Finding Neverland

I adored this movie. I even recommended it to my mom, which is something I can't do very often.

Watching it after reading that particular passage in Swann's Way (see below, "The Same"), it got me thinking more generally about period pieces. How much of art relies on evocation to move its audience, and how much on, oh I don't know, the story or the technique or the work itself? In other words, would we be as deeply affected by a piece of art if it didn't remind us of something else? The immediate Aristotelian response would be no, all art is representational after all. But I thought that we moderns have progressed so far beyond that notion that our art is free simply to Be and not to imitate.

My instinct is to regress to the classical conception of art (essentially, mimesis), and agree with Aristotle: art would not be pleasant (in a visceral, not intellectual sense) if it were not evocative; and moreover, if it were not evocative of something that, if not itself pleasant, can at least be romanticized. Imagine reading a story about a beautiful blossoming love, say, that takes place in a entirely unattractive setting - like fat-ass boy meets fat-ass girl over the internet, each in their dark smelly rooms, munching on Doritos. Personally, I just don't think it could be compelling. This story could maybe win our sympathy in parody form. But as a serious love story? Not convinced.