The Road Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

RAMSEY CAMPBELL » Discussion » The Road « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.157.23.22
Posted on Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 09:49 am:   

Hey, this is great. One of my best cinema going experiences. I must be in a funny mood because I found it incredibly uplifting. It felt both simple and profound.
I heard a thing recently saying that Avatar has been making people depressed, even suicidal, making them wish for a better world. Can I suggest that The Road is the anti-Avatar, for today I have a spring in my step thanks to it.
(Possibly the best Coke advert ever made it is, too.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Steve Bacon (Stevebacon)
Username: Stevebacon

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 90.204.111.196
Posted on Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 09:55 am:   

Tony, I've been waiting to hear what people thought of this. I loved the book, but the production delays meant that I was getting a little nervous about it. I'm hoping to see both The Road and Avatar next week sometime, so I suspect I'll be in for a treat.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.157.23.22
Posted on Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 10:04 am:   

A lot of effects stuff was in the trailer, a lot of end of the world cgi stuff. They cut it all out. As it stands, the film could have been made using a room and a candle if it had wanted to. Steve - it's brilliant.
I just wish I could take my kids; it's the best dad and son film I've ever seen (for me).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Steve Bacon (Stevebacon)
Username: Stevebacon

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 90.204.111.196
Posted on Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 10:11 am:   

I think that was the thrust of the novel, so I'm glad that has been transferred to the film. In its simplest terms, the apocalyptic stuff is just secondary.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.157.23.22
Posted on Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 10:23 am:   

It felt a metaphor for 'these are your greatest fears'. The ultimate 'crunch'. I was loathe to read the book (dreading a real depressing downer) but will now. Also I have my own end of the world book in slow preplan and don't want to be influenced by it.
Another thing; the movie would easily adapt to the stage, I think.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.240.106
Posted on Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 12:39 pm:   

The book is beautiful. The best novel I've ever read.

Tony, you've had a glimpse of why I favour depressing art - it's oddly uplifting.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 195.93.21.74
Posted on Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 01:04 pm:   

Now read Beckett and Lowry if you dare! (I've yet to see the film.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Clive (Clive)
Username: Clive

Registered: 10-2009
Posted From: 86.134.134.92
Posted on Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 01:40 pm:   

I adored the book. It was my first taste of McCarthy and i was in awe. I finished it and went straight into Blood Meridian which is equally stunning. The two work so well together, the End and the Beginning, in subject and style. It was as if at the end of The Road it said, Meanwhile, 300 years ago...

Saw the film a couple of days ago and it was a very solid, faithful adaptation with two wonderful central performances. They didn't seem to change much at all apart from moving some stuff around and fleshing out the Woman slightly which is understandable.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stu (Stu)
Username: Stu

Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 86.29.177.70
Posted on Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 02:01 pm:   

The novel's okay. Not seen the film but it's been getting mixed reviews.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.240.106
Posted on Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 02:17 pm:   

Ramsey - by Lowry, do you mean Malcolm Lowry? Under the Volcano?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 195.93.21.74
Posted on Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 02:40 pm:   

I do indeed, Gary - author and book.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.240.106
Posted on Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 02:44 pm:   

I've always meant to read that book - I'll make sure I do this year.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.4.234.226
Posted on Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 04:09 pm:   

I admired the novel THE ROAD, but didn't think it anything beyond good. Just, good. I felt the novel pulled its own punches at the end, and this is not me being inconsiderate to the "template" of art and story-creation, the choices of the author, I don't think - McCarthy leads the reader along a "road" that can only have one bleak destination, and then in-artfully alters it; and it wasn't perception-based, because we change POVs at the end, to reinforce the "reality" of the climax; in this respect, it resembles (to me) films like SUSPICION and THE FALLEN IDOL and A BLUEPRINT FOR MURDER and probably others, that veered off deliberately and clumsily in their climaxes from their clear and final and only possible destinations....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.240.106
Posted on Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 04:16 pm:   

I couldn't disagree more. The ending of the novel was exactly the one I expected (and feared). I found it devastating, and it remains the only piece of art (because that's what it is: art) to reduce me to a fit of sobbing.

I've often thought that you need to be the father of a son to get everything out of The Road McCarthy intended. It was written by a father for fathers. An immense and truly imprtant novel, IMHO. I genuinely think the world is a better place for having a writer like McCarthy in it, and this is his jewel, his heart.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.240.106
Posted on Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 04:17 pm:   

I just wish I could take my kids; it's the best dad and son film I've ever seen

That beautifully sums up my own feelings on the novel, Tony.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Steve Bacon (Stevebacon)
Username: Stevebacon

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 90.204.111.196
Posted on Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 04:37 pm:   

I agree with Gary. I felt The Road affected me so much more because I read it several years after becoming a father, and a year after my own dad's death. It summed up my emotions absolutely.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.4.234.226
Posted on Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 04:49 pm:   

I've often thought that you need to be the father of a son to get everything out of The Road McCarthy intended.

Zed, I know what you mean, but come on - now we're outside the realm of discussions of art. Matters and degrees of personal experience or situation, is simply an untenable position to take, when it comes to discussions of the relative quality of art of any kind.

One can only be a king, after all, to fully appreciate KING LEAR. Just as one can only be a stripper, to fully appreciate SHOWGIRLS. And one can really only be a rabbit, to fully comprehend the horror of FATAL ATTRACTION.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.15.182
Posted on Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 06:18 pm:   

"Zed, I know what you mean, but come on - now we're outside the realm of discussions of art."

If the last century has taught us anything, from psychoanalysis to physics, it is the inaccessibility of an objective viewpoint. Surely a greater distortion of truth would occur if Gary tried to step outside of his feelings by trying to pretend he didn't feel what he did? The only truly objective measure of the quality of a work that I can think of might be longevity.

I've no opinion on the work itself, by the way.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.27.21.184
Posted on Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 07:00 pm:   

I would say it's pretty obvious that those people who share personal experiences with the art's character/s are going to respond to it in a way that those who don't would find difficult (except via some unsatisfactory imaginative leap). That is to say, I think fathers of sons would, in most cases, get more from The Road than other people. Or understand the experience more intimately, is perhaps what I mean.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.27.21.184
Posted on Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 07:01 pm:   

That's why I love Smokey and the Bandit: frankly, the times I've been hotly pursued by sheriffs in my black Trans-Am beggars belief.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.240.106
Posted on Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 07:20 pm:   

If the last century has taught us anything, from psychoanalysis to physics, it is the inaccessibility of an objective viewpoint. Surely a greater distortion of truth would occur if Gary tried to step outside of his feelings by trying to pretend he didn't feel what he did? The only truly objective measure of the quality of a work that I can think of might be longevity.

Proto, you've put that better than I ever could.

I responded to The Road on a purely subjective level - which is the way I judge great art: that ability to grab your heart and squeeze. I'll never, ever forget the book, and I hope to God my son reads it one day.

I'm sick of objectivity. It's boring. I want a book or a film or a painting to make me feel, not make me admire it for subjective reasons. My tastes rarely gel with those of others because of this...something I'm always happy to admit. But, by God, something as pure and wonderful as The Road restores a little of my battered faith in humanity.

