We Remember The Magic Café We Remember
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The Good News! » » Chron. of Narnia (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2
Mtripp
View Profile
New user
99 Posts

Profile of Mtripp
Quote:
On 2006-01-04 16:47, Thetruthteller wrote:
Maybe because Art is subjective. Thus there are no bad movies, only movies that you like and movies that you don't. One man's BAD movie is another man's Masterpiece. No matter how trashy and horrible you might think a movie is, six months later it gets released on DVD and hundreds of thousands of people rent or purchase it.
Even flicks like Dukes of Hazard can be found in the video libraries of people across the land.


Flummery, and you know it.

There are bad movies, or there would be no list with Plan Nine from Outer Space on it.

There are very bad movies, or we wouldn't have "direct to video".

Art, to you might be subjective, but it that is not how the public sees it. Objective is the box office, and that is where the public votes.

The "subjective" crowd will give academy awards.

The "objective" crowd will give money.

Narnia will do far better than Brokeback ever will....
sisocialworker
View Profile
New user
21 Posts

Profile of sisocialworker
Hi everyone,
thanks for the great idea's on ways to use the movie to teach lessons through magic.
the movie has been the #1 box office ( up until this past weekend), not bad since since Nov. (objective opinion)
and just won best family pic of the year from the movie industry tonight (subjective?)

hope everyone has a blessed year filled with magic

barry
Thetruthteller
View Profile
New user
93 Posts

Profile of Thetruthteller
Quote:
On 2006-01-04 19:07, Mtripp wrote:

Flummery, and you know it.

There are bad movies, or there would be no list with Plan Nine from Outer Space on it.

There are very bad movies, or we wouldn't have "direct to video".

Art, to you might be subjective, but it that is not how the public sees it. Objective is the box office, and that is where the public votes.

The "subjective" crowd will give academy awards.

The "objective" crowd will give money.

Narnia will do far better than Brokeback ever will....


You are confusing profit with art. Art need not be popular nor profitable.
Narnia might be more profitable than Brokeback but that doesn't make it more artistic nor "better" it just menas it appeals to a wider audience.
More people eat at McDonalds than Wolfgang Puck's. Are the culinary arts then epitomized by McFood?
Just because you are offended by a films topic doesn't mean it's bad.
Brian Lehr
View Profile
Inner circle
Edmonton, Canada
1600 Posts

Profile of Brian Lehr
I don't know if this has been brought up elsewhere, but as far as I can remember Lewis made it known that the Narnia tales were never meant to be allegory -- they were never intended to be stories with "deeper" Christian meanings. So for those who don't get the Christian message in the film, that's ok. Lewis never meant you to.

What he intended to do, however, was to present a pure fantasy tale, one in which the reader could take the position of "what it ...". He wanted to tell a story with the premise being "what if Christ had come to another group of people in another land in another time ... what would it have been like? What would Christ have looked like? What would be the people/creatures be like? Etc.

Sometimes we fantasize about life on other planets. "Did Jesus die for them as well? Or was there some other kind of incarnation for these beings? Was the incarnation even needed for them (ie: was there a "Fall")? This is similar to what Lewis has done for the mystical/mythical land of Narnia.

Brian
Mtripp
View Profile
New user
99 Posts

Profile of Mtripp
<<<You are confusing profit with art.>>>

No sir, you are using your words as mine.

<<<Art need not be popular nor profitable.>>>

No, but both are great ways to know just how good the art is. In fact, they are the only way.

<<<Narnia might be more profitable than Brokeback but that doesn't make it more artistic nor "better" it just menas it appeals to a wider audience.>>>

Sorry, but I read about the Kings new clothes long ago. Good will equal success. Bad will not. Be it food, clothing, or in this case, a movie.

<<<More people eat at McDonalds than Wolfgang Puck's. Are the culinary arts then epitomized by McFood?>>>

More flummery. More people eat at McDonalds because there are more of them. No one thinks of them as quality food. In truth, if you are thinking of taking someone out for a quality evening, they do not even come to mind. Thank you for making my point.

<<<Just because you are offended by a films topic doesn't mean it's bad.>>>

Yawn... straw man. I am more offended by those who claim to be "the" truth teller, yet they make up words the other person never said.

I am sure my opinions have offended many, but we are not speaking to that.

I say the movie is a VERY bad movie. Were it not about gay cowboys, and the pushing of that agenda, it wouldn't get no notice at all.

There is the truth...
Thetruthteller
View Profile
New user
93 Posts

Profile of Thetruthteller
Quote:
On 2006-01-18 17:38, Mtripp wrote:

I say the movie is a VERY bad movie. Were it not about gay cowboys, and the pushing of that agenda, it wouldn't get no notice at all.



