Well, I'm sure they could....but why would they want to?
>
>Can they make a shit film?
>
>
>
>

>Saw "The Man Who Wasn't There" last night at the Edinburgh Film Festival. The stunning visuals, the perfect casting, the wonderful pacing and the best use of hubcaps in a movie plus a whole lot more made it the film of the year (for me at least). It was the work of practitioners of their art at the height of their powers.
>

Looking forward to it already. I would hesitate to describe them as the best, simply because the whole thing is so subjective as to make rankings a nonsense. Only a fool, however, would argue that they're not in the very top stratum of film-makers today. Each movie a delight, and repeated viewings are repaid fully. I've seen the Big Lebowski 4 times, and I laughed more on the 4th than on the first, simply because I was noticing things that had eluded me on the previous viewings. The line "How you gonna keep 'em down on the farm after they've seen Karl Hungus" just floated by on the first 3 screenings and then reduced me to a gibbering giggling wreck on the 4th.

Is it compulsory for intelligent people to go apeshit over the Coen Brothers? Perhaps it's because their smarminess allows viewers to feel more inteligent and superior than the characters. I haven't seen their latest, but most of the reviews at Cannes(The jury felt differently, and gave them the director's prize) weren't so effusive, especially when compared to the competition by Manoel de Oliveira, Mohsen Makhmalbaf, Hou Hsiao-hsien Jean-luc Godard, Jacques Rivette and David Lynch---all of whom deserve the "best filmmakers around now" title far more than the Coens, who look like little kids in comparison.

I, personally, think it's nice to see some talent being recognised at their peak, and during their lifetimes. And I don't think that their audience is of a certain type should be any reason to dismimss their work.

Saw this last night, too (spotted Andrew Collins in the audience aswell and said hello). I agree, it really was vintage Coen Bros. The photography was mouth-watering -- the nice thing about seeing films like this at festivals is that you get really decent prints. The film also featured one of the best-judged uses of Beethoven's 'Moonlight' sonata, which is, alongside 'I Get Around', perhaps one of the most over-used pieces of music in film. (Battle Royale, on the other hand, used very obvious classical music in what I considered to be a rather heavy-handed manner, but that's off-topic).

As to whether the Coens can make a shit film, I'll go out on a limb and say that they have: Miller's Crossing. It's a film which is a baffling sore thumb in their oeuvre. Never liked it; exhibits very little if anything of their trademark flair.

Just my tuppen'orth.

>I, personally, think it's nice to see some >talent being recognised at their peak, and >during their lifetimes.

Yeah, but not over-recognized and overrated. There are many greater filmmakers who HAVEN'T had their talent recognized to such an extent(see the non-French and non-American directors from the earlier post), perhaps because their films demand more from the viewer, and the people who see them don't fall into a narrow intellectual clique.

>And I don't think that their audience is of >a certain type should be any reason to >dismimss their work.

No, what makes it appeal to that audience is what makes one dismiss or not dismiss a work. I wouldn't dismiss the Coens out of hand (I must admit the worth of Leibowski), but I think they're of limited talent (no matter how many genres they ape and pastiche) and overrated, and all the homogenous chirping by huge numbers of intelligent people becomes wearisome after a while. It would be nice if directors like Andre Techine, Edward Yang, Abbas Kiarostami, Hsiao-hsien, and Makhmalbaf had the same sort of following, since all have made films with far more depth, emotion and honesty than the Coens ever have. But the many of the intelligentsia who make the Coens' films partial sucesses try to limit their non-mainstream movie watching within the English language.
*Sigh*--It's times like these where I long for complete mental control over everyone on Earth.

>Yeah, but not over-recognized and overrated. There are many greater filmmakers who HAVEN'T had their talent recognized to such an extent(see the non-French and non-American directors from the earlier post), perhaps because their films demand more from the viewer, and the people who see them don't fall into a narrow intellectual clique.
>

I would have thought they would be seen by an even narrower elite. Who here has seen Hou Hsiao-hsien's 'Nanguo zaijan, nanguo '(1996) or 'Tong nien wang shi' (1985)? None of these made an appearance at my multiplex. Of this I am sure.


>No, what makes it appeal to that audience is what makes one dismiss or not dismiss a work. I wouldn't dismiss the Coens out of hand (I must admit the worth of Leibowski), but I think they're of limited talent (no matter how many genres they ape and pastiche) and overrated, and all the homogenous chirping by huge numbers of intelligent people becomes wearisome after a while.

Nah, they are masters of their art, producing films unlike anything else around. They are certainly not overrated. I have never chirped homogenously before, but it feels okay.

>It would be nice if directors like Andre Techine, Edward Yang, Abbas Kiarostami, Hsiao-hsien, and Makhmalbaf had the same sort of following, since all have made films with far more depth, emotion and honesty than the Coens ever have.

Yeah, but do you just want to watch earnest films all the time? No. Not me.

But the many of the intelligentsia who make the Coens' films partial sucesses try to limit their non-mainstream movie watching within the English language.

Rubbish. I've seen Betty Blue! That was in French. I remember that.

>*Sigh*--It's times like these where I long for complete mental control over everyone on Earth.
>
Oh god not another "I know what is right, if only everybody agreed with me" type poster. Fascistic, moi?

I really enjoy the Coen's films, I just wished I cared about them.

They seem to appeal to film fans who prefer to remain detached and aloof from the content of their favourite movies. You're encouraged to wallow in the references, the tics and tricks, but never asked to give a flying hoot about any of the characters.

Sure, the Coens are technically brilliant and wilfully quirky, making them a refreshing breath of air in a journeyman world, but I have yet to see a single one of their films that engages me emotionally or forces me to suspend disbelief for even a second.

Watching a CB film, I'm always aware that I'm "watching a film". My cinematic critical faculties need to be turned up to ten, but my heart can sit on tick over in neutral.

This doesn't mean they're "bad" - though it dents the case for them being the best in the world - but it's a major failing in a medium that, at its best, should transport you elsewhere. I might be caught up in the bustle of Hong Kong during a Wong Kar Wei movie, but I'm always just sitting in the cinema when the Coens are on.

Argh! Too tired!

"I really enjoy the Coens' movies..."

Sorry. Aberrant apostrophe.

>They seem to appeal to film fans who prefer to remain detached and aloof from the content of their favourite movies. You're encouraged to wallow in the references, the tics and tricks, but never asked to give a flying hoot about any of the characters.
>

Not sure this holds. I felt for the Dude, Walter and Donny in the Big Lebowski. It was a buddy movie in a perverse way, and buddy movies tend to pull me in with the characters. It's all about identifying with the friendship thing, I guess.

Possibly. But, I think it's telling that the Coen film that shows real, genuine warmth for its characters - Fargo - is regarded as a bit of a populist aberration by hardcore Coenites.

It's their most successful film financially, and has turned out to have the broadest appeal, precisely because it bothers to pander to conventional notions of audience narrative involvement, but many Coen fans dismiss it for exactly those reasons - as if such emotional tricks were a bit cheap and beneath them.

i thought 'o brother...' was a bit meandering, and nothing more than a collection of nice set pieces. the whole being much less than the sum of it's parts.

>i thought 'o brother...' was a bit meandering, and nothing more than a collection of nice set pieces. the whole being much less than the sum of it's parts.

I saw it when it came out and loved it. However, watched it again recently and would have to agree with that. "The Man Who Wasn't There" is well worth a look, though, if only for Billy Bob Thornton's laid back acting and the gorgeous cinematography. Also agree with the earlier comment about prints at festival showings - it really was great to see it all crisp and new.

The Coen Brothers are like the Beck of film-making, and 'Fargo' is their 'Mutations'. Both the Coens and Beck are accused of lacking depth or of being too knowing and self-conscious, when in fact their mastery of the medium is such that they can 'do' heartfelt in their sleep (see Fargo/Mutations). It's just that, most of the time, they don't feel the need to. And why should they, when, say, Odelay or Lebowski are such consummate pieces? I don't look for real emotion or warmth in a Coens film/Beck album - I can find that elsewhere.

hopefully this movie will be a sort of return to form, since i understand it has some noir-ish elements, millers crossing was part based on a Dashiell Hammet novel, and Lebowski was apparently a homage to Chandler's LA, isn't this new film some sort of chandler/hammett deal? Plus like you say we have Billy-bob, who i like very much. Why the hell isn't Sling Blade available in this country? Great film, worth getting the R1 DVD for.

>Both the Coens and Beck are accused of >lacking depth or of being too knowing and >self-conscious, when in fact their mastery >of the medium is such that they can 'do' >heartfelt in their sleep (see >Fargo/Mutations).

If "Fargo" is heartfelt(a word abused ny usually being placed within a touchy-feely context), then I think the word has lost any definition it's had left, especially when applied to a film where the Coens' usual sniggering amusement toward their characters is slightly lightened by condescending affection. So yes, they do "heartfelt," in their sleep--I'd hate to see what they'd do when awake.

I >don't look for real emotion or warmth in a >Coens film/Beck album - I can find that >elsewhere.

This sentence sets me aback. I thought everybody looked for "real emotion" in the films they see. I don't mean one should leave the theater in tears or doing cartwheels, but that genuine emotion is what makes a film stand out. Even in films where sentiment is avoided, such as Bunuel's, there is(as in Bunuel's work) the feeling of fluctuating anger at human stupidity, or a judgemental understanding of human flaws, or a felt sense of mystery at sex, or etc., Even in the great comedies there is an emotional subtext behind the jokes and gags, which are funny because they hit directly home. When a film lacks these it's merely clever or diverting, more concerned with getting the viewer to marvel at how cute it is. In literary journals those tendencies are epitomized in "McSweeney's," while in music we have "They Might Be Giants," and in films the Coens stake their claim. They are intelligent entertainers, but there are many filmmakers today who craft films of much greater depth (and entertainment). It's fine to choose not to make a direct appeal to the viewer's emotions, but there's a difference between Brechtian distancing on one side and the flashy virtuosity of the Coens or Beck--like a great magician, you don't sense much behind those amazing displays.

spot on.

A master manipulator of emotion like Spielberg is regarded - by critics - as nothing more than a flashy trickster, while the Coens are seen as masters of their art.

I think it takes more to move an audience emotionally than cineastes think. It's as much of a skill, and far truer to the medium. Narrative fiction is supposed to move, not just dazzle.

>A master manipulator of emotion like Spielberg is regarded - by critics - as nothing more than a flashy trickster, while the Coens are seen as masters of their art.

do I have to decide between which one I am allowed to like? hmmm, heartfelt emotional films, or ones without emotions? god, i better think about that.

>I think it takes more to move an audience emotionally than cineastes think. It's as much of a skill, and far truer to the medium. Narrative fiction is supposed to move, not just dazzle.

By that reckoning, a film like Love Story is better than Miller's Crossing, is it? ha ha - fuck off! Or Fried Green Tomatoes? How to make an American Quilt anyone?

>
>>A master manipulator of emotion like Spielberg is regarded - by critics - as nothing more than a flashy trickster, while the Coens are seen as masters of their art.
>
>do I have to decide between which one I am allowed to like? hmmm, heartfelt emotional films, or ones without emotions? god, i better think about that.

You certainly don't. My argument isn't about choosing between the two. I'm saying that all great or notable films have a core of genuine emotion. This doesn't mean they're suposed to move you to tears: it means that behind the movemnet of the story and actions of the characters lies a core of genuine emotion underlying those processes. Let's take an example of a non-sentimental, comedic film, like Bunuel's "Discreet Chram of the Bourgeoisie"--this is not a film to touch the emotions, but there is a definite emotional coloring to its free-flowing surrealism, and its resigned anger toward the well-off and powerful. And there is a sense of mystery and wonder expressed in its dream scenes and repeated end sequence.
Anyway, I class "A.I." as one of the year's best films, and ebtter than anything the Coens will ever accomplish.

>>I think it takes more to move an audience emotionally than cineastes think. It's as much of a skill, and far truer to the medium. Narrative fiction is supposed to move, not just dazzle.
>
>By that reckoning, a film like Love Story >is better than Miller's Crossing, is it? >ha ha - fuck off! Or Fried Green >Tomatoes? How to make an American Quilt >anyone?

