The problem here being that commercial failure is a fairly objective,
indisputable factor, while already the 'lacking of a very dynamic
structure' might exactly be the very point of the film in question -
as, for instance, with much art cinema. By this questionable standard,
all of e.g. Antonioni's films would have to be classified as failures
- a very peculiar notion. And when it comes to questions of value
judgments, then we're entirely in the subjective realm. In the course
that I remember given on 'failed films,' one of the sessions dealt
with Paul Schrader's 'Affliction' (1997). But according to the trusted
ressource Allmovie Guide, Affliction is rated with four out of five
stars due to its 'high artistic quality.'
Never trust any review you haven't faked yourself!
Best,
Henry
> Hi Henry,
>
> Thinking about Failure Studies, I would say that any discipline
> which inspires people is worthwhile. There are many interesting
> texts which have become commercial "failures" such as 'Fight Club'
> by David Fincher. Sometimes a text is too subversive for popular
> audiences, which could mean that it is too intelligent on some
> level, or ahead of its time. Perhaps it could be lacking a very
> dynamic structure, but still contains ideas worth unpacking.
> Arguably, in order to appreciate a 'successful' text we have to
> delve into failure as well.
>
> Epiphanie :)
*
*
Film-Philosophy salon
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon
*
Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**
|