-
shavinganegg
-
-
-
Joined on 06-18-2006
-
-
Posts 37
-
Points 720
-
|
Hi there,
I’m not very active in the forums
because I don’t have much time for that. :( I started a thread some time ago
about Integral Art, and I realized I didn’t know very much about the latest
works of Wilber and some other semiotic theory so I’ve been reading (2 hour on
the bus everyday!) all the authors Wilber consider for building Integral
Semiotics. After all this reading, I still think that my first intuition was
right, and I find it relevant for this matter too.
Again, since I feel I’m one of the
few discordant voices here, I want to make clear that I don’t have any objection
on Ken’s theory, which I find extremely useful both for personal and
professional issues. BUT ART. I think the theory is fine. It’s how is it
applied. And that makes me think that
I’m wrong, but at the other side, since what I value the most of integral
thinking is that you can measure it by how much effective it makes you, and the
application that Ken do of his own (probably underdeveloped in this aspect) theory
doesn’t pass the test. PLUS, I know I’m no one special to call for anything,
but somehow I demand to Stu, as a legitimate heir I think he is, to surpass his
master in this point, because he is an artist. A good one.
IMIO (In my Integral Opinion!), it is
painfully obvious that you can’t put at the same level Alex Gray and Van Gogh
(Ken), or that The Fountain is not a great movie (Stu). (I wish my English was
better to say what is coming next.)
I can defend The Fountain to death. But
I can’t say that it is a wonderful movie. That wouldn’t be Integral. I think
that we are so HUNGRY for spiritual movies, that any effort in that direction
have our sympathy. In the same way we project our good aspects in the person we
fall in love with, we do the same thing with this kind of movies. Come on! Pay
attention to the interview, Darren have no idea of what Stu is talking about. At
the other side, Stu mainly talk about left quadrants but for the special
effects.
I like the idea of talking about the
same Spiritual subject in those three levels (pre-rational/mythic, rational,
trans-rational). I admire Darren because he dares to try it and convince a
studio to go on. And so on. But the results are not good enough. It is normal:
the more ambitious and difficult, the more easy to fail.
Beyond the flaws of the dialogues
and rhythms, and the flatness of the characters dressed with oneiric ambient,
what I dislike the most is that Darren looks like a young amateur poet with a
thesaurus dictionary. A symbols dictionary, in this case. All that collage of clichés!
Do you really want me to explain that more in detail? But, (and this is really
connected with what we talked in the thread I mentioned before), those clichés
are used more as what I call signs (arbitrary and conventional signifier, like
the radioactive sign) than true archetypes. Therefore, the film works with
certain altitude because we already know what is he talking about and the
sentence “..Death is the path to awe”, not because of the movie itself. I cried
for one hour when I turned the last page
of Grace and Grit. The movie recalled me that moment. But never could make me
feel like that. It is not memorable. Not for me. Not this way.
“Lady in the water” is a very
different situation. That is a better movie! I’ve just see Fangsz asking in
this post if “Lady in the water” is really magenta. But I’m afraid that it is
far for being trans-rational. Despite of it, Fangsz make some interesting
questions. For instance, I do agree that film only could be made by at least a
green meme. IN the same way integral art is art made by an integral artist,
could we say green art is made by green artist? In that sense, I’d say the
movie is more green than magenta. Now take a green or yellow viewer that has
made a lot of personal introspection and have clear some psychological
concepts. Is this movie moving him back to magenta or up to yellow/turquoise as
it apparently happens to Fangsz? It is the opposite of the altitude sickness.
If you are trans-rational, can you see the monster as the shadow and not as an
actual monster? I guess the answer is yes.
Another interesting question he
makes: is all fantasy centered on the Magenta altitude? Let’s have a look at
“The Dead Emcee Scrolls: The Lost Teachings of Hip-Hop”, the latest work of the
integral artist Saul Williams. As you can figure out from the title, it has a
heavy load of mythological background. Is this work magenta or is he using
magenta impulses to connect with a magenta NGH audience? Is this work
pre-rational? Not for me! I admit that “The Lady in the water” didn’t moved me
to trans-rational spaces (I just rationalized the mythic story) and that’s why
I think is magenta/green centered, depending of the altitude of the viewer. But
the book of Saul Williams made me move along the whole spiral, bottom to top,
and backwards. And I don’t believe any word of the mythological origin of the
book, despite I think is as beautiful as a art work has to be. At the other
side, I admit that when I’m reading his powerful voice resonates inside, and my
knowledge of him (right quadrants) makes me jump to transcendence from his
early words. It is happening to me what happens to Stu or Ken?