Cut the bullshit logic. I'm not talking about cheap sentiment. The films you mention are shamelessly calculated to appeal to the most basic emotions like a machine.
I say it's a greater achievement to have involved the audience, and have made them think and feel to the extent that they walk out of the theater both intelectually and emotionally overwhelmed. That is the ultimate proof of the power of film, not the genre-virtuoso grandstanding and distanced-viewer flattery that adolescents like the Coen brothers use--becasue they are afarid of involving the audience.
A film like "The Magnificent Ambersons" or "Chimes at Midnight" is better than Miller's Crossing. So is the Apu trilogy or humanist works like "Shoeshine" or "Umberto D." So are distanced films-distanced by their rage-like "Weekend" or "The Golden age" or "October." So are grand epics like "Intolerance"...the list goes on and on and on, and I could add on to it till doomsday. It's better to have shaken your audience, to have held their hearts in the palm of your hand and their minds in a state of revelatory excitement, then to have merely giggled with them in a fit of cleverness at the expense of everyone else, or to have dazzled them to no real point except to gain their admiration. I don't condemn the Coen Brothers, I just suggest they don't use the medium as fully
as many others do. It's not a question of sentiment--it's a question of commitment: that is a prerequisite of art.

That's exactly it. That's the problem.

"Oh I cried, it must be treacly emotion. How cheap!"

You don't have to make a choice, but I find the rejection of emotional involvement in films by people like the Coens to be as much of a turn off as the overuse of sentiment in the worst, weepy telly movie. And yet most critics only see the flaw in one of those extremes.

Goddamn you Revelator, you got there first. I was replying to the previous post, not yours.

And you made the point better with more calculated examples. Must move faster.

Point to be made: Although it was advertised as "from the team who made Fried Green Tomatoes", do not waste valuable minutes of your lives watching 'The War', which, and this quote should really put you off, my mother found "delightful".

I'm sorry I know it's not relevant it's just a really bad film. Seriously. And I *liked* Fried Green Tomatoes, that was good, people died and stuff, there were steam trains, hooray, it's just The War drains life.

>This sentence sets me aback. I thought everybody looked for "real emotion" in the films they see.

Okay, that was a slightly awkward turn of phrase. What I would say is that I don't watch a Coens film expecting to be moved to tears. There is, however, genuine passion and commitment what they do - and scenes like the 'Down in the river to pray' one in O Brother are hair-raisingly moving, even if they shatter the illusion with comedy straight afterwards. It isn't even remotely comparable to the aloof, jokey stylings of McSweeney's or They Might Be Giants - neither of those have any genuine belief in their medium.

>Let's take an example of a non-sentimental, comedic film, like Bunuel's "Discreet Chram of the Bourgeoisie"--this is not a film to touch the emotions, but there is a definite emotional coloring to its free-flowing surrealism, and its resigned anger toward the well-off and powerful. And there is a sense of mystery and wonder expressed in its dream scenes and repeated end sequence.

Funnily enough I found its reliance on primordial subtext and extraneous contextual irony a put off! Funny that how two people can view the same film and yet see it so differently. ;)

>Anyway, I class "A.I." as one of the year's best films, and ebtter than anything the Coens will ever accomplish.

In that case I would ask the doctors to decrease your medication! AI is a poor, poor effort. If you think that is better than Fargo, Oh Brother, or The Man Who Wasn't There, then I will beg to differ. Even Pearl Harbor is better than AI – and that is a shockingly awful creation.

>
>Cut the bullshit logic. I'm not talking about cheap sentiment. The films you mention are shamelessly calculated to appeal to the most basic emotions like a machine.
>I say it's a greater achievement to have involved the audience, and have made them think and feel to the extent that they walk out of the theater both intelectually and emotionally overwhelmed. That is the ultimate proof of the power of film, not the genre-virtuoso grandstanding and distanced-viewer flattery that adolescents like the Coen brothers use--becasue they are afarid of involving the audience.

I came out of the cinema on Saturday completely intellectually and emotionally overwhelmed – in awe of a film that never went where you thought it was going to go, that used the visual aspects of cinema in a fantastical way, and took a very old genre and made it comtemporary.

>A film like "The Magnificent Ambersons" or "Chimes at Midnight" is better than Miller's Crossing. So is the Apu trilogy or humanist works like "Shoeshine" or "Umberto D." So are distanced films-distanced by their rage-like "Weekend" or "The Golden age" or "October." So are grand epics like "Intolerance"...the list goes on and on and on, and I could add on to it till doomsday. It's better to have shaken your audience, to have held their hearts in the palm of your hand and their minds in a state of revelatory excitement, then to have merely giggled with them in a fit of cleverness at the expense of everyone else, or to have dazzled them to no real point except to gain their admiration. I don't condemn the Coen Brothers, I just suggest they don't use the medium as fully as many others do. It's not a question of sentiment--it's a question of commitment: that is a prerequisite of art.
>
yadda yadda yadda.

"Yadda yadda yadda"?

Oh, now I've completely changed my mind.

Thank you for that.

Weighed in the balance of argument, it totally destroys the heartfelt and carefully worded statement it sets out to contradict.

Christ.

>"Yadda yadda yadda"?
>
>Oh, now I've completely changed my mind.
>
>Thank you for that.
>
>Weighed in the balance of argument, it totally destroys the heartfelt and carefully worded statement it sets out to contradict.
>
>Christ.

oh come on, you don't expect a straight answer - let alone a straight face to -

" It's not a question of sentiment--it's a question of commitment: that is a prerequisite of art."

it's the sort of thing Steven Berkoff would utter, on his way to Pseud's Corner!

Christ (on a bike!)

>oh come on, you don't expect a straight answer - let alone a straight face to -
>
>" It's not a question of sentiment--it's a >question of commitment: that is a >prerequisite of art."

