Godard on Hollywood.... (insightful)

MovieStuff · January 20th, 2002, 05:08 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by mattias:
> I welcome a good debate but we simply have no facts to debate.

in france, and most of europe, you don't need any. the debate itself has a value. this is what i was trying to say in my last post, and in that context, the fact that we are indeed debating means godard succeeded, right?

/matt<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see your point. However, I take issue of the very existence of this debate; not the pros or cons of its implications. In that sense, Godard is wasting everyone's time since the debate has no merit, even for the sake of a good argument since it ISN'T a good argument. It's just shoving speculation and presumptions around in little piles hoping that something bigger will grow from it that overshadows his own shortcomings, both artistically and socially. After all, Godard isn't exactly poor, himself. How deep is his own alturism?

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

crimsonson · January 23rd, 2002, 12:13 AM

I was not hoping this discussion to drift to Godard vs Spielberg, but more of the underlying issues of Hollywood filmmakers, whomever that may be, responsibility to the real life subjects of their films.

I am also not looking for an answer but more of continuing discussion. I thinks its part of being a filmmaker, espcially as a director and producer - to recognize the social and political impact of films - where there is no doubt that art affects society.

Again the dillemma rears its head:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/22/in...ca/22SOMA.html

At least with this one there are some basic facts that are common public knowledge.

------------------

[This message has been edited by crimsonson (edited January 22, 2002).]

Matt Pacini · January 23rd, 2002, 06:29 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by crimsonson:
"I was not hoping this discussion to drift to Godard vs Spielberg, but more of the underlying issues of Hollywood filmmakers, whomever that may be, responsibility to the real life subjects of their films."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nothing personal, but I just simply don't believe this statement above.

The discussion didn't "drift" anywhere, it stayed absolutely on the topic you raised, without any other interpretations implied or otherwise.

You saying what you just said, would be like me saying "George Bush is a fascist".
Then when someone presents a good arguemnt that he's NOT a fascist, I says "well, I was really hoping to discuss the larger issue, which is civil rights abuses by the government in the last hundred years, blah blah blah".

You were specific, we were specific...

Here is your original post, to remind you:

"Q: Why choose Spielberg as the incarnation of the evils of Hollywood?

Godard: Because he's very well known and because he directed Schindler's List. I read somewhere that Oskar Schindler's widow lives in poeverty in Argentina despite all the money the film brought in. Spielberg is a symbolic name.
Thoughs? Reactions?"
----------------------------------

Maybe you didn't mean this post to go in the direction of Spielberg vs. Goddard, but the entirety of your post, as well as it's obvious context is absolutely Spielberg vs. Goddard.

Perhaps when faced with so many good arguments against your position, you are trying to shift the topic from where it was, saying "no that's not what I meant". (See old Alex posts for fantastic examples of this).

Otherwise, if you're trying to say one thing, you should clarify that.
All you did is post the above quote, and say : "Thoughs? Reactions?"

You got thoughts, and you got reactions.
And they were all dead on topic, as far as your original post goes.
If you want it to mean something else entirely, then post another topic and be more clear.

Matt Pacini

------------------

crimsonson · January 23rd, 2002, 12:10 PM

"Maybe you didn't mean this post to go in the direction of Spielberg vs. Goddard, but the entirety of your post, as well as it's obvious context is absolutely Spielberg vs. Goddard.

Perhaps when faced with so many good arguments against your position, you are trying to shift the topic from where it was, saying "no that's not what I meant".
"

"So many good arguments"?
Where?
Actually, I do not still think any the arguments is quite strong, in fact they tend to be more personal in nature - about Godard or those you do not agree with. And "we dont know" argument is silly. Its a discussion of ideas not an empirical debate who got the faster camera. Its an open ended duscussion.

If you read my counter arguments I REPEATEDLY stated my orginal intentions. I apologise if my original post where no so clear. And I did name the thread "Godard on Hollywood" and not NOT "Godard on Spielberg." I do not think it was that complicated to imply Spielberg as more of a symbolic person than being THE actual reason.

And Matt, can you please stop the practice of predicting the 'true' intentions of your opponents? It is primitive and counter productive. Please?

------------------

[This message has been edited by crimsonson (edited January 23, 2002).]

MovieStuff · January 23rd, 2002, 01:14 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by crimsonson:

Actually, I do not still think any the arguments is quite strong, in fact they tend to be more personal in nature - about Godard or those you do not agree with.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look, you can't include Godard as the catalyst and then expect people to NOT give their opinion of him since he obvious feels little problem in giving his opinion about Spielberg. Or are we supposed to just pretend that Godard is correct in his position for the sake of argument? What kind of argument would that be, anyway? It WOULDN'T be, now would it? It would just be a bunch of people all sitting at their computers going,"Yeah, Godard's right. That Speilberg is a real cock." And even if we play the game that Spielberg is only the symbolic representation of Hollywood, it will STILL be just be a bunch of people all sitting at their computers going,"Yeah, Godard's right. Hollywood is just filled with cocks like Spielberg."

