, Kael dissects, compares, and contrasts the merits of "[[trash]]" films that are nevertheless entertaining, as well as [[art film|"art" film]]s.

Revision as of 10:40, 12 March 2020

"It’s a monumentally unimaginative movie: Kubrick, with his $750,000 centrifuge, and in love with gigantic hardware and control panels, is the Belasco of science fiction. The special effects—though straight from the drawing board—are good and big and awesomely, expensively detailed. There’s a little more that’s good in the movie, when Kubrick doesn’t take himself too seriously—like the comic moment when the gliding space vehicles begin their Johann Strauss walk; that is to say, when the director shows a bit of a sense of proportion about what he’s doing, and sees things momentarily as comic when the movie doesn’t take itself with such idiot solemnity. The light-show trip is of no great distinction; compared to the work of experimental filmmakers like Jordan Belson, it’s third-rate. 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."--"Trash, Art, and the Movies" (1969) by Pauline Kael

Related e

Wikipedia
Wiktionary
Shop


Featured:

"Trash, Art, and the Movies" is a long essay by Pauline Kael originally featured the February 1969 issue of Harper's Magazine and later collected 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.





Unless indicated otherwise, the text in this article is either based on Wikipedia article "Trash, Art, and the Movies" or another language Wikipedia page thereof used under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License; or on research by Jahsonic and friends. See Art and Popular Culture's copyright notice.

Personal tools