Elokuvalla on kaksi elämää

Time has a great way of shaking out a film’s core, what it’s really about.

When you first watch a movie, you pay your money. Maybe you’re on a date. I mean, movies have two lives, obviously. Their short-lived economic life is just how you hook up with an audience at that moment. If you’re breathing the same air and it fits into the culture, then you’re lucky that the planets have aligned and people respond to your movie at that moment.

Once it’s an artifact from the past and you go see it in a repertory theatre or watch a DVD, then it’s something else. You see it on its own merits for what it is. You can see more clearly the artist’s intentions and the depth in there.

Richard Linklater

Ota osaa keskusteluun

2 kommenttia

  1. I must admit I don’t really understand Linklater’s position. This is of course only my opinion, but maybe as a filmmaker, through his experience of how people have reacted to HIS films he seems to underestimate opening nights. To me that’s when the film hits me – and leaves hopefully a lasting impression (like a hole in the head…) – Cassavetes’s OPENING NIGHT, Oshima’s THE CEREMONY, Farhadi’s A SEPARATION, Bresson’s L’ARGENT, Skurnik’s TIE PIMEÄÄN…

    But this comment from Linklater suits The Lone Ranger, because people do not seem to get it right away.

  2. Huomioi konteksti. Linklater puhuu Some Came Runningista, joka (ilmeisesti) sai aikalaiskriitikoilta nihkeät arviot, koska ohjaajaa pidettiin enempi kevyen kaman tekijänä.

    Haluaisin kuvitella, että jos samat kriitikot palaisivat teoksen äärelle vuosikymmeniä myöhemmin, he olisivat vähemmän naimisissa jonkinlaisen epämääräisen zeitgeist-konsensuksen kanssa ja valmiimpia katsomaan teosta an sich.

Kommentoi

Sähköpostiosoitettasi ei julkaista.