Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Does the history behind a movie matter or should it stand on its own?


Recommended Posts

I hope I'm not veering off too much by saying that another aspect of this question is can a movie or art be judged separately from our knowledge of those who create the work.  For example, I must admit that I have enjoyed several of the films directed by Roman Polanski, even though there are those who would boycott his works based on reports of his past behavior.  I hope this is not revealing some type of shallowness on my part, but I would like to believe that the work can be judged on its own.  I suppose another aspect of this best left for a separate thread is the fact that some reject an artist's works because they do not wish to provide any financial benefit to the creator, independent of whether the work itself is good or bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I do think that, as much as possible, one should watch a movie without making comparisons etc. to what came before.

Now, if the film is "derivative", as you suggest is sometimes the case , then it probably won't be that good anyway. If it is, then indeed it will "stand on its own", regardless of whatever earlier film it's based on.

If, as is more likely, it's not particularly good, and the original is better, then it will "stand on its own" all right, but as a crummy film. The fact that it's imitating an earlier, better, movie, should still be information that doesn't directly affect my opinion of it.

 

No, true, films are not "made in a vacuum". Nothing is. But as much as possible, I try and watch a movie without making constant references to outside factors in the making of it.

 

This is actually a complaint I have about Robert Osborne and, in fact, all the hosts for TCM. In their "wraparounds" before and after a movie's airing, they hardly ever talk about the actual movie. Instead, they talk around the movie, supplying facts or anecdotes about what other movies the stars were in, or how they got along, stuff like that.

I'd much rather they talked about the actual movie I've just seen.

Amen, sister.  But then, outside of a few caring posters here, almost no discussions of story and plot and it's origins in myth or validity is discussed here either. Maybe that's why I am not here very much.

 

I like context as much as the next person, but to only talk around the movie, usually a minute or two, doesn't provide much context. I have been reading "Five Came Back: ..."  by Mark Harris, and focusing on the lives of five directors and their history of WW2 has been an active pursuit of how they did the chronicling of the war for the OWI, and their take on the concept of story and perspective of the world crisis and how to tell it.  I have not completed it, so I cannot speak about how the war had changed Capra, Ford, Huston, Stevens, or Wyler...  We know what they produced after, but how it affects them--that's what I hope I will learn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been reading "Five Came Back: ..."  by Mark Harris, I have not completed it, so I cannot speak about how the war had changed Capra, Ford, Huston, Stevens, or Wyler...  We know what they produced after, but how it affects them--that's what I hope I will learn.

 

It is a great book and you will learn much about these five directors (in John Huston's case maybe too much) and the effect their participation had on their subsequent films.  Interestingly enough Jeanne Basinger wrote a wonderful book on WWII movies which adds much to the watching of all those movies over Memorial Day. 

 

I would also very much like to see the results of George Stevens war film documentaries as a stand alone program with the inevitable John Wayne WWII movies.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a great book and you will learn much about these five directors (in John Huston's case maybe too much) and the effect their participation had on their subsequent films.  Interestingly enough Jeanne Basinger wrote a wonderful book on WWII movies which adds much to the watching of all those movies over Memorial Day. 

 

I would also very much like to see the results of George Stevens war film documentaries as a stand alone program with the inevitable John Wayne WWII movies.

 

With regards to if the history behind a movie matters or if they stand on their own;  I assume that for most John Wayne fans the fact he dodged his way out of WWII doesn't impact their enjoyment of the WWII movies he made.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Amen, sister.  But then, outside of a few caring posters here, almost no discussions of story and plot and it's origins in myth or validity is discussed here either. Maybe that's why I am not here very much.

 

I like context as much as the next person, but to only talk around the movie, usually a minute or two, doesn't provide much context. I have been reading "Five Came Back: ..."  by Mark Harris, and focusing on the lives of five directors and their history of WW2 has been an active pursuit of how they did the chronicling of the war for the OWI, and their take on the concept of story and perspective of the world crisis and how to tell it.  I have not completed it, so I cannot speak about how the war had changed Capra, Ford, Huston, Stevens, or Wyler...  We know what they produced after, but how it affects them--that's what I hope I will learn.