Do I have to explain that statement? In the debate on the Coen brothers I complained about a lack of feeling. In response I get a lot of idiots saying they don't need to come crying out of Coen Bros film. My response was that "feeling" doesn't have to equal pure sentiment. Rather, I'd class it as--or similar--to artistic commitment; what separates genuinely great filmmakers like Renoir or De Sica or Welles from the Coens-- what seperates Otis Redding from Britney Spears. And artistic commitment logically seems to be required in the formation of artwork--a prerequisite.
All that was summed up in the sentence Norman F(full of one emotion--I'm not sure what) was so amused by and tried to flippantly dismiss without addressing. When people throw the charge of pretension around so lightly, I means needlessly re-explaining one's self.
That "yadda yadda" was said not only in response to one sentence but an entire paragraph--which Mr.F apparently didn't want to bother responding to. You can win any argument by dimissing or ignoring the other person's comments. Pseudo-argument is so much easier.It's how you detect a pseud.

>Do I have to explain that statement?

No. Please don't.

>In the debate on the Coen brothers I complained about a lack of feeling. In response I get a lot of idiots saying they don't need to come crying out of Coen Bros film.

"idiots" - am i an idiot - do tell me - you see i need someone to tell me what to think and/or feel. someone cleverer than me.

>My response was that "feeling" doesn't have to equal pure sentiment. Rather, I'd class it as--or similar--to artistic commitment; what separates genuinely great filmmakers like Renoir or De Sica or Welles from the Coens-- what seperates Otis Redding from Britney Spears. And artistic commitment logically seems to be required in the formation of artwork--a prerequisite.

in your humble opinion only, surely? okay, what about say, Andy Warhol - how committed was he? now he did great art. i don't agree that artistic commitment is a prerequisite. for one thing, how do you define how much commitment is acceptable? surely it's the end result that matters?

as for "Otis Redding is greater than Britney Spears" - that is a typical example kind of sneering cultural snobbery. Britney Spears' Baby (one more time) is a fantastic pop record. How committed is she to her "art"? Does it really matter? The end result is what counts. (I can't listening to Sitting on the dock of they bay without thinking of Vic and Bob - which is a fair trade for me at least).

>All that was summed up in the sentence Norman F(full of one emotion--I'm not sure what)

and i'm not telling.

>was so amused by and tried to flippantly dismiss without addressing. When people throw the charge of pretension around so lightly, I means needlessly re-explaining one's self.

no, you can easily avoid it. i find pretension one of the most hilarious attributes a person can hold. pomposity is good too.

>That "yadda yadda" was said not only in response to one sentence but an entire paragraph--which Mr.F apparently didn't want to bother responding to.

that is indeed true. it was also done for comic effect, you know, using one of your Seinfeldian American phrases. i thought you would like it.

>You can win any argument by dimissing or ignoring the other person's comments. Pseudo-argument is so much easier.It's how you detect a pseud.

why try and win arguments? can't you be happy to have your own views. Arguments tend to start by people who think they know better than the other person and feel a right to convert others. can't they just accept others disagree?

and if i'm a pseud, then right back at you, no return.

Have a nice day! :))

I thought that was a good argument and a comeback too until you did that Britney Spears thing, Norman - your defence of Bintney kinda makes your taste seem suspect.

One more time _is_ a fantastic pop record. One of the best, in fact.

Norman is lovely, just like his brother Axel.

>One more time _is_ a fantastic pop record. One of the best, in fact.

it's a pop record, nothing more, nothing less. Just like anything produced by Radiohead, The Beatles, Tindersticks, Otis Redding, anyone. The day serious "rock" appeared and everyone took it all seriously was a very bad day. I blame Peter Gabriel myself.


>Norman is lovely, just like his brother Axel.

As Lard might say "Whooooooooooooo?" but thanks for the compliment?

Fucking hell. I'm reminded of Orson Welles line in The Third Man - "in 400 years of peace, the Swiss came up with The Cuckoo Clock". Summat like that anyway.

Has anyone read Ethan Coen's "Gates of Eden"? I enjoy the Coens' films but couldn't bear the book because none of the characters engaged me in the slightest. It's evident that actors like Jeff Bridges and Billy Bob Thornton bring their words to life - they do enage you and you do, or I do, want to know what happens to them, whether the character is likeable or not.

While we're at it, on its own merits "The Man Who..." is very good indeed.

>"idiots" - am i an idiot - do tell me - you >see i need someone to tell me what to think >and/or feel. someone cleverer than me.

I classify an idiot as someone who equates feeling with sentiment. If you fit the definition good for you.

>in your humble opinion only, surely?

My opinion is not humble, and it is my take on the subject.

>okay, >what about say, Andy Warhol - how committed >was he? now he did great art.

I wouldn't call Warhol a great artist. Maybe a pioneering conceptual artist, but compared to any of the big guns--Matisse,Chagall etc, his worth is more sociological than aesthetic.

>i don't agree >that artistic commitment is a >prerequisite.

Well then , I've changed my mind. Thank you for letting me see the light. I obviously can't examine each artwork for artistic commitment, but I've spent enough time detailing films and directors who display it. (Remember that paragraph you "yadda yadda"'d?)

>for one thing, how do you >define how much >commitment is acceptable?

By consulting the rule book. Art's not a science for God's sake. All you can do is form observations upon it. Measuring artistic commitment is redudnat anyway--eitehr there's enough to make the piece work or there isn't. And whether it works or not is a purely subjective matter.

>surely it's the end result that matters?

The end result is meaningless without what lead up to it. Otherwise there's no end result.

>as for "Otis Redding is greater than >Britney Spears" - that is a typical example >kind of sneering cultural snobbery.

You accuse me of being a pompous pseud but have no idea what the words you employ actually connotate. Cultural snobbery is preferring the London Philharmonic to Otis Redding. To say it's preferring Otis over Britney is honest-to-God idiotic, because there's little to be snobbish about--it's not as though there's much of a class or social difference. It's just a case of older pop over newer pop. "Sneering cultural snobbery"? You just like throwing words about for the hell of it don't you?