I have seen (both “The Fountain” and
“Lay in the water”) in DVD just to understand the opinion of Stu and Fangsz at integalnaked
(I wasn’t interested on them). Stu mentioned some other movies I love, as The
Matrix, I heart Huckabees, etc. Let’s forget for a second how each of us like
it or how angry we are because of this or that critic. Let’s move to the WE.
Let’s look for some objective data, so we can discuss over an objective
perspective.
I HEART HUCKABEES Critics
Tomatoer:
Reviews Counted:
175
Fresh: 106 Rotten: 69
Average Rating: 6.3/10
FRESH 61%
BOX OFFICE SUMMARY
Box Office Total: $12,711,889 Box Office Opening:$292,177
No. of Weeks in Top 10:1
Highest Ranking:10
BOX OFFICE HISTORY
|
Week
|
Rank
|
Wkd. Gross
|
Theaters
|
Per Theater
|
Cumulative
|
Week #1
|
24
|
$292,177
|
4
|
$73,044
|
$292,177
|
Week #2
|
15
|
$901,123
|
44
|
$20,480
|
$1,311,304
|
Week #3
|
12
|
$914,880
|
65
|
$14,075
|
$2,600,993
|
Week #4
|
10
|
$2,902,468
|
785
|
$3,697
|
$5,807,764
|
Week #5
|
11
|
$1,705,923
|
901
|
$1,893
|
$8,441,017
|
Week #6
|
14
|
$1,113,777
|
585
|
$1,904
|
$10,234,914
|
Week #7
|
18
|
$541,784
|
278
|
$1,949
|
$11,195,428
|
Week #8
|
22
|
$296,895
|
163
|
$1,821
|
$11,680,406
|
Week #9
|
25
|
$215,729
|
106
|
$2,035
|
$12,044,129
|
Week #10
|
27
|
$137,314
|
128
|
$1,073
|
$12,247,822
|
Week #11
|
31
|
$83,592
|
107
|
$781
|
$12,385,183
|
Week #12
|
37
|
$56,212
|
80
|
$703
|
$12,495,748
|
Week #13
|
45
|
$18,098
|
44
|
$411
|
$12,547,523
|
Week #14
|
49
|
$26,129
|
43
|
$608
|
$12,596,975
|
Week #15
|
46
|
$41,654
|
45
|
$926
|
$12,654,923
|
Week #16
|
46
|
$35,608
|
46
|
$774
|
$12,711,889
|
THE FOUNTAIN
Critics
Tomatoer:
Reviews
Counted: 155
Fresh: 78 Rotten: 77
Average Rating: 5.9/10
ROTTEN 50%
BOX
OFFICE SUMMARY
Box
Office Total: $9,892,669
Box Office
Opening:$3,768,702
No. of
Weeks in Top 10:1
Highest
Ranking:10
BOX OFFICE HISTORY
|
Week
|
Rank
|
Wkd. Gross
|
Theaters
|
Per Theater
|
Cumulative
|
Week #1
|
10
|
$3,768,702
|
1,472
|
$2,560
|
$5,456,908
|
Week #2
|
13
|
$1,785,334
|
1,472
|
$1,213
|
$8,241,535
|
Week #3
|
18
|
$501,489
|
636
|
$789
|
$9,390,119
|
Week #4
|
29
|
$130,233
|
145
|
$898
|
$9,776,258
|
Week #5
|
44
|
$36,578
|
35
|
$1,045
|
$9,892,669
|
If we compare this two movies, we
see that they probably will do the same money in the same amount of time. But
“The fountain” opened in 1,472 theatres, against 4 theatres for Huckabees.
Critics were more open to the last (61%), but I don’t think it can balance the
commercial effort made for The Fountain. Here, word of mouth worked in opposite
directions: 35 theatres for the fountain
the week #5, 901 for Huckabees.
Now let’s have a look to THE MATRIX
REVOLUTIONS, one of my favourite movies EVER.
THE MATRIX REVOLUTIONS
Critics
Tomatoer:
Reviews
Counted: 200 Fresh: 74
Rotten: 126 Average
Rating: 5.3/10
ROTTEN 37%
BOX
OFFICE SUMMARY
Box
Office Total: $139,076,032
Box Office
Opening:$48,475,154 No. of
Weeks at #1:1 No. of
Weeks in Top 10:3
BOX OFFICE HISTORY
|
Week
|
Rank
|
Wkd. Gross
|
Theaters
|
Per Theater
|
Cumulative
|
Week #1
|
1
|
$48,475,154
|
3,502
|
$13,842
|
$83,790,000
|
Week #2
|
3
|
$16,415,384
|
3,502
|
$4,687
|
$114,268,949
|
Week #3
|
6
|
$7,032,216
|
3,024
|
$2,325
|
$125,382,792
|
Week #4
|
11
|
$4,787,326
|
2,055
|
$2,330
|
$133,332,436
|
Week #5
|
12
|
$1,352,380
|
1,257
|
$1,076
|
$135,673,369
|
Week #6
|
16
|
$722,041
|
633
|
$1,141
|
$136,924,212
|
Week #7
|
21
|
$271,473
|
272
|
$998
|
$137,460,747
|
Week #8
|
30
|
$244,279
|
116
|
$2,106
|
$137,882,816
|
Week #9
|
34
|
$186,142
|
116
|
$1,605
|
$138,294,428
|
Week #10
|
37
|
$103,877
|
78
|
$1,332
|
$138,462,698
|
Week #11
|
34
|
$234,434
|
319
|
$735
|
$138,737,892
|
Week #12
|
37
|
$136,207
|
262
|
$520
|
$138,937,971
|
Week #13
|
43
|
$75,724
|
177
|
$428
|
$139,076,032
|
Look at his numbers! Worst
rate of good reviews so far. Made almost same money than The Matrix, with 88%
at rotten tomatoes, which makes the highest score of all movies above.
Finally, let’s pay
attention to Lady in the Water numbers:
LADY IN THE WATER
Critics Tomatoer:
Reviews Counted: 191
Fresh: 46 Rotten: 145
Average Rating: 4.2/10 ROTTEN 24%!!!!!!
OX OFFICE SUMMARY
Box Office Total: $42,219,433
Box Office Opening:$18,044,396
No. of Weeks in Top 10:2
Highest Ranking:3
BOX OFFICE HISTORY
|
Week
|
Rank
|
Wkd. Gross
|
Theaters
|
Per Theater
|
Cumulative
|
Week #1
|
3
|
$18,044,396
|
3,235
|
$5,578
|
$18,044,396
|
Week #2
|
6
|
$7,144,275
|
3,235
|
$2,208
|
$32,203,657
|
Week #3
|
12
|
$2,711,191
|
2,670
|
$1,015
|
$38,633,274
|
Week #4
|
21
|
$835,426
|
1,155
|
$723
|
$40,839,528
|
Week #5
|
31
|
$233,484
|
340
|
$687
|
$41,483,823
|
Week #6
|
41
|
$101,054
|
163
|
$620
|
$41,682,850
|
Week #7
|
39
|
$238,600
|
261
|
$914
|
$41,956,398
|
Week #8
|
38
|
$116,017
|
248
|
$468
|
$42,116,107
|
Week #9
|
43
|
$63,566
|
142
|
$448
|
$42,219,433
|
Worst score than the
Fountain, but made $42 million agains $9!!!
Do you think that public
have less altitude sickness than critics? Common sense would say the opposite. Public
likes the entertainment, which is what mostly measures the quality for them.
It’s Hollywood. That’s Darren league. He is no shooting a
short film for his integral friends.
My only point here is that those
movies had not a great support from critics, but worked for the people... BUT
The Fountain. And we can write long about why, but in short: it’s not a good
movie. If you let that your “awesome message”
stops people from enjoying you movie, you can’t blame the critics. You can’t
blame the public. Altitude sickness is not a good excuse.
OF course I’m thinking out
loud here. Open to discuss. Little bit challenging tone maybe. It’s because
everybody agrees here, and I feel kind of freak.
hugs, toni
|
|