RE: RE: KRUZMAKA AND THE MOVIES
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: KRUZMAKA AND THE MOVIES

Words
307
Reading
2 min
Listen
Play
2y

There was no need for a message because the medium was the message.

If that is the point, there is no need to have a podcast/show where it's talked about a film, since the film IS the message. My man is often joking about the fact that if you have the medium itself, why talk about it?
Same with authors. If you have a book why explaining its contents since if one is interested, he may read the book. LoL

Since we have both writers and other artists, and since we have book reviewers and movie critics, it's what people do, they express what they think of a piece of art. People are both interested in being given a message and give one themselves. The "critical drinker", for example, is a huge youtube-channel I regularly watch.

You've got the huge middle ground and the freedom of interpreting as the viewer, and you've got the freedom on the artists side to have a main message be absent. Same counts for having a main message in mind.

It's alright both ways. If I have a clear intent, I may say so. If I haven't one, I may leave it. But where ever I place myself into the open, I can reckon with being questioned. And, why not?

I like to be wowed by a piece of art ;) The artist, who achieved to wow me can do nothing about it when I did not get his personal message and he cannot demand that I ought to get it. He can wish for it.

If I see a great movie whom others see as well, and if we have a common sense of its message, it might be impossible to nail it down but that doesn't diminish the possibility that it's the main aspects of greatness towards what we applaud.