And that's enough for me.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.240.106
Posted on Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 07:21 pm:   

Like I always say: horses for courses.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.4.224.69
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 02:55 am:   

Absurd.

Sorry, this argument, as I sense it going, is absurd.

So a homeless guy, say, that pushed around a shopping cart all day - let's say he disliked the film, and says it's indeed not a great piece of art. And he simply says, as to why he thinks it is, that unless you've pushed a shopping cart around all day like the lead character does, you simply couldn't understand why it isn't....

You can LIKE or DISLIKE something based on personal experiences... but surely you can't judge the worth of art based on such a singular experience.

If you're saying, simply and plainly, that I can't "get" THE ROAD unless I had kids - uh, okay, I guess. I guess I'd never "get" the sacrifice that goes into sitting through POKEMON: THE MOVIE, when your 5 year-old drags you there to see it either. I guess I'll never "get" the experience of standing in the Louvre and staring at a particular painting, if I don't go there. I guess I'll never "get" the taste of caviar, if I never put it in my mouth.

Tautologies just aren't that interesting or deep, ultimately... so why even bring one up?... And Zed? You'll never "get" what it's like to not be a father and dislike THE ROAD - so there!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nathaniel Tapley (Natt)
Username: Natt

Registered: 11-2009
Posted From: 78.147.148.35
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 09:51 am:   

"I'm sick of objectivity. It's boring."

I'm glad our little discussion had such an impact the other day. I could have sworn you were arguing that there was an objective, correct view of any piece of art, and that that view was the author's...

Slightly seriously, though, if Cormac McCarthy said that his book had nothing to do with fathers and sons, and it was funny what people were finding in his book, would you feel compelled to start arguing that you were wrong in what you took from it?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.27.21.184
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 10:00 am:   

Craig --

You wrote:

>>>If you're saying, simply and plainly, that I can't "get" THE ROAD unless I had kids

Zed wrote:

>>>I've often thought that you need to be the father of a son to get everything

I think that final word changes the meaning. He never said son-less viewers wouldn't get it, just wouldn't get everything.

Beside which, I think all your examples - King/King Lear, the shopping trolley one, etc - are not comparing like-with-like. Being a king is a profession and pushing a shopping trolley is an act. But being a father is something qualitatively different from both: its a relational thing with incalculable nuances. That is to say, I think you need to be on the 'inside' to understand it entirely*.

And I speak as a child-less man.

* If the distinction between ontological (fatherhood, etc) and ontic (occupational concerns, etc) means anything to you, that's the difference I mean.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.157.23.22
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 10:16 am:   

I can't take the dadness out of me and have to judge everything by it now. I might be coloured by it and do feel different to what I was before. But we have all been sons - just have we all been close?
I agree Gary, btw. But do get Craig's point, to a point... :S
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.157.23.22
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 10:19 am:   

You see, my being a dad made me recognise skills (understandings?) in the filmmaking process of this film (and others) I would not have noticed before. Maybe being a dad or whatever does make you a better critic! :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nathaniel Tapley (Natt)
Username: Natt

Registered: 11-2009
Posted From: 78.147.148.35
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 10:34 am:   

Gary (F), I think the distinction you're drawing is irrelevant here. It does not matter whether your unique perspective is ontological or ontic in nature. (Would bearded men have a better understanding because they are bearded, or not so much because they are merely people who grow beards?)

The real distinction between Craig's examples and The Road is that we know that The Road was written by a father of a son, but that King Lear was not written by a king. We can know as much about being a king as Shakespeare did (although we'd probably have a lot of work to do to get to know as much about strippers as Joe Eszterhas does), and, following the logic of the argument on this thread, you can only really write a king if you've been a king, you can only write a father if you've been one.

Also, I'm not sure Craig's suggestion doesn't have some merit. Someone who had to transport their belongings around in a shopping trolley would certainly have an understanding of the film that would be different than those of us who do not.

And I think that that's the point. We all have different responses to a film depending on what we know and see in it. Not better, or more complete understandings, but different.

(I can reliably inform you all that you are missing out on a lot when watching films by not being me.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.27.21.184
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 10:51 am:   

>>>And I think that that's the point. We all have different responses to a film depending on what we know and see in it. Not better, or more complete understandings, but different.

I'm uncomfortable with that notion. It smacks of the absolute relativity favoured by some postmodernists. I can't, for example, accept that my reading of, say, The Shining at 38 is no more complete than it was when I first saw it at 16. In fact, I'd argue that it's massively more complete. Not absolute - like all others, I have no God's eye view. But certainly nearer a substantial appreciation of all the film's (for want of a better term) 'baggage'. When I was 16 I thought it was about a haunted hotel and only that. Lived experience has since taught me otherwise, and that's what the issue is here, no?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.240.106
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 10:52 am:   

The examples Craig and Nathaniel are citing are just silly. Beards? Shopping trolleys? You're off your trolley.

What GF said covers it. And Tony, too.

This is the whole gist of my argument every time we discuss this:

We all have different responses to a film depending on what we know and see in it. Not better, or more complete understandings, but different.

I'm sick of arguing about personal taste. It's like designing a building about dancing.

I could have sworn you were arguing that there was an objective, correct view of any piece of art, and that that view was the author's...

Then you'd be wrong. What I said was the author is never wrong. This, btw, is a totally subjective argument. if he writes a story about a fish and says its about a bike, he's right. He's also mad, but he isn't wrong - in his own world view.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.240.106
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 10:54 am:   

When I was 16 I thought it was about a haunted hotel and only that. Lived experience has since taught me otherwise, and that's what the issue is here, no?

That's the point I'm arguing, yes.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.27.21.184
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 10:55 am:   

It's the "mad" bit that worries me. If we accept that all interpretations are equally valid or right, then we're surely fucked. (We have to respect Hitler.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.240.106
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 10:56 am:   

If we accept that all interpretations are equally valid or right

That's another argument entirely.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.27.21.184
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 10:59 am:   

Right is either right or wrong. You can't be half-right.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.240.106
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 11:00 am:   

Again, subjectively, every opinion is right. To the one who holds it. Particularly on this forum.

(I've lost track of my own argument now)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.27.21.184
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 11:02 am:   

Fuck it, let's talk about footie.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.240.106
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 11:03 am:   

To back-track...The Road is a hymn to fatherhood, so unless you're a father a lot of its missiles are just going to miss you. It's obvious to me.

Also, such a work is utterly subjective: it doesn't touch your critical faculties, it touches your heart. That ineffable thing that great art does; you cannot take it apart and examine it because we don't even know what it is.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.240.106
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 11:03 am:   

After yesterday's result, the subject of foootie is off my menu.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nathaniel Tapley (Natt)
Username: Natt

Registered: 11-2009
Posted From: 78.147.148.35
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 11:05 am:   

Actually, you're right. I'll modify that, as it's not exactly what I meant; I got a little carried away by my rhetoric.

I did not mean to imply that all understandings of films are equally complete (although I would argue that all personal reactions to frilms are equally valid). What I was trying to show was that special understanding isn't conferred by 'being' anything.

That is, if you want to argue for your interpretation of a piece of art, you're going to have to do better than 'I'm just like one of the characters'. We can come to better understandings through imagination and argument, not simply because of shared characteristics.

