Wednesday, March 30, 2011

The Cry of Jazz

1. What do you think of the picture it paints, with music as an expression of political consciousness? Is it a convincing case? Do you think the argument about the development and the "death" of jazz proved accurate?

I don’t think the argument about the death of jazz held true. Music is always changing and building off of what came before it. I think the problem was that the film was trying to define jazz as something static, or something that could only be true to itself when performed at a certain time by certain people under certain circumstances. If that’s the case, then all forms of music are “dead” in a sense.

2. What parts of the film do you find effective? What parts do you find ineffective?

The narrated documentary scenes were much more effective than the conversational scenes. The conversational scenes were stiff, overdone, and drove the point into the ground, where the narrated scenes seemed more relaxed and willing to let the imagery make the point and tell the story.

3. Do you think this film is still relevant today? Or is it mainly a snapshot of a remote historical moment?

The point it makes about music being an expression of current experiences and attitudes is still relevant. The particular social attitudes it was referring to have changed.

No comments:

Post a Comment