From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Oct 05 2002 - 04:57:25 BST
Sam quoted Lila:
In Lila, after Phaedrus has digested his meeting with the great celebrity
Robert Redford, he writes "But what he saw at this point was a social
pattern of values, a film, devouring an intelletual pattern of values, his
book. It would be a lower form of life feeding upon a higher form of life.
As such it would be immoral."
DMB says:
Been working on a screenplay and thinking about this issue quite a bit.
Sam said:
I strongly disagree that films are entirely products of the social level.
That is, I can see how many films, eg Hollywood standards, act as social
glue and do reinforce prejudices, but it is also quite clear to me that film
is an intellectual and artistic medium just as valid at putting across ideas
as a book - possibly more valid.
DMB says:
I don't have a page number or anything, but I'm sure that Pirsig allows for
exceptions, like documentaries and stuff. Further, I'd bet Pirsig would make
even more exceptions if he saw what independent film makers have been doing
in recent years. So I totally sympathize with Sam's plea for film as an
intellecutal and artistic medium, but the sad fact is that this kind of use
is rare. The vast majority of films are designed to make money. Celebrity
sells like sells. The stories only serve to reinforce social values, which
is why the bad guy dies and the hero gets the girl. The fact that some films
transcend these social functions doesn't undermine Pirsig's point. They only
help us draw the distinctions. And I think its important to remember that
there will be exceptions and odds mixtures. The rules and MOQisms about the
conflicting levels broad, orienting generalizations, not hard and fast laws.
Sam asked:
Anyone out there want to defend Pirsig on this? Does Pirsig really put the
point across better than the Wachowski brothers?
DMB says:
I think one has to read some books prior to getting such charge from the
Wachowski brothers. (Imagine if the Cohen brothers did Matrix. Or the Marx
brothers!) If you can compare it to Pirsig, you had to do some reading
first. Most people who saw the movie just thought it was about getting free
from some wierd tyranny, plus there were tons of guns and great special
effects. Don't get me wrong. I loved it and I was glad to see mysticism
depicted in a such a huge hit, but to say it was a little dumbed-down would
be generous. Its certainly informed by real ideas, and a good reader might
see those ideas, but I think calling it an intellectual film would be going
too far. HENRY FOOL is about being an artist in society. Anyone see that?
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:53 GMT