[lbo-talk] why movies suck

[Catherine Driscoll]

Seen Saw IV? Or any of the Matrix sequels? Sequels can be offensive. And they're certainly not always safe bets. Sequels are in fact about a certain kind of audience, to which "sequel" is an appeal (interpellation even) rather than merely a repetition. So sequels really matter in the "teen" and "family" film modes, but for different reasons, though they can cross over.

I don't think there's anything at all wrong, per se, with adaptations, or sequels. Joyce's _Ulysses_, after all, is a sequel (as was, in a similar way, Homer's _Odyssey_). And in another sense U is also an adaptation, and depending what you make of the whole oral/written thing, perhaps so is "Homer". But in fact that sort of justification by canons is not the way I'd want to have those arguments about the aesthetic/cultural validity of repetition, I'm just jetlagged and scrabbling for purchase on my own brain. I stand entirely by the first sentence.

Catherine

-----Original Message-----
From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org on behalf of Doug Henwood
Sent: Wed 18/11/2009 23:41
To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] why movies suck

 

On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:06 PM, Joanna wrote:


> One could argue that sequels bespeak a certain amount of cultural  
> impoverishment; but adaptations are examples of imitation, which are  
> a classic aesthetic mode.

The point is that Hollywood doesn't want to do anything original -  
it's all III, IV...IX. Because it's safe and inoffensive.
___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk