Long time no blog, and so I failed to mention a lot of the movies I watched in between. I had gone through Antonioni's movies, L'Avventura, La Notte, L'Eclisse and Profession: Reporter. It has been some time since I watched them, but I remember liking La Notte very much. The neo-realist movies tend to heighten my anxieties, and there is always a certain unpleasantness associated with that. What makes them valuable to me however, are those couple of moments which expose the raw humanity involved in the characters and the situation. I believe that it is risky for artists to make such films, and tricky for viewers watching them, because if you miss those particular moments in the movie, the whole thing feels worthless. And probably pompous too. These movies bring to my mind such paintings with large blocks of flat colours, and small regions of explosive intensity. You miss these details, and the whole picture looks vacuous and consequently, boring.
Aaand, these thoughts bring to my mind, Moodysson's Lilja 4-ever. If I remember correctly, it was a well made movie, with many touching moments but ultimately proving worthless to me. We see the children going through one ordeal after another, to the very end. The movie might be "useful" in making someone think about unfortunate, disadvantaged children, but for anyone capable of sympathizing, or worse empathizing, the movie itself is an ordeal. Imagine my making a video effectively communicating the anxiety of animals lead to slaughter, and I top it up with the slaughter itself. This video would be a good tool as a documentary to make people aware of the issue. But would it make a good movie?
Trying to prescribe purposes for art is a bit silly. However, one can use it to appraise the work's value to oneself. Since this value is bound to change, I guess it wouldn't hurt if I make some notes on the margins of pages ;-)