I really don't understand your opposition to desent, here. It does seem odd that you ask for reactions and opinions and then, when you get them, you complain that we aren't discussing the topic correctly, therefore, we've all reached the "wrong" conclusions. As such, you wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by crimsonson:

And "we dont know" argument is silly. Its a discussion of ideas not an empirical debate who got the faster camera. Its an open ended duscussion.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apparently not! Because unless we come to the same conclusion as you or discuss it according to your rules, then everyone's comments are immediately dismissed by you as "silly". Now why would anyone want to participate in a discussion like that?

And, by the way, for you to argue that the "we don't know" argument is silly, then you must "know" something about Spielberg that counters my position. What is it that you know, for a fact, that makes all this worth discussing? Because, unless we know for a fact that Spielberg is guilty of the things that Goddard accuses him of, then Spielberg is NOT the symbolic representation of Hollywood's evils at all. So, again, to "pretend" that he is for the sake of this discussion would be a waste of time.

How's THAT for a thought or reaction? wink

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited January 23, 2002).]

crimsonson · January 23rd, 2002, 01:54 PM

"Or are we supposed to just pretend that Godard is correct in his position for the sake of argument? What kind of argument would that be, anyway? It WOULDN'T be, now would it?"

The point is not to discuss Godard himself, but THE issue he raised. Its like reading political science theory. We are not discussing the character of the author but the question he/she posed. This is commonly done in any collegiate books, film criticism mgazines, journals, etc, etc.

If Robert Dahl says that democracy polarizes race is America, are we gonna say "well Dahl is just a fucking loser who cant cut it here?"

"I really don't understand your opposition to desent, here. It does seem odd that you ask for reactions and opinions and then, when you get them, you complain that we aren't discussing the topic correctly, therefore, we've all reached the "wrong" conclusions. As such, you wrote:"

And I have apologised and made the most earnest effort to clarify my intent repeatedly.

"What is it that you know, for a fact, that makes all this worth discussing? "

Am I wrong to assume that it is common knowledge and practice in Hollywood to 'base' a movie about a person(s) or event(s) and to bypass payment or other responsibilities by *slightly* changing the name or look or other insignicficant traits of the people involved? [Also posed previously]

It seems like I am repeating myself - this is about Hollywood practice and not just about Spielberg. I have already entertained the idea that Godard is incorrect (this thread, my post #5). But as I said before, it does not address to the underlying question about Hollywood's practice and respsonsibility (if any).

------------------

[This message has been edited by crimsonson (edited January 23, 2002).]

MovieStuff · January 23rd, 2002, 02:40 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by crimsonson:

The point is not to discuss Godard himself, but THE issue he raised.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But did he actually raise an issue or just make an unfounded accusation? As I see it, no "issue" has been established at all; only Godard's obvious dislike and jealousy of Spielberg. Godard didn't pose his statement as the springboard for a theoretical or philosophical discussion, YOU did. Godard simply made an unsupported claim about Spielberg for what ever personal reasons Godard has. Then you ask us to comment on Godard's statement, which we did.

In fact, the ONLY thing we know for sure that we can comment on is Godard's reasons for making such a statement and not the validity of the statement itself, since we have no facts. In the end, like it or not, the only thing to discuss here is Godard; not the implications of what he said since they, as yet, have no basis in fact.

Therefore, when you write:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by crimsonson:

If Robert Dahl says that democracy polarizes race is America, are we gonna say "well Dahl is just a fucking loser who cant cut it here?"
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, IF Dahl is a loser and can't cut it here, then why not?

When someone makes an unfounded accusation, you can't separate the message from the messenger because personal bias is always a factor. Now, if Dahl had said,"Statistical studies have proven that democracy polarizes race in America and here are the statistics to prove it" then THAT would be worth discussing. As it stands with Godard, he said,"I read somewhere that...."

Come on. Are we really supposed to engage in thoughtful debate about second hand information obviously and suspiciously skewed by the jealousy of another person?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by crimsonson:

Am I wrong to assume that it is common knowledge and practice in Hollywood to 'base' a movie about a person(s) or event(s) and to bypass payment or other responsibilities by *slightly* changing the name or look or other insignicficant traits of the people involved?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course this happens all the time. No one is saying that it doesn't. But, as I said, "Shindler's List" wasn't about Widow Shindler, therefore, using Spielberg as an example for discussion just doesn't work. She didn't miss out an any compensation that she deserved, as far as I can see. If it was about her life, or was based on a book written by her, then that would be one thing. As it stands, Spielberg HAS given generously to help memorialize the group that the movie was about, namely the holocaust survivors.