 

Hey, Char, how's every little thang? I've missed you here.

 

Yes, context is important insofar as it can enrich and inform our appreciation and understanding of a film.

However - and I gather we're in agreement about this - a movie should not need for the viewer to know the "context" or history or circumstances around the idea behind the film, or the making of it, or anything else. 

A work of art, or even just good entertainment, should "stand on its own." I.E., it should be good enough , or at least entertaining and comprehensible enough, that the audience can enjoy it on its own merits, without  the aid of any background knowledge whatsoever.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, Char, how's every little thang? I've missed you here.

 

Yes, context is important insofar as it can enrich and inform our appreciation and understanding of a film.

However - and I gather we're in agreement about this - a movie should not need for the viewer to know the "context" or history or circumstances around the idea behind the film, or the making of it, or anything else. 

A work of art, or even just good entertainment, should "stand on its own." I.E., it should be good enough , or at least entertaining and comprehensible enough, that the audience can enjoy it on its own merits, without  the aid of any background knowledge whatsoever.

But certain films, such as ON THE WATERFRONT, become more hard-hitting and meaningful if you know the context in which they are made.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is hard for a remake to stand on its own, I think the history behind the movies matters more to many of us. If that is foolishness then so be it. 

 

I deleted the emoticons in your quote as I believe emoticons are silly (although yes, I have been guilty of using them myself) and also, often used in a passive-aggressive way.

 

This is the statement you made which I thought sounded foolish and also, made no sense:

 

"The Mona Lisa is kind of like a below average movie with 20 Oscars to its credit- If it had to stand on its own could it?"

 

Now, while both jamesjazzguitar and TopBilled have offered "explanations" for the Mona Lisa comparison, all three of you seem unaware of the fact that this painting can and should be appreciated by anyone, even a person without one iota of artistic knowledge or art history background.

If the only way Leonardo da Vinci's work can connect with someone viewing  it is for the viewer to be in possession of a wealth of information about the artist's time, personal history and philosophy, the Italian Renaissance, and the progress in artistic techniques that were being made at that time,  then the Mona LIsa does not deserve to be as celebrated as it is.  

 

Agreed, as I've said earlier, such background knowledge can enrich and enhance our appreciation of a painting, film, book, or piece of music. But it should not be necessary in order for a person lacking such knowledge to enjoy it (that is, the painting, book, music, or film.)

People in general, and certainly a lot of the people on these boards in particular, place a disproportionately high value on "knowledge" about art, rather than on the art itself.

(Sorry if it sounds pretentious, all this use of the word "art". )                   

Link to post
Share on other sites

I deleted the emoticons as I believe emoticons are silly (although yes, I have been guilty of using them myself) and also, often used in a passive-aggressive way.

 

This is the statement you made which I thought sounded foolish and also, made no sense:

 

"The Mona Lisa is kind of like a below average movie with 20 Oscars to its credit- If it had to stand on its own could it?"

 

Now, while both jamesjazzguitar and TopBilled have offered "explanations" for the Mona Lisa comparison, all three of you seem unaware of the fact that this painting can and should be appreciated by anyone, even a person without one iota of artistic knowledge or art history background.

If the only way Leonardo da Vinci's work can connect with someone viewing  it is for the viewer to be in possession of a wealth of information about the artist's time, personal history and philosophy, the Italian Renaissance, and the progress in artistic techniques that were being made at that time,  then the Mona LIsa does not deserve to be as celebrated as it is.  

 

Agreed, as I've said earlier, such background knowledge can enrich and enhance our appreciation of a painting, film, book, or piece of music. But it should not be necessary in order for a person lacking such knowledge to enjoy it (that is, the painting, book, music, or film.)

People in general, and certainly a lot of the people on these boards in particular, place a disproportionately high value on "knowledge" about art, rather than on the art itself.

