I will spare you from a detail narration of this film, you can read this elsewhere, and simply address what I found useful in it.
As a paying job, Adrian, an aspiring composer, who we saw creating music (or noise) with buckets, paper and other quotidian materials, plays at the restaurant a beautiful Chopin's piece while the restaurant patrons talk on the phone and completely ignore the music. His execution is virtuosic and lends credibility to his skill as a musician. Suddenly, he start playing cacophonous and violent piece, beating on piano. Without a specific frame of reference it is impossible to tell whether this is a noise or a music. People start paying attention and most of them (if not all) are turning angry. Adrian succeeded to annoy everyone which is more than what he could do with Chopin. Previously when asked what is noise and what is music Adrian explains that even Beethoven may be a noise in certain circumstances. From this perspective, art is what moves us - gives us energy, motivates us and calls to action. Art must be new. If we like what we see or hear - this is probably not art. If it pleases us, it is most certainly already became familiar and no longer new.
Now, I do not praise Adrian's music, for this I have very little information to make an informed judgment, but I do trust Madeleine's taste and believe she is right to recognize him as an original. I also see him participating in the performance of Schoenberg's Pierrot lunaire and hear him speaking about atonal music, etc. He also prepared a la John Cage silent piece, executed at the end, as a joke. All this tells me that he is a credible musician searching for his unique and authentic way in art. Musical arts gets more serious treatment in the film because of David Lang's expert contribution.
Another selected 'artist', a conceptual artist, Monroe, does not have the credibility and appears to be rather autistic and emotionally disturbed. Madeleine seams to believe in him, but may be mistaken. Perhaps her attitude toward art as being solely anti-commercial activity, is incorrect. Art defies formulas and needs to be reevaluated every time anew.
DiNapoli and Parker showed their attitude toward what they consider to be art and what is a heck job. There are many interesting subplots that I found stimulating. Who called this film a comedy? - this is serious film about serious matters. I enjoyed it very much. Although the film's subject matter is not particularly new, it nevertheless is important and rarely receive any cinematographic treatment.
In the film finale, when a man approaches Adrian and says: "Your art changed my life," this is an ultimate justification of artist's social persona. But for all of us, in our intimate internal being, there are things we do because we simply have to, without any hope nor desire for external approval, we do them as a form of spiritual survival.
As a paying job, Adrian, an aspiring composer, who we saw creating music (or noise) with buckets, paper and other quotidian materials, plays at the restaurant a beautiful Chopin's piece while the restaurant patrons talk on the phone and completely ignore the music. His execution is virtuosic and lends credibility to his skill as a musician. Suddenly, he start playing cacophonous and violent piece, beating on piano. Without a specific frame of reference it is impossible to tell whether this is a noise or a music. People start paying attention and most of them (if not all) are turning angry. Adrian succeeded to annoy everyone which is more than what he could do with Chopin. Previously when asked what is noise and what is music Adrian explains that even Beethoven may be a noise in certain circumstances. From this perspective, art is what moves us - gives us energy, motivates us and calls to action. Art must be new. If we like what we see or hear - this is probably not art. If it pleases us, it is most certainly already became familiar and no longer new.
Now, I do not praise Adrian's music, for this I have very little information to make an informed judgment, but I do trust Madeleine's taste and believe she is right to recognize him as an original. I also see him participating in the performance of Schoenberg's Pierrot lunaire and hear him speaking about atonal music, etc. He also prepared a la John Cage silent piece, executed at the end, as a joke. All this tells me that he is a credible musician searching for his unique and authentic way in art. Musical arts gets more serious treatment in the film because of David Lang's expert contribution.
Another selected 'artist', a conceptual artist, Monroe, does not have the credibility and appears to be rather autistic and emotionally disturbed. Madeleine seams to believe in him, but may be mistaken. Perhaps her attitude toward art as being solely anti-commercial activity, is incorrect. Art defies formulas and needs to be reevaluated every time anew.
DiNapoli and Parker showed their attitude toward what they consider to be art and what is a heck job. There are many interesting subplots that I found stimulating. Who called this film a comedy? - this is serious film about serious matters. I enjoyed it very much. Although the film's subject matter is not particularly new, it nevertheless is important and rarely receive any cinematographic treatment.
In the film finale, when a man approaches Adrian and says: "Your art changed my life," this is an ultimate justification of artist's social persona. But for all of us, in our intimate internal being, there are things we do because we simply have to, without any hope nor desire for external approval, we do them as a form of spiritual survival.