logo Sign In

Is the lack of quality in art a kind of art form?

Author
Date
Author
Time
Post link
I've noticed this a bit too much lately and George Lucas is perhaps the extreme example of it in my mind right now. There's a current attitude in the entertainment industry which believes that obvious special effects, crappy dialogue, or unrealistic drama and acting is a good thing. It supposedly mimics some age-old "serial" or represents some unfathomable "vision" which some creators actually have the stupidity to be proud of. These “artists” believe that low quality art is actually a kind of art in and of itself. Personally it all makes me sick. It gives people an excuse to be lazy and intentionally waste the time of other people with obvious trash.

If there were some films or other forms of entertainment which George Lucas enjoyed as a child, then he should have worked to capture those same elements in a high-quality way in his new films. His fond memories do not give him any excuse to purposely aim for the same mistakes and crap he witnessed as a child. An artist should always try for the highest level of excellence possible at all times. Sure, nobody can make something perfect, but that doesn't mean we can't at least care enough about what we're making to aim for real truths and feelings.

The same thing goes for a lot of the newer special effects out there. People are purposely making them bad or noticeable for the sake of being bad or noticeable and it makes no sense to me at all. The special effects in the original Star Wars or Empire Strikes back, while not technically perfect, were subtle and actually heightened the dramatic impact of the films' stories. In the most current films though, we see something very different from that. At times it seems like nothing is precisely executed anymore; everything is wildly overdone and sloppy instead.

Perhaps the worst part of this attitude is when it lifts up children as an excuse to make this crap, as if children can only enjoy something of low quality. It's insulting to any adult who enjoys the original Star Wars or something else (like Harry Potter). I mean, sure, everyone knows that children do not have the same level of sensibilities when compared with adults, and thus they can often be seen enjoying junk that someone with more complicated tastes would easily reject, but this enjoyment never, in any way, negates the possibility of higher quality content. In other words, children are good at grasping the simple things with wonder and awe, and that's great, but at the same time there can be complexities reinforcing that simplicity which adults can also enjoy. Incompetence or sloppy greed should not be allowed to hide behind children, ever.

People need to stop rewarding artists who turn the nature of art completely upside down. Don't pay good money to watch INTENTIONAL crap simply because it has the origin of Darth Vader in it. Art should always seek the highest ways to impact those who experience it in my view. (The only exception I have to this rule is perhaps with films that use cheese or inferior effects to achieve a humorous effect (either intentionally or unintentionally). A good laugh is never a waste of time after all.)

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
I agree totally. Titanic winning Best Picture (LA Confidential should have won), and the fact that the PTs did so well in the theater is just confirmation of the dumbing-down of our society.

Star Wars was great because it captured the fun of the 1930s serials- and at the same time managed to be a truly great film - a work of art.

Author
Time
Post link
Hmm, I've never seen LA Confidential. It aways looked like it would be one of those slow or uninteresting movies. Though I can't imagine it's bad, considering how many people liked it. Perhaps I'll give it a viewing sometime.

Titanic on the other hand isn't that great in my mind. It's only good for about one or two viewings. Otherwise, I do love that part where a guy is falling off the back of the ship and then hits the propeller which then causes him to ricochet, spinning, into the water. I laugh every time.


"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
And if guys hitting propellors and landing on spikes for no reason isn't a sign of the dumbing down of art and our society, then I don't know what is.
Author
Time
Post link
Most of the old cliffhanger serials I've seen actually have remarkably good effects for their era. And sometimes better acting.

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
Post link
The last serial I saw was one of the Batman serials. It had a mystery villain, guy in a mask (the Phantom) who communicated with his henchmen over radio. But it was terribly obvious just who this guy was. Until, at the end, it was revealed to have been someone else entirely. All the clues that had been set up to "reveal" the Phantom were red herrings, clever deceptions.

That's the kind of storytelling I love. Reveal something at the end that puts the whole story on its side. Something that gives you a reason to reevaluate everything you've seen, that adds layers and value to everything that has come before. Makes you question your assumptions and start deconstructing things in your mind. In short, stories that hit you with the pathos punch and make you think.

"No, I am your father."
"When I was picking coffee beans in South America .... "
"Is Ra's al-Ghul immortal? Are his ways supernatural?"
"Now that we know who you are, I know who I am. I'm not a mistake."

That's also what a lot of people around 1998 were hoping would take place in the prequels, specifically with the character of Darth Sidious. I avoided spoilers from 1998-2005, but I was going over some archives last week and it turns out there was this huge fan theory about Sidious and Palpatine, that one was the clone of the other. That made me think of Batman; how at least one real serial revelled in misleading audiences and playing with their expectations, and how Lucas's pretend serial simply pretended to do that through marketing and coy statements to fans.
"It's the stoned movie you don't have to be stoned for." -- Tom Shales on Star Wars
Scruffy's gonna die the way he lived.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Hmm, I've never seen LA Confidential. It aways looked like it would be one of those slow or uninteresting movies.
It's definitely not uninteresting or slow! LOL! It's the first movie I ever saw Russell Crowe in, Guy Pearce too. They're both fantastic as are Kim Basinger and Kevin Spacey.

Author
Time
Post link
The guy hitting the propellor is definitely dumb, hairy_hen, but equally hilarious.


Originally posted by: SilverWook
Most of the old cliffhanger serials I've seen actually have remarkably good effects for their era. And sometimes better acting.

Not according to George Lucas.

I've not seen any of the old serials as far as I know. I was just arguing against Lucas' position. In fact, that Batman serial sounds rather cool, Scruffy.


Originally posted by: Mielr
It's definitely not uninteresting or slow! LOL! It's the first movie I ever saw Russell Crow in, Guy Pearce too. They're both fantastic as are Kim Basinger and Kevin Spacey.


Alright, I'll definitely give it a whirl sometime.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ScruffyI was going over some archives last week and it turns out there was this huge fan theory about Sidious and Palpatine, that one was the clone of the other.


I remembered from the SW novelisation that Palpatine was the Emperor, as mentioned in the prologue. And Darth Sidious was clearly the Emperor. So, as usual, Luca$h decided that people needed things stated clearly in order to enjoy his movies. I would have loved to see some content in the PT that could (cleverly) upset preconceptions based on the OOT (or EU).

Sadly, it was just used to show backstory which had already been established for the OOT, quite often in a way that jarred with or flatly contradicted the OOT.

It would have been interesting if Sidious was a different person to Palpatine in some way.

On topic, I think that some film makers do successfully use crapness to comment on certain issues sometimes. My first example would probably be Verhoeven's 'Starship Troopers', which, I would say, uses crapness to attempt to alienate us from the human characters and make us more sympathetic to the bugs.
Don't you call me a mindless philosopher...!
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Tiptup

I've not seen any of the old serials as far as I know. I was just arguing against Lucas' position. In fact, that Batman serial sounds rather cool, Scruffy.


The one Scruffy is talking about is Batman and Robin released in 1949. Personally, I prefer the 1943 Batman, as it's the one I grew up on. Plus, the fact that it's something of a war propaganda film with a lot of anti-Japanese slurs makes it something of a humorous guilty pleasure.

Anyway, both serials are on DVD.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
Hmm, I looked up a page on the batman serials . . . Wow, Robin had bad hair in the 1943 one.


Originally posted by: auraloffalwaffle
On topic, I think that some film makers do successfully use crapness to comment on certain issues sometimes. My first example would probably be Verhoeven's 'Starship Troopers', which, I would say, uses crapness to attempt to alienate us from the human characters and make us more sympathetic to the bugs.


Hmm, from what I remember of that film I doubt he succeeded with that goal. Kind of sad. I would have loved the bugs if they had been given more character. I enjoy entertainment that can make me identify well with an alien being.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
I think it comes down to how horrible the humans are. The bugs don't seem so bad, in comparison. I do love that movie.
Don't you call me a mindless philosopher...!
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Tiptup
I've noticed this a bit too much lately and George Lucas is perhaps the extreme example of it in my mind right now. There's a current attitude in the entertainment industry which believes that obvious special effects, crappy dialogue, or unrealistic drama and acting is a good thing. It supposedly mimics some age-old "serial" or represents some unfathomable "vision" which some creators actually have the stupidity to be proud of. These “artists” believe that low quality art is actually a kind of art in and of itself. Personally it all makes me sick. It gives people an excuse to be lazy and intentionally waste the time of other people with obvious trash.



Yes it's a shame. For example Spielberg proved that with Raiders Of The Lost Ark, you could pay homage to the age old adventure serial and still have an excellent script, with excellent acting and drama, and brilliant stunts and effects. Without feeling that you need to make it intentionally crap.
Author
Time
Post link


On topic, I think that some film makers do successfully use crapness to comment on certain issues sometimes. My first example would probably be Verhoeven's 'Starship Troopers', which, I would say, uses crapness to attempt to alienate us from the human characters and make us more sympathetic to the bugs.


I wouldn't say it was crapness, he used an element of gung ho cheesiness to create a satire.

Author
Time
Post link
I would argue that gung-ho cheesiness IS crap!

I remember many people I spoke to when it was in the cinemas couldn't see past the wooden acting and stupid plot, i.e. the crapness. They thought that the film was just crap. But Verhoeven was using the crapness as part of the whole piece, as an instrument of the true intelligence of the film.
Don't you call me a mindless philosopher...!