Re: Barry Lyndon
- --- In email@example.com, "Blake Lucas" <lukethedealer@...>
>,> I resolved long ago not to write in any Kubrick thread in a_film_by.
Well, Blake, you just did, and whatever moved you to it, good for
you! I don't hate SK as much as you do, and I even grew to like "Barry
Lyndon" a lot (that was one of the points in my lost post) but by and
large I sympathize with your distaste (agree totally about CLOCKWORK).
Blake, maybe you should listen to Tal's "This Is Always" to cool you
down (private joke, sorry!)
- Dan writes:
> One can make observations with the goal of having others recognize them.Agreed. I think I can recognize why people might view Kubrick as aloof. I
just do not feel that way myself.
> But is it a different movie because we have different experiences?I think so, yes. The art product has not changed, but the art work (which
comes into existence when I view the art product) is going to change as my
store of experiences changes.
> usually feel a film as something solid, around which I might behave as aFor me, I would say that the art product is a solid around which I have a
fluid aesthetic experience. The experience "thickens" and gains texture as
what I bring to the viewing increases in experience, nuance and subtlety.
> If I hate a moment in Kubrick, but like a similar moment in, say, Alanpossibility that I'm being prejudiced.
> Clarke or Todd Haynes, and if I can't detect any substantial difference in
> the construction of the moment, then I need to consider the
You are very clear here, and I see that my block has to do with the fact
that I do not think I can say that I have ever felt that a moment in
director X's movie was similar to one in such-and-such movie by director Y.
I need to think more about this.