(Sorry if it sounds pretentious, all this use of the word "art". )                   

"Guilty of using them"? I thought you touted yourself as the "Queen of the Emoticoms".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I deleted the emoticons in your quote as I believe emoticons are silly (although yes, I have been guilty of using them myself) and also, often used in a passive-aggressive way.

 

This is the statement you made which I thought sounded foolish and also, made no sense:

 

"The Mona Lisa is kind of like a below average movie with 20 Oscars to its credit- If it had to stand on its own could it?"

 

Now, while both jamesjazzguitar and TopBilled have offered "explanations" for the Mona Lisa comparison, all three of you seem unaware of the fact that this painting can and should be appreciated by anyone, even a person without one iota of artistic knowledge or art history background.

If the only way Leonardo da Vinci's work can connect with someone viewing  it is for the viewer to be in possession of a wealth of information about the artist's time, personal history and philosophy, the Italian Renaissance, and the progress in artistic techniques that were being made at that time,  then the Mona LIsa does not deserve to be as celebrated as it is.  

 

Agreed, as I've said earlier, such background knowledge can enrich and enhance our appreciation of a painting, film, book, or piece of music. But it should not be necessary in order for a person lacking such knowledge to enjoy it (that is, the painting, book, music, or film.)

People in general, and certainly a lot of the people on these boards in particular, place a disproportionately high value on "knowledge" about art, rather than on the art itself.

(Sorry if it sounds pretentious, all this use of the word "art". )                   

 

I'm not unaware of the Mona Lisa and it's impact on a viewer at all.   I really don't understand how you could get that idea from the what I wrote.   I have been to France multiple times and seen the work and to me it is stunning.   In fact I made a plan the night before and created a detail map of how to get there that I memorized (turn left, than right,  than up the stairs, than left again,,,),  entered as soon as the Louvre opened (using the Mall entrance which is a lot quicker),  and it was just Mona,  my wife and I for about 3 minutes before anyone else got there.   I did this because I heard it can be hard to view due to the crowds.

 

But I have heard people say they were not impressed.  e.g. 'man the picture is small,  I don't see what is so special about it'.   People are different and some just don't see what to me is clearly great art.   

 

To call someone's opinion about a work of art foolish is foolish.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimately, the film needs to stand on its own.  When the films were originally released into theaters, the audiences were not going to know about the trials and tribulations that went into creating that product.  The audience is going to judge the film based on what is presented.  Anything on the screen is fair game to like or dislike.  Knowing that the actors suffered from dysentery while making The African Queen (for example) won't matter to an audience member if he or she didn't like the film.  However, if the person found the film enjoyable and after the fact (or I suppose before the fact, if they researched it prior) learned what the actors went through to create this work and share it with the audience, it may lead to a further appreciation for the film; but it wouldn't be the definitive reason why an audience member would enjoy the film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimately, the film needs to stand on its own.  When the films were originally released into theaters, the audiences were not going to know about the trials and tribulations that went into creating that product.  The audience is going to judge the film based on what is presented.  Anything on the screen is fair game to like or dislike.  Knowing that the actors suffered from dysentery while making The African Queen (for example) won't matter to an audience member if he or she didn't like the film.  However, if the person found the film enjoyable and after the fact (or I suppose before the fact, if they researched it prior) learned what the actors went through to create this work and share it with the audience, it may lead to a further appreciation for the film; but it wouldn't be the definitive reason why an audience member would enjoy the film.

Well, the numerous fan magazines that existed during Hollywood's golden age had large circulations. The studios would work hand in hand with them, giving them much information on the making of their upcoming films, in order to publicize them. While they usually wouldn't disclose things like John Ford being tyrannical to some cast members, say, they would give them much in the way of other aspects of the behind the scenes. So many avid fans had their appetites whetted from this publicity, and looked forward to the films.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I deleted the emoticons in your quote as I believe emoticons are silly (although yes, I have been guilty of using them myself) and also, often used in a passive-aggressive way.

 

This is the statement you made which I thought sounded foolish and also, made no sense:

 

"The Mona Lisa is kind of like a below average movie with 20 Oscars to its credit- If it had to stand on its own could it?"

 

Now, while both jamesjazzguitar and TopBilled have offered "explanations" for the Mona Lisa comparison, all three of you seem unaware of the fact that this painting can and should be appreciated by anyone, even a person without one iota of artistic knowledge or art history background.

If the only way Leonardo da Vinci's work can connect with someone viewing  it is for the viewer to be in possession of a wealth of information about the artist's time, personal history and philosophy, the Italian Renaissance, and the progress in artistic techniques that were being made at that time,  then the Mona LIsa does not deserve to be as celebrated as it is.  

 

Agreed, as I've said earlier, such background knowledge can enrich and enhance our appreciation of a painting, film, book, or piece of music. But it should not be necessary in order for a person lacking such knowledge to enjoy it (that is, the painting, book, music, or film.)

People in general, and certainly a lot of the people on these boards in particular, place a disproportionately high value on "knowledge" about art, rather than on the art itself.

(Sorry if it sounds pretentious, all this use of the word "art". )                   

 

 

Apparently the Mona Lisa was not widely known before it was stolen, so it was not standing on its own. Now it is like it has 20 Oscars to its credit and everybody knows about it. And yes Oscars are used to influence the popularity of movies they want to promote, anyone who doesn't see that is possibly "blind".

 

Anyway I made an easy comparison that all of us could relate to. I didn't think I was opening the debate up to the quality of the Mona Lisa. I do not think the Mona Lisa could stand on its own though, but it is impossible to prove other than it was not apparently well know until it was stolen.

 

Sometimes this has happened with movies that did poorly at the box office and later became popular for whatever reason. I don't think the Mona Lisa is an example of this as the painting itself is of an "average unknown" person and is hardly breathtaking in appearance. There are many other paintings that blow it away, sorry.

 

Now let's take this a step further, do we judge movies by what the critics say are the best or do we rate them on our own? Should I just take the fact that the Mona Lisa is considered so brilliant and "popular" or rate it myself on what I think and leave their opinions out?

 

I do, and think some of Da Vinci's other paintings are brilliant, many times better than the Mona Lisa.

 

So now do you understand how I can say "The Mona Lisa is kind of like a below average movie with 20 Oscars to its credit- If it had to stand on its own could it?"

 

So in a strange way the Mona Lisa does prove my point that the history does matter to some of us, much more than some want to admit. I know the history matters to me, it does with movies. With paintings the Mona Lisa proves it as well. Not so foolish now, eh? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the numerous fan magazines that existed during Hollywood's golden age had large circulations. The studios would work hand in hand with them, giving them much information on the making of their upcoming films, in order to publicize them. While they usually wouldn't disclose things like John Ford being tyrannical to some cast members, say, they would give them much in the way of other aspects of the behind the scenes. So many avid fans had their appetites whetted from this publicity, and looked forward to the films.

 

Good point.   That still happens.   Today films are publicized in various entertainment magazines, entertainment cable channels, shows like "Entertainment Tonight", entertainment websites, radio interviews and of course talk shows, especially the late night ones.   I sometimes I am predisposed to feel warmly toward a film because an actor revealed the trials and tribulations of  producing of a film (working under difficult conditions, a miniscule budget, etc.)   

Link to post
Share on other sites

So now do you understand how I can say "The Mona Lisa is kind of like a below average movie with 20 Oscars to its credit- If it had to stand on its own could it?"

 

So in a strange way the Mona Lisa does prove my point that the history does matter to some of us, much more than some want to admit. I know the history matters to me, it does with movies. With paintings the Mona Lisa proves it as well. Not so foolish now, eh?

 

You don't think that making up a movie that has TWENTY Academy Awards to its credit but is "below average" (??) so that you can use that imagined creation to equate an actual centuries-old painting to it - with a puzzling rhetorical question tacked on - is wise, do you?