Looking back, I should have kept the word 'responses' I used in the first sentence. 'Understandings' are different, although I would again argue that they are not bestowed by innate qualities in the viewer, or, if they are, that doesn't matter unless they can express them without reference to those innate qualities.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.27.21.184
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 11:05 am:   

I now officially declare the subject of this thread ineffable.

Let's talk about birds.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.240.106
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 11:10 am:   

I give up. Either nobody understands what I'm trying to say, or they're simply refusing to.

I'm ineffing off.

(See what I did there?)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.27.21.184
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 11:11 am:   

>>>We can come to better understandings through imagination and argument, not simply because of shared characteristics.

You're right to a degree, but no amount of imaginative dexterity or consensual debate is ever going to allow me to understand a life or an experience as well of someone who is living it. Therein lie the ineffable nuances to which Zed alludes. They are post-cognitive.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.240.106
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 11:12 am:   

Ah, GF gets what I mean. Thank God; I thought I was going insane. Again.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.27.21.184
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 11:14 am:   

This is what I've always meant by the importance of embodiment, btw, Zed. Living it, not (just) thinking it.

Did you see what I did then? Slipped in an old ghost. :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nathaniel Tapley (Natt)
Username: Natt

Registered: 11-2009
Posted From: 78.147.148.35
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 11:16 am:   

"What I said was the author is never wrong. This, btw, is a totally subjective argument. if he writes a story about a fish and says its about a bike, he's right. He's also mad, but he isn't wrong - in his own world view."

Right. So rather than 'the author is never wrong about their own work' you meant 'the author is never wrong in their own mind about their work'. Those aren't the same thing, are they?

"You are wrong."

Right. Am I right in my world-view or yours, or, you know, actually wrong?

To me, this is the actually worrying relativism. The idea that you can be right 'in your world-view' whilst being in contravention of all known facts, and we have to respect that because you are the author, or a student, or anyone.

There are facts, they are knowable. Whether or not they can be expressed objectively is a different matter. It is possible to assess whether things are right or wrong by assessing them with reference to facts. Not all 'personal opinions' are equally right...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.27.21.184
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 11:18 am:   

Yes, that is my problem with the part of the argument about all views being equally right, whether subjective or otherwise.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.157.23.22
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 11:20 am:   

I think a review or thought on a film really only ever says anything about yourself at whatever stage you are at your life. Maybe there can never ewally be a right or wrong way of looking at a thing.
Maybe, I said.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.240.106
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 11:22 am:   

Right. So rather than 'the author is never wrong about their own work' you meant 'the author is never wrong in their own mind about their work'. Those aren't the same thing, are they?

I never said they were. That's why I keep saying subjective - which is my basic argument: all art is a subjective experience. It's usueless otherwise.

None of this es even what my point was about - The Road works better if you're a father. If you can't see that, then I can't make you see it. Which is fine: horses for courses.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.240.106
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 11:23 am:   

Maybe there can never ewally be a right or wrong way of looking at a thing.

That's the most interesting point raised on this thread, Tony.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.27.21.184
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 11:24 am:   

I still think we should kill him.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nathaniel Tapley (Natt)
Username: Natt

Registered: 11-2009
Posted From: 78.147.148.35
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 11:35 am:   

Sorry, Zed, Didn't mean to be loathsome or wilfully obtuse on a Sunday morning.

I think what got me involved in this argument was the idea that most of the population couldn't fully understand a piece of work, and that the people who had decided that most people wouldn't 'fully understand' were those who had decided that they would.

I have absolutely no problem acknowledging that people's personal responses to a film will be enriched by things that are innate to them. I have a problem when that is extended to suggest that any critical examination not written from that perspective is, in some way, irreparably lacking.

Partly because it seems a very small jump from there right into all sorts of unhelpful identity politics. You can't 'truly understand' Thelma And Louise unless you're a woman, The Godfather unless you're a Sicilian-American, Do The Right Thing unless you're African-American.

Yes, certain films that address themes you know intimately will affect you in ways they will not affect other people. They don't make you any better-informed in your criticism of a film.

(PS - I'm the father of a son. I'm still allowed to think all of the Cormac McCarthy I've read (only 'All The Pretty Horsea') was rubbish, yes?)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.27.21.184
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 11:43 am:   

>>>have a problem when that is extended to suggest that any critical examination not written from that perspective is, in some way, irreparably lacking.

But Zed never said that.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.27.21.184
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 11:48 am:   

>>>Partly because it seems a very small jump from there right into all sorts of unhelpful identity politics.

I carry out research on carers, and the thought of policy development occurring without consultation with carers is quite horrifying. Another example of expert-knows-best imperialism. Even consultation with healthcare professionals is not enough - a bunch of book-learned folk imposing their cognitive understanding of an experience on all those who live these lives every day. Scary.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nathaniel Tapley (Natt)
Username: Natt

Registered: 11-2009
Posted From: 78.147.148.35
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 11:49 am:   

No, but he did say: "I've often thought that you need to be the father of a son to get everything out of The Road McCarthy intended. It was written by a father for fathers."

This was in response to Craig's review. It was an effective dismissal of Craig's view because he was not a father. It was not written for him.

Maybe I've got a small case of Internet Nuance-blindness here, and, if so, I apologise again...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.27.21.184
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 11:50 am:   

I'll let Zed respond to that one. I don't want to be imperialistic with regard to his argument. :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nathaniel Tapley (Natt)
Username: Natt

Registered: 11-2009
Posted From: 78.147.148.35
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 12:02 pm:   

Oh, and let's do post-modernism and lived- vs academic- experience over a pint some time. Otherwise this thread could end up longer than the one about what books we're reading...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.27.21.184
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 12:06 pm:   

:-)

Can't just have a punch up?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stu (Stu)
Username: Stu

Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 86.29.181.251
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 01:51 pm:   

>>The ending of the novel was exactly the one I expected (and feared). I found it devastating, and it remains the only piece of art (because that's what it is: art) to reduce me to a fit of sobbing.

Why's that, Zed? Given what has gone before the ending of the book is pretty upbeat.

>>McCarthy leads the reader along a "road" that can only have one bleak destination, and then in-artfully alters it

Craig, while I agree that the ending felt clumsy in its execution it is possible to argue that the whole book was leading up to it.

(SPOILERS COMING UP FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK/WATCHED THE FILM)



The dad's attempts to protect the son promote fear and paranoia but once free of his influence the son is able to fully develop his own sense of trust and generosity which he had been trying to develop earlier in the story. Of course this whole "be nice to each other" doesn't quite make sense in the context of some previous scenes -- there are certain points where if they had followed that principle earlier in the book they would have been killed and eaten. It's just dumb luck that the son decides to fully embrace the "love thy neighbour" ethos at the same point that some non-murderous, non-cannibalistic types stumble across him.

The whole thing probably works best as allegory or fable -- you're not supposed to wonder why all the survivors seem more interested in discussing philosophy than in figuring out practical ways to make their existence more bearable and you're not supposed to be bothered by the fact that the boy's mother comes across as a coldhearted bitch with unrealistic dialogue -- you're just supposed to embrace the moral of the tale.