And you can say that. It is your opinion and yours alone. To you the movie is bad, to others it is a fine piece of cinematic art which is getting better reviews overall than Narnia. Myself I will see neither as they don't appeal to my tastes. I however can recognise the craft of each film even though both are pushing agendas.
If Narnia was not pushing the agenda it was it too would have recieved very little notice from the press.
Leland Stone
View Profile
Inner circle
1204 Posts

Profile of Leland Stone
I'm not sure what to make of the comment, "There is no bad art... ." I understand -- and generally agree with -- the premise: The value of a given art work is based on personal taste, said taste is subjective, therefore the artistic value of a given piece of art is subjective.

But can poor workmanship and repulsive subject matter be shielded from reasonable judgment, merely by draping them with a cloak labeled "art?" Who decided that art was subjective, and why should their view be determinative? Is it necessarily the case that standards of good and bad with regard to art cannot exist?
Payne
View Profile
Inner circle
Seattle
4572 Posts

Profile of Payne
Quote:
On 2006-01-19 11:12, Leland Stone wrote:

But can poor workmanship and repulsive subject matter be shielded from reasonable judgment, merely by draping them with a cloak labeled "art?"



Define repulsive subject matter. Many find the work of Geiger or Gunther von Hagens disturbing and repulsive but both are highly regarded in the art world. Art should generate an emotional response. It doesn't necessarily have to be a positive one.
If you are offended by the subject matter in films like My Beautiful Launderette and Broke Back Mountain then don't go see them. Just don't label them as "Bad" or try to keep others, who might be interested in such stories from trying to see them.
I hated the Lord of the Rings movies but I understand that they were very well made and that if you like Elves and Fairy Fantasy they would appeal to you. Narnia I hear is a good film as well, just not my cup of tea. If all movies were made to make all people happy and offend no one we would call it television. At least the television I grew up with in the Sixties which was banal and boring.
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
Leland Stone
View Profile
Inner circle
1204 Posts

Profile of Leland Stone
It seems you've set me on task akin to plowing the sea, for no matter how the term "repulsive" may be defined, there would be some who would defend the matter to which it refers on the basis of that matter's "artistic value."

However, you fall into the same difficulty when you direct me not to label certain films "bad." Your directive serves the same censorial function as my label does; by telling me not to use the label "bad," you're inhibiting my intellectual freedom -- which is the same thing you protest when you claim I do it to you. Your right not to have certain things labeled stands or falls with my right to label them.

Back to the question at hand: Must a given film, portrait, play, sculpture, etc., be off-limits to value judgments merely because it's "art?"
Thetruthteller
View Profile
New user
93 Posts

Profile of Thetruthteller
Quote:
On 2006-01-19 18:17, Leland Stone wrote:

Back to the question at hand: Must a given film, portrait, play, sculpture, etc., be off-limits to value judgments merely because it's "art?"



Of course not. But who is to make these "value judgments" and how far reaching will they be? What you might value I might find offensive and vice versa. It all boils down to "I might not agree with what your saying but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". For I'd rather live in a world where I will chance being offended than a land where others tell me what I will or will not see, hear or read.
If your eye offends thee, pluck it out but don't pluck out your neighbors eye.
Leland Stone
View Profile
Inner circle
1204 Posts

Profile of Leland Stone
Quote:
On 2006-01-19 18:37, Thetruthteller wrote:

Of course not. But who is to make these "value judgments" and how far reaching will they be? What you might value I might find offensive and vice versa. It all boils down to "I might not agree with what your saying but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". For I'd rather live in a world where I will chance being offended than a land where others tell me what I will or will not see, hear or read.
If your eye offends thee, pluck it out but don't pluck out your neighbors eye.


That's not adding anything useful. You ask rhetorically about who is to make value judgments, suggest subjectivism as the rule, then break that rule by imposing your own view the same way Payne did ("If your eye offends...don't pluck out your neighbour's eye."). If there are only individual views, then telling me my view is wrong is itself wrong.

It may be the case that subjectivism is our only appeal in determining the value of art. Yet if we can't call some art bad, then neither can we call other art good. In the end, I'm not even sure we can have art. Is there no higher standard than each person's individual estimation?
Thetruthteller
View Profile
New user
93 Posts

Profile of Thetruthteller
Quote:
On 2006-01-19 20:47, Leland Stone wrote:
It may be the case that subjectivism is our only appeal in determining the value of art. Yet if we can't call some art bad, then neither can we call other art good. In the end, I'm not even sure we can have art. Is there no higher standard than each person's individual estimation?


And that is the crux of the argument, the value of the art. The value is subjective as art speaks differently to all who see or experience it. Thue what one might call great art another might consider to be rubbish. Thus the no bad art argument as there is art which speaks to you and art that doesn't. I suppose it could be considered Bad art when the vast majority of the population agrees it offends or does nothing for them. But irregardless of how many people think it's bad there will always be those who find whatever it may be to be appealing.
If we try to force art into a bvox by imposing rules and limitations on it then all we will be left with are galleries full of pictures of big eyed children and dogs playing cards.
leftytheclown
View Profile
Loyal user
Illinois
255 Posts

Profile of leftytheclown
I think Payne is the one who nudged us over into subjective opinions from doing tricks inspired by the Chronicles of Narnia.

If we hold to the concept of absolute truth (a view not held by some), then some things are not open to subjective debate. Somehow, I find anyone who would use excrement to paint symbols of my something that dishonors the TRUTH, then that art is bad. If that artist, did the same to characterize me, then I might be offended, but could not label the art either good or bad art as I am merely human.

The grossest pornagraphy may be labled as art, but it is bad. No matter what some groups of people say, pedophelia and any art or pictures of it, are bad. The same for bestiality. However, it will depend on your world point of view. If you hold to a higher truth (as the title of this forum suggests), then value judgements can be made in light of that TRUTH. If you hold that the truth is impossible to find or that it doesn't exist, then everything is subjective.

In passing, I have not seen the Chronicles of Narnia, but hope to this weekend. I find it hard to develop any tricks regarding C. S. Lewis' works. I might try to weave a story about the Screwtape Letters. Any ideas?
Lefty (aka) Sterling Dare
Author: Money Menagerie
Book and DVD
Payne
View Profile
Inner circle
Seattle
4572 Posts

Profile of Payne
Quote:
On 2006-01-25 12:58, leftytheclown wrote:
I think Payne is the one who nudged us over into subjective opinions from doing tricks inspired by the Chronicles of Narnia.



No, it was John Long who changed the subject from tricks to allegory. MTripp then changed the subject from allegory to Good vs. Bad Art in his post where he decried Brokeback mountain. That's where I chimed in on Art being subjective.
I'll get us back on track with tricks based on the Narnia Books and or Movie.
I have a production box made by Mel Babcock that looks exactly like a wardrobe. You could use it to produce white silks or streamers to represent it always being winter but never Xmas. You could then produce an Aslan figure and then pull out rainbow coloured silks telling how when Aslan returned to Narnia he defeated the Ice Queen and brought spring.
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
sisocialworker
View Profile
New user
21 Posts

Profile of sisocialworker
Praise God wea re back on track. Iwas wondering if this was the "Good News" thread or some secular chat room.

Bless you Payne and thaks for the tips. The Kids at my church loved the movie and we did a short bible study on it as well. Then I did about 5 tricks, while not all about narnia, some were.

producing bubble gum, using chances ABC..I told them it was tukish delights..a short message on gluttony
ABC blocks and who gets saved
using a box to transform statues to a rabbit
barry
Elliott Hodges
View Profile
Veteran user
England
324 Posts

Profile of Elliott Hodges
There are some narnia top trumps available if it helps.
Terry Holley
View Profile
Inner circle
1744 Posts

Profile of Terry Holley
Quote:
On 2005-12-27 18:43, Payne wrote:

Don't see why you would need 20 minutes of WWII footage to explain why the children had to go to their uncles house. A two minute scene in the London Train Station most likely would have sufficed.



Hi Payne:

Although I didn't feel that your statement about 20 minutes of WWII scenes was correct from my recollection of seeing the film, I didn't feel I could respond to this statement until I could be certain.

Having just obtained the DVD, the scene is only about 2 minutes of air raids, and about 2-3 more at the train station. Interesting how it came across as 20 minutes of WWII footage!

The WWII scenario sets up a few things in my opinion. One, a reason for the children to move out to the country and visit the Professor and eventuall get to Narnia. Two, it shows the world as it was not meant to be (at war) - and it parallels Narnia - a world as it was not meant to be - always winter but never Christmas. Three, it also parallels the war in Narnia.

The 20 minute "recollection" of WWII footage reminds me of the audience member who believes the magician produced 20 doves from nowhere when actually only 2 came out of a silk!

Anyone have any more ideas on effects?

Regards,

Terry
Co-author with illusionist Andre' Kole of "Astrology and Psychic Phenomena."
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The Good News! » » Chron. of Narnia (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2019 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.2 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL