What I have been shooting for the last 10 years...

[grant_.]

nice stuff....keep in touch

[jack_lo_..._t_o]

A concerned, thoughtful, original, and consistently excellent talent leaves the forum. None of his naysayers in this thread are even remotely his equal. I'll be visiting your website frequently Robert.

[nesrani]

"Prefers Spielberg (Mr. Sappy) to Kubrik! "

 

No, actually, although I think Spielberg's extraordinary talent is often dismissed because he is so commercial. I love Kubrick and have watched 2001 - for instance - the Shining, Clockwork Orange and so on more times than I care to remember. But Eyes Wide Shut was just not a worthy note for him to go out on. I doubt he would have been able to make AI as effectively as Spielberg actually did. Kubrick always had a tendency to exaggerate his emotional effects which undermined the thrust of his narratives to some extent. He was always on the brink of bad taste - not necessarily a bad thing, of course. That got worse as he got older (although EWS was relatively restrained in this regard). Whereas Spielberg seems to be controlling his schmaltziness pretty effectively these days.

 

I think Spielberg is possibly the most visionary filmmaker out there at the moment, with access to budgets that make extraordinary projects possible, and who knows what he'll be showing us next. He's only just hitting his stride, IMO.

 

As for Robert M Johnson, I'm sort of surprised he's behaving like Kristian Dowling. It doesn't bode well for a photographer's work when he is so emotionally involved in it that he can't accept any criticism. Surprising in someone who's been doing it for so long.

[jack_lo_..._t_o]

Spielberg's greatest "gift" is that of emotional manipulation. Whether through lighting, music, camera angles, his films are constantly telling the viewer how to feel or react, in the most obvious manner. The cues are so blatant,it makes his movies practically unwatchable for me. God forbid that the moviegoer should react differently, or endure ambiguity!

[cd thacker]

<i>I would have liked to hear just what the hell the last 40 minutes of 2001 were all about. </i><p>

 

Would you like me to 'splain it to you, Lucy? I would, but you still owe me an email - an exchange I was looking forward to continuing - unless of course you've given up on the idea (i.e., your project).<p>

 

Spielberg, sad to say, isn't really in the same room as Kubrick. Are they even in the same country? The former is a strong student of film, and seems to have mastered more or less the syntax of cinema. But as a storyteller I find him to be a lazy thinker, and really dripping in sentimentality. Really in many frightening ways he isn't all that distant from Leni Riefenstahl. Kubrick's work I find to be very uneven (abhored "Full Metal Jacket"; enjoyed "Clockwork Orange" when it came out - but from here, beyond the time in which it was set, it looks like a cartoon; wasn't interested in seeing "Eyes Wide Shut"), but when it was good it was great (2001, and Dr. Strangelove maybe). In any case he is clearly braver and of an altogether different magnitude than Spielberg.<p>

 

Robert Johnson, I like these last few pictures you've posted much more, probably because they provide some counterpoint and context.

[cd thacker]

And I think the first pictures you posted would probably be made stronger, and work quite well, by being seen in the context of the later ones posted (and probably in the context of the project overall. I know you're a man of few words, but some text, such as you've provided, might be helpful here as well.

[ray .]

Although Spielberg's enormous talent can't be denied ('Schindler's List' alone puts him on the map), he has produced some borderline shlock as far as I'm concerned. Although they may work on a smaller scale, I much prefer Scorsese or even the Coen Brothers for originality. Spielberg's ambition on such a large scale serves to make his efforts bland as often as not. Bigger is not always better.

 

He can't hold a candle to Hitchcock or Fellini, or Truffaut or Godard for my taste, but I suppose I'm beginning to compare apples to oranges. Thank goodness for diversity anyway.

 

Now Robert...He's only human and I think is wrapped up in his work, and maybe just needs a break from this place. Can't blame him for that, there is life elsewhere.

[cd thacker]

<i>He can't hold a candle to Hitchcock or Fellini, or Truffaut or Godard for my taste, but I suppose I'm beginning to compare apples to oranges.</i><p>

 

Or, worse, culture to commerce. As far as the directors you mention, I'm with you all the way.

[lex_jenkins]

Interesting the subject of movie directors should enter this conversation. I'd definitely compare Robert's photos here to a Kubrick film - not necessarily pretty, just what they are, take 'em or leave 'em.

 

Those Mishikishiwhateverkov photos so beloved of Bender are like Schpielborg's sappy, emotionally manipulative candy. They look like something from a brochure promoting an idyllic lifestyle for early retirees where nothing ever goes wrong. Look, ma! We went to the museum Saturday! I kept waiting for E.T. to pop in and say hi.

 

Doug, didn't care for "FMJ," hmm? Dunno what to think about that - it's among my favorite Kubrick movies. I even like and *think* I understand "Eyes Wide Shut."

 

Robert, I don't understand why you're bailing out unless this thread just gave you a needed excuse for a break from photo.net. That's perfectly understandable. Perhaps you're suffering the "Groucho Effect," wondering why you should belong to a group that would have the likes of you as a member. ;>

[robert_m_johnson]

On the work of Arbus....

 

 

"...Late in her life, Arbus made portraits of severely retarded people in a New

Jersey institution, something she had long sought permission to do. These

pictures may have stirred more controversy than anything else she made. Yet

those who knew her and her work best see them as the summit of her art.

 

Formally in that work, "she says that she really feels she achieved the image

type she's looking for," Selkirk recalls. "To a very great extent she means

technically, that she was documenting them in a way that has a sort of

softness to it, a mastery of the use of the strobe against the daylight. . . . an

unstated consciousness of what makes a picture work and why she pointed

the camera where she did."

 

Doon Arbus thinks "that those pictures cut to the heart of an irony about the

work in general, which is . . . that there's a lot of self-revulsion behind

(people's) horror at the work. And it gets dressed up in this 'we wouldn't want

to treat these people as though they could really think or feel or do anything a

human being could do.' . . . You look at the pictures and where is the barrier

between them and us? Nowhere. From the relationships that are reflected in

them to the joyousness to the embracing of these strange talismanic objects.

It's us! It's not even an inch away. To act like it's exploitation to show that

means 'don't tell me about it.' " ...

[._._z]

Yes, I read that SF Chronicle article as well. If you think you're doing yourself a favor

by comparing those snaps to the late, mature work of Arbus, you're deluding

yourself, Robert. <p>

 

But it's nice to see you reconsidering your 'I'm taking my ball and going home' post of

the other day.

[leanne_newton]

The difference I see , is the level of intimacy.

I don`t get the feeling that I am looking through

your eyes and getting an insider view.

Any photographer could pitch up and shoot

these pictures....but would they be

able to stifle their personal reaction

to such an extent ?

 

Shoot in absolute honesty, nothing else is interesting.