Still, at this point, you haven't anwered my previous question regarding responsibility: What have any of the survivors done to help Window Shindler? Why should Spielberg owe her and these people not? For the same reason- She wasn't involved. Therefore, Godard's comment - the entire REASON for this discussion - is not only out of place, it has no bearing on Hollywood's ethics or lack thereof. It is just an unfounded claim by a bitter messenger.

What's there to discuss?

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

crimsonson · January 23rd, 2002, 03:04 PM

"In fact, the ONLY thing we know for sure that we can comment on is Godard's reasons for making such a statement and not the validity of the statement itself, since we have no facts"

Really? How? When did Godard profess his reasons?
Since there is no such thing, it reasonable to say that it is then not about Godard's reasons.

"Sure, IF Dahl is a loser and can't cut it here, then why not? "

Can I assume that ad hominem is a valid academic response?

"Why should Spielberg owe her and these people not?"

The simple fact that the movie is about her husband and according to American law and customs, the wife has a right to at least some (mostly half) of her husbands wealth and earnings.

Regarding the survivors owning - the topic was never on the interviewer's question, Godards comments, nor mine. And add to the fact that WE know Hollywood (in the form of Speilberg in this case) is more than able to compensate.

------------------

MovieStuff · January 23rd, 2002, 05:08 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by crimsonson:
When did Godard profess his reasons?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You tell me. What reason does he have for making an unsubstantiated claim? I, for one, would be interested in hearing his reasons.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by crimsonson:

Since there is no such thing, it reasonable to say that it is then not about Godard's reasons.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is as much about Godard's reasons as it about Spielberg's supposed guilt. Again, you can't separate the message from the messenger if the message has no basis in fact.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by crimsonson:

"Sure, IF Dahl is a loser and can't cut it here, then why not? "

Can I assume that ad hominem is a valid academic response?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh? You lost me on that one. It is okay to call a jerk a jerk if he is, indeed, a jerk. I don't think there is anyone that will argue that point. What constitutes a "jerk'? Someone that repeats second hand infomation for their own agenda.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by crimsonson:

"Why should Spielberg owe her and these people not?"

The simple fact that the movie is about her husband and according to American law and customs, the wife has a right to at least some (mostly half) of her husbands wealth and earnings.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now THAT'S silly. Shindler did nothing to earn a dime of Spielbergs efforts. Again, this wasn't a book he wrote, it was a story told by survivors he helped. THEY owe his widow (if anyone does), not Spielberg.

About which you wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by crimsonson:

Regarding the survivors owning - the topic was never on the interviewer's question, Godards comments, nor mine. And add to the fact that WE know Hollywood (in the form of Speilberg in this case) is more than able to compensate.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So this is what it's really all about, eh? The ability to compensate as opposed to the responsibility to compensate? Big difference there, you know.

Goddard did not present a single shred of evidence that Spielberg owen poor widow Shindler. In fact, he didn't even provide evidence that she was, in fact, poor. He merely repeated something that he read because he has an obvious beef with Spielberg. And, now, you're doing the same thing to support YOUR position.

Enough, already. This isn't a debate. This is a shoving match.

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited January 23, 2002).]

crimsonson · January 23rd, 2002, 06:16 PM

"What reason does he have for making an unsubstantiated claim? I, for one, would be interested in hearing his reasons."

"In fact, the ONLY thing we know for sure that we can comment on is Godard's reasons for making such a statement and not the validity of the statement itself, since we have no facts."

I thought you did?

"Huh? You lost me on that one. It is okay to call a jerk a jerk if he is, indeed, a jerk. I don't think there is anyone that will argue that point. What constitutes a "jerk'? Someone that repeats second hand infomation for their own agenda."
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/di...m=ad%20hominem

I have always thought since high school that such practice in acceptable in any reasonable academic discussion

"Shindler did nothing to earn a dime of Spielbergs efforts"

Then American laws and customs must be changed then.

"The ability to compensate as opposed to the responsibility to compensate?"

I have always said the opposite. I clearly state is several times on this thread (including the last one). "question about Hollywood's practice and respsonsibility (if any)."

"beef with Spielberg."

Beef? Where? I never targeted his character only asked if he is able should he compensate? And then I asked 'why or why not?'

I never assumed about his character or his intentions for his decision when you clearly did with Godard. Am I the one who has the beef then?

"Enough, already. This isn't a debate. This is a shoving match."

Hmmm...we are going in circles.

------------------

Thread: Godard on Hollywood.... (insightful)

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions