Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]
Good ******, people, the sequence in the video includes the line "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" while she prattles on about the passion and the romanticism in the scene and how you can't find it anywhere in culture during the last 30 years.
What a load of crap.
I'm sorry, but she's just dead wrong. Not only is she wrong, she's also a ****ing idiot. Either that or, as I said, she's trolling or just desperate for attention.
Ok, you want to argue that this sequence in the film involves passion? Sure, I'll give you that. It involves some pretty doofy dialogue, too, but I'll still give it to you.
But I take issue with two of her points.
First, that this sequence is so magnificent. It's visually impressive, and there's clearly an attempt to infuse it with passion and import. But it's unearned because of everything that's led up to that point. The issue is that this scene and the ending of that film is not an unconnected, stand-alone piece. It's part of a larger work, and in that respect, visually gripping though it may be, it lacks the context to give it meaning. If it were a short film? Ok, maybe then, yeah. But it's not. It's the culmination of a three-film saga, that leads into a second three-film saga...and it just doesn't earn what it's trying to do. Not only that, but it doesn't jive thematically, emotionally, or visually with the story it's supposed to give way to.
Second, the notion that nothing in the last 30 years has existed in any art form, including literature, that matches the passion and emotion and ambition of this piece?
What ***king planet does she live on? Does she EVER turn on the TV or go to the movies or pick up a book, or is she too busy writing her own crap and appearing on TV programs to promote her own book?
I'm sorry, but I'm with Colin on this one. This woman is why contemporary art and art criticism gets a bad name in the public: because ivory tower academics like her make grand sweeping statements backed by the authority of their degrees, published works, and whatever other positions and accolades she holds, and end up making statements that are just idiotic.
Then again, maybe I just am not well versed enough to see what's really going on here. Perhaps this is a clever attempt to continue the work of deconstructionists who, having laid bare the myth that language has intrinsic meaning, having disrobed the Platonists who would argue for the "essential" nature of things, are now engaged in post-modern construction. Or, in lay terms, making s*** up. And that's really all she's doing. She's saying "I'll see your bet, monsieur Derrida, and raise you a load of crap."
Because, apparently, you can ignore all manner of artistic efforts across ALL media in the last 30 years, and say, conclusively and without reservation, that this, this here, this culmination to a film franchise featuring Jamaican duck-lizards, clunky dialogue, wooden acting, and half-assed attempts at political intrigue, is the most significant piece of art in 30 years. Apparently, words really DO have no meaning save what we ascribe them, and so "art" can mean "whatever the **** Camille Paglia has dreamed up in her fevered brain while she was flipping around on SPIKE one weekend."
Or, like I said,
