W h i t e B e a r s

“

Please don’t think me presumptuous if I give you the analogy of, say, a painter who paints a tree, a landscape or even a bowl of fruit. I’m sure that the painter is not a bit interested in the apples for themselves alone but in the technique of his work, which stimulates the emotion of the viewer of his picture.

Therefore, if you apply these principles to film, as I see it, it is not the pure manner of the content. In other words: it’s not the story, it’s what you do with it. How. And therefore, I find that with many people, they look at a film and they look at its content only and never seem to study (I’m talking about the critical faculty) what was there in the film to make an audience go through these various emotions that you put them through.

”

—

Telescope: A Talk with Hitchcock (1964) (via parasitologist)

Me to lifeguard co-workers: “Lolita is a great book. I just finished it last week. What a marvelous writer.”
Lifeguard co-worker girl: “What’s it about?”
Me: “Well, pedophilia, I guess - like there’s this guy who lusts after a preteen [preteen?] while driving across American and telling an entirely questionable account of his journey. Ooh. And there’s a doppleganger who follows L. and this guy. It’s kind of like an examination of narrative and … yeah.”
Her: “Sounds gross. Eww, minors.”
Me: “But!?”

Yeah. I think I’ll share this quote with my class someday, specially if I show them Psycho while we’re studying, I don’t know, Crime and Punishment.

(via isawitonthetelevision)

Bahahahaa. That’s funny, Mr. Television. Allow me to share a similar experience I’ve recently had:

Me: Hey, you want to go see Antichrist?

Friend: Sure. What’s it about?

Me: Well … (I basically fumble with words for about five minutes) … I guess … beauty.

One movie later:

Friend: So we have to talk.

Stanley Cavell has some good shit on this w/r/t what is a medium of art, in Must We Mean What We Say? If you’re looking for a somewhat more dense treatment of the subject.