Of late, I realize I have seen enough movies or whatever so that I can pretty much know the outcome and can turn my focus to the lesser lights of what appears before me on the screen. It's no longer the star and starlet and their star-crossed adventures, but, for example, the cleanliness of the cowboy boots worn in some western drama. Notice the boots retreating in this shot or that ... notice how spic-and-span the leather two or three inches in front of the heel is? The character wearing the boots may be old and grizzled and trail-worn, but the boots are squeaky new. Notice how clean/clean/clean the horses are (no caked on or newly scrubbed-off shit on the rump). Notice how almost dust-less the main drag of and 'aging' and 'storied' cow town is. Notice how none of the horses -- whether of heroes or villains -- ever get shot in western-movie showdowns ... and this despite the fact that the horse is the most obvious target?
And does anyone any longer count the bullets expended during a six-shooter-dominated gun fight?
It's sort of like the majority of the so-called news pictures: Take a look at the newspaper and count up the number of smiling faces vs. the number of those (outside some disastrous loss) with compressed and frowning lips ... the other half of the facial equation.
If you can't believe the smiles, how far behind can the frowns be? And vice-versa? My local newspaper is positively awash in smiling-smiling-smiling faces. Can this be news and if not, why does it dominate the 'news' section?
I don't mind being diverted to picayune matters like this: I've got the stars and starlets pretty much fixed in my been-there-done-that sights. Now it's time for the credulousness I should dispense with in their environment to take a turn. I thought movies had actual jobs for those who would make the environment and the action dwell in the same space seamlessly.
No biggie -- it's just horse shit and horse shit, I suppose.
And does anyone any longer count the bullets expended during a six-shooter-dominated gun fight?
It's sort of like the majority of the so-called news pictures: Take a look at the newspaper and count up the number of smiling faces vs. the number of those (outside some disastrous loss) with compressed and frowning lips ... the other half of the facial equation.
If you can't believe the smiles, how far behind can the frowns be? And vice-versa? My local newspaper is positively awash in smiling-smiling-smiling faces. Can this be news and if not, why does it dominate the 'news' section?
I don't mind being diverted to picayune matters like this: I've got the stars and starlets pretty much fixed in my been-there-done-that sights. Now it's time for the credulousness I should dispense with in their environment to take a turn. I thought movies had actual jobs for those who would make the environment and the action dwell in the same space seamlessly.
No biggie -- it's just horse shit and horse shit, I suppose.
I always like to hear comments about details of movies from friends or professional critics.
ReplyDeleteI’m mainly talking about people who watch the same movie over and over. (At one time that meant spending about $200 to watch the same movie repeatedly while it was still in the theaters.) For them dialogue became quotable, details like clean boots became apparent, out of period clothing shouted, and camera angles became obvious.
The patterns are different and probably more sophisticated in “journalism” but the idea is similar to watching movies repeatedly. One who reads or watches the news diligently sees the mechanics and techniques and the flaws of reporting.
It must be very disappointing to read & watch local news that’s determined to be happy time junk news. I subscribe to The NY Times. The Times has its editorial flaws too, some maddeningly serious. Too many smiling faces doesn’t seem to be one. Fortunately, the internet enables us to get news from some good sources. One must still be viligent and think critically.