on 7/11/02 11:29 AM, Patrice L. Roussel at proussel@ichips.intel.com wrote:
Why always taking the worst examples? US has produced many talented commercial successes (Dylan, Prince, Madonna, etc).
I was using the most recent examples. I should have made that more clear.
When Hollywood made the movies that are almost acknowledged now as the masterpieces of the genre (and let's limit ourselves to the '40s and '50s to avoid controversy), do you really believe that they were targetting the intellectuals and happy few? These movies were popular successes that we now consider as masterpieces.
I think that's a loaded question, in that the 40s were responsible for some of the most crappy, sugar-sweet successes film had ever known. Billy Wilder stands out fr the rest of the pack because the movies he made were not typical.
Our obsession with the obscure, the challenging, etc (and I know that you, Skip, do not belong to that category) makes us forget how much durable talent can hide behind something that appears as mundane at first (and how the new punch-in-the-face can quickly become jaded and tiring).
You're right. Anyone who knows "Love Me Do" will back you up.
It is Hitchcock who said (from memory):
If a blank canvas cost millions of dollars, brushes and color tubes as much, we would have a different outlook at artistic freedom.
True. But that doesn'r negate the difference between SONGS IN THE KEY OF LIFE and TUSK.
That could explain why old Hollywood movies were so good in average (I guess because these huge sums of money were put in the hands of people who had proven a minimum of craftmanship).
Well, the craftsmanship ethic was higher on certain levels, but that doesn't mean they always told the story better or that the story was worth telling.
But we can wonder, just for fun, if we are not missing something unique: an experimental movie director with a Hollywood budget.
I didn't miss FARGO. ;-) skip h