Critic Names Star Wars Prequel as World's Best Modern Art

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

I like what I read from her statements. I don't agree with it, but I like the strong, unfiltered opinion and honest criticism. We need more critics that just say what they mean, kind of what she hinted at as well.

No more wishy washy filtered half-corporate bullshit that oozes out of reviews these days.

Torches? Check. Pitchforks? Check. Release the hounds...

Frostbite3789:

Bhaalspawn:

Thank you Camille Padliga. It only took 7 years for a respected critic to say the very thing I've been saying since 2005, but at finally we have someone with some actual sense here.

She's so respected the first result when you google her name is this story. And two "Are you sure you spelled the right thing?" corrections.

OT: Attention seeker makes comment trying to garner attention. News at 11.

Edit: The first two link to this story on this site. The only other 4 results link to this same story on different sites.

The credibility of being a film critic far outweighs the credibility of angry Star Wars fans. Just because the fanboys scream with childish tears about the prequels doesn't mean everybody does.

She has been a crazy person who enjoys being a contrarian for attention for at least 22 years. (Just try reading Sexual Personae and tell me otherwise.) Nothing to see here.

She does realise that there is a fairly sizable portion of the population that thinks that 'modern art' is a bunch of prentious bullc#@p?

She seems like an IRL troll

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camille_Paglia

Well I read through this lady's wikipedia page and, with all due respect, she sounds like she might could sort of be... a little nuts. Her bio is filled with nothing but instances of her trash talking other people, making contradictory claims, and just being... well... a bit attention-grabby. I would also like to point out that this lady is neither a filmmaker nor a film critic but rather an author and social critic.

Also, I totally get that "Modern" art is kind of high-brow and meta and that us normal folk "don't get it" or whatever (see the works of Piet Mondrian, Rothko, or Ellsworth Kelly for examples), but if what an artist is doing is so contrived and hipster-ish that literally no one (not even really the artist) gets it, then there isn't much point is there? I feel like a famous artist could take a completely blank canvas, title it Untitled, and have some of these art critics wetting their pants over how "Modern" it is.

Hell, I read a cracked article a little while back that mentioned how certain film analysts consider Michael Bay to be an auteur:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-dumb-celebrities-who-are-way-smarter-than-you-think_p2/

I'd also like to say that the prequels are objectively terrible and no amount of "well they did their best" or "Plinkett is wrong" is ever going to change that because....well... they sucked... and Plinkett isn't wrong.

What's that? You haven't heard what he has to say? Educate yourself please.
http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/
Yeah I know they're long but they're the best damn explanation for why these movies are bad, and you'll learn a hell of a lot more from them than you will from a few bullet points on a forum post. So sit right there on your lazy ass until you've watched all three.

Look, I get that there are always SOME PEOPLE (you know who) who get themselves crazy hyped over whatever's coming out that they like. No, I don't mean the people who simply get excited about these things, I mean the people who build ridiculous expectations in their heads for films and then bitch about them no matter how good they were.

Yeah, I get it, those people exist.

But here's the thing, the existence of these douches doesn't change the fact that the prequels objectively sucked. Nor does their existence mean you shouldn't be allowed to feel dissatisfied with the prequels or even *gasp* complain about them.

Lastly, I keep seeing people that say stuff like "The originals really weren't that good, we just built them up in our heads and then demanded that the prequels do the impossible," and it's getting kind of old. Now I'm not saying there weren't ANY people that did this, because there were. But the originals were good, memorable films regardless, which is why so many people were swept away by them and why Star Wars is still so goddamn popular. Anyone who says crap like the above quote is just making excuses for the prequels.

And those three films are the last goddamn things in the world that need to have any excuses made for them.

Mahorfeus:
In the prequel trilogy's defense, the acting and campiness in the originals was just as bad. *ducks for cover*

*Throws Molotov cocktail into your cover*

OT: Heh. That's funny.

I mean, yes, it was BY FAR the best of the prequels, but....... Really?

I completely disagree. Up is the Worlds Best Modern Art piece, fallowed closely by Toy Story 3 and Wall-E.

No mention of the Scorpion King whatsoever? I am disappointed Escapist!

I'm very glad that Camille figured that voicing this opinion would be a good idea and that she had the gall to do it.

Isn't it a good thing that we live in a society where this is acceptable? =D

GameChanger:
No mention of the Scorpion King whatsoever? I am disappointed Escapist!

Also, this. Assuming we're talking about the third installment.

Bhaalspawn:

The credibility of being a film critic far outweighs the credibility of angry Star Wars fans. Just because the fanboys scream with childish tears about the prequels doesn't mean everybody does.

Being quoted in a magazine most people have never heard of gives you credibility now? Boy, turns out I (and everyone else) has been wrong about the National Enquirer all along.

CardinalPiggles:

Veylon:
I agree with the art critic that the long final lightsaber duel represents modern filmmaking. It's a hyper-choreographed, inconsequential CGI-fest interspersed with a handful of awful and bizarre one-liners standing in for dialogue. I'll admit that it's technically impressive and, no doubt, many an artist worked many a man-hour on it, but it's devoid of all meaning and purpose.

I'd have to disagree. It was there to show that the dark sides corruption on Anakin was stronger than his friendship with Obi-Wan. The lightsaber fight itself was to show their ability in perspective of each other (which is something a hell of a lot of people wanted) and the CGI was bonus.

Oh, I understand what it was there for (and maybe I was hyperboleous). It's just that the dialogue was so dialogue and the fight scene just so dang long that the impact was completely undercut.

Anakin's given everything to the Jedi Order. He left his family and has served in obedience to their code since childhood. He's spent years battling enemies, righting wrongs, shedding blood and risking life and limb without reward.

And what has it all added up to? His mother, the only person who he loved, abandoned to slavery on the dust-world of Tatooine while the Jedi live in a palace in the richest city in the galaxy. His fiance, the only joy in a life dedicated to self-denial and asceticism, turned against him, and himself declared a traitor and distrusted by those in whom he has placed trust and loyalty.

This moment, this final confrontation, is his time to lay at the Jedi Order's feet - in the person of Obi Wan Kenobi - all the wrongs they inflicted upon him over a lifetime of servitude. Every blow of his lightsaber should have the power of a name, a time, a place that the Order has be weighed...and found wanting. This is when Darth Vader emerges, lays out all the events of the entire trilogy, casts them in a new light, and declares himself to a new purpose.

If all that had been done, this would, in justice instead of in jest, be an amazing pinnacle of filmmaking that we could look back on in awe.

To be honest I loved Revenge of the Sith. I mean, ya it was in no way near the original and no way in HELL Empire Strikes Back (my personal favorite, and I'm guessing a lot of your guys' favorite, too) but it was still really good. There were lots of noticable flaws, yes (mainly the medichlorian talk again) but Anikan wasn't so God damn whiny, Jar Jar was completely taken out (I admit that he would have ruined it if he stayed in), Grevous was actually a pretty cool villain, and that last fight scene between Anakin and Obi-Wan... I mean come on that was one of the greatest 1 on 1 fight scenes in movie history. Oh ya, John Williams' soundtrack kicked major ass.

BUT, it is nowhere near the greatest piece of cinema in 30 years, so the greatest art in general is a pretty big stretch. The Dark Knight, Matrix, Saving Private Ryan, Toy Story, Back to the Future, Terminator 1-2, Boyz n the Hood, THESE are the best and brightest that the last 30 years has had to offer. RotS was a great farewell for Lucas, but not the best we've scene since RotJ.

Frostbite3789:

Bhaalspawn:

The credibility of being a film critic far outweighs the credibility of angry Star Wars fans. Just because the fanboys scream with childish tears about the prequels doesn't mean everybody does.

Being quoted in a magazine most people have never heard of gives you credibility now? Boy, turns out I (and everyone else) has been wrong about the National Enquirer all along.

Here I would have to say it depends on the critic. There are a lot of really good ones out there and I would take their opinion over most of the people on the internet any day. People on the internet... well... they like to be angry. And rude. And irrational.

Frostbite3789:

Bhaalspawn:

The credibility of being a film critic far outweighs the credibility of angry Star Wars fans. Just because the fanboys scream with childish tears about the prequels doesn't mean everybody does.

Being quoted in a magazine most people have never heard of gives you credibility now? Boy, turns out I (and everyone else) has been wrong about the National Enquirer all along.

I didn't say it was much credibility. I said it was more credibility to the condescending, nostalgia blind, and artistically impaired Original Trilogy brats.

I'd like to get through to the point where I can point out how ridiculous what she has said is, but I can't because of the mental roadblock put in my way by the fact that this article misspells Paglia's name, not once, but twice, in two different ways. Now it hurts behind my eyes. At least it stops me thinking about the prequels. Oh, wait...

Veylon:
-snip-

If I'm honest, I'd never looked at it like that.

And that was the problem that the prequel trilogy had as Art, it had the right concepts and so on, but then it went and fluffed the lot of them with wooden acting, terrible writing and diabolical over-use of CGI. So no-one looked at it like that. Indeed, I'll still put my hand up and admit that the only bit which moved me in the slightest was the execution of order 66. Because that was brilliantly done. Mainly because no-one spoke much if anything and John Williams just went and did what he does best for a few minutes.

As Star Wars, it also had the problem of more or less completely re-writing the back story and established history of the setting (established in EU... yeah I know), and all of the other standard things (midi-chlorians for example).

Anyways, as far as the greatest Art of the current generation is concerned, if you want a film, I'll go with the extended editions of the LoTR films. Not just because they're longer and so even more kick-ass than the films were anyways, but also because of the appendices. If I'm being completely honest, those things moved me even more than the films themselves did, and as far as I'm concerned, art is about making people feel something.

Overall however... I really, really wish I could say the Mass Effect Trilogy. Indeed, if they'd gone with indoctrination theory, I'd say that without hesitation. But... they didn't.

Meh.

As such, I'm gonna go with the three part DLC arc of Fallout New Vegas (Dead Money, Old World Blues, and Lonesome Road). I'm serious. Play them back to back, and tell me that you felt nothing. Tell me that the outro for Dead Money at the very least (and Christine's radio message for that matter) didn't make you feel SOMEthing. If you can tell me that, you aren't human, you're a robot.

This is such a load. That title belongs to the Evil Dead 3 :Army Of Darkness.

Seriously though how is this news? Anyone can say anything about anything. Why does her words carry such weight?

I agree as Satire these movies are truly masterpieces.

A story of a once idealist director, rebelling against the studios becoming what he hated and whoring out his own creations to feed his greed.

It is quite literally the Citizen Kane story of George Lucas' life. Idealist turned Corporate Businessman.

I don't find this too much of an overstatement. Obviously its wrong simply because its subjective and nothing is clearly the best but I certainly enjoyed the movie.

Well she's a modern art critic, who seems to buy fully into the whole interpretation is in the eye of the beholder postmodernism that has invaded the art world recently, so I already despise her views for that, although this is correct:

"It's because the art world has flat-lined and become an echo chamber of received opinion and toxic over-praise. It's like the emperor's new clothes-people are too intimidated to admit what they secretly think or what they might think with their blinders off."

Go to an art gallery, walk around and study the reactions of the people, who are enjoying the art styles and pictures, impressed by the skillful depictions of the artists and even the styles and emotions that they can create purely through image. Then go to the modern art section of the gallery, and look at the people laughing, sneering and guffawing at the crap pieces of dung that have been hung and placed around the room. No one takes it seriously, no one gets impacted or impressed, there is no emotion stirred from any exhibit other than "I could do that".

Except there seems to be no criticism of Modern Art from anyone in positions of power, other artists or critics etc. because the con of Modern Art is that the meaning is in the interpretation, so if you can't find the subtle socio-political meaning in a shoe balanced on a rhino horn sticking out of a bowl of sick then it's you that is the closed-minded critic, too dumb to see the brilliance of the piece, not the piece that is a meaningless collection of slightly significant crap.

Personally I think she could have picked a better foil than Revenge of the Sith, although maybe that was her point... This rather flawed film is still better than anything modern art has come up with in two decades.

Veylon:

Oh, I understand what it was there for (and maybe I was hyperboleous). It's just that the dialogue was so dialogue and the fight scene just so dang long that the impact was completely undercut.

Anakin's given everything to the Jedi Order. He left his family and has served in obedience to their code since childhood. He's spent years battling enemies, righting wrongs, shedding blood and risking life and limb without reward.

And what has it all added up to? His mother, the only person who he loved, abandoned to slavery on the dust-world of Tatooine while the Jedi live in a palace in the richest city in the galaxy. His fiance, the only joy in a life dedicated to self-denial and asceticism, turned against him, and himself declared a traitor and distrusted by those in whom he has placed trust and loyalty.

This moment, this final confrontation, is his time to lay at the Jedi Order's feet - in the person of Obi Wan Kenobi - all the wrongs they inflicted upon him over a lifetime of servitude. Every blow of his lightsaber should have the power of a name, a time, a place that the Order has be weighed...and found wanting. This is when Darth Vader emerges, lays out all the events of the entire trilogy, casts them in a new light, and declares himself to a new purpose.

If all that had been done, this would, in justice instead of in jest, be an amazing pinnacle of filmmaking that we could look back on in awe.

Damn it, now you've just annoyed me that this wasn't what the final lightsaber fight became, in fact, if the whole trilogy had made this the central theme and kept clearly linking together these things in an emotional way, that would probably have saved them all, and made for one of the greatest lightsaber battles since Hotshots Part Deux.
But seriously, screw you Lucas for taking a concept with such emotional potential and giving us that.

Well, I'm going to be staying far, faaaar away from this thread.
There's going to be so much rage.

image

She's trolling, right?
I mean, seriously... that's gotta be a troll.

Fanghawk:

While I personally believe that Revenge of the Sith was the strongest of the prequels,

Fish in a barrel...

It was only slightly better, but they are all extremely bad movies and Camilla should feel bad for even putting Star Wars Episode 3 and great in the same sentence.

I thought this was going to be about the beautiful green screen backgrounds. Those really were impressive, crap for immersion to have people walking around on massive paintings, but really pretty. Emotional impact? A completely subjective metric. I can certainly see how various scenes could have been taken at the value Lucas intended them to, but they were so poorly written and felt so hollow most observers found them more comical than emotional.

Bhaalspawn:

I didn't say it was much credibility. I said it was more credibility to the condescending, nostalgia blind, and artistically impaired Original Trilogy brats.

Bhaalspawn... sometimes I agree with you. This time I don't.

Here you go. I think you need to watch this...

Oh, look, we got a professional art troll. they are infiltrating everywhere and taking over the world. the trlls have broken free off their bridges.

Also its always fun to see fanboys rage. i guess that was the main reason she even did this.

And this is why art debates are for idiots.

I'm certain there is far too much stuck up self assurance here for what I'm about to say to ever be taken seriously but here it is anyway...

The Star Wars prequels aren't bad at all... no they just aren't.

People love the word "objective" and like to point to various random videos of supposed "experts" explaining these films flaws as some way to back up their claims but the fact remains that when I pull myself away from this whining wretched hive of scum and villany known as the internet and take a look at things out here in the real world there's one thing I notice...

Star Wars is so much more prevalent and popular now then it has ever been in the past and most of it's recognisable icons these days come from the prequels. Alot of the younger generations I've gotten to know are much more familiar with the prequels than they are with the original trilogy and most of them seem to think they're fun, cool movies.

It seems to me that once our generation are all dead and buried the current view of the prequels being some terrible wretched blight on humanity won't exist anymore, people will just get on with life and enjoy them for what they are.
I bet it will be a slighly more happier place because of it... If nothing else it'll certainly be a less whiny place.

I may not agree with the points about the movie, but the comments on the modern art world are absolutely spot on. Well, same goes for almost all creative industries to be honest.

Can we stop making threads every time someone says something stupid relating to nerd culture.

It's not like we're going to have much to discuss here. Besides we all know that the greatest artistic achievement of of the last 30 years is Fantasy World Dizzy

image

s69-5:

Bhaalspawn:

I didn't say it was much credibility. I said it was more credibility to the condescending, nostalgia blind, and artistically impaired Original Trilogy brats.

Bhaalspawn... sometimes I agree with you. This time I don't.

Here you go. I think you need to watch this...

OH MY GOD! Red Letter Media! Because that will totally erase 6 years of my childhood in one fell swoop!

Really? I have to ask, has that ever worked? I have watched the video. Plinkett's full of shit. While we're throwing around videos that try to prove a point...

You see, I can pull that shit too. Original Trilogy brats claiming the prequels were some kind of travesty doesn't get any less melodramatic just because you have one guy's video to copy-paste into the comments like a nervous tick.

TizzytheTormentor:
"According to Camille Padliga, Revenge of the Sith is the best thing anyone has ever made in thirty years."
Haha, no...no it is not.

Okay, I'll admit, I don't hate the prequels, the fights and music in them kicks so much ass, but it is nowhere near being the "Best" thing made in 30 years, even if it is an opinion.

Personally, Anakin going to the darkside was poorly done...

I dont really like the whole Star Wars...sextology? as anything other than a time filler, but Revenge of the Sith made me hate it by having Obi Wan say straight-faced to Anakin during their final fight; "Only the Sith deal in absolutes". Which is an absolute.

A tiny gripe, but it annoyed me a lot.

Bhaalspawn:

Frostbite3789:

Bhaalspawn:

The credibility of being a film critic far outweighs the credibility of angry Star Wars fans. Just because the fanboys scream with childish tears about the prequels doesn't mean everybody does.

Being quoted in a magazine most people have never heard of gives you credibility now? Boy, turns out I (and everyone else) has been wrong about the National Enquirer all along.

I didn't say it was much credibility. I said it was more credibility to the condescending, nostalgia blind, and artistically impaired Original Trilogy brats.

MovieBob has more credibility in modern cinema and the arts than this person does, which is saying quite a lot. Never mind Plinkett or any of the other film critics who pan the new trilogy. >_>

No, really. This "respected film critic" is not a true film critic. She has never been registered as a film critic for any group, never done film critiques for any newspaper, TV show, or organization. She has no film critic credentials whatsoever. Oh, she has said things about films, certainly, but that doesn't really mean a hell of a lot. She's about as much of a valid film critic as you or I, that is to say, not at all.

She's an author, professor, and social commentator who is well known for saying controversial things to grab attention, which is made all the more obvious when you read her Wikipedia page. She's best known for writing exceedingly Freudian works which call popular figures like Emily Dickinson "self-ruling hermaphrodites who cannot mate", and has constantly taken exceedingly radical views in every group she's been a part of.

She's an attention grabber who apparently realized no one knows who she is or cares what she says any more, so she decided to grab attention with another headline. And it worked. Doesn't make her right (and she's not), but it got her attention alright.

So I'm gonna go ahead and say that yeah, obvious troll is being much too obvious here.

CriticKitten:

Bhaalspawn:

Frostbite3789:

Being quoted in a magazine most people have never heard of gives you credibility now? Boy, turns out I (and everyone else) has been wrong about the National Enquirer all along.

I didn't say it was much credibility. I said it was more credibility to the condescending, nostalgia blind, and artistically impaired Original Trilogy brats.

MovieBob has more credibility in modern cinema and the arts than this person does, which is saying quite a lot. Never mind Plinkett or any of the other film critics who pan the new trilogy. >_>

No, really. This "respected film critic" is not a true film critic. She has never been registered as a film critic for any group, never done film critiques for any newspaper, TV show, or organization. She has no film critic credentials whatsoever. Oh, she has said things about films, certainly, but that doesn't really mean a hell of a lot. She's about as much of a valid film critic as you or I, that is to say, not at all.

She's an author, professor, and social commentator who is well known for saying controversial things to grab attention, which is made all the more obvious when you read her Wikipedia page. She's best known for writing exceedingly Freudian works which call popular figures like Emily Dickinson "self-ruling hermaphrodites who cannot mate", and has constantly taken exceedingly radical views in every group she's been a part of.

She's an attention grabber who apparently realized no one knows who she is or cares what she says any more, so she decided to grab attention with another headline. And it worked. Doesn't make her right (and she's not), but it got her attention alright.

So I'm gonna go ahead and say that yeah, obvious troll is being much too obvious here.

Once again, I will reiterate.

There is a heiarchy of credibility in regards to film critique. Orginal Trilogy Star Wars brats are at the VERY BOTTOM OF THAT THIS, with Plinkett, and RLM coming just above them.

That being said, OH MY GOD! Someone expressed something other than blind idiotic hatred toward Revenge of the Sith! They clearly must be a troll! I guess that makes me and everyone who grew up in my age bracket a fucking troll then.

At this point, Original Trilogy brats can go piss in the wind as far as I'm concerned. Get over it. The prequels are not some kind of travesty that you think they are. Quit being melodramatic and get a life.

PS: MovieBob is a god among men and don't you forget it.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here