Sunday, 15 June 2008
Friday, 13 June 2008
Wednesday, 11 June 2008
Sunday, 8 June 2008
Thursday, 5 June 2008
[This is the second part of yesterday's post.]
However, this dilemma reminds me of something that is happening, or has already happened, in modern art. Remember a conversation you had with a friend about Tracey Emin's My Bed. Didn't they say something like 'I could've done that myself'? He, or she, was giving a very old fashioned view that says only art made from hard work, experience, and technical skill qualifies as 'good'. This in turn is connected to the equally old view that anything worthwhile in this life takes hard work. It is troubling that anyone can put a pile of bricks together and call it art, or put their writing on the internet and call themselves a writer, but this doesn't devalue the work itself. Ease of production shouldn't affect our appreciation. So, why do I have a problem with Sky+, with its easy access to any show you want to watch at any time? Perhaps it is jealousy? Perhaps it is Western guilt that makes me reject high technology? And yet I have desktop and laptop computers, a mobile phone, an MP3 player, two TVs, Freeview, a VCR, a DVD player and a Home Cinema System. Where have I imagined there is a dividing line? None of this is 'necessary', in whatever terms. Perhaps I am afraid of change, and perhaps the answer is that we should embrace change, but always be aware of the cost of achieving it, and what was lost in doing so.
Wednesday, 4 June 2008
[Part two of this post will appear tomorrow.]
Tuesday, 3 June 2008
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a movie. You might think I need to finish that sentence, but I don't think I do. It's a 'movie' movie, in the sense that Alien is a film and Aliens is a movie*. It doesn't pretend to be anything other than well-made good fun. Those are its own limits, and we shouldn't judge it by our own. Occasionally we have to say 'Its limits aren't high enough', or 'I don't like the limits it has set itself', but that is a different issue altogether. You can't not enjoy this movie in some way, and I don't think it relies on the previous two films for much of its effect. Although, I did want a little more nonchalant Indiana Jones escaping from near-death and smiling wryly about it. On the other hand, Cate Blanchett's character was a little too much comic-book. Also, several scenes were just a little too fantastic, even for Indiana Jones. You also have to ask more wide-ranging questions, such as: Is he an appropriate hero for the age we now live in? (The fear of terrorism, ecological disaster age? I'm not sure that he is.) I won't say whether you should or shouldn't see this film, it's just one of those that you either feel you have to or not, and that, in a way, has already decided how much you'll enjoy it.
*For more on this, see my previous post here.
Tarantino has said he'll only make ten films, and then retire. I don't know if he still stands by this statement, and if he does we ...
The name may seem a bit odd, and perhaps slightly self-pitying. The reasons for it, however, are fourfold: Because I was intending at the ...
You may not have heard of this (I hadn’t), and I’m not sure whether to recommend that it’s worth watching. Certainly the film achieved a lot...
A soldier in the Gulf War is shot in the head, but somehow survives. He suffers from amnesia and blackouts, which leads to him being sent to...