This post is in the way of a farewell to all of my fans in this thread. Life is too short and I haven’t the time or energy to debate with individuals who, in general, are not engaged in film aesthetics in the way that I am.
So… to clear up some common misunderstandings, I repeat, I have not criticized this film. I have expressed my admiration that Joss Whedon has decided to extend the range of his work by tackling a work by Shakespeare.
I have been criticized by certain individuals for rubbishing work that I have not seen. That is fair enough, but reflect a little, do we all not do that every week in choosing to see certain films and choosing not to see others.
I was fortunate to have been brought up at a time when it was nearly possible, in a lifetime, to see all of the important/worthwhile films made since the cinema’s infancy. Then (in 1964) the art of the cinema was only 50 years old and one could have aspired to see the top 50 films made (in the world) each year since 1914 plus the top 50 each year since – that’s about 5000 major films. If you started today, that 5000 films would represent only the top 33.
Would anything by Joss Whedon figure in those 5000 films??? I seriously doubt it - judging from the few dozen Buffy episodes that I saw with my daughters and the disappointing – and definitely not masterpiece level Firefly that I have recently watched (some of it twice just to be sure that it does not have ‘well hidden’ qualities). So why should I want to see them? I’d rather spend my time watching some of the 1500 or so of them that I have not yet seen.
What I fear that most of contributors to this thread lack is a sense of historical perspective in claiming that Whedon’s work is ‘great’ and other less than analytical descriptions (there may be honorable exceptions to whom I apologise.)
I have not, in general, been hurt by all of the abuse thrown at me because I know that my love and knowledge of the cinema would not have let me down, and it hasn’t. ‘Trash’ does not have a quantifiable measure. For me Buffy and Firefly are a kind of trash in the sense that they do not use the aesthetics of the filmic medium to express their ideas. That does not make them worthless, but it puts them very well down the ladder. Others may find them ‘great’ or 'entertaining' or ‘awesome’. But I will wager that those that have said that have not seen the vampire films by Murnau and Terrence Fisher and Werner Herzog that set the standard for the genre – or if they have they have not seen them sufficient number of times to comprehend the way in which the nature of the filmic process is used to bring out the subtleties in the theme.
There was one person who really annoyed me, however, by asserting that I had a ‘film school’ background. No, I have the good fortune to be self-taught, which means that while I used to watch the films that those critics whom I admired recommended, I only accepted that recommendation as valid if I could see the visual expression in the film. I know a good number of film academics and all but a very few know much less about the cinema than I do, and none cares one tenth as much about it as I do.
I have, elsewhere in the thread, mentioned that I spend more time defending great films against crass individuals than I do in criticizing films that fail to use film aesthetics in a creative way. This brings me to the reason why debates such as these get so heated.
The problem for the great majority of contributors to these debates is that they cannot comprehend the difference between what they like, in the way of cinema, and what is great. I can feel the prickles going up all round ‘He thinks he knows what’s great and I don’t’ and all that.
I also have my enthusiasms which are not great cinema, but I love. There is nothing wrong with liking something that isn’t very good. I am very fond of romantic comedies, most of which are not very much above the 'trash' level, and my most recent purchase was a set of 'Francis the Mule' films that reminded me of my childhood, and they are certainly not great cinema! The problem arises when one is fooled into thinking that ‘what I like’ is the same as ‘what is good’.
I have a confession to make. I do not like Greed by Erich von Stroheim. I have tried – I have seen it three times in a cinema and over twice that on tape (in the era before DVDs), but though I admire it and understand Stroheim’s amazing mise en scène, I cannot warm to it. It is too stark, somehow inhuman. On the other hand, if I am giving someone advice on the twenty most important silent films to see, Greed is always on the list. Why? Because Greed represents a, perhaps the, perfect example of how the cruelty of life can be represented on film.
So I throw down this gauntlet to all those who imagine that what they like is the same as what is good. Get a copy of Greed and watch it ten or twenty times. Unless you are incredibly obtuse, this great masterpiece will open up its extraordinary stylistic wonders to you. You will, eventually, I am convinced, share my view that it is among the great masterpieces of the art…. But you won’t have to like it!
So…. to Firefly. I have watched this with a good deal of effort, in a genuine attempt to see its qualities that have been described in the thread. I can see what some people think is good about it. It has a veneer of ‘cleverness’. Some episodes are very cine-literate. It is not ‘only’ a western in space (sometimes it isn’t even a western in space). Some episodes have been written to mimic the work of certain very fine filmmakers. Maybe that applies to all of them – I spotted three and with other episodes I couldn’t recognize who was being imitated and I couldn’t be bothered to see the episode more than twice to work it out. The ones I definitely recognized are a Hawks episode and a Dreyer episode and an Ophüls episode. Great, eh?
No, not great, because the way in which the masters were imitated focused on the type of situation represented. It was content, not form, and anyone who really understands Hawks or Dreyer or Ophüls knows that it is their very individual mode of cinematic expression that defines their qualities as film artists. In other words, this homage, if it be that, is shallow.
That doesn’t make it bad television, but it does prevent it from being ‘masterpiece level’.
So, to sum up. On the evidence of everything I have seen, Joss Whedon would be very lucky to get one of his films in the ‘top 5000’ of films in this wonderful art of the cinema of ours. Remember, art is that which expresses and that which endures. The Birth of a Nation has endured for almost a century and will, I am totally certain endure for another several centuries. If anyone is watching Joss Whedon films in 2040, I will be very surprised (well, I’ll probably be dead, but I would have been surprised).
And if anyone is tempted to mention that The Avengers is in the IMDb top 250, just remember that IMDb ratings are a kind of popularity contest voted by people who, in general, haven’t seen any cinema substantially beyond the fare in their local multiplexes over the past dozen years or so. If you go to the doctor’s do you follow the treatment recommended by those you meet in the waiting room, or do you accept that the doctor knows what he is talking about and follow his advice? It should be the same for cinema. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not all opinions are equally valid.
These are my final words on this subject and I will not be returning to this thread. I say to all of my fans and followers with total sincerity… Keep watching the masterpieces (but learn how to spot them first).
'Wisdom would be to see life, really see, that would be wisdom.' JLG.
reply
share
agilebrit
11 years ago
Shorter Balthazaar:
I am a better-than-thou French hipster who is completely comfortable in dismissing a man's entire body of work as "TOTAL TRASH" without having seen it and refuse to change my mind. You peons are incapable of seeing what I see and thus I bid you a fond farewell, cape billowing in the wind and beret cocked at a jaunty angle.
Oh, and I still haven't seen Whedon's MAAN and probably won't because he does genre crap that I don't like.
-----
My blog, as if you care: http://agilebrit.livejournal.com/.
reply
share
guillamedematarese
11 years ago
Balthazar-5, no matter what your intellectual background in cinema might be or whatever glorified publication you might've edited, you made two VERY stupid sets of comments.
"So I check out Joss Whedon's filmography.... TOTAL, TOTAL TRASH!!!"
"sci-fi and vampire slaying and comic book heroes do not usually make for a very profound view of the human condition, nor of the art of the cinema."
I should tell you that I'm neither a Joss Whedon fan (because all I have seen of his are the Avengers and Cabin in the Woods), nor have I seen most of the greatest works in world cinema. I actually came to the page of 'Much Ado about Nothing' from a list of 2012 movies. This was the top discussion and I just read through it. By reading those two outrageously coined statements that you made, I can tell- you're just a highly pretentious, narrow minded person.
I saw how you've admitted those two were wrong statements from your part, over and over again in this thread. But that doesn't mean anything..! By conceiving the very idea of pre-judging a work you've never seen before or generalizing that nothing intellectual can be created in a specific genre, you've just become A PRETENTIOUS FOOL.
Admitting it as an error won't make it go away. Trying to justify it by pointing out words like "usually", only cements your views. Honestly, until and unless it was a typing error, that remark just stays with you, man. Sad, considering the level of intellect you seem to have in cinema.
reply
share
quence
11 years ago
The final post by Balthazar in this thread may be the most pretentious thing I have ever read in my entire life.
reply
share
aiken-2
11 years ago
You watch cinema for purposes different from those of the people posting here. For whatever reason, you are concerned with the correct use of tools, materials, and methods, and with the form of the things they create, but seemingly not with the content delivered within that form. To over-simplify what I see in your posts, using a different medium to illustrate, you seem more concerned with penmanship than with prose.
This is not to vilify your choice of priorities--all taste is subjective by nature. Beautiful penmanship is to be admired, perhaps more by some than others. However, you have openly admitted to living in rarefied air. That means you are quite aware that your tastes and preferences are atypical. I think it shows either very poor judgment or a trolling level of malice to come to this page and speak to us as if we don't understand the true way of things, when in fact there is no truth, only subjective experience. It's like one side of a coin criticizing the other for facing the wrong way. It is subjective.
At the very least, I find your behavior dubious at best, your tone unnecessarily snobbish and self-important, and your attempt at ... whatever you were attempting ... to be a colossal waste of time and energy. Not just yours, I might add.
Oh, and I'm quite certain you will see this. No one with an ego the size and mass of yours would ever be capable of genuinely detaching from a thread like this.
reply
share