[lbo-talk] This is the End of Tony

Jerry Monaco monacojerry at gmail.com
Thu Jun 14 21:01:36 PDT 2007


Brian,

For me at least, and I hope for you, this - both our on-list and off-list exchanges - has been fruitful, because I begin to see more clearly how we disagree, and it has allowed me to clarify, for myself, my own relation to certain artists -- well, at least Puccini.

Thanks very much for responding so thoughtfully and intelligently.

Jerry

On 6/14/07, Brian Charles Dauth <magcomm at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > You do not see the artistic power in the stories that THE
> SOPRANOS tells and I do.
>
> Maybe it would help if you gave me your definitions of a) story;
> b) plot; and c) narrative. I think some misunderstandings
> are caused by the way each of us is using these terms.
>
> > I think that THE SOPRANOS is a series of connected stories,
> powerful and engrossing, with a unifying narrative-consciousness,
> creating a fictional universe of characters who reveal to us an
> alternate world of experience where we can effectively feel our
> own self-loathing, reveal our own moral failings of attraction
> and repulsion, and distance ourselves from ourselves because of
> the "aliveness" of this hypothetical reality, that we call these
> stories of THE SOPRANOS.
>
> First, I have never loathed myself, so the oportunity to travel to
> a place that allows me to experience my self-loathng is an offer
> I can refuse. As for distancing myself from myself, as a queer boi
> I have struggled too hard not to stop doing just that to go there
> again.
>
> Secondly, for me the "aliveness" of this hypothetical reality can
> be accessed in two ways: 1) through shocks of recognition where
> what is portrayed on screen evokes memories/experiences from my
> own life; and 2) through the skillful employment of the particular
> medium's formal elements which allow me to enter this world. In the
> case of THE SOPRANOS, both routes are closed.
>
> > The interest comes for me where I agree with so much of your
> criticism and observations, and yet insist that you are not even
> seeing the story, or acknowledging it.
>
> I can acknowledge being the presence of a story without finding it
> compelling. I do not find the mere fact of being told a story
> compelling . Either there is some experiential hook or the pleasure
> of the craft of the storyteller to pull me in (preferrably both).
>
> > You also don't seem to want to acknowledge that making living-stories
> is important to all of the narrative arts in what ever medium.
>
> I think it is vital. If Chase had only provided access to all who
> wished to enter.
>
> > What I am trying to get you to understand is that sometimes the story
> can "make" music.
>
> Maybe if the story has a deep personal meaning. I think that is what
> happens with THE SOPRANOS and you. You are able to access it on a
> vision/emotional/experiential/psychological (VEEP) level that is closed
> to me. Since Chase fails to provide another path, I am shut out.
>
> The one scene I could inhabit was that rare moment I noted ealier where
> Chase is actually good: Paulie sunning himself. It is a beautifully
> directed moment and I entered it with ease. But with the next shot I
> was once more evicted from the premises.
>
> > There are no such phenomena as the "non-aesthetic aspects" of the work.
> The whole of the work is part of the "aesthetic" aspects of the work, and
> in works that are specifically narrative, the _experiential-whole_ of the
> work is what I am calling our experience of the story.
>
> I wasn't clear about what I meant (and only have become so contributing to
> this thread). What I should have posted was that I found it interesting
> that the accolade of greatness could be applied to a work of art without
> mention of how it made use of the formal elements of its medium. For me,
> the fact that THE SOPRANOS mentioned the Iraq war is commendable, but that
> does not make it great. For me, a great work of art does create that alive,
> alternate world you speak of, but in addition provides a means to get there.
>
> One way is through activating in a viewer some VEEP trigger, but success
> here
> is dependent on a viewer bringing this trigger to the screening with her.
> The other is the creation of access through the successful manipulation of
> the medium's formal elements.
>
> > If people experience the alternate reality of character and society; the
> alternate reality of aspects of specific people they know; of specific
> "reflections" and deflections from their own social experience . . .
>
> . . . which I did not . . .
>
> > . . . if they experience all of this as aspects of THE SOPRANOS that they
> watch, then that becomes part of the world of stories that the work of art
> has created.
>
> Agreed. Maybe a possible formal element is the presenting of social/
> psychological types that in some viewers will evoke "shocks of recognition"
> or similar responses.
>
> > More specifically, you take the rather nineteenth century view, that 20th
> century auteurist swallowed whole, that there are aesthetic aspects of art
> that are specific, particular and exclusive to that art's medium.
>
> Maybe they got it right in the 19th century and subsequent decades fucked it
> up. Or is the latest always the best?
>
> I was an auteurist before I even knew the term. By the time I was 10, I
> was looking forward to the "directed by" credit. In fact, it was only after
> people read my writing and told me that I was an auteurist that I was aware
> that I was one. I do believe that they are certain formal properties that
> exist in different media. I do not believe that they are specific or
> exclusive. Dialogue exists in the novel, the play and on the screen. In
> each
> case it is a formal element, but there are subtle variations between them.
> Often what reads well on the page does not play well on the screen or stage.
>
> > Thus if the work of art does not measure up to the aesthetic standards of
> > the
> medium specific to it, then that art must be judged lacking.
>
> My only standard (hope?) is that a formal element, if it is used, be used
> effectively. I do not believe that there is some Platonic form floating
> somewhere labelled "good acting" or "good dialogue" or "good editing." For
> me,
> a formal element is well used if it helps the viewer access and experience
> the
> world of the story (in the case of narrative art).
>
> > It is because THE SOPRANOS does not live up to your visual standards, that
> > you
> condemn all of us for experiencing the world created by the stories, through
> good
> acting and great writing, as a compelling work of art.
>
> Is effectiveness such an odd aesthetic to have? I think it is great that
> you can
> enter and experience THE SOPRANOS. I was just wondering how the fuck you
> did it.
> Now I have a clearer understanding of both your ability and my inability to
> do so.
>
> > And I am arguing (and I know you will disagree with this) about the
> > possibility
> of openness to the full experience of the narrative arts and how
> predetermined
> aesthetic rules or theories can _never_ provide for this openness.
>
> My only request (not even a rule) is that the artist provide a way into her
> work.
> Is that so outlandish?
>
> > Why is Chase using the medium of television? Why isn't he writing a
> > novel,
> or presenting a series of plays?
>
> No, I can understand it a little better now. Chase was providing access
> through the psychological/experiential/humor doorway. It is one I cannot
> enter through (my experience can only be my experience), but I now
> understand how others might.
>
> I will still wonder about the wisdom of choosing a medium where you can only
> offer one way in if there might be another that would allow for dual entry.
> But maybe nowadays, VEEP is the only doorway that counts and the need for
> facility with other formal elements is as dead as vaudeville.
>
> > The devil -- the perverse representation of/attraction to evil -- is
> always compelling in Dostoevsky's novels and often form the heart of "the
> story" being told, as opposed to the Gothic-mystery plots that Nabokov
> continually criticizes and makes us laugh at.
>
> But here we do enter the world of taste or maybe personal psychology. I
> do not find the devil compelling in the least. There is no attraction in
> evil for me. If it is there for Dostoevsky, great. But if I do not share
> this attraction, then the only way for me to enter into Dosoevesky's story
> is through his craft as a storyteller in his chosen medium.
>
> > I cannot separate the ineptness of camera work from the strength of the
> story he tells.
>
> But the ineptness of the camerawork is more than compensated for by your
> ability to key into Chase's "self-loathing, hate myself, hate the audience,
> make fun of the audience" thing he has going on. You enter into the
> alternate world of THE SOPRANOS through your deep, complicated response to
> Chase's vision.
>
> > But the reason why people of the likes of Edmund Wilson are around is to
> bring us back to ground, so that we can see the power of the stories, the
> characters, the argument, the action, the emotions, not only in-spite of
> the ineptitude but as a part of it.
>
> But if the characters/argument/actions/emotions are dead to a viewer, what
> should that viewer do?
>
> > Or at least, as between myself and Brian, so that one of us can argue for
> _the possibility_ that the power is not in predefined aesthetic "theories"
> but rather in the experiential value of the work as a whole.
>
> But to experience the power you have to gain access to it in the first
> place.
>
> > There are no aesthetic-techniques that are specific to any art-medium so
> that if an artist doesn't follow those aesthetic techniques she/he should
> just stop working in that art medium.
>
> But there are formal properties the skillful manipulation of which creates
> an alternative entrance into the story for those viewers who are unable to
> enter through the VEEP doorway. I think a good artist makes both avenues
> viable.
>
> > Similarly, Brian grossly overestimates the movies made by Douglas Sirk
>
> I think Douglas Sirk made one good movie -- IMITATION OF LIFE. The rest
> of his work leaves me cold.
>
> > The mise en scène of "Imitation of Life" is fantastic.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > It had to do with the star power of one of the worse Hollywood
> actresses Lana Turner. She was wooden, she had a tin-ear for every
> line she said, either reciting the lines in a monotone because she
> didn't know how to convey them, or giving us false emotions at all
> of the wrong times.
>
> And Sirk played her like a Stradivarius. Talk about story. The
> story of this film is the relationship between black and white culture
> in America in 1959. The moment when Lora poses, facing screen
> left as Annie (offscreen right) explains that the reason Lora never
> realized Annie had so many friends was that she never bothered to ask
> is pure genius. All Turner's tin-ear woodeness becomes the perfect
> correlative for the blindness/deafness of white America in 1959.
> Turner's frozen posture and look is a great piece of acting from one
> of Hollywood's least gifted actresses.
>
> > The acting of Juanita Moore and Susanah Kohner soar above the pathetic
> script, and they together with the brilliant directing of Sirk in their
> scenes together, almost save the movie.
>
> Their last scene in the hotel together is flawless (and was actually the
> first one shot).
>
> > But nothing in the end can save this script from Lana Turner and
> Sandra Dee.
>
> Who needs to be saved from them? Their performances were the perfect
> embodiment of whiny, self-absorbed, complacent 1950's America and are
> a perfect counterpoint to the more heartfelt performances of Moore and
> Kohner.
>
> > with sentimentalism substituted for emotion
>
> A perfect representation of 1950's America's shallow piety about its
> (alleged) ideals as opposed to a full-bodied living out of them.
>
> > the strength and weakness in the stories.
>
> The plot is nonsense. But as a story about America it is superb. Maybe
> I respond to IMITATION OF LIFE as you respond to THE SOPRANOS.
>
> Brian
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>

-- Jerry Monaco's Philosophy, Politics, Culture Weblog is Shandean Postscripts to Politics, Philosophy, and Culture http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/

His fiction, poetry, weblog is Hopeful Monsters: Fiction, Poetry, Memories http://www.livejournal.com/users/jerrymonaco/

Notes, Quotes, Images - From some of my reading and browsing http://www.livejournal.com/community/jerry_quotes/



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list