geeman
12-30-2003, 09:10 PM
One more thing about the subjectivity of movies: Sometimes a picture just
speaks to you. There`s some inexplicable confluence of the film makers`
psychological pathology and your own that makes the viewing a shared
experience between the two parties, and one has a kind of empathic
relationship to the movie. This can be in spite of the fact that you
intellectually recognize that the film just isn`t that great. I call these
"Secret Sin" movies. They`re the films that you watch and don`t
necessarily tell people how much you like them because you know that they
really aren`t good enough to merit your adoration. I`m a film buff, so I
have lots of these. One of mine is Altered States. William Hurt, Blair
Brown. Lots of psychedelic, drug-induced visuals and pseudo-scientific
dialogue. It has a simplistic, even banal, basic theme and the kind of
smarmy "I love you... Oh, I love you too" ending that would normally makes
me want to throw my popcorn. I still love the flick. It rocks. If it`s
on TV or if someone happens to pop it into the VCR (I`m sure it exists on
DVD someplace, but I don`t have a copy) I can`t help watching it. I`m
entranced. It`s just too much fun to watch. One can`t legitimately knock
such an opinion on a movie because it is pretty much the definition of
subjectivity. Arguing the point would be like arguing about whether or not
one likes broccoli, wall paper or the color orange.
There is a difference, however, between enjoying a movie in spite of
oneself, and actually confusing it being a good movie, and that`s the
distinction I`m trying to draw here. When it comes to fantasy films, I
think there`s definitely a secret sin aspect involved for me personally,
and I`m sure for most gamers. There`s just something fascinating about
people swinging swords (the obvious Freudian aspect aside) that makes such
things more watchable than another film. One should, however, recognize
that factor when trying to objectively rate a movie. The LotR series are,
objectively, nowhere near "tens" when considered
intellectually. Cool? Absolutely. Entertaining? Yes. Quality
films? Pretty much. Well adapted for the screen? No, not
really. Perfect? Hardly.
If the argument is that The Return of the King "rocks" then, hey, no
argument from me. It does rock... whatever that means. If the argument is
that the film is a masterpiece, or that Jackson completely encapsulated
JRRT`s work then I have to disagree and I can cite chapter, verse, scene
and sentence to show that`s not true.
Highlander is another film that is, objectively speaking, not at all
good. In fact, it`s pretty bad. Far worse than any of Jackson`s work
going back to The Feebles. It`s outright dumb in many ways. I`ll still
watch it. I watched it again just the other day. There probably is a
secret sin aspect of the film that relates to BR also, in that some of the
plot points of Highlander coincide with bloodtheft, regency and divine
aspects of characters who are, otherwise, human. I suppose it`s sensible
to extend the thinking into campaign settings. BR is in many ways a secret
sin setting. Much of the basic material is objectively not very good. The
domain level is rife with holes, the published materials are full of
internal inconsistencies, and some of the writing is mediocre at best. In
a genre that represents a secret sin, however, BR is a particularly sinful
setting.
Gary
speaks to you. There`s some inexplicable confluence of the film makers`
psychological pathology and your own that makes the viewing a shared
experience between the two parties, and one has a kind of empathic
relationship to the movie. This can be in spite of the fact that you
intellectually recognize that the film just isn`t that great. I call these
"Secret Sin" movies. They`re the films that you watch and don`t
necessarily tell people how much you like them because you know that they
really aren`t good enough to merit your adoration. I`m a film buff, so I
have lots of these. One of mine is Altered States. William Hurt, Blair
Brown. Lots of psychedelic, drug-induced visuals and pseudo-scientific
dialogue. It has a simplistic, even banal, basic theme and the kind of
smarmy "I love you... Oh, I love you too" ending that would normally makes
me want to throw my popcorn. I still love the flick. It rocks. If it`s
on TV or if someone happens to pop it into the VCR (I`m sure it exists on
DVD someplace, but I don`t have a copy) I can`t help watching it. I`m
entranced. It`s just too much fun to watch. One can`t legitimately knock
such an opinion on a movie because it is pretty much the definition of
subjectivity. Arguing the point would be like arguing about whether or not
one likes broccoli, wall paper or the color orange.
There is a difference, however, between enjoying a movie in spite of
oneself, and actually confusing it being a good movie, and that`s the
distinction I`m trying to draw here. When it comes to fantasy films, I
think there`s definitely a secret sin aspect involved for me personally,
and I`m sure for most gamers. There`s just something fascinating about
people swinging swords (the obvious Freudian aspect aside) that makes such
things more watchable than another film. One should, however, recognize
that factor when trying to objectively rate a movie. The LotR series are,
objectively, nowhere near "tens" when considered
intellectually. Cool? Absolutely. Entertaining? Yes. Quality
films? Pretty much. Well adapted for the screen? No, not
really. Perfect? Hardly.
If the argument is that The Return of the King "rocks" then, hey, no
argument from me. It does rock... whatever that means. If the argument is
that the film is a masterpiece, or that Jackson completely encapsulated
JRRT`s work then I have to disagree and I can cite chapter, verse, scene
and sentence to show that`s not true.
Highlander is another film that is, objectively speaking, not at all
good. In fact, it`s pretty bad. Far worse than any of Jackson`s work
going back to The Feebles. It`s outright dumb in many ways. I`ll still
watch it. I watched it again just the other day. There probably is a
secret sin aspect of the film that relates to BR also, in that some of the
plot points of Highlander coincide with bloodtheft, regency and divine
aspects of characters who are, otherwise, human. I suppose it`s sensible
to extend the thinking into campaign settings. BR is in many ways a secret
sin setting. Much of the basic material is objectively not very good. The
domain level is rife with holes, the published materials are full of
internal inconsistencies, and some of the writing is mediocre at best. In
a genre that represents a secret sin, however, BR is a particularly sinful
setting.
Gary