Trash, Art, and the Movies  

From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 11:09, 12 March 2020
Jahsonic (Talk | contribs)

← Previous diff
Revision as of 14:15, 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]]" (1969) by Pauline Kael +"In her 1968 essay “[[Trash, Art, and the Movies]],[[Pauline Kael]] devotes a great deal of copy to extolling the rather scandalous pleasures of American International Pictures’ hippie schlockfest, ''[[Wild in the Streets]]'' (1968), at one point judging it more interesting than that year’s achingly important ''[[2001: A Space Odyssey (film)|2001: A Space Odyssey]]'' (1968). No doubt to the calculated shock of her Harper’s readership, she goes so far as to defend the right of teen audiences to prefer ''Wild in the Streets'' over the era’s allegedly more sophisticated [[art cinema]]."--''[[Sleaze Artists]]'' (2007), introduction
<hr> <hr>
-"I did have a good time at ''[[Wild in the Streets]]'', which is more than I can say for ''[[Petulia]]'' or ''[[2001 (film)|2001]]'' or a lot of other highly praised pictures. ''Wild in the Streets'' is not a work of art, but then I don’t think ''Petulia'' or ''2001'' is either, though ''Petulia'' has that kaleidoscopic hip look and ''2001'' that new-techniques look which combined with “swinging” or “serious” ideas often pass for modern picture art."--"[[Trash, Art, and the Movies]]" (1969) by Pauline Kael +"I did have a good time at ''[[Wild in the Streets]]'', which is more than I can say for ''[[Petulia]]'' or ''[[2001: A Space Odyssey (film)|2001]]'' or a lot of other highly praised pictures. ''Wild in the Streets'' is not a work of art, but then I don’t think ''Petulia'' or ''2001'' is either, though ''Petulia'' has that kaleidoscopic hip look and ''2001'' that new-techniques look which combined with “swinging” or “serious” ideas often pass for modern picture art."--"[[Trash, Art, and the Movies]]" (1969) by Pauline Kael
-<hr>+
-"[[Sconce]], in his original article, noted a few predecessors to the phenomenon he was exploring: ... whose 1969 article “[[Trash, Art and the Movies]]” extolled the AIP exploitation picture ''[[Wild in the Streets]]'' as a much more relevant ... We should note that there is a different way of describing [[paracinema]] which in fact precedes the use of the term by Sconce, but which has not gained such widespread currency."--''[[Cult Cinema: An Introduction]]'' (2012) by [[Ernest Mathijs]] and [[‎Jamie Sexton]]+
|} |}
{{Template}} {{Template}}
-"[[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]]''. +"[[Trash, Art, and the Movies]]" is a long essay by [[Pauline Kael]] originally featured in the February 1969 issue of ''[[Harper's Magazine]]'' and later collected in the book ''[[Going Steady|Going Steady: Film Writings 1968-1969]]''.
In the essay, Kael dissects, compares, and contrasts the merits of [[trash film|"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 film|"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: A Space Odyssey]]'', 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." +In doing so, Kael lambastes "art" movies such as Kubrick's ''[[2001: A Space Odyssey (film)|2001: A Space Odyssey]]'', 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]]''. 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. 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.
- +==See also==
- +*[[Nobrow manifesto]]
{{GFDL}} {{GFDL}}

Revision as of 14:15, 12 March 2020

"In her 1968 essay “Trash, Art, and the Movies,” Pauline Kael devotes a great deal of copy to extolling the rather scandalous pleasures of American International Pictures’ hippie schlockfest, Wild in the Streets (1968), at one point judging it more interesting than that year’s achingly important 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). No doubt to the calculated shock of her Harper’s readership, she goes so far as to defend the right of teen audiences to prefer Wild in the Streets over the era’s allegedly more sophisticated art cinema."--Sleaze Artists (2007), introduction


"I did have a good time at Wild in the Streets, which is more than I can say for Petulia or 2001 or a lot of other highly praised pictures. Wild in the Streets is not a work of art, but then I don’t think Petulia or 2001 is either, though Petulia has that kaleidoscopic hip look and 2001 that new-techniques look which combined with “swinging” or “serious” ideas often pass for modern picture 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 in the February 1969 issue of Harper's Magazine and later collected in the book 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: A Space Odyssey, 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.

See also




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