| |
|
I think one criterion for coolness, as we're using it in this thread, ought to be that you have the option of simply viewing the movie in a suface-level, face-value narrative way.
Meaning, for a movie like They Live, there's the obvious themes and subtext, but you can also just watch it as a weird movie about aliens. You can watch The Adventures of Baron Munchausen and appreciate the interplay and questioning of what defines/separates reality and fiction, or you can just enjoy it as a whimsical fantasy where neat stuff happens. These are cool movies in which the viewer gets to decide how much s/he wants to put into it.
Thus, Potemkin would not be a "cool" movie, because most of the appreciation comes from looking at how it's edited and constructed (or looking at its propagandic aims). If you go into Potemkin for the story alone, you're going to be disappointed, obviously.
The scene from "The Untouchables" would qualify, though, because it's cool-looking even if you haven't seen Potemkin, and having seen Eisenstein just adds another layer that you can choose to ignore if you wish.
Or is this unfairly biased towards movies with "classical" continuity editing? |
|
|
