Fine Art Versus Popular Culture

"He personally grew up on a steady diet of trash entertainment — he holds up as a cherished example a short-lived television-series spinoff of the Planet of the Apes movies — but it was the kind of trash with 'the powerful quality of being open-ended,' meaning it was sufficiently unpolished that a kid could expand upon it in his own mind, projecting himself into its narratives . . . 'The new studio-made CGI products,' he writes, 'are like unctuous butlers of the imagination, ready to serve every need or desire as it arises; they don’t leave anything implied, unstated, incomplete. There is no room in them for children.'" (David Kamp's review of Manhood for Amateurs: The Pleasures and Regrets of a Husband, Father, and Son, by Michael Chabon, New York Times Book Review, October 15, 2009)

The Secret of Kells (four stars total) I had a college roommate who told me he liked to be challenged by his leisure activities. Most people accept and expect this when it comes to sports and crossword puzzles, but he was referring more to books, movies and music (if you're looking to be challenged by anything on TV, good luck). This was my first exposure to the concept of active versus passive entertainment, and The Secret of Kells exemplifies both. The breakneck editing prevents falling asleep but the mumbled dialogue challenges. There are universal themes which require no dialogue but then there are abstract ideas like defeating evil with art itself. That's why I was surprised when my wife said the movie would be worth owning (see my "Definition of Green Worthy"). I was already planning on buying it whether she agreed or not, but she followed up by saying that the "scary images" she had read about turned out to be different from those in "scary movies." I asked her if she thought they were even scarier. What I meant was that most scary images these days favor gore over leaving it to the imagination (see the quote up top), but my mind's eye can produce much scarier images than Hollywood. The Secret of Kells is no Hollywood movie, mind you. It is a Belgian-French-Irish hand-drawn animated feature film from the same people that produced The Triplets of Belleville (2003). I wouldn't call it arthouse cinema just because it's foreign. I would however call it art (see "My Definition of Art"), because it's beautiful and it requires multiple viewings. The look may not be unlike anything you've seen before, but the focus, framing, and shadows are, and maybe that's why it was nominated for Best Animated Feature at the Oscars. I asked myself on the drive home what the difference is between a movie that you can watch over and over again and a movie that's only enjoyable the first time? Is one worth more than the other? Are movies in general more forgettable than they used to be and if so, is it because they require less investment?