Monday, February 2, 1998
Entertaining, fun movies serve important function
FILMS Commercial cinema isn’t the death of ‘true’ American
art
By Eric Silver and Carol Kim
Having a campus paper such as the Daily Bruin seesaws us, as
readers, between very good, well-written articles, such as
"Students First! accused of campaign fraud," and "A sea urchin hug"
(Jan. 29), and poorly researched and certified content-free
articles, such as "Big-budget flicks hurt industry" (Jan. 29). The
latter left us bewildered as to how someone with so little
information could write an article with such strong opinions.
(Though it is also true that, throughout time, those who are most
adamant about their ideas are people with little understanding or
knowledge.)
Ortega’s article, though rather nicely written on the whole,
started off by discrediting itself by admitting that she was
criticizing a series of films she had not seen. Moreover, she began
by boasting about her lack of research. (Journalistic bad No. 1).
More startling was her comparison between government spending of
taxpayer money to the private production of big-budget films.
(Journalistic bad No. 2). We expect that she does realize the
essential differences between government taxation and capitalism.
(We’ll just let that one by as one of those mediocre moments from
which we all suffer.) But we did have some difficulty making any
connection between either of the aforementioned economic systems
and being hit below the belt. (Please note the third paragraph of
Ortega’s article.)
The article seemed like an attempt to convert the reader to the
oh-so-hip-and-trendy belief of small filmmakers everywhere: that
big-budget movies are the essential evil plaguing American Art.
While the elitist within us (hell, we go to UCLA, don’t we?) stands
up and cheers, we cannot deny that we were on the verge of tears
with the death of old Leo in "Titanic." (Carol actually bawled at
this juncture in the film – the men were much more emotionally
staunch.) We can only pity the short-sightedness of "artists." It
seems more likely that elitism is the essential evil plaguing
American Art – the belief that in order for something to add to our
collective culture, it must be more like the Mona Lisa than "Calvin
and Hobbes." In every artistic genre, there is room for "true" art
and "commercial" art.
Commercial art will always make more money and always be much
more popular and timely than "true" art – thus the name,
"commercial" art. Let us not forget that Shakespeare was once
considered to be as full of "meaningful social commentary" as "The
Lost World."
As for "Titanic," we recommend that you see it before you bash
it. We’d also like to point out that it is very unlike "Waterworld"
in that it is, after all, historical fiction. Human tragedy – of
any sort – should never be forgotten, and as an "artist," we hope
that you will concur with us on this point. We don’t want to come
off as seeming insensitive to more "artistic" films – "Oscar and
Lucinda" and "Her Majesty Mrs. Brown" are on our movies-to-see
agenda. (OK, they’re not student films, but they don’t have
trailers running six months before they are released either.)
The article was, as we understand it, largely about how the
media wastes our time. We commend the writer on her exemplification
of modern irony.