Anyway, One More Time is machine-produced corporate pop sung by a flimsily-voiced pinup and backed with a beat so thudding it has the same effect as those sentimental movies--to appeal to the lowest denominator.
There isn't a question of "commitment" regarding machine-made pop like Spears'.
Compare it to something as genuinely felt as "I've Been Loving You Too Long," or "Try A Little Tenderness"--pop sungs sung with genuine commitment, and "Baby" falls apart like a cheap car. I wouldn't use "Dock of the Bay" because it's an atypical Redding recording and has been played to death, though its seems to be the only Redding recording Norman knew of.
I'm not excessively bothered by his charges of pretension and pompousness when he's already demonstrated a marvelous lack of understanding about the terms he employs.

>that is indeed true. it was also done for >comic effect, you know, using one of your >Seinfeldian American phrases. i thought you >would like it.

Doubtless because all Americans of course adore Seinfeld, and nobody ever thought "yadda yadda" was obnoxious even before Seinfeld used it. (which was the very reason he did so.)The paragraph in question still lies unanswered.

>why try and win arguments? can't you be happy to have your own views.

I was accusing you of trying to win by ignoring and disregarding large parts of the other person's viewpoints. Lots of us like arguing and debating for the hell of it, because it allows you to refine and test your viewpoints against those of others.
The very existence of this forum is testimony to that impulse. If no one ever argued for the superiority of his viewpoint the world would be a far more boring place.

>and if i'm a pseud, then right back at you, >no return.

I'm reconsidering my calling you a pesud. A pseud pretends to have certain qualities. But using "yadda yadda" to dismiss an entire paragraph, or mindlessly employing terms like "cultural snobbery" implies very little pretending about what one really is. You are not a pseud. But whatever you are, you're probably even worse off.
Thank you for wishing me a nice day.In turn I hope you'll stumble onto an alternate dimension where all the theaters show Coen films and every painting is a Warhol print.

P.S. If it's all the same to you, I'm running out of insults, and this thread is rapidly going off-topic, so we may as well end it someday.

Interesting, if aggressive reply from that revelator guy, though ending it with words to the effect that you don't want a reply was a total cop out. I can see why you did it mind, most people here (including me) don't want to have to spend a long time coming up with painstaking reasons why their opinion is right and someone else's is wrong, I think they just want a bit of banter. No-one gives a flying fuck about the argument anyway, so relax. If you were in a pub and this bloke disagreed with you would you get so stroppy? Nah, you wouldn't.

Your reply is compelling, revelator, but I don't like your use of the word 'idiot' to describe those who disagree with your perspective - which is essentially what you were doing. I don't equate feeling with sentiment. I think the Coens' films are full of feeling, as is the music of Beck. they have an absolute commitment to their respective media, which is why they're such consummate film/music-makers. They're flawed in that they could never muster the emotional clout to tackle the 'big themes', but then again, Spielberg doesn't have enough respect for dialogue to make a film as enjoyable and amusing as most of the Coens'. Likewise, (for example)Elliott Smith can move me all day long with his 'XO', but his musical vision is simple and basic, and doesn't extend much further than as an outlet for his turns of phrase and impressive chord progressions. Beck, meanwhile, knows and loves music in its many forms, and his 'Odelay' is a tour de force. A tour de force without much of a soul, but a complete and utter delight nonetheless. The two can coexist.

>Interesting, if aggressive reply from that revelator guy


i would find his opinions much more interesting and believable if he didnt keep trotting out film school-friendly names like bunuel and renoir all the time, like he can only talk about 'artists' that either no-one else has heard of or are critically untouchable. if he had even added a woody allen or david fincher in there once in a while it would have been nice, but it was eisenstein this and w d griffith that.

apropos of nothing i know but felt the need to say it anyway

>i would find his opinions much more >interesting and believable if he didnt keep >trotting out film school-friendly names >like bunuel and renoir all the time

I'm not in film school, and those are extremely well-known directors. If anything, you could complain that I'm drawing on the standard directors canon. You can find Bunuel or Renoir films at any video store.
And yes, they are critically untouchable--that's why I use them, as examples of enduring successes within the medium.

>if he had even added a woody allen or david >fincher in there once in a while it would >have been nice, but it was eisenstein this >and w d griffith that.

I like sections of Allen's career, but he doesn't interest me that much, and the only Fincher I've seen is "Seven," which I thought overrated and ineffective. (For me at least.)
A last word on the Coens--I won't deny their worth, but anyone who wishes to call them the best practicing directors around deserves whatever backtalk they get. Like I said, at Cannes they also had films by Godard, Rivette, Lynch, Hsien, de Oliviera and Hsao Hsien--so let's not be so quick to dismiss the rest of the world.

"It isn't even remotely comparable to the aloof, jokey stylings of McSweeney's or They Might Be Giants - neither of those have any genuine belief in their medium"

this is utter crap, I can't think of a single band who are as enduringly listenable as TMBG. It's all about the music, always has been. And they fucking rock live, why would anyone contiue producing music to no real commercial success, unless they were passionate about it? come off it. what are you basing these assumptions on? long words? quirky arrangements? experimental improvisation?
bah! i love TMBG, they are my best band by loads.

Well, I've only heard 'Flood', but that suggests to me that they treat music as a joke. The Coens don't treat their film-making as a joke - they know and love cinema, which is perhaps why some feel that their films are aloof and emptily postmodern (I don't agree). Despite this, few would disagree that their films are beautifully made and excellently written, and I simply don't think that this is the case for TMBG's music. Still, I'm out of my depth on this one as I've only heard the one LP. Maybe I should investigate further.

One whole LP you say? Ooh out of 20 albums worth and nearly as many years of making music. Why do you think they treat music like a joke? I cannot understand this at all. What's this based on? The LP Flood has some fantastic songs on it. Wow, that's right, fucking songs. This whole debate about the worth of the art hinging on the motives of it's creators is so bogus. That's the way a consumer rather than a creator would look at it. Honestly, would two people spend half their lives making music, to little or no commercial success just because they thought it was fucking funny????
"oh we have no respect for the medium" - give over.
and the Coens are so self consciously film literate it hurts...that's not to say I dislike their movies, on the contrary, since I could give a shit about their fucking motives, I watch a movie on it's own, in it's own right, and head-on, with no preamble if at all possible. god I hate the fucking internet

i would love to know, on a song by song basis what reasons revelator and rob et al think that TMBG are some kind of novelty band less interested in the craft of songwriting than in fucking around with the medium. Seriously, do tell. I'll see if I can refute your awssertions with reasoned argument. Saying you dislike them i sone thing - can't argue with that. But that isn't what you're saying is it?

With the exception of 'Birdhouse in your Soul', I found their 'Flood' songs generally slight and twee, with forced and irritatingly 'wacky' couplets which appealed to me little. I don't think their musical pallette is broad enough, or their music well-crafted enough, to justify this. Still, I'll try and investigate their stuff further, Chris, so please don't get upset at my ignorance!

ok rob, it's fair enough that you think it was twee. but to say their musical palette isn't broad enough is plain wrong.
Some songs tend to be very simplistic, - particle man for instance, but the music reflects the childlike lyrics. Other albums like apollo 18, factory showroom, and John Henry display a very different sound, more raucous, some more disco, some indescribable. They are however, shit hot musicians, anyone who has seen them live will testify that. Their arrangements are often very complicated and yet sound deceptively simple.
i hear what you're saying, songls like Ball and Chain, particle man, everybody wants a rock, do have rather daft tunes - but I think that compliments the lyrics. Racist Friend certainly isn't twee, and the heavy arrangement reflects the serious theme.
they're one of my all time fave bands, and i'm a fussy fucker when it comes to music, it just amazed me that people would think they weren't serious. GO FOR JOHN HENRY OR FACTORY SHOWROOM, or severe tire damage. or email me hc@retardis.com and ooh i'll show you!

>Anyway, One More Time is machine-produced corporate pop sung by a flimsily-voiced pinup and backed with a beat so thudding it has the same effect as those sentimental movies--to appeal to the lowest denominator.
There isn't a question of "commitment" regarding machine-made pop like Spears'.


Yes there a question of commitment. Spears herself might not be interested in the artistic merit of her music, but who are we to attribute sheer commercialism to Max Martin? Just because his song appeals to a mass market doesn't make it artistically invalid.

Granted, the lyrics of 'One more time' are by the book nonsense. But the song is as perfectly crafted as anything by the Beatles, Iggy Pop, Abba or Michael Jackson. It is sparse without being dull. The beat and piano motif support and interplay with the melody. The counter-chorus used as the Mid 8 is a great piece of modulation, without detracting from the theme.

I'd say the song shows tons of artistic commitment. It's unfeasibly difficult to compress melody, hooks, riffs and beats into a memorable three minute pop song. Believe me, I've tried.

And while you're right that "One More Time" doesn't portray any heartfelt emotion, it does want to 'move' you in some way - to sing, or to dance at the very least.

>Compare it to something as genuinely felt as "I've Been Loving You Too Long," or "Try A Little Tenderness"--pop sungs sung with genuine commitment, and "Baby" falls apart like a cheap car. I wouldn't use "Dock of the Bay" because it's an atypical Redding recording and has been played to death, though its seems to be the only Redding recording Norman knew of.

Other songs sung with 'real commitment' and 'genuine feeling' include Phil Collin's "Another Day In Paradise", Michael Jackson's "Heal The World", Sting's "Russians", and Mel C's "Never Be The Same Again".

Many artists sing with almost no connection to their subject. Joe Cocker and Sly Stone were so wanged on quality meat products that they didn't know what they were singing about, but they produced some of the most heartfelt vocal performances of all time.

Roy Orbison and Aretha Franklin don't write their own lyrics but manage to connect to the songwriter's sentiments. They have no 'genuine commitment' to their music, but they convey something that we relate to through their delivery.

For Britney Spear's target audience, she similarly conveys something they relate to - a bright, primary coloured world where everyone looks their best, falls in love with a handsome man and can sing a bit while dancing. And the music reflects that.

If it's not for you, then fine. But don't dismiss the hard work that goes into producing it quite so readily just because it has mass-market appeal.

One More Time also sounds brilliant played in 7/8 too.

>
>I classify an idiot as someone who equates feeling with sentiment. If you fit the definition good for you.

I suppose I am open to accusation of that, I am a bit senti-mental. Sentimental – geddit?
>

>My opinion is not humble, and it is my take on the subject.

That comes as no surprise.
>

>I wouldn't call Warhol a great artist. Maybe a pioneering conceptual artist, but compared to any of the big guns--Matisse,Chagall etc, his worth is more sociological than aesthetic.

Jesus, what essay did that come from. Warhol is a great artist. Matisse – mmm, nah. There's only so much brown you can look at.

>Well then , I've changed my mind. Thank you for letting me see the light. I obviously can't examine each artwork for artistic commitment, but I've spent enough time detailing films and directors who display it.

I can tell.

(Remember that paragraph you "yadda yadda"'d?)

Sure, whatever.

>
>By consulting the rule book. Art's not a science for God's sake. All you can do is form observations upon it. Measuring artistic commitment is redudnat anyway--eitehr there's enough to make the piece work or there isn't. And whether it works or not is a purely subjective matter.

I'm glad you said that. I thought you wanted Art to be a time and motion study with a column for “commitment” and the amount spent on the other side. Whether it works or not is completely subjective.

>
>The end result is meaningless without what lead up to it. Otherwise there's no end result.

I guess.

>
>You accuse me of being a pompous pseud but have no idea what the words you employ actually connotate. Cultural snobbery is preferring the London Philharmonic to Otis Redding. To say it's preferring Otis over Britney is honest-to-God idiotic, because there's little to be snobbish about--it's not as though there's much of a class or social difference. It's just a case of older pop over newer pop. "Sneering cultural snobbery"? You just like throwing words about for the hell of it don't you?

Oh, the irony - telling me what snobbery is, and then patronising me over the words I'm using! And if you want to throw words about – how about “connotate”! Was the word “mean” not enough?


>Anyway, One More Time is machine-produced corporate pop sung by a flimsily-voiced pinup and backed with a beat so thudding it has the same effect as those sentimental movies--to appeal to the lowest denominator.
>There isn't a question of "commitment" regarding machine-made pop like Spears'.
>Compare it to something as genuinely felt as "I've Been Loving You Too Long," or "Try A Little Tenderness"--pop sungs sung with genuine commitment, and "Baby" falls apart like a cheap car. I wouldn't use "Dock of the Bay" because it's an atypical Redding recording and has been played to death, though its seems to be the only Redding recording Norman knew of.

One thing – try not to end your sentences with a preposition! (arf arf!) but to answer your “points”. Otis Redding – I know enough about his work to know he was a singer who died early and produced records in the sixties, none of which got to number one until he died. Unlike Britney – who has had many number ones. Therefore, - she is a more successful artist. Hey, art isn't science – it's arithmetic!

>I'm not excessively bothered by his charges of pretension and pompousness when he's already demonstrated a marvelous lack of understanding about the terms he employs.

At least I know how to spell them! Marvellous has two l's.


>Doubtless because all Americans of course adore Seinfeld, and nobody ever thought "yadda yadda" was obnoxious even before Seinfeld used it. (which was the very reason he did so.)The paragraph in question still lies unanswered.

And always will.
>
>
>I was accusing you of trying to win by ignoring and disregarding large parts of the other person's viewpoints. Lots of us like arguing and debating for the hell of it, because it allows you to refine and test your viewpoints against those of others.
>The very existence of this forum is testimony to that impulse. If no one ever argued for the superiority of his viewpoint the world would be a far more boring place.
>
Who wants to win? As for arguing being such a great force in the world – I think the ease of which they can degenerate (like this one) shows how they ain't so good for that old chestnut – peace. Pointless arguing really serves no purpose. Join a debating society if you want to show off your superiority. Or try it in Belfast.

>
>I'm reconsidering my calling you a pesud. A pseud pretends to have certain qualities. But using "yadda yadda" to dismiss an entire paragraph, or mindlessly employing terms like "cultural snobbery" implies very little pretending about what one really is. You are not a pseud. But whatever you are, you're probably even worse off.
>Thank you for wishing me a nice day.In turn I hope you'll stumble onto an alternate dimension where all the theaters show Coen films and every painting is a Warhol print.

It's a fine response. But I feel you're lecturing me on points I already agree with.

>Yes there a question of commitment. Spears >herself might not be interested in the >artistic merit of her music

Not an encouraging sign...I don't demand that pop singers go into the studio thinking "I am intrested in the artistic merit of my music," but the flimsy vocals that a weak vocalist like Britney hint that her interests lie outside singing.

>...........Just because his song appeals to >a mass market doesn't make it artistically >invalid.

Most of the songs I love were designed for the mass market. But when a song panders to the emotions of that mass market--which is quite easy--then I worry.

>Granted, the lyrics of 'One more time' are >by the book nonsense. But the song is as >perfectly crafted as anything by the >Beatles.....

You're probably better able to discuss the technical aspects of music better than I am, but I refuse to believe that "Baby" idsplays a smuch craft as "A Day in the Life," or "Strawberry Fields." I could be wrong.

>It is sparse without being dull.

I found it a thudding bore.

>The beat and piano motif support and >interplay with the melody. The counter->chorus used as the Mid 8 is a great piece >of modulation, without detracting from the >theme.

But surely there are many other pop songs with similar merits amd motifs? All I hear is a well-built machine with a ready-made beat and inane vocals (even if the songs had deep lyrics Britney would mes them up).

>I'd say the song shows tons of artistic >commitment. It's unfeasibly difficult to >compress melody, hooks, riffs and beats >into a memorable three minute pop song. >Believe me, I've tried.

Yes, but there are hundreds of memorable three minute pop songs, many of which are sung better and feature more interesting music. "She Loves You" is a great example--the Beatles sing and play with genuine euphoria. you dance to it as well. Britney warbles like a pouting b-movie bimbo behind a skilled group of studio musicians.

>Other songs sung with 'real commitment' >and 'genuine feeling' include Phil >Collin's "Another Day In Paradise", Michael >Jackson's "Heal The World", >Sting's "Russians", and Mel C's "Never Be >The Same Again".

They also often feature cloying, simplistic sentiments. In discussing the Coens I admitted their intelligence before bemoaning their lack of commitment. I don't hear any intelligence or real sensitivity or commitment when Phil colins sings about the homeless. I hear posturing. He may think he cares for the homeless, but in his heart he votes Tory.(And it shows in the songs' slickness.)

>Many artists sing with almost no connection >to their subject. Joe Cocker and Sly Stone >were so wanged on quality meat products >that they didn't know what they were >singing about, but they produced some of >the most heartfelt vocal performances of >all time.

Sly stone may have produced "riot" or performed while stoned, but being whanged doesn't erase the fundamentals of a person's personality. The singing on "There's a Riot.." still hones in on the subject. You don't need to be clear-minded and sober to display artistic commitment if you end up singing with conviction, and feeling--which doesn't disappear when whanged out..

>Roy Orbison and Aretha Franklin don't write >their own lyrics but manage to connect to >the songwriter's sentiments. They have >no 'genuine commitment' to their music, but >they convey something that we relate to >through their delivery.

What on earth are you talking about? Of course there is commitment--the commitment of someone feeling out and interpreting a song. Did you think Otis Redding wrote "Try a Little Tenderness"? He just sang it with more commitment toward wringing the greatest amount of energy and warmth out of the song than anyone else could. Roy Orbison sang with the same committment--did Britney Spears attempt the sort of manificent vocal climax Orbison got on "Crying" or "Running Scared"? That is singing with commitment! Spears doesn't have the commitment to get away with the astonishing affects of an Orbison or Redding or Franklin.


>If it's not for you, then fine. But don't >dismiss the hard work that goes into >producing it quite so readily just because >it has mass-market appeal.

I don't care how damn hard they worked. The worst movies Hollywood produces involve hard work and long hours, and even a bad novel often requires effort and dedication.
Most of the music I listen to is made for the mass-market--my favorite singer is Elvis Presley. I can tell whne Elvis is singing with commitment--even if the song is cheesy--like in his version of "Hurt," where he pours pain and rage into a song he didn't write. And I can tell when that commitment isn't with him--when he coasts on reeedmable pap like "You're the Devil in Disguise" or many of his movie soundtracks--some of which feature interesting music .

Once more around the mulberry bush...

>Jesus, what essay did that come from. >Warhol is a great artist. Matisse – mmm, >nah. There's only so much brown you can >look at.

In the flippant artist dismissals category, I'd say dismissing warhol as more of a sociological phenonmenon than an aesthetic one is slightly less brainless than dismissing Matisse for using too many browns.

>>You accuse me of being a pompous pseud but >>have no idea what the words you employ >>actually connotate. Cultural snobbery is >>preferring the London Philharmonic to Otis >>Redding. To say it's preferring Otis over >>Britney is honest-to-God idiotic, because >>there's little to be snobbish about--it's >>not as though there's much of a class or >>social difference. It's just a case of >>older pop over newer pop. "Sneering >>cultural snobbery"? You just like throwing >>words about for the hell of it don't you?
>
>Oh, the irony - telling me what snobbery >is, and then patronising me over the words >I'm using! And if you want to throw words >about – how about “connotate”! Was the >word “mean” not enough?

Everytime I respond to you--which is surely due to too much time on my hands--I notice more and more of my points are eitehr chopped out and ignored, responded to with a lamely flip comment, or simply disregarded while you harp on a less damaging point. This is a good example.
Listen, Norman, I'm not patronising you over what words you use. I'm telling you that your word usage is idiotic. I use that word in the above paragraph. Attacking me for supposedly patronizing you is a cheap way of not actually responding to the point of the article. Do you or do you not agree that your original claim was non-sensical and grossly distorted the meaning of the phrase "cultural snobbery"? Otis Redding is not from a higher culture than Spears. If there's a class difference it's that Redding was poorer. Both are still pop culture figures. To charge snobbery in preferring Redding over Spears means you don't know or don't care what the word means. And you sure as hell don't.
"Connotate" by the way--which is apparently a forbidden word in Normanland--is a word I used carefully. (in the sense of imply or designate with something else) "Mean" can do the job just as well, but implies a less subtle and more basic meaning. When I use "connotate", it's to say that you don't know what "cultural snobbery" implies or what it designates.

>One thing – try not to end your sentences >with a preposition! (arf arf!)but to >answer your “points”.
>Otis Redding – I >know enough about his work to know he was a >singer who died early and produced records >in the sixties, none of which got to number >one until he died. Unlike Britney – who >has had many number ones. Therefore, - she >is a more successful artist. Hey, art >isn't science – it's arithmetic!

This is what I mean by not answering the point. I think the lame point you're trying to make is that I'm against Britney because she's had a number one hit while Redding never had one until after death. That is not my argument. I'm saying that Redding sung with far more felt emotion and commitment than Spears. But since you're hung up on popularity, I'll pick another example: I can say the same things about Elvis Presley as I said about Redding--the degree of artistic commitment on "Suspicious Minds" or his '68 versions of "One Night" blow Spears out of the water. Incidentally, it's interesting that you phrase your response to avoid actually saying whether you'd heard anything of Redding's beside "Dock of the Bay"--which includes the example songs I originally cited.

>At least I know how to spell them! >Marvellous has two l's.

I have mispelled many of the messages I've typed on this board (including several on this thread). They were all written quickly and sent out so. I have never criticised you or anyone else for wrong spelling because I figure they write with near or equivalent speed and sometimes don't check for errors or let them slip.


>>Lots of us like arguing and debating for >>the hell of it, because it allows you to >>refine and test your viewpoints against >>those of others.
>>The very existence of this forum is >>testimony to that impulse. If no one ever >>argued for the superiority of his >>viewpoint the world would be a far more >>boring place.


>Who wants to win?

Did I say such a thing above? I didn't say that when people argue for the superiority of their viewpoint that they would always seek to win as well. If everyone on this message board had the same viewpoints, would it be that interesting?

>As for arguing being such a great force in >the world – I think the ease of which they >can degenerate (like this one) shows how >they ain't so good for that old chestnut – >peace.

I think I've tried to respond to most of your points at length and ignored few of them. If someone let this argument degenerate, it is surely you--look at the parts of the messages I've quoted.
And if I was in this argument to win, I would have bailed out a long t

> It's a fine response. But I feel you're lecturing me on points I already agree with.


Sorry if it came across as a lecture. But you're right - I think we're barking up the same tree. Can I discuss some of the branches?

>Most of the songs I love were designed for the mass market. But when a song panders to the emotions of that mass market--which is quite easy--then I worry.

I find Spears less guilty of this than Celine Dion and her ilk. Spears's music is supposed to be funky, and it generally is. That said, her version of (I Can't get No) Satisfaction is the biggest weapon in your armoury. She makes no connection to the song, and destroys what was once an homage to pent-up sexual frustration into a joyless dirge.


>
>I refuse to believe that "Baby" displays a smuch craft as "A Day in the Life," or "Strawberry Fields." I could be wrong.

I actually think Strawberry Fields is vastly over-rated.... But obviously the Revolver, Sergeant Pepper, White Album purple patch is beyond comparison with most pop music.

However, early Beatles stuff does compare favourably with production line music. The songwriting barely varies from a basic template for several albums. The first vaguely experimental single is Paperback Writer - in my opinion. Although you could argue that Yesterday was a departure of sorts.

You're right that the joy-de-vivre and artistic commitment of any Beatles song pisses all over Spears, though.


>But surely there are many other pop songs with similar merits amd motifs? All I hear is a well-built machine with a ready-made beat and inane vocals (even if the songs had deep lyrics Britney would mes them up).
>

I'd argue that the pieces fit together particularly well in 'One more time'. Compare it to other productions that aim to replicate the style - "Day And Night" by Billie for example. There is something lacking in that song, despite pulling all the same tricks as the Spears track.




>Did Britney Spears attempt the sort of manificent vocal climax Orbison got on "Crying" or "Running Scared"? That is singing with commitment! Spears doesn't have the commitment to get away with the astonishing affects of an Orbison or Redding or Franklin.

No, but she hasn't been doing songs in that vein. Maybe she should.

I'd prefer to compare "One More Time" to, say, "Word Up" by Cameo. The commitment is about the groove and the energy of the song, not the vocal delivery. Both songs work on that level.



...Apart from that, I'm with you.