re: but is the movie "such a mess"?
Posted by: Chazwaza 09:49 am EDT 03/31/21
In reply to: re: but is the movie "such a mess"? - Michael_Portantiere 08:59 am EDT 03/31/21

This premise is, it seems, presuming that there is a definable flaw that is objective and undeniable...

sometimes it's true that one man's flaw is another man's ... non-flaw. A lot of the things that work for me about Follies, for example, are what others consider its flaws. It doesn't make them right and me wrong because they can say "that's a flaw in the show", and if I say it actually isn't a flaw then I'm too in love with the show to see the truth of it too. And it doesn't make me right... it just makes me lucky that it works for me as it was intended to. It's sort of like comedy too... if it makes the authors laugh but most of the audience doesn't laugh, you can easily say "well the audience doesn't lie... it's not working, it's flawed, fix this section." And yet a few people watching might find it hilarious and get it exactly. No one in this case is wrong, it's just a question of the goals of the show and the authors. If the authors want a broadly appealing hit, they better rewrite. If they want it to be exactly and only what they wanted and hope it finds the small audience that will get it, then they shouldn't. Or strike a balance if possible.

But if I think Sunday in the Park with George is brilliant as is, and someone else thinks act one is brilliant but act two just doesn't work... I'd say they're dead wrong, they'd say I'm too in love with the show to have the perspective they have which brought them correctly to their assessment. None of my concern! The same too, I'm sure, is true for Cukor's films. :)

Previous: re: but is the movie "such a mess"? - Michael_Portantiere 01:00 pm EDT 03/31/21
Next: re: but is the movie "such a mess"? - Michael_Portantiere 06:20 pm EDT 03/31/21

Privacy Policy

Time to render: 0.031564 seconds.