séamuis
Established
I disagree. a movie is a story. when you pay money to go see a movie you are paying for the story and the experience and feelings that story may or may not have on you. sure, in the broadest definition of the word, its a ‘product’ and you could probably even go so far as to be able to prove that all involved in creating the visual story did so only to sell it to you. (though that may not be the case, and we can all point to movies where hat isn’t the case, if we want to) so going back to your definition, its a ‘product’. thus, there is no difference. and in a broad rational, I agree with you. but thats as far as I can do so. the reason is, and what I think you haven’t taken into account, is the consumer of the ‘product’. because as a ‘consumer’ I paid my money to see and hear and experience the story, and only for the story. I HAD to pay, to see the director, the screenwriter, the actors, portrayal and telling of that story. because, you know we live in a capitalist, everything is done for profit society. I didn’t pay that money because I was trying to procure a product, I was trying to bear witness to fellow human beings telling of human story. if you don’t or can’t distinguish between how the ‘consumer’ interacts with the product and market, between a product ad and a movie, I think you are
looking at this from an entirely too broad viewpoint. maybe some of the eventual methods to bring about an emotional response are the same, between and ad such as this, and a movie. maybe some of the reason behind telling or showing things in a certain way is the same i.e. ‘romanticising’ things often things, that should not be so, to illicit an emotional response and attachment. but that doesn’t mean that the ‘consumer’ looks at, takes part in or pays money for the same reasons and in the same ways, to bear witness to these two things. there is a very real difference, and I don’t think painting them both as ‘product selling’ is fair. I will certainly agree though that in this example (saving private ryan and the leica ad) are both deplorable, as they both purposely romanticise and glorify things that shouldn’t be. and that explicit targeting of human voyerism and curiosity is gross. not because they both do it for profit, not because one is selling a artistic retelling of actual history, not because the other is trying to sell me a camera. but because humans enjoy such voyerism at all. disgusting but interesting.
I think another poster already mentioned that its ‘not particularly tasteful.’ and that what I like most about this ad. the fact that its not tasteful and pushes buttons is what makes it artistic. even if the history it portrays is ultimately, pure fiction. most people who see this, will not even know who robert capa was, much less that this was portraying his life. so that fact that its historically inaccurate, is irrelevant. pushing buttons is what art has always been about. we call that ‘expression.’ so my opinion is that, as art, its brilliant. is visual poetry is beautiful presented. but its dull because it doesn’t do anything new. its pushes the same buttons and pisses off the same minded people.
i do find it interesting though that so many people found it wonderful in its romanticising mankind’s most dark and destructive attributes and that was ok, only until they knew they were being sold something. thats brilliant. for those that feel disgusted by this. I have to ask, are you disgusted at the person(s) who served you romanticised war, death and voyerism or yourselves for the fact that you’re human and capable of all of the above?
