Mr. Arkadin wrote:Unfortunately there are not that many people there who want to discuss film.
That’s the reason I’m usually reluctant to post: I realize I possess almost no innate aptitude for assessing artistic depth, whether it be for film, canvas, or music. I know what I enjoy, but mostly it’s limited to a sense of what’s realistic regarding character or plot, or simple affection for the personalities of the actors involved. I tend to like movies as they develop more than as they resolve, though I recognize that only with completion does a film succeed as a whole. I do credit myself with an eye aware of the unworthy but as for quality in and of itself, I feel almost mute. Easy to say why one boos, less so why one applauds. Guess that makes me a human being.
The only reason I even have an inkling that I have an ear or eye for what passes is that I tend to hang with folks who can in fact create or say something intelligible about the nature of creativity. All too often I feel as though I view simply to see actors whose personalities I like, such as with Eastwood, Wayne, or Holden, among many, many others. I know that’s not so unusual.
It’s almost only via saturation that I’ve gained some appreciation for acting ability, such as with a Davis or a Guinness. By contrast, only rarely do I feel competent to speak out on successes or failings of direction, and even then only if a film seems to violate something I see as fundamental to human nature. Sometimes a script seems overwritten in the sense that it makes the characters seem too quick or smart. TV shows often fail that way, at least for me.
How’s that for a digression? Guess I should feel fortunate to know that I don’t understand why I enjoy movies. Thank you Mr. Arkadin.