That's how I read it anyway. Although to be honest I didn't reach that conclusion until after I finished the book which meant that I WAS bothered by all the things which work better if you read the story in fable-mode.




SPOILERS END

Personally, I found the book kind of underwhelming. Nothing majorly wrong with it but it was hyped up out of all proportion. This sort of thing has been done before and given all the praise heaped upon The Road I was expecting something really special not just more of the same.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.5.0.32
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 05:27 pm:   

In my studies analysis of this thread, I've come to the conclusion: Nathaniel is brilliant, Gary and Zed are thick-headed, and Stu is only partially on track....

My examples were deliberately chosen: You don't have to be a king to realize KING LEAR is superb art; you don't have to not be a stripper to understand that SHOWGIRLS is not; and if you were a rabbit, you'd fall into a pit of subjection that is highly amusing.

And the argument from "experience" is tautological, and hence useless, AS an argument of experience. But, the argument of something related to experience, but not quite; related to maturity, to wisdom, but not quite; related to something like "being there" as opposed to not - I do value that, and actually think it's quite relevant in the KING LEAR example.

You could safely assume a kid of 16 just isn't going to get out of KING LEAR what a man of 61 would - but even this, is clearly, incorrect, because it's generalizing: I know 61 year-olds who could give a fig about Shakespearean depths, and there are many 16 year-olds who are lost in angst that's perfect for a full appreciation.

To say, therefore, "You wouldn't get KING LEAR unless you were in your 60's" assumes that there is much that has passed that allows that statement to be true regarding the work - that presumably you were not living a swinging bachelor life for all that time, and think having children a total waste of time for anyone. So even the being-older/wiser-means-you-get-KING-LEAR-more argument, which seems logical to a degree, is not upon analysis.

Let's just be plainly pugnacious here: Zed, you are not allowed to proclaim THE ROAD a work of art based purely on your experience of being a father; nor using that as any kind of evidence towards valuing THE ROAD as artistically worthy or not. There, I've said it. So mote it be. And if you don't like it, you and I can trade punches outside in the alley.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.27.21.184
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 07:27 pm:   

>>>You could safely assume a kid of 16 just isn't going to get out of KING LEAR what a man of 61 would - but even this, is clearly, incorrect, because it's generalizing: I know 61 year-olds who could give a fig about Shakespearean depths, and there are many 16 year-olds who are lost in angst that's perfect for a full appreciation.


Oh man, that was just too obvious to add even as a footnote. (And I seriously did consider doing so, but then decided it was a tacit part of the debate.)

We're talking trends here. Put a 100 of each group in a room with Lear and see which group comes out with the more profound understanding. I needn't add which group I'd seek insight from.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.27.21.184
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 07:30 pm:   

Just checked, and . . .

>>>Let's just be plainly pugnacious here: Zed, you are not allowed to proclaim THE ROAD a work of art based purely on your experience of being a father

Zed never said that. He said . . .

>>>I couldn't disagree more. The ending of the novel was exactly the one I expected (and feared). I found it devastating, and it remains the only piece of art (because that's what it is: art) to reduce me to a fit of sobbing. I've often thought that you need to be the father of a son to get everything out of The Road McCarthy intended. It was written by a father for fathers.

The issue of it being a work of art was separate from the issue of fathers being able to get the most from it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.27.21.184
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 07:49 pm:   

On the other hand, you've got me on the thick-headed. :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.5.13.96
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 08:01 pm:   

I suppose if Cormac said he wrote the novel as "by a father for fathers," one could make the argument that if you're not a father, you're just not going to "get" out of it all that it is.

BUT, Gary - follow the thread of Zed's argument:

-- I claim THE ROAD is ill-art, because it's flawed based on my expectations
-- Zed says no, there is no flaw - why? because of his own expectations to the contrary

At this point we have a 1:1 match, which Zed then tries to win by implying: Only a father would "get" the fact that my (Zed's) expectation is the superior one.

Hence, an argument based upon "secret knowledge." That is the issue at hand, Gary, an issue of the merit or not - the way to judge - a given piece of art.

Art is not, imho, something that is based upon a given life experience - it is elitist, but forget that, it's simply flawed.

Ball lobbed over to you now....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.27.21.184
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 08:07 pm:   

Zed's post at 4:16: that second bit might easily be taken to be unrelated to his response to you. The break between the passages could suggest that. No?

I'm pretty certain that Zed was wholly unaware of the fact that you have no children, btw. And if that's true, claiming that second bit is a response to your point looks even shakier.

Cross-court volley.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.98.33
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 09:43 pm:   

To those who believe in objectively better art, I have a question: by what objective criteria do we judge a piece of art to be better than another?

The only two possibilities I can think of are longevity and popularity.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mick Curtis (Mick)
Username: Mick

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.179.38.83
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 09:54 pm:   

That puts Celebrity Big Brother near the top then!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.35.224
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 11:19 pm:   

Exactly. And Bruce Forsythe.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chris_morris (Chris_morris)
Username: Chris_morris

Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 98.220.97.79
Posted on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 03:04 am:   

The only decent way to judge a work of art (IMO) is by the measure of how well it does what it sets out to do, and on a scale that takes into consideration the level of complexity (or degree of difficulty) of those aims. In other words, if a author sets out to do something easy or trivial, his work can succeed wholly and still be only a minor work of art. On the other hand, if the aims are very high indeed, the book can fail and be a masterpiece.

None of this, however, does a good job of explaining how two works of art can be compared. Unless the two works' objectives are identical -- an impossibility -- no real conclusion can be reached.

FWIW, I read THE ROAD and enjoyed it a lot. In my view, however, as superb as it was, the book remains a minor work in McCarthy's canon. He's aimed for (and achieved) more elsewhere.

Haven't seen the movie, though.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.4.228.109
Posted on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 05:31 am:   

Plato's approach to objectivity in art might seem silly nowadays, but it does contain a certain kind of logic that is demonstrable, and workable. It can be that we here on Earth, choose those works of art to which others shall be "objectively" compared. If a body of people voted to say Shakespeare was a numinous and ideal form of art, then by decree it could be the objective standard. All are free to approach and fall short of that standard; all are free to value given works, according to that standard.

Looking at the evidence, Gary, at 4:16, Zed wrote:

I couldn't disagree more. The ending of the novel was exactly the one I expected (and feared). I found it devastating, and it remains the only piece of art (because that's what it is: art) to reduce me to a fit of sobbing.

Why that paranthetical there - "because that's what it is: art"? The fact that it was art was never in question - clearly Zed implies, within this parenthesis, that the novel is beyond the criticism I have leveled against it, because he has deemed it "art."

But to support that theory (that it is beyond reproach), he provides the flimsy and totally-subjective datum that "it remains the only piece of art... to reduce me to a fit of sobbing." In Zed's world, apparently, if something reduces him to tears, it is beyond criticism or reproach, its value is beyond questioning. Art critics will have a terrible time of it, if everything must go through the "did Zed cry" test.

