Jump to content

Valeria Victrix

Members
  • Posts

    119
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 

Valeria Victrix's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  1. The Wolf from Red Riding Hood The Pigs from Three Little Pigs The Frog from Aesop's fables
  2. That specific point wasn't about potential audiences for Allen's audiences as you can see from the foregoing. However, given the specific socio-cultural setting of most of his films, they're definitely geared for enjoyment by the elite of the first world.
  3. You may - or may not! I don't know exactly, cos I can't see your paws right now - have a gub. You definitely have a certain amount of equivocation. My point throughout has been that Kehr - and through his words, as your proxy - you yourself, have been indulging in a bash at Allen's work. When I saw that many points did not hold up - e.g. many of Kehr's points are merest subjectivity. I've made my retort re The Purple Rose Of Cairo - an alternative reading which is rather closer to Allen's intention I think. Wrt the 'verbal' vs. 'visual' issue. When you say 'typically verbal' with reference to his early films you are saying that these films are typified by verbal humour. I denied - and still deny, wholeheartedly - that smearing, coats one and all with a tarry brush generalisation. Without getting into an absurd reductionist debate about what percentage of the gags in these films come from visual as opposed to verbal gags, I put it to you that a significant amount of the humour is visual. Also, you seem to take issue with the 'smart' nature of some of those verbal gags. I have to pause and wonder - wtf, a little. I take it you mean 'smart' as in fast and snappy. Are you channeling Cool Hand Luke's jailer, or some archetypal 19th century schoolmarm when you say that? You realise that you're actually complimenting him on sharp material, whose impact - like that of most comedians - relies on its timing. You've been consistently confirming that you simply don't like or enjoy Woody Allen's work. We all have the right to not enjoy somebody's work - whether a specific piece, or their entire oeuvre - but you seem to be taking it more personally than that. You're trying to prove the Woody Allen's work is objectively bad. And I would wonder why, except for the fact that I myself have many artists, authors, musicians etc. whose work I would dread to be shut up in a room with - but you know what? I take one day at a time. One damn day at a time, and just hope like hell that I don't get involved with the wrong girl at the wrong time, or my Sundays won't be worth living.
  4. I think a lot more than you think. I've been to both countries several times in the '90s, and could see it happening then, so I can only imagine what it's like now. You underestimate American cultural hegemony. I imagine so, but they would have been the urbanized elites - a fifth of the population at best. You know that in China the urbanites and the countrydwellers are officially different class citizens? As for the wider question re just how marginal an appreciation of Bach is. If we're taking the so called First World as our remit, I would say - still far more than you think. The point is that everything is relative - apart from pop culture of course - the fractured demographic, sliced into multifaceted shards, each partakes multifariously from the splendidly spread feast of the senses which is given to us few only now, for this all too brief time in history. Dine well...
  5. Absolutely of course - but you're entirely missing the point. Whether willfuly or not I'm unwilling to guess on such short acquaintance.
  6. No doubt you do, but then I couldn't start with Jerry Blavat Jesse Belvin Harold Melvin Well then! Looks like this is another case of the ends justifying the means I guess... Herman Melville Herman Hesse John Kay
  7. I think I've got right of way here freelancer. The Brain Steven Spielberg Steven Gerrard
  8. Really? I don't think so. That is, I think it's more than "a relative handful of specialists." Relative to the overall global population? Sure about that? Absurd! These days, the vast majority of 'our' interests here in the 'First World' are 'niche' relative to the overall global population. Factor in China + India? How many of their inhabitants have seen Sex and the City do you think, let alone drank a Coke?
  9. Jackie Mittoo Tree Leyburn Ron Nine Ron Howard Howard The Duck Duck Baker
  10. Sorry Larry, but you cannot make a statement about his early films, viz. the gags were all verbal, and then back down as you did. That's poppycock man! Then to argue that somehow one particular riff in a later film somehow supports your case is absurd. Particularly as it is in fact a very plausible scene - you surely know about the monstrosities perpetrated in the name of medicine in the U.S. over the period ranging - arbitrarily - from the late 1800's through the mid 1960's (Rose Kennedy anyone?). From that perspective, the grotesque manipulations of 'Zelig' are not unusual at all. You are betraying a certain degree of critical myopia I deem.
  11. Absolutely agree - excellent stuff. They were definitely a true Kraut rock band, a la Can, Faust, Amon Duul and the rest in their formative years. Motorische Musik - Achtung Baby! I enjoy Ralf and Florian, and the two eponymous albums more than their later stuff in fact. There are some good tunes on the ones after that, picking up steam for that great run through Trans Europe Express, Man Machine and Computer World - the immortal Pocket Calculator will never die - but that nothing after that moves me.
  12. For the sake of argument, though, let us consider that "time" in that sense will eventually involve more than 50 years and the approval of the generations(s) that experienced the body of work in more or less real time. Redwoods, now that's something that stands the test of time. Cockroaches too. For everything else, there's evolution and/or extinction. I mean, I like the guy's well enough for what it is, he does what he does, and he does it with his own thing in full effect. You're never not going to get a Woody Allen Film out of a Woody Allen film, right? But I don't know how well it will translate to all of pan-galactic lifeformage in, say, 300 (or even 3000, never mind 3,000,000) years from now, or if it will even be possible for that to be a consideration. I know that nobody here will be around to see it, at least not in their current form. Hey, tough crowd! Pretty much screws over all contemporary art doesn't it? Also, on a related note - think about the medium! Floppy disks were what 20/30 years ago, now where you going to find a computer to extract the information that's on it. We can hope that in 300 years we'll still be using USB technology but I wouldn't really be too sure. Thing is - the Rosetta Stone was a stone with marks on it. Universally accessible, unless you're blind. Unfortunately technology is constantly superseding itself. Picture a ruin of the future - enthralled archaeologists rummaging through the ruins of an old suburb. Triumph! They've found an ancient data carrier. But - dammit all to hell! - they can't access the damn thing cos society stopped using USB like 700 years previously...
  13. I hear you on that one! And - as long as people have marching bands - generations from now people will still be laughing their arses off at the sight of a man with a cello playing in the middle of the street, looking over his shoulder at his advancing bandmates, picking up his chair and his cello, scampering on a few feet, and settling down to play a few more bars.
×
×
  • Create New...