Examined something too closely?

A friend recently sent me a copy of Tony Bennett's Duets: An American Classic. We were talking about the album, and I wondered aloud whether Bennett actually had sung with his duet partners in real time, or if it had done mostly by the engineers, like Sinatra's two duet albums.

My friend got kind of irked: "If they did it that way, so what? Does that make it shit? Can't you just enjoy something without scrutinizing it?"

This is someone I've known for about 35 years. He's an accomplished musician in his own right, with wide-ranging, eclectic tastes and a real passion for all things musical ... and here he is, dressing me down for "scrutinizing" the details of how an album was recorded.

Oh well, perhaps he might have reacted differently if the album hadn't been a gift.

Non-analytical people pose a conundrum for us dorks. Ever see a great movie with someone who seems disinterested in breaking it down afterwards? My mind internally combusts in such cases. Musically, some people give you a dirty look when you mention individual components of the song such as "chord progressions", "riffs", "drum beats". I mean, how do you actually perceive/enjoy a song and yet be completely oblivious to the elements that go into the song? Can you perceive a painting and not be aware at all as to the use of "color" and "shadow" ? I dont get it. Some people just have no inner critic.

Quote

Non-analytical people pose a conundrum for us dorks.

You're free to speak for yourself, but I don't even think you'd have to go so far as being analytical to have some sense of wonder regarding anything artistic.

(((As in "I wonder how they did that")))

It'd be like visiting the Sistine Chapel and not trying to envision the scaffolding.

...

"Huh? Ya'll mean that God hisself didn't paint th' durned thang?"

Sistine Chapel? Meh.

I only hated Dancer In The Dark because it was awful. One of the few movies I've ever not had the patience to watch all the way through once I'd started it....

Some people love to dig into the details of how something is designed and made. I'm an engineer; I get that. Other people really don't care what planning, ingredients or effort goes into something; they just care about the results. I get that too.

What surprised me, in this instance, is that my friend is an accomplished musician, and (trust me) has spent plenty of time analyzing his favorite music. When I asked (rhetorically) if Bennett and his duettists actually had sung together in the studio, he seemed to take my question personally ... as if I was accusing him of giving me an album of "fake duets."

Oh well, it'll be water under the bridge by the next time we get together.

Myself, I'd have a hard time calling someone a "friend" who gave me a disc of Tony Bennett duets. With friends like that....

Quote

If they did it that way, so what? Does that make it shit? Can't you just enjoy something without scrutinizing it?

No, because that's the way forward-thinking people with sharp analytical skills roll. So don't get all up in my grill if you can't keep up. In fact, go ride in the trailer.

Quote

Ever see a great movie with someone who seems disinterested in breaking it down afterwards?

All the damn time. To some, watching a movie is for somebody to tell you a story and that's all. Whereas to me it's constructed art and an edifice of the director.

I finally watched C'est Arrivé Près de Chez Vous (It's coming to your neighborhood; marketed here as Man Bites Dog). C+

My favorite Eurofilms recently:
Lives of Others A+
Perfume B
Counterfeiters A+
Black Book B+

oops how could I forget:
Devils Backbone A+
Pans Labyrinth A+



Post Edited (01-26-11 18:17)

I have to admit, when it comes to movies, I tend to side with your sister and her husband. That's partly in reaction to how incredibly stupid 95% of the films I've seen in the last 10 years are, whether major studio productions or indie films. (My girlfriend has often accused me of being unable to turn off that critical filter you mention above.) I've pretty much given up on film as anything other than passive entertainment. And I'm pretty picky about what's entertaining to me in that sense, too - no Little Fockers for me, thanks.

Then, of course, I see a movie like Black Swan, Magnolia or Pan's Labyrinth and remember what the medium is capable of in the hands of someone with a vision. So what do I know? Nothing, obviously.

But when it comes to music, I can't help but listen to everything, even the Muzak coming over a retail store's speakers, without thinking about what it is, what it means and what it represents in pop music culture. Maybe I'm just more audio-inclined.

If I wanted to read a story, I'd pick up a book. Movies are a visual art with the challenge of pacing, exposition, etc. There's some storytelling in some genres but even then that's just one element. The same exact story in the hands of the wrong director would not be the same movie with the same quality, regardless.

fwiw, to clarify, if you agreed with them, Michael, you'd love Little Fockers, and hate Pans Labyrinth and the others listed. To many, the story has to follow the formula: Guy and girl are introduced>They don't like each other> They start to, until a crisis occurs> dénouement > resolution with happy ending. The visual elements mean nothing, as long as they're being told a story that fits in a mold made of the way stories are supposed to go.

It took me years to figure out why their eyes glazed when I mentioned directors and actors, whose names they could never connect to anything. I understand that teens (who drive the mainstream movie industry) can not generally associate a style with a particular director, but it seems to me that most educated adults would understand the reference and hold some semblance of clarity when you say "It's the new Coen Bros" or "It's the new Tarantino" or "The new Scorcese". Particularly someone who rents a few movies per week.

The point being two-fold a) I spent a lot of time examining this in an attempt to try and understand the tastes of my fellow man and what drives them. To me, it's just baffling.
b) That there is usually a correlation between people that are interested in film construction and will seek out indie productions AND people who will do the same with music (because, in part, the ART is more important than the popularity).


Voila: Examined something too closely

When someone says that to you guys ("if your music's so great why isn't it on the charts?") what do you say?



Post Edited (01-26-11 18:20)

Quote

Not to pick on my relatives but to use them as an example of people who think "well, if that movie's so great, then why haven't I heard of it?" or "Why isn't it a box office leader?"

My mother is exactly like that with anything cultural that I happen to mention.

"Why have I never heard of ______?"

It isn't considered good form to tell your mother that she's about as hip a Mitch Miller sing-a-long ... but that is the answer each and every time. The woman keeps nothing but Christmas CDs in her stereo and only listens to that stereo once a year around Christmastime!

Of course she hasn't heard of ______. She goes to bed at 10PM anyway. She'll be the first person to admit that she never makes it past the opening monologue of the Tonight Show. SNL is past her bed time. So unless your favorite band plays Oprah, my Mom is clueless.

I don't understand how anyone over the age of seventeen can believe that good music must be on the charts.

Even within their framework, by that age they should have begun to realize that many of their most-cherished songs are from the past and have been replaced on the charts by mostly inferior hits.

Could there be a kind of person who believes that the very best music hasn't been recorded yet. The musical equivalent of those who don't worry about "the Environment" because they claim technology will save us [we can always move to the moon.] Folks who think Bowie and Madonna were amateurs compared to GaGa.

I used to teach Argumentative Writing at OU. I always taught the Evaluation Argument as the last paper and let the students choose what they wanted to evaluate. Most wrote about a film or band -- something like that. I always explained that knowing why you like something is better than just liking it -- it helps you to find more things similar to it, and you can help people understand why they might like it, as well. It also helps you understand your self better. That phrase about The Examined Life always comes to mind.

I can go either way, depending on what I'm listening to (or viewing). Some works lend themselves well to such analysis. With others, it's better to just relax and enjoy.

BTW, I told my friend that scrutinizing something and enjoying it aren't mutually exclusive.

On the bright side, I introduced my friend to Japan, asserting that Mick Karn (R.I.P.) was a total badass on the fretless bass. He quickly agreed, and dug into my album stash to check out more of the band's music.

> She hated American Beauty because it was not supposed to go that way. Dancer in the Dark
> - of which I own a copy - outright angered her because the ending was "wrong" and the camera
> isn't supposed to be shaky ...

I'm gonna guess that this person is a big fan of American Idol. From what I've seen, that show presents a new (though vaguely familiar) crop of singers, and they end up falling into the predictable molds, from one season to the next.

(New thread coming up.)

The dogme95 genre isn't for everyone, or, more to the point Von Trier isn't for everyone.

I had such a heated argument with a friend over Breaking the Waves. I thought it was genius. He thought it was the most debased, depraved thing he had ever seen. Our friendship was never the same after that intense argument.

Paganizer wrote:

> The dogme95 genre isn't for everyone, or, more to the point Von
> Trier isn't for everyone.

As Von Trier gets older, he seems to be determined to be more and more not for anyone.

The Element of Crime (1984) - weird mess but interesting to watch nonetheless. Bonus points for starring Michael Elphick (Private Schultz!)

Europa (aka Zentropa) (1991) - melding visuals and story into a great movie.

Breaking the Waves (1996) - Dogme95 time. I liked it but it was rough going. This movie also displayed more of a misanthropic attitude than before.

Dancer in the Dark (2000) - this movie reminded me of Ken Russell directing 'Tommy'. Supposedly, he hated rock music and the result sure looked like it. 'Dancer' seemed like it was made by someone that hates musicals; the music and choreography hampered the story which topped most soap operas. I guess some people liked it (my wife was bawling at the end) but I couldn't stop rolling my eyes. The overall theme? Life sucks and you will die, most likely unpleasantly.

His last three: Dogville, Manderlay and Antichrist - Everything I've read about these make me think watching them would be an exercise in endurance. The movies also sound like Bunuel without the sense of humor and that is something I have no desire to see.

Breaking The Waves was my introduction to Von Trier and I thought it was very powerful (I'd be hard pressed to say I liked it exactly; hard to enjoy something so dark). So I went into Dancer In The Dark not just with an open mind, but actively expecting it to be great. It wasn't, and I've sorta been put off from trying to watch anything else from him ever since. The reviews I've read of those more recent films, as Heff notes above, make me believe I'd have the same reaction to them as to DITD.

I'll take Jim Jarmusch's self-indulgent, incoherent ramblings over Von Trier any day. Hell, I even enjoyed Dead Man.

I haven't seen any Von Trier as of yet, so I can't speak from personal experience (though I'm really curious about both Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark). But a good friend of mine whose opinion on cultural matters I trust (if not always agree with), and who has little patience for self-indulgence, thought Von Triers' most recent film Anitchrist was so good she saw it twice in one weekend - not her style at all.

I love Breaking, but Dancer is incredibly difficult to watch, possibly because it attempts to take melodrama to its furthest extreme. That concept, I get, but it doesn't make it enjoyable to watch, either viscerally or intellectually. *That* said, the train song is pretty cool.

Antichrist is amazing at times, almost like watching Bad Lieutenant, or any other great film that exists to explore boundaries by pushing to the extreme (and works). I do wish the fox had a more childlike voice, though -- would've worked better.

If you haven't seen Element of Crime, try that one -- it's my personal fave, although the original Kingdom is pretty damned good, too.

I'd go on talking about film on this music comment board, but I'm in the midst of a Doctor Who marathon. And with that comment, I geek myself into a black hole...

Some philosopher said, "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture." I guess he never owned a copy of TP.

That takes me back to my college days when my roommate's friend was looking through my record collection. She picked up a Talking Heads album and said, "The Book I Read. He's singin about some book he read? What a dork!"



Post Edited (01-17-11 10:14)

fwiw,
I liked Dancer in the Dark enough to own it (I don't really collect films). It's unlike anything/stands on its own. It also has Bjork's best music, imo, as well as great performances from David Morse, Peter Stormare, etc. It won the Golden Palm (top prize) at Cannes. That said, I actually understand why von Trier will appeal to only a few. One thing that can be said is that nearly all his projects are different from each other. they're certainly not movies in the traditional sense.

I recommend, in order:
Dancer
5 obstructions
Idiots
Boss if it All
Element

The America trilogy is just weird. Much has been said about his anti-America theme (he's never been to the country) but I think it could be taken any which way - the two (so far) films are really just stage exercises for the actors.

Breaking the Waves has unique artistic highlights but devolves to a hospital drama.

Element of Crime is an art exercise in tone cinematography. Liked it enough to watch twice. The other two in that trilogy (Epidemic, Europa) are worth a watch for fans.

The Boss of it ALL didn't even seem like a von Trier.

I'm afraid of Antichrist.