From: rhogan@aludra.usc.edu (Ron Hogan)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Heather's Marilyn
Date: 20 Jan 1993 23:43:48 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

s1mbm@isuvax.iastate.edu (michael bruce mcdonald) writes:

>I'm really starting to wonder if the nature of our disagreement isn't an
>aesthetic one.  If you see Marilyn as a great artist, or if Arne sees
>Dietrich as a great artist, it must be because each of you has been moved
>by the work of these artists.  While I can admire aspects of the work of
>each of these artists, neither of them have done anything that I have found
>particularly moving (unlike DeNiro and Davis!), therefore it's easier for
>me to wonder if they were compromised in some way by their respective
>milieus.  Henceforth, however, I shall think twice before calling Marilyn
>compromised, rather than simply noting the fact that I would never think
>to call her artistry "great," as I would never think to call Dietrich great,
>because I have never been particularly moved by the performances of these
>women.

Ah yes, but then since I've never been especially moved by a performance by
either Robert DeNiro or Judy Davis, it is easier for me to wonder if *they*
were compromised in some way by their respective milieus.

Whereas I was moved by Tony Randall's performance in THE SEVEN FACES OF DR.
LAO, therefore he must be a great artist.

I seriously question the aesthetic judgment of any film critic who hasn't
been particularly moved by Dietrich or Monroe at least once, though I imagine
the same could be said of my failure to be moved by Robert DeNiro-- though as
I believe has been noted, DeNiro's best performances tend to be those in
which he works in collaboration with Scorcese-- I seriously doubt you would
argue that DeNiro's irreducible humanity shines through his performance in,
for example, WE'RE NO ANGELS.

At this point, critique descends into subjective response, and debate almost
becomes pointless.

That certain actors display at certain times a degree of skill within a
performance which excels the norm is not in question.  What I take issue
with is that that excellence represents a transcendance of the cinema's
limitations, or that the norm exists due to a hegemonic control by the
economic infrastructure-- that is, that mediocrity is imposed on the system
from above-- and that great talents must compromise themselves to work
within a stultifying medium.

Film is at all levels a collaborative art--as I've mentioned before, no
actor *on the basis of their work alone* is capable of transcending the
medium.  Marilyn Monroe's talent takes her so far, past that point, the
work of the cameraman, costumer, and even the lighting crew enhance that
talent in order to create the full effect.  Or take the work of Charlie
Chaplin, who some might claim would have a greater claim to transcendance,
because he wrote and directed the films in which he starred.  It is a
tribute to his acting abilities that they were able to shine through his
largely conventional directing techniques, but even that great talent
would not be enough without the financial backing of Mack Sennett, then
Essanay, then First National, or without the collaboration of his stock
players and technical team, including cameraman Rollie Totheroh.

Did Chaplin compromise his acting ability by working in Hollywood?
Maybe, but no more so than *any* member of the film business, from
Monroe to Dietrich to Deniro to Davis to Tony Randall to even Jean-Claude
Van Damme.  The system allows them the opportunity to display what talents
they do have in a way and to an extent that would be virtually impossible
otherwise.  If that's compromising, so be it.

Ron Hogan
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books