In sum: Zed has clearly made the argument that THE ROAD is not a flawed work of art, because one must be a father to understand its full depth and nuance. If one does not have a child, according to Zed, then one's opinion of THE ROAD is "lesser-than" one who does. Clearly, this is untenable. I'm sorry, arguments from experience are simply a terrible place to found an objective ideal - an elitist, cabalistic ideal of art; a "ground of being" that, as such, must always be rejected.

(Hope you don't mind me using you as a punching-bag Zed - I'm just f*ckin' with ya, I'm sure you know.... )
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.27.21.184
Posted on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 09:19 am:   

>>>Clearly, this is untenable. I'm sorry, arguments from experience are simply a terrible place to found an objective ideal

And yet the art that endures is that which elucidates our lived experience in non-historically specific ways. It seems to me that the greatest art is that which is judged worthily by our experience.

Sorry, would love to take this further, but I'm due in Belgium. Bye bye!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.27.21.184
Posted on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 09:21 am:   

>>>Why that paranthetical there - "because that's what it is: art"? The fact that it was art was never in question - clearly Zed implies, within this parenthesis, that the novel is beyond the criticism I have leveled against it, because he has deemed it "art."

That strikes me as you surmising to some degree. He might just easily have been referring to the fact that it's a genre-esque novel and might consequently attract associated negatively from other people than you.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chris_morris (Chris_morris)
Username: Chris_morris

Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 98.220.97.79
Posted on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 09:27 am:   

I've never encountered any of Plato's views in objectivity in art. I know he disliked all of the fine arts and felt they should be avoided. So why listen to him?

Let's turn instead to one of your faves, Craig: Nietzsche. Nietzsche was adamantly opposed to the idea that there was any objective reality existing beyond perception. Perception was all, all was subjective. THE ROAD is a novel written by an elderly father very worried about his young son, the state of the world, and the life his son may face without him in it. It seems uncontroversial to say that fathers of sons may find resonance in this story -- a resonance other people won't find. This is only expected, isn't it? I mean, a survivor of a naval disaster will certainly be affected differently by TITANIC than I was. You are only the sum of your life experiences, after all.

In stating that the novel reduced him to a fit of sobbing, Zed was only saying that the novel had a profound effect on him -- so profound it was physical. If you, Craig, said Transformers 2 (for example) reduced you to tears, I would think you were nuts, I suppose, but your physical response wouldn't let me question your sincerity on the matter.

So Zed read the book and was strongly moved by it. This is subjectivity in action. But Nietzsche would say that subjectivity is all, that there is no objectivity in life. So Zed can say with confidence that THE ROAD is not flawed, that it is a work of art, that it is masterpiece. And Nietzsche smiles at him.

You disagree, but that's okay. That's your opinion, but opinions are shifty things. If an authority figure likes the same book you do, does that strengthen your opinion? You like Michael Bay, for instance -- I think it was in Plato's SYMPOSIUM that the following passage occurs:

"Socrates, there is yet one small question which I would fain ask: Is not the good also the beautiful?" said Agathon.

"Yes," said Socrates.

"And because I have seen Bad Boys 2, and know it to be good, I can know it is also beautiful?"

"No," said Socrates. "You can only know you are an idiot."


Does that change your mind?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.27.21.184
Posted on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 09:51 am:   

And Heidegger suggested that it's impossible to 'bracket' our experience anyway, since we're historically situated embodied and discursive beings*.

As he used to say down his local, The Nazi Arms, "What's it to be?"

At which point everybody therein replied, "A pint of ale since you're asking, Mart'."

Right, I really am off now.

* However, Heidegger wasn't a relativist, but that's a massive can of worms to open now.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.157.23.22
Posted on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 12:10 pm:   

I feel a bit guilty starting this!
I sort of agree with everybody. Art stands on its own legs, is its own thing regardless of who you are. But if you share something with a character it has more resonance for you. I hope I said 'The Road is a good film AND especially good for dads and sons' (looks back - yes, I think I did sort of say that!).
The parental empathy doesn't really make it a better film - that's like saying a carpenter would praise films just for having furniture in them - but it is a level it succeeds in capturing, and that too, is s sign of skill. But then, wouldn't a good film do that, make a person unfamiliar to a situation empathise with it?
BTW Avatar has won Golden globes for best drama and director. Now I didn't dislike Avatar at all but best drama? That appals me. They're saying it'll win the oscar, too.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 147.252.230.141
Posted on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 01:13 pm:   

"Plato's approach to objectivity in art might seem silly nowadays, but it does contain a certain kind of logic that is demonstrable, and workable. It can be that we here on Earth, choose those works of art to which others shall be "objectively" compared. If a body of people voted to say Shakespeare was a numinous and ideal form of art, then by decree it could be the objective standard. All are free to approach and fall short of that standard; all are free to value given works, according to that standard."

So, it's good because it's popular.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.157.23.22
Posted on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 01:23 pm:   

Then we have to start asking *why* it's popular.
Do we?

Ultimately the choice of what is quality lies entirely within ourselves. It almost feels futile talking about it.
(I don't even know if I agree with that!)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 147.252.230.141
Posted on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 01:27 pm:   

I agree. We're not debating the existence of gravity here. It's subjective.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 213.219.8.243
Posted on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 01:30 pm:   

I agree with proto (again). Once again you've summed up the points I was trying to make with clarity, whereas I was stumbling about like a stumbly-about thng.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Des (Des)
Username: Des

Registered: 06-2008
Posted From: 86.166.189.139
Posted on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 01:32 pm:   

I think it's all to do with brussel sprouts.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 213.219.8.243
Posted on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 01:32 pm:   

Btw, Craig - I have no idea what you're going on about. I implied nothing of what you say I did. Either I haven't got my point across well enough (likely) or you're bringing your own baggage to the debate (also likely; because it's all, like, subjective, innit?)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 213.219.8.243
Posted on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 01:33 pm:   

Des - you may be right. Either sprouts of Hadron colliders.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 213.219.8.243
Posted on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 01:33 pm:   

or
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.157.23.22
Posted on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 01:33 pm:   

My favourite films; a lot of people like them, but not everyone. And that list changes as I get older. Does it change because films are getting better or because I'm become wiser? I do like to think it's the latter but maybe it isn't. At the moment my most favourite, exhilarating sound is the sound of this cockerel we've bought crowing in the morning. In a few weeks I might not agree. We change, and the films do not - surely that makes argument about quality unsteady?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 213.219.8.243
Posted on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 01:35 pm:   

Yep.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nathaniel Tapley (Natt)
Username: Natt

Registered: 11-2009
Posted From: 78.147.148.35
Posted on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 02:04 pm:   

I absolutely agree with the necessary subjectivity of all of our interpretations, and I have said on a couple of threads now that I think this is something to be celebrated and revelled in.

What intrigues me is how easily those who couldn't accept such a heresy with regards to prose fiction (and seemed particularly offended by the idea that the author's interpretation of a work might be no more useful than anyone else's) are so eager to claim that what matters is the way a piece of art affects you when it comes to film.

As I suggested on the other thread, this is easier to accept when it comes to writing things are intended to be performed, we can all see that the writer's intention goes through many filters before it reaches its audience. Part of me suspects, however, that it might have something to do with people feeling less threatened by these ideas when they are applied in a medium in which we do not, ourselves, work.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 213.219.8.243
Posted on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 02:08 pm:   

Sprouts. With mint sauce drizzled across them.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 147.252.230.141
Posted on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 02:19 pm:   

"What intrigues me is how easily those who couldn't accept such a heresy with regards to prose fiction (and seemed particularly offended by the idea that the author's interpretation of a work might be no more useful than anyone else's) are so eager to claim that what matters is the way a piece of art affects you when it comes to film."

Lack of expertise in the technical areas of film-making are disguised in the aftermath of the French new wave. I can't think of a movement in literature which has changed the medium as profoundly, as completely, as that.

If you do the literary equivalent of forgetting to take the lens cap off, it's harder to blag your way out of it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.4.252.110
Posted on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 04:10 pm:   

Sorry, would love to take this further, but I'm due in Belgium. Bye bye!

Sheesh. Always the running away to Belgium, with this guy....

I've lost the threads of this argument myself, Zed. I give up. Sure all art is purely subjective - let's live in THAT wonderful world, why don't we? I mean for real? Try it on for size for a while, see how you all like it.... And for the record, I've not seen TRANSFORMERS 2.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stu (Stu)
Username: Stu

Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 86.29.176.58
Posted on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 05:47 pm:   

>>The ending of the novel was exactly the one I expected (and feared). I found it devastating, and it remains the only piece of art (because that's what it is: art) to reduce me to a fit of sobbing.

Why's that, Zed? Given what has gone before the ending of the book is pretty upbeat.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 213.219.8.243
Posted on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 05:59 pm:   

There was nowt that struck me as upbeat about any of the novel - I knew the father was going to die in the end. For me, it was the whole point.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stu (Stu)
Username: Stu

Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 86.29.176.58
Posted on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 06:09 pm:   

But the son survives and learns that not all people are to be feared and hated. Way more cheerful than what could've happened.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Steve Bacon (Stevebacon)
Username: Stevebacon

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 90.204.111.196
Posted on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 09:17 pm:   

Stu, you could argue that life is exactly like that; the people you love will die, and things will go on, and although it might not be as bad as you feared, there will always remain a massive hole in your life.

Is that upbeat? I'm not sure if it is, to me.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.144.7
Posted on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 10:36 pm:   

Jesus, Zed. That's that fucxked. SPOILER ALERT PLEASE!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.144.7
Posted on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 10:40 pm:   

Jesus, Stu. That's that fucxked. SPOILER ALERT PLEASE!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.240.106
Posted on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 11:47 pm:   

Shit...sorry, Proto. I sort of assumed everyone looking at this had read the book.

Stu: that there's subjectivity at work.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.4.233.130
Posted on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 - 01:03 am:   

Yeah, I really hated it that one Good Friday when the priest ruined Easter for me, by giving away that whole Resurrection thing....

(that wouldn't be considered a blasphemous joke, would it?)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.36.188
Posted on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 - 01:06 am:   

No, just a weak one.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.5.9.135
Posted on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 - 06:12 am:   

Well I knew that!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.114.209
Posted on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 - 10:58 am:   

Or a week one.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.157.23.22
Posted on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 - 11:50 am:   

'Lack of expertise in the technical areas of film-making are disguised in the aftermath of the French new wave'
- thing is, the French New Wave was skilled. People copying that style are not doing the same thing, or with the same thought processes. Tapping a camera (as a beeb director aquaintance once told me they are told to do) to make it wobble in a 'lifelike' way is not capturing anything.
Are we different beings to these people who made these old movies? Can we weigh in a tub what we have lost or gained, take a look at it to see what it is has happened to us?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stu (Stu)
Username: Stu

Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 86.29.187.15
Posted on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 - 01:09 pm:   

Sorry, Proto. I posted spoilers before but forgot this time. Mea culpa. Is there any way for those posts to be edited?

>>Stu: that there's subjectivity at work.

Zed: that there's a lazy answer at work.



BELATED SPOILERS

>>Stu, you could argue that life is exactly like that; the people you love will die, and things will go on, and although it might not be as bad as you feared, there will always remain a massive hole in your life.

>>Is that upbeat? I'm not sure if it is, to me.

In the context of this book, yeah, I'd say it was.

At the end of the book the dad dies but the son survives and learns that not all people are to be feared and hated. Up until then the book was all about the doom and gloom and was leading the reader to believe that the son would be

(a)killed and eaten or

(b) shot by his own father to avoid such a gruesome fate

So the actual ending struck me as pretty upbeat in comparison. Would've been more cheerful if the dad had got to see that his son would be taken care of by the other survivors and so he could die with some sort of peace of mind but you can't have everything.

As you say yourself loved ones die. And it is devastating. But even if the dad had survived his wound he would've died eventually, if only from old age, and the son would've still been heartbroken. But that would have been a natural turn of events. Imagine how much more devastating it would've been if the son died and the dad survived. Would've fucked with the theme of the book a bit but would've been more emotionally devastating both to the dad and to the reader.



SPOILERS END

I'm not trying to sound coldhearted. I just had a problem with the book in that I didn't really engage with the characters. They pretty much remained ciphers throughout, that's one of the reasons I think that the book actually works better as a fable.

One of my friends had the same problem despite being a dad himself. He said the only effect the book had on him was that all the descriptions of scavenging for food made him hungry.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 212.121.214.114
Posted on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 - 03:06 pm:   

Not going to add to the debate except to say that life experience is guaranteed to change your perception of any work of art. It's not physically possible to judge without bringing your own baggage into it.

I'm not a father but I loved the book. I have to say that I saw the film last night and the two central performances were fantastic. It captured the mood of the book as well as film is capable of doing IMHO and I can't remember ever needing the level of self control I had to use last night to avoid blubbing loudly in the middle of a cinema.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stephen Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 - 03:22 pm:   

I trust Weber's instincts and this has me in a quandary... whether to see the film now on the big screen (before it disappears) or read the book first?

Either way I think I'm in for one hell of an experience!

I really am a fussy puritanical sod when it comes to Art.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.157.23.22
Posted on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 - 06:12 pm:   

See it before it goes! It looks great.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.157.23.22
Posted on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 - 06:13 pm:   

'I'm not a father but I loved the book'
- like I said though, you are a son.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.240.106
Posted on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 - 07:50 pm:   

Sadly, the film doesn't seem to be showing anywhere local to me. Sigh.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 91.110.179.7
Posted on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 - 11:00 pm:   

Just seen THE ROAD and thought it was exceptionally well-made, with beautiful scenery and strong performances, and with a fine soundtrack, but I found its content sentimental and tiresomely moralistic. It's Spielberg dressed up as Bergman. I just hope that in two years' time, there is a director's cut without the final scene.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stu (Stu)
Username: Stu

Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 86.29.189.151
Posted on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 - 11:23 pm:   

That's kind of how I felt about the book.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.157.23.22
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 04:13 pm:   

SPOILERS?

Thing is, that's why I was probably relieved that it ended the way it did. Part of me felt it should have ended much more badly (I expected the boy to die when the dad was in the sea, and I did get a niggly feeling that the fact he didn't was wrong). But you know, in these times we do need hope more than at any time I can remember, so maybe it was an ending we needed rather than should have got?
I needed it, and to be fair, it wasn't an impossible ending. I just would have been unable to bear it if it had ended differently.

