User:TPoole/sandbox: Difference between revisions

Line 257:

However, once enacted by Ryan O’Neal, the words seem detached from intentionality. Their impact is cumulative, and it is extremely memorable, but certainly not in a way that O’Neal appreciated. Touted for its awful acting, the scene has become a favorite “so bad it’s good” clip for the YouTube crowd. But rarely do viewers stop to ask whether any actor could have read those lines in accord with what passes for believability in Hollywood films. Many persons involved with ''Tough Guys'' urged Mailer to remove the scene,

but he would not budge. His cinematic laboratory not only recorded his experiments, but also required their dissemination.

When I began this essay, I proposed the question, “How much film history does a film need?” Norman Mailer believed that ''Wild 90'', ''Beyond the Law'', and ''Maidstone'' represented a unique approach to filmmaking. They were distinct, and so for him they bore little relation to what had gone before.

However, a conscious decision to break from the past is still engaged in a conversation with it.

In Mailer’s case, that conversation was complicated. However original those three films were (and remain), there is no doubt that certain elements of them—including the basic idea of tackling fiction in the guise of documentary—

had many important predecessors. And Mailer’s films constituted a small part of their own history. ''Wild 90'' influenced ''Beyond the Law'', and

both of those influenced ''Maidstone''.

With all of this I mind, I believe that another, related question is now in

order: ''How many film historians does a film need?'' The past needs a present

to remember it: that much is clear. Many films have been forgotten because they were forgettable. But others have just slipped through the cracks. No one can watch every film. Some are lost, and even some of those that are found sit comfortably in archives without attention from viewers. They await rediscovery, their joys currently imprisoned in aging film cans. And they

await interest from enough film historians (and theorists and critics) to be chronicled in studies of the cinema.

@@ Line 257: / Line 257: @@
 However, once enacted by Ryan O’Neal, the words seem detached from intentionality. Their impact is cumulative, and it is extremely memorable, but certainly not in a way that O’Neal appreciated. Touted for its awful acting, the scene has become a favorite “so bad it’s good” clip for the YouTube crowd. But rarely do viewers stop to ask whether any actor could have read those lines in accord with what passes for believability in Hollywood films. Many persons involved with ''Tough Guys'' urged Mailer to remove the scene,
 but he would not budge. His cinematic laboratory not only recorded his experiments, but also required their dissemination.
+When I began this essay, I proposed the question, “How much film history does a film need?” Norman Mailer believed that ''Wild 90'', ''Beyond the Law'', and ''Maidstone'' represented a unique approach to filmmaking. They were distinct, and so for him they bore little relation to what had gone before.
+However, a conscious decision to break from the past is still engaged in a conversation with it.
+In Mailer’s case, that conversation was complicated. However original those three films were (and remain), there is no doubt that certain elements of them—including the basic idea of tackling fiction in the guise of documentary—
+had many important predecessors. And Mailer’s films constituted a small part of their own history. ''Wild 90'' influenced ''Beyond the Law'', and
+both of those influenced ''Maidstone''.
+With all of this I mind, I believe that another, related question is now in
+order: ''How many film historians does a film need?'' The past needs a present
+{{pg|180|181}}
+to remember it: that much is clear. Many films have been forgotten because they were forgettable. But others have just slipped through the cracks. No one can watch every film. Some are lost, and even some of those that are found sit comfortably in archives without attention from viewers. They await rediscovery, their joys currently imprisoned in aging film cans. And they
+await interest from enough film historians (and theorists and critics) to be chronicled in studies of the cinema.