It uses film to deconstruct and puzzle about an essential nature of film: that it comes from filmmakers. We find it difficult to separate the being of the art from the artist.
So what do we do when the art is sublime and the artist a lunkhead? What about when the artist is screwed up, but screwed up in a way that we presume aids the creation of great art — things we ascribe to passion and edge, gathering and barely controlled expression. We forgive; we even celebrate.
Chaplin was a sex addict? Why of course. Brando and Welles gluttons? Well, sure, they drink life for us. Lack of moral sense? We need them to have that, we suppose.
The seductive element of this film is that uses the medium, pretending to reason, to show that the medium is not connected much to reason. It just doesn't matter whether this fantastic filmmaker is a fantastic guy. I do like the way he loves his actresses cinematically.
All else is for lawyers on another planet. We hear about their own weaknesses here as well.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
So what do we do when the art is sublime and the artist a lunkhead? What about when the artist is screwed up, but screwed up in a way that we presume aids the creation of great art — things we ascribe to passion and edge, gathering and barely controlled expression. We forgive; we even celebrate.
Chaplin was a sex addict? Why of course. Brando and Welles gluttons? Well, sure, they drink life for us. Lack of moral sense? We need them to have that, we suppose.
The seductive element of this film is that uses the medium, pretending to reason, to show that the medium is not connected much to reason. It just doesn't matter whether this fantastic filmmaker is a fantastic guy. I do like the way he loves his actresses cinematically.
All else is for lawyers on another planet. We hear about their own weaknesses here as well.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.