Hmm - what should art do, eh? Is it failing to be art if it just acts as a salve? I found the point of the film to be 'don't lose hope', and it sort of reminded me of The Mist in many respects, a kind of alternate sequel.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.54.3
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 05:03 pm:   

"Is it failing to be art if it just acts as a salve?"

Good God, no! You can't believe that, surely? It's one of the most noble things a piece of art can do. Artists are the ones who rescued that little crumb of hope from the bottom of Pandora's box.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stu (Stu)
Username: Stu

Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 86.29.188.197
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 05:07 pm:   

SPOILERS




Tony, yeah, it's kind of the anti-MIST which is why I was surprised when everyone kept saying how bleak it was. We'd seen a similar situation -- father going to any lengths to save his son from what he feels are the worst horrors the world has to offer -- played out to a much worse conclusion but everyone seemed to have forgotten.

That said I'm kind of coming round to the idea of the book having a happyish ending 'cos I think that's probably what McCarthy always intended to do. But at the time I just felt so cheated -- everyone kept telling me this book was the bleakest thing ever written and it wasn't. Even people who admitted to finding the story strangely uplifting didn't seem to realise why that was; musing on how amazing it was that such a bleak story could leave them full of hope, totally ignoring that McCarthy used sleight of hand to sneak in a happy ending.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.157.23.22
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 05:09 pm:   

I hope so. I sometimes have the feeling art is outside us. Maybe The Road did the right thing.
(BTW I just dipped into the book today and must say that the prose is just beautiful. Instant emotion from every image, and a tiny touch mad, like all great things.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.157.23.22
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 05:12 pm:   

I think the happy ending was there to say that hope sometimes really is worth having. Movies and art are drifting so much towards darkness it feels like a kind of death, and so it was nice to have it turned on its head this one time.
BTW my post was in answer to Proto's.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.157.23.22
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 05:13 pm:   

Also, now i know the book isn't entirely bleak I'll read it - all-out bleak just brings me down.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.157.23.22
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 05:15 pm:   

That's nicely put Proto, btw.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stu (Stu)
Username: Stu

Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 86.29.188.197
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 05:20 pm:   

Don't get me wrong, the book's not Carry On Apocalypse, it just isn't quite as depressing as people make out.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.240.106
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 05:34 pm:   

SPOILERS


What's happy about a father going through hell to keep his son alive, and then dying before he can see that son grow into a man. I found it utterly, utterly devastating. After sobbing at the end of the book, I went upstairs and kissed my sleeping son. Then just stared at him for ages.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.5.4.9
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 05:43 pm:   

Everyone keeps talking about the ending, but the book was flawed - NOT bad, not unworthy to be read, just flawed - in other ways. I don't think it the monumental, ULYSSES-is-here-again work of art that some it sometimes seem to want to crown it, is all I was ever saying....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.240.106
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 05:45 pm:   

Craig, every work of art is flawed. Perfection is unachievable.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stu (Stu)
Username: Stu

Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 86.29.188.197
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 05:52 pm:   

SPOILERS



>>What's happy about a father going through hell to keep his son alive, and then dying before he can see that son grow into a man.

Gary, think about the end to THE ROAD then think about the end to THE MIST. If you had to choose one as a fate for your son which would you go for? (Oh god, what have I done? He'll be crying nonstop for a fortnight.)



END SPOILERS


>>Everyone keeps talking about the ending, but the book was flawed - NOT bad, not unworthy to be read, just flawed - in other ways.

Craig, I've already slagged off other elements of the story.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stu (Stu)
Username: Stu

Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 86.29.188.197
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 05:54 pm:   

>>Perfection is unachievable

I sometimes think that. But then I look in a mirror.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.240.106
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 05:59 pm:   

Stu - the ending of The Mist (even though I love that film) is faux bleak. It doesn't resonate as much because it's a bit contrived. The ending of The Road hit me much harder...but that's subjectivity again. I respond to father-son stories because of my personal background; The Road's ending wounded me at a subjective level. Simple as that. It's also why I think it's the greatest novel I've read: the prose, the mood, the beauty, and the (for me) utter truth of that central relationship. It's a miracle of a book. For me. Nobody else has to think so, but I do.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.44.33
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 06:15 pm:   

The ending of THE MIST didn't resonate with me for different reasons. 98% of it was a dumb-but-fun gribbley monster flick, which makes it difficult to take the last 2% seriously.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stu (Stu)
Username: Stu

Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 86.29.188.197
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 06:15 pm:   

SPOILERS (God, it would be easier to tag the posts where I'm NOT giving away the ending)



Fair enough that THE MIST is faux bleak and contrived. I'll rephrase the question. Going by the choices offered in THE ROAD would you rather your son was:

(a) killed and eaten

(b) shot by you to avoid such a gruesome fate

(c) raised by kindly strangers after you passed away




END SPOILERS


I'm not trying to refute your subjective response to the end of THE ROAD. I'm just saying that different endings (also based around the father-son relationship that caused you to find the official ending so heartbreaking) could be even more emotionally devastating.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.44.33
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 06:16 pm:   

Also, a good twist should depend on actions that arise out of character traits and that one didn't.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stu (Stu)
Username: Stu

Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 86.29.188.197
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 06:17 pm:   

Btw, the ending to THE ROAD can be seen as contrived. That's one of my objections to it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stu (Stu)
Username: Stu

Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 86.29.188.197
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 06:19 pm:   

Proto, I'm too lazy to discuss the character traits of the protagonist of THE MIST right now but it could be argued that what he did was completely in character.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.44.33
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 06:24 pm:   

You might be right. I'd have to re-watch it.

It did have the best trying to explain there's monsters in the real world scene. The recipient of the information about the "tentacle" just expresses disappointment. Totally realistic, that. I've always loved Andre Braugher from HOMICDE. He hasn't gotten the roles he deserves.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.240.106
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 06:28 pm:   

I'm just saying that different endings (also based around the father-son relationship that caused you to find the official ending so heartbreaking) could be even more emotionally devastating.

Okay. I never disputed that. This debate has gone way over my head now; I don't even understand what we're debating anymore.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.240.106
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 06:28 pm:   

All I'm saying is I love the book, and the ending scarred me. That's it. My entire point.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.44.33
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 06:30 pm:   

"I don't even understand what we're debating anymore."

I believe the topic is "Marathon->Snickers: a step too far?"
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.240.106
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 06:35 pm:   

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.157.23.22
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 08:51 pm:   

I would die happy knowing my kid was ok - even if just alive.
Yeah, the end of The Mist did feel done for effect. Interesting questions the two films endings throw up, though. I certainly couldn't shoot my kid whatever was going on - I'd rather he became a cannibal!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stu (Stu)
Username: Stu

Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 86.29.189.236
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 09:02 pm:   

>>I've always loved Andre Braugher from HOMICDE. He hasn't gotten the roles he deserves.

I'll say. It'd been so long since I'd seen him in anything that it took me about 10 minutes before I even recognised him in THE MIST.

