EVANSTON — I read your article in the Sunday Trib (“For sale cheap: The artist’s soul,” Arts & Entertainment, Feb. 4), and it’s one of the most enlightened things I’ve ever read on this basic dilemma in an artist’s life. There has always been the theory that without suffering there can be no art. There is a revisionist theory that states, no, a true artist has no choice but to create and suffering should not be necessary.
In fact, I think the reality is neither. The artist must create.
His or her expression is deepened by suffering at times. That suffering is the human condition we all share and the artist is that soul who can express that condition in its most rarefied form.
Material success occurs for very few artists and those artists can lose their bearings, it’s true. The fuel dries up as the money comes in. There are an even smaller number who having been successful who do not dry up creatively. These are individuals who probably came to understand, somehow early on in their artistic lives, just how ephemeral success is. They have a creative anchor and understanding of themselves, of their humanity, that remains constant. It’s a faith in that understanding that can empower any artist.
I play jazz and write music. It is true that one gets worn down by the daily trials it takes to make a living as a musician in this society materially and spiritually. The only reason I desire to make a living at it is because it will allow me more time to do more of it. If I were to make a large amount of money doing it, I would then have, theoretically, more time to do more of it. But it is the faith you spoke, the belief in the existence of the smile missed by Willa Cather’s singer, the feeling that your voice as an artist is touching someone else, that, in the end, is the fuel for creating. Thanks for writing about this.
— Bob Long.
CRITIQUING THE CRITICS
EVERGREEN PARK — Usually I have no problem respecting the opinion of what I previously thought were intelligent film critics who knew what they were talking about. But the top-10 lists (“Best Movies of 2000,” Arts & Entertainment, Dec. 17) have caused me to have serious doubts about this. Is this supposed to be some kind of joke? Did Mr. Wilmington actually see “The Perfect Storm”? If so, he must have seen a different movie than I did, because the one I saw was a typical Hollywood overblown blockbuster complete with expensive special effects and weak acting. And do any fishermen really look like George Clooney? “Chicken Run” was a cute movie, and yes, it was amusing, but does it really belong alongside such films as “Quills” and “Erin Brockovich”? I’d also like to know if Mr. Caro read the book “The Virgin Suicides,” because if he had, he would have seen that the film version did not do justice in any way to Jeffery Eugenides’ lovely novel.
Now I could have lived with these absurd choices if it were not for one thing: The gross oversight of the true best movie of 2000, “Requiem for a Dream.” This was an intelligent, moving picture that didn’t compromise itself to become more “acceptable” to a mainstream audience. This film is unlike anything that’s been done this year, or any other for that matter, and the director, Darren Aronofsky, is one of the most promising figures working in the film industry today. I find it extremely offensive that this excellent picture, which in my opinion is an example of what good moviemaking should be, would be passed over in favor of an atrocity like “The Perfect Storm.”
— Tonya Trybula
`FORWARD’ NEEDED FOREWORD
CHICAGO — Before you toss your overripe veggies at the end of “Pay It Forward” (“Guide to Stinkers,” A&E, Dec. 17), read the book. I don’t think that most critics realize that it was based on a book.
I have heard many critics complain for years that Hollywood insists on taking a happy ending on a movie when the book has a mixed or unhappy ending. I could not agree more. Well, in adapting the book into a screenplay changes were made, but the spirit of the book was captured. There was great hope and great anguish at the end.
The scope of the book was much wider and I think it helped to have read the book first. I spent the whole movie hoping that the ending was not changed As soon as it comes out on video, I will rent it. That’s how good I think it is! A solid three stars!
— Robert C. Wise
———-
Send letters to Arts & Entertainment, Chicago Tribune, 435 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60611, or e-mail to ctc-arts@tribune.com. Please include your name, address and phone number.