 

And, could you explain again how history means the painting doesn't stand on its own for you or anyone else who views it? Isn't each viewer the judge of whether a work of art "holds up" for them or not? Or are they not supposed to enjoy a work of art unless they're knowledged in its history? It's been said that the most moving art is "timeless", after all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't think that making up a movie that has TWENTY Academy Awards to its credit but is "below average" (??) so that you can use that imagined creation to equate an actual centuries-old painting to it - with a puzzling rhetorical question tacked on - is wise, do you?

 

And, could you explain again how history means the painting doesn't stand on its own for you or anyone else who views it? Isn't each viewer the judge of whether a work of art "holds up" for them or not? Or are they not supposed to enjoy a work of art unless they're knowledged in its history? It's been said that the most moving art is "timeless", after all.

 

To me the point was that how famous a work of art is or the artist clearly influences how that work is 'viewed' and therefore the more famous something is the less it may 'stands on its own'.      Fame increases exposure and this exposure increase fame. 

 

I don't know how much merit the point has;  e.g. how much bias does the influence of fame generate?  But the point is related to the topic here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't think that making up a movie that has TWENTY Academy Awards to its credit but is "below average" (??) so that you can use that imagined creation to equate an actual centuries-old painting to it - with a puzzling rhetorical question tacked on - is wise, do you?

 

Answer- Yes I do because it made my point. You seem to think the Mona Lisa is standing on its own, and I think it is standing on its history (the question seems to be quite obvious in that regard, no dyslexia required). Let's let the people reading the blog decide who is right. I imagine some agree with you and some agree with me. More on that below...

 

And, could you explain again how history means the painting doesn't stand on its own for you or anyone else who views it?

 

Answer- The history of the painting shows it was not melting hearts outside of a small circle until centuries after it was painted. So I happen to think when that amount of time passes in this case then yes it must be the history taking over.

 

Isn't each viewer the judge of whether a work of art "holds up" for them or not?

 

Answer- Yes they are and i respect everyone who loves the Mona Lisa. This is only my opinion, i thought that is why we are allowed to post here.

 

Or are they not supposed to enjoy a work of art unless they're knowledged in its history? It's been said that the most moving art is "timeless", after all.

 

Answer,- I never said that just like I would never say only those that understand the history behind a movie should actually watch them. Hollywood has used this to their advantage to rewrite history at times (No, I won't go into that one). I just posted on the YouTube thread Machine-Gun Kelly and they changed around things to make the movie. What you ask is like asking should we ban all movies that are not historically accurate? I doubt many would be left if we did that.

 

Now, let me ask this. If the Mona Lisa is standing on its own, do you really think if it didn't exist and was painted tomorrow, that new painting would ever receive the greatness the current one does? Let me save you the breath, No, No, and double No.

 

However, here is the sticking point. There are some classic movies that if they were made today would receive the greatness that they currently show. Actually quite a few I would imagine. Those movies have greatness that transcends history itself. Yes the history may help these movies to be even more appreciated, but I think they could stand on their own today if they had to. The Mona Lisa, no, no and double no.

 

So now does all this make sense? I hope so, lol. As we see some here love the history behind the movies and say they enjoy that as it adds to the viewing experience, then some say it doesn't matter. Maybe both are right and one adds to the other when you look at the overall interest in a movie.

 

Here is a last puzzle, is it true-, as paintings get older the better they become, as movies get older the worse they become. Forget your love of classic movies but think about it, I wont say what i think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the Mona Lisa was not widely known before it was stolen, so it was not standing on its own. Now it is like it has 20 Oscars to its credit and everybody knows about it. And yes Oscars are used to influence the popularity of movies they want to promote, anyone who doesn't see that is possibly "blind".

 

Anyway I made an easy comparison that all of us could relate to. I didn't think I was opening the debate up to the quality of the Mona Lisa. I do not think the Mona Lisa could stand on its own though, but it is impossible to prove other than it was not apparently well know until it was stolen.

 

Sometimes this has happened with movies that did poorly at the box office and later became popular for whatever reason. I don't think the Mona Lisa is an example of this as the painting itself is of an "average unknown" person and is hardly breathtaking in appearance. There are many other paintings that blow it away, sorry.

 

Now let's take this a step further, do we judge movies by what the critics say are the best or do we rate them on our own? Should I just take the fact that the Mona Lisa is considered so brilliant and "popular" or rate it myself on what I think and leave their opinions out?

 

I do, and think some of Da Vinci's other paintings are brilliant, many times better than the Mona Lisa.

 

So now do you understand how I can say "The Mona Lisa is kind of like a below average movie with 20 Oscars to its credit- If it had to stand on its own could it?"

 

So in a strange way the Mona Lisa does prove my point that the history does matter to some of us, much more than some want to admit. I know the history matters to me, it does with movies. With paintings the Mona Lisa proves it as well. Not so foolish now, eh? :)

So in a strange way the Mona Lisa does prove my point that the history does matter to some of us, much more than some want to admit. I know the history matters to me, it does with movies. With paintings the Mona Lisa proves it as well. Not so foolish now, eh?

 

Well, history does matter and it doesn't matter. But you are correct, the concept of history matters only to the viewer.

 

It matters to those who buy and sell these famously famous works of art, but it doesn't matter to me if I don't like the art. I am not plebeian enough to like dogs playing poker, but more power to those who do. I weep in front of Hieronymus Bosch, but the Mona Lisa left me meh. Rodin gave me chills, but I hate all of Picasso's art, and when I found out he was a misogynistic prat, I felt vindicated.

 

Same with movies and television. Time sometimes alters reactions. I couldn't get into Twin Peaks or Eraserhead, but having seen David Lynch, I now adore him and like his work. The man is a charming freak. I still hate Lee Marvin and Robert Blake and always will, and work I previously liked of theirs is now on my **** list. I still hate the actors on sight that I have hated since I first saw them, and still love those I loved 50 years ago. I love my opinion, and don't give a flying fig what the mosts think of my opinions.

 

No opinion is foolish, MovieMadness, especially when it applies to an arbitrary field such as art. Only those mosts who have the temerity to call others names and denigrate their posts are foolish. Oh, and emoticons are there to be used:

 

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

misswonderlytoo, on 01 Oct 2014 - 5:48 PM, said:

 

Now, while both jamesjazzguitar and TopBilled have offered "explanations" for the Mona Lisa comparison, all three of you seem unaware of the fact that this painting can and should be appreciated by anyone, even a person without one iota of artistic knowledge or art history background.

 

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D Hilarious.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't think that making up a movie that has TWENTY Academy Awards to its credit but is "below average" (??) so that you can use that imagined creation to equate an actual centuries-old painting to it - with a puzzling rhetorical question tacked on - is wise, do you?

 

Answer- Yes I do because it made my point. You seem to think the Mona Lisa is standing on its own, and I think it is standing on its history (the question seems to be quite obvious in that regard, no dyslexia required). Let's let the people reading the blog decide who is right. I imagine some agree with you and some agree with me. More on that below...

 

And, could you explain again how history means the painting doesn't stand on its own for you or anyone else who views it?

 

Answer- The history of the painting shows it was not melting hearts outside of a small circle until centuries after it was painted. So I happen to think when that amount of time passes in this case then yes it must be the history taking over.

 

Isn't each viewer the judge of whether a work of art "holds up" for them or not?

 

Answer- Yes they are and i respect everyone who loves the Mona Lisa. This is only my opinion, i thought that is why we are allowed to post here.

 

Or are they not supposed to enjoy a work of art unless they're knowledged in its history? It's been said that the most moving art is "timeless", after all.

 

Answer,- I never said that just like I would never say only those that understand the history behind a movie should actually watch them. Hollywood has used this to their advantage to rewrite history at times (No, I won't go into that one). I just posted on the YouTube thread Machine-Gun Kelly and they changed around things to make the movie. What you ask is like asking should we ban all movies that are not historically accurate? I doubt many would be left if we did that.

 

Now, let me ask this. If the Mona Lisa is standing on its own, do you really think if it didn't exist and was painted tomorrow, that new painting would ever receive the greatness the current one does? Let me save you the breath, No, No, and double No.

 

However, here is the sticking point. There are some classic movies that if they were made today would receive the greatness that they currently show. Actually quite a few I would imagine. Those movies have greatness that transcends history itself. Yes the history may help these movies to be even more appreciated, but I think they could stand on their own today if they had to. The Mona Lisa, no, no and double no.

 

So now does all this make sense? I hope so, lol. As we see some here love the history behind the movies and say they enjoy that as it adds to the viewing experience, then some say it doesn't matter. Maybe both are right and one adds to the other when you look at the overall interest in a movie.

Answer- Yes they are and i respect everyone who loves the Mona Lisa. This is only my opinion, i thought that is why we are allowed to post here.

 

Of course you are correct. If you believed the mosts, you would be one of them.

 

Maybe both are right and one adds to the other when you look at the overall interest in a movie.

 

Bingo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, lots going on here. MovieMadness, genuinely sincere (as opposed to falsely sincere...) congratulations on starting a thread that's generated such activity. Keeps things hopping around here, and let's face it, sometimes these boards can drift into the doldrums.

 

I might just do a bunch of posts, addressing the disparate comments here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Guilty of using them"? I thought you touted yourself as the "Queen of the Emoticoms".

 

...in response to MY saying this:

"I deleted the emoticons as I believe emoticons are silly (although yes, I have been guilty of using them myself) and also, often used in a passive-aggressive way...." to MovieMadness.

 

But fi, (honestly, "DownGoesFrazier" takes so much longer to type), I rarely if ever use the "happy" emoticons favoured by so many here.

Like these: :)  :D  :lol:  especially this one  :) .

 

I've found that about half the time, that type of emoticon is used in a passive -aggressive way, meaning, the poster employing the "nice" emoticon has just said something "negative" to or about me, and is somehow trying to soften the sting with a happy face. 

as in.

"I'm annoyed by you /or/what you just said, but I don't want to seem "angry" or "mean", so I'll stick on a couple of these :)  :)  to make it all right."

MY use of emoticons tends to stick to either this :mellow: (my favourite) or occasionally this B) (If I'm actually trying to be nice.)

 

What I want to know is, is the history behind these emoticons important, or should they stand on their own?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

To wit:

 

 

misswonderlytoo, on 01 Oct 2014 - 5:48 PM, said:

 

Now, while both jamesjazzguitar and TopBilled have offered "explanations" for the Mona Lisa comparison, all three of you seem unaware of the fact that this painting can and should be appreciated by anyone, even a person without one iota of artistic knowledge or art history background.

 

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D Hilarious.
 

 

Now there's a "passive-aggressive" use of that "Happy" emoticon.

By the way, primosprimos, how did you get them lined up in a row like that? I can never post them horizontally, they always end up vertical.

 

Wait ! They are vertical. Like Hallowe'en pumpkins.

 

So, at the risk of generating more "happy" emoticons from you, why do you think what I said there is "hilarious"?

 

I actually really do think a "work of art", be it a Renaissance painting (famous or not) by an Italian master, or a giant oil by Jackson ****, (that is, P O L L A C K. unbelievable. This is the guy's name, his "proper name", and it's deleted. Dirigulous)  should not need volumes of explanation to connect with a viewer. Ya either like it or ya don't, right?

 

I'm surprised no one has as yet said

"I may not know Art, but I know what I like". A much-mocked cliche, for sure. But kind of true.

 

And what about "Art is dead"? But maybe they were just talking about Arthur Kennedy.

 

4736.jpg

 

"Hey, don't drag me into this!

And don't call me "Art" ".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...