>>Okay. I never disputed that. This debate has gone way over my head now; I don't even understand what we're debating anymore.

This is what I hate about discussing things over the internet. If we'd been talking face to face it would've been clear what we were both saying about 30 seconds into the conversation. As it is a simple illchosen word or a misintepreted piece of flippancy renders a simple chat into something that can only be deciphered with the use of an Enigma machine.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.157.23.22
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 09:05 pm:   

And be taken as meanness.
But then I've already said I don't want to talk about YKW.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 91.110.192.190
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 09:55 pm:   

Nobody's acknowledging what the film, at least, is really about, which is a notion of divine intervention. Because the boy is pure, because he is truly one of 'the good guys', he's rewarded with a miracle family coming out of nowhere to love him and take care of him. The whole story is building up to the message that if you are GOOD then God will save you. All the rest, the violence and the pain and the desolation, is building up to that message. Which is why, in the end, it's rather a meretricious film. And why the ending spoils much of the film's overall impact, because it makes you realise what the whole thing was all about: a Sunday school sermon.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.240.106
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 09:57 pm:   

This is what I hate about discussing things over the internet. If we'd been talking face to face it would've been clear what we were both saying about 30 seconds into the conversation. As it is a simple illchosen word or a misintepreted piece of flippancy renders a simple chat into something that can only be deciphered with the use of an Enigma machine.

Hear-hear, Stu.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 91.110.192.190
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 09:57 pm:   

Sorry, that's a spoiler too. Dr Fry, feel free to delete my comment. But frankly, anyone who watches this film to find out what happens is watching the wrong film. It's not a story, it's a sermon.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.240.106
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 09:59 pm:   

Nobody's acknowledging what the film, at least, is really about, which is a notion of divine intervention.

You know, I didn't pick up any of this when I read the book (although others have). I took the message as being about love and duty and fatherhood. Any religious aspects went way over my head - but I'm a non-eliever, so perhaps just blocked them out.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 91.110.192.190
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 10:02 pm:   

Zed, i did too. It's just those last few minutes of the film that force the religious aspects down your throat. Which made me angry enough to attack a film that actually has a lot going for it in terms of acting and visual quality.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.240.106
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 10:06 pm:   

Maybe the film is more overt with this stuff than the book. Is that what you're saying, Joel? I wish I could see it, but will have to wait for the DVD.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Steve Bacon (Stevebacon)
Username: Stevebacon

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 90.204.111.196
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 10:18 pm:   

SPOILERS



My problem with the ending of The Mist wasn't due to the fact that the kid was shot. It was because the kid was shot, and then seconds later Darabont pulled the rug away and revealed that it was needless. If the timeframe between the death and then the army rolling in had been handled better - say, over a montage indicating a passage of time - then it would have seemed that it was less contrived. As it is, it just feels cheap, in my opinion.

Joel, have you read McCarthy's novel? I wondered what your thoughts were on that.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stephen Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 82.17.252.126
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 10:35 pm:   

Just back from seeing this and have to say I enjoyed it but nowhere near as much as I thought I would. Michael Haneke told the same basic story much more powerfully and without the sentimentality in 'Time Of The Wolf' imo.

The post-apocalypse genre has been done to death ever since we split the atom and after all the hoo-haa this latest go at it really didn't have anything new to say. Viggo Mortensen was the best thing in it but I thought the crucial part of the little boy was miscast - way too cute - and couldn't believe how soppy the soundtrack was given the source (big Nick Cave fan). I also thought there was way too much straining for "shared humanity" in the big emotional scenes which just didn't ring true for that scenario. In the face of Armageddon there are no good guys and bad guys - just survivors.

Then again I did just recently read the greatest, most shocking and most original post-apocalypse sci-fi novel of my life which contains all the big disturbing themes here and a heck of a lot worse besides. That book included all the cliches of the genre and also turned it completely on its head (don't want to say how) at a time when the world really was facing nuclear Armageddon - certain oblique references and the underground shelter sequence almost convinced me someone involved in either the book or the film of 'The Road' had read 'Farnham's Freehold' first.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stephen Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 82.17.252.126
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 11:09 pm:   

Just read Joel's comments and I'm totally with him!!

The film forces a "happy ending" out of a situation in which none is remotely plausible.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Seanmcd (Seanmcd)
Username: Seanmcd

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 86.153.164.5
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 11:36 pm:   

So I should just read the book then ?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.91.212
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 11:49 pm:   

"In the face of Armageddon there are no good guys and bad guys - just survivors."

I disagree, Stephen. This is the West Wing slightly misquoting THE LION IN WINTER:

TOBY: Hey, your favorite movie was on TV last night.

BARTLET: "By God, I'm 50, alive, and the King all at the same time."

TOBY: I turned it on just as they got to the scene when Richard, Geoffrey and John were locked in the dungeon and Henry was coming down to execute them. Richard tells his brothers not to cower, but to take it like men. And Geoffrey says, "You fool! As if it matters how a man falls down." And Richard says...

BOTH: "When the fall is all that's left...it matters a great deal."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stephen Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 82.17.252.126
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 11:51 pm:   

Watch the film, Sean.
There's some great horror sequences in there that reminded me of 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' and all of the above is only my opinion.

Those who find the spiritual/sentimental elements uplifting may well be right - I prefer my apocalypses unremittingly bleak.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stu (Stu)
Username: Stu

Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 86.29.188.138
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 11:51 pm:   

SPOILERS (I don't even know if I need to keep typing this in but fuck it it's become a tradition on this thread. Years from now people will come on this thread and type in SPOILERS at the beginning of each post even though the word, indeed the entire English language, will have fallen into disuse. But the tradition will endure.)



There is a whole "leap of faith" aspect to the ending which I didn't want to go into before as I was having enough trouble convincing people that the ending could be seen as more upbeat than what had gone before. At first I thought the ending was really forced but as I've previously mentioned I think the ending was set up earlier with various hints where the boy does try to be nice to people. Speaking purely from a structural point of view that makes it more digestible for me than McCarthy just pulling the ending out of his arse.

I must have picked up on the hints to some degree even before I did my post-book dissection as one of the reasons I didn't really warm to the dad and wasn't that bothered about him dying was that I began to feel that he was an unhealthy influence on the boy and maybe the kid was better off without someone who was constantly poisoning his mind against other people.

Got to admit though that I initially saw the boy's development as a post 9/11 allegory of tolerance rather than a religious one. Then I started thinking about it and the relgious stuff seemed to seep out of the cracks. But whether I'm conflating it with something else I've read I couldn't say for sure ...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.157.23.22
Posted on Thursday, January 21, 2010 - 03:19 pm:   

When I peeked at the ending of the book it felt less religious and more about nature, things settling down; I loved that image of the group of trout in the river. If anything, it all seemed to tie God and man and nature up together as a single thing. I loved that. I get quite moved when people are openly Christian in films, and are good people.
Yeah, the timing of the shooting of the boy in The Mist was ugly techincally.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.157.23.22
Posted on Thursday, January 21, 2010 - 03:21 pm:   

The dad isn't bad - he just loses his way. His encounters shape him, but the boy is capable (because of his upbringing) of seeing deeper into him. I still think it's a lovely film.

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration