From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest)
To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org
Subject: fegmaniax-digest V7 #150
Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org
Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org
Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org
Precedence: bulk


fegmaniax-digest       Saturday, April 18 1998       Volume 07 : Number 150



                               Today's Subjects:
                               -----------------
  Re: kid lit                                     [Eb <gondola@deltanet.com>]
  Re: kid lit                       [Terrence M Marks <normal@grove.ufl.edu>]
  touched by the city of angels?            [KarmaFuzzz <KarmaFuzzz@aol.com>]
  Re: touched by the city of angels?              [Eb <gondola@deltanet.com>]
  Re: Good Bad Movies and Bad Bad Movies  [West <ipalindromei@earthlink.net>]
  Re: article in SF Examiner/Chronicle (long)  [West <ipalindromei@earthlink]
  Re: Good Bad Movies and Bad Bad Movies  [West <ipalindromei@earthlink.net>]
  Re: lit, mostly (2% RH content, as usual)      [dlang <dlang@nexus.edu.au>]
  Re: Gump and Gumper                            [dlang <dlang@nexus.edu.au>]
  Re: Eb<Paul<Ner ad infinitum                   [dlang <dlang@nexus.edu.au>]
  Re: Gump and Gumper                       [tanter <tanter@econs.umass.edu>]
  more bad movies.                      [dwdudic@erols.com (David W. Dudich)]
  Re: touched by the city of angels?   [sdodge@midway.uchicago.edu (amadain)]
  Re: Gump and Gumper                      [Capuchin <capuchin@teleport.com>]
  Glass Flesh II                           [Capuchin <capuchin@teleport.com>]
  i got a notch in my spine, baby:  it's lep-lep-leppo and the  j-j-j-j-jooves  ["Capitalism Blows" <etews@hotmail]
  Re: Gump and Gumper                       [tanter <tanter@econs.umass.edu>]
  Re: i got a notch in my spine, baby:      [tanter <tanter@econs.umass.edu>]
  Re: Gump and Gumper                  [sdodge@midway.uchicago.edu (amadain)]
  Re: Until The End + soundtrack plug  [sdodge@midway.uchicago.edu (amadain)]
  Re: Until The End + soundtrack plug             [Eb <gondola@deltanet.com>]
  Re: Gump and Gumper                       [tanter <tanter@econs.umass.edu>]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 21:58:15 -0700
From: Eb <gondola@deltanet.com>
Subject: Re: kid lit

Nick needled:

>PS. It recently came to my attention that JH3 posted something that was
>a JOKE!! Sheesh. How are we supposed to figure these things out? In
>future (and in keeping with current accepted Internet practice) could
>you please all include the delimiters <JOKE> and </JOKE> to avoid
>confusion. Thanks much.

Hey, I've seen almost the exact same post SEVERAL times on other mailing
lists, when it was *deadly* serious. Anyone here who was ever unfortunate
enough to join COSTELLO-L can probably back this up.

Eb

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 01:07:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Terrence M Marks <normal@grove.ufl.edu>
Subject: Re: kid lit

1) No matter how good the book is, the band "The Phantom Tollbooth" should
be avoided at all costs.

2) I heartily recommend Mr. Pinkwater's "Lizard Music" to all of you out
there, children and non-children.

Terrence Marks
normal@grove.ufl.edu

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 01:17:59 EDT
From: KarmaFuzzz <KarmaFuzzz@aol.com>
Subject: touched by the city of angels?

In a message dated 98-04-18 00:43:22 EDT, sdodge@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

> No, actually my negative comments were concerning the very idea of making
> the new Hollywoodish remake "Touched By An Angel". I guess if that movie
> hasn't yet reached your shores, you may thankfully have been spared the
> publicity blitz surrounding it and consequently not heard of it yet, hence
> the confusion :). Sorry 'bout that.

erm, City of Angels. it does sound like a disasterous idea, even if they hired
andre braugher. then again, they hired meg ryan, who's so terminally vacant it
makes me ill. Touched by an Angel being the horrifying, cloying drama about
how angels save and fix some poor schmuck's pathetic life.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 22:41:59 -0700
From: Eb <gondola@deltanet.com>
Subject: Re: touched by the city of angels?

>In a message dated 98-04-18 00:43:22 EDT, sdodge@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>> No, actually my negative comments were concerning the very idea of making
>> the new Hollywoodish remake "Touched By An Angel". I guess if that movie
>> hasn't yet reached your shores, you may thankfully have been spared the
>> publicity blitz surrounding it and consequently not heard of it yet, hence
>> the confusion :). Sorry 'bout that.
>
>erm, City of Angels. it does sound like a disasterous idea, even if they hired
>andre braugher. then again, they hired meg ryan, who's so terminally vacant it
>makes me ill. Touched by an Angel being the horrifying, cloying drama about
>how angels save and fix some poor schmuck's pathetic life.

In the original, the woman was a trapeze artist. In City of Angels, she's a
surgeon. Hmmmm.

I'm guessing that she's probably a "plucky" surgeon, besides.

Eb

PS  I have rarely laughed so hard at the Conan O'Brien show as when he did
a joke bit about failed TV shows, and cited "Touched by an Uncle."
Hehhehheh. :)

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 02:58:39 -0700
From: West <ipalindromei@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Good Bad Movies and Bad Bad Movies

Cartman's Father wrote:

> Useless trivia--"The Black Hole" was the first Disney movie that
> was NOT rated G.

You seem to have forgotten the "director's cut" X-rated version ot "The
Boatniks".  Robert Morse and Stefanie Powers did WHAT?!?!

> Russ Meyer -- now there's a man who could make a
> movie!

Amen to that, brother.  This is my happening, and it freaks me out!!

Somethingly,
West.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 03:07:11 -0700
From: West <ipalindromei@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: article in SF Examiner/Chronicle (long)

chris franz wrote:

> (If it weren't for our ribcages, it'd just be spleens a-go-go'')

...and 10,000 bands suddenly changed their names.  "I'm Casey Kasem.  Here's
the number-one smash from Spleens A Go Go..."

Somethingly,
West

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 03:13:58 -0700
From: West <ipalindromei@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Good Bad Movies and Bad Bad Movies

amadain wrote:

> Other kids in grade school wanted to be firemen or astronauts. I wanted to
> be a movie critic. Does it show? *laugh*

  "Susan, it's a film about posture.  There's not supposed to be a coherent
plot.  And you may have found the characters trite and one-dimensional, but the
other children liked it just fine.  Now will you please go to recess?"

Somethingly,
West

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 20:10:08 +2910
From: dlang <dlang@nexus.edu.au>
Subject: Re: lit, mostly (2% RH content, as usual)

katherine blithered blithely in response to my most sensible post where
I wrote:

"the coven is composed entirely of Fegs whose* bithdays*all
>occur on the 26th of April. "
with

"Wow, I get to be part of a Fegcoven?  Or is birthday not a sufficient
condition?"
Sorry no cigar, you have to have a BITHDAY, not a bloody birthday, so
you're just not eligible, get it right!!!!!
God some of you people are so unobservant...
dave

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 20:20:23 +2910
From: dlang <dlang@nexus.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Gump and Gumper

I quite liked Forrest Gump until I read the book which then made me
realise how Hollywood has to bloody well sanitise and formularise
everything it touches. Its a few years since I read the book, or saw the
film for that matter but from recollection it has no heroine dying  or
the excessive sentimentality of the flick, its also MUCH funnier and
more surreal and was pretty critical of the USA in many ways ( something
that of course the film was not ), so read it if you see it around, its
fairly good.
dave

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 21:52:50 +2909
From: dlang <dlang@nexus.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Eb<Paul<Ner ad infinitum

That bleeding lowlife pinko mongrel Eb spewed:
"Personally, I'd love to see the resurrection of the, er, Australian/UK
slang name-calling thread. ;)

My oath ,you would would you ,you bloody bludger? Well Mr sticky beak
,don't just think that us true blue fair dinkum Aussie battlers and
Anzacs will just churn out the vernacular for your benefit at your say
so , because it won't work. Youse can go point percy at the porcelain or
park your tiger somewhere else thank you very much, EBBO. I'd rather
boil my bum over a slow fire than spout out slang at your bidding *Mr
Ed*, if thats your real name ( which I doubt)
Yours disgustedly , written in the  horizontal position on the floor of
the local Returned Serviceman's League in a pool of drivel and other
less appetising excreta.
Digger Dave

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 08:57:19 -0400
From: tanter <tanter@econs.umass.edu>
Subject: Re: Gump and Gumper

At 09:43 PM 4/17/1998 -0700, you wrote:
>Jeff wrote:
>>>"Forrest Gump" -- another one my SO and I disagree about. The ultimate
>>>message of the film: "Ignorance breeds success. Stay stupid and you'll
>>>succeed in spite of it."


That's a really elitist and intolerant interpretation.  There _are_ people
in this world who don't have high or even average IQs who are also able to
be successful at something.  I'm especially irked by the phrase "Stay
stupid."  That's really unfair--not everyone can help how their brain works
and the point of this movie is that it's possible for someone who isn't so
smart to have a life.  There was a time when people whose brains worked
like Forrest's would have been put in asylums.  This is just a cute (I
thought) film about someone who manages to end up happy instead of dead or
crazy despite a mild handicap.  Why shouldn't he succeed?  Should only
really smart people have the right to be successful?  

Geez.....

Marcy

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 16:42:15 GMT
From: dwdudic@erols.com (David W. Dudich)
Subject: more bad movies.

On Sat, 18 Apr 1998 00:44:22 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:

>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 14:46:56 +1200
>From: james.dignan@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (James Dignan)
>Subject: Can you tell me how to get to de Chirico Street?
>
>>Have you seen 'Night of the Lepus'? It's the film of the book 'Year of the
>>Angry Rabbit' (really). These giant flopsy rabbits keep loping round the
>>screen in slo-mo tearing the throats out of passers-by. My great
>>unfinished song "Invasion of the Giant Bunnies" is based on this movie.

	Given all th etalk of surreal movies, anybody ever heard of a
"documenbtary" called "overlords of the ufo"? Repeated viewings of
this travesty would rending one with Syd Barrett's mind and make you
"doubt your own existance"!

	Let's hope "storefront" is better than this.

`	A question for you oldtimers:
	How high on the charts did "balloon man" get?

		-luther

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 13:18:32 -0500
From: sdodge@midway.uchicago.edu (amadain)
Subject: Re: touched by the city of angels?

>>erm, City of Angels.

Foo. 

I'm wondering if the pop culture part of my brain just hasn't reached
satutration point, and things are starting to bubble over in odd ways, what
with "Touched by An Angel" there and "Rhinoceros" a few days ago. Yikes.

>> it does sound like a disasterous idea, even if they hired
>>andre braugher. then again, they hired meg ryan, who's so terminally vacant it
>>makes me ill. 

But Eb, she's very cute and PLUCKY! :) I wouldn't recommend most of what
she's been in to diabetics, however.

>In the original, the woman was a trapeze artist. In City of Angels, she's a
>surgeon. Hmmmm.

I guess the "life and death" themes weren't obvious enough in the original
for some tastes, so now it's a heart surgeon (i.e., someone whose career
means she sees death all the time). I think also that perhaps the remakers
are trying to tone down the more obvious "fairytale" parts of it a little
bit and make it basically a supernatural romance like "Ghost" (though
unfortunately without the sterotypical, but nonetheless very funny parts by
W. Goldberg).

>I'm guessing that she's probably a "plucky" surgeon, besides.

She's always plucky Eb. It is her fate. 

Love on ya,
Susan

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 11:42:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Capuchin <capuchin@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Gump and Gumper

On Sat, 18 Apr 1998, tanter wrote:
> This is just a cute (I
> thought) film about someone who manages to end up happy instead of dead or
> crazy despite a mild handicap.

As I recall, he's fairly happy no matter how much success he has... and
it's more than just a little.  He's wildly successful in nearly every way
a person can be while the normal or higher intelligence folks end
miserably.  If it was just supposed to be a cute tale with a simple moral,
then it was a heavy-handed and ridiculously overblown tale with a simple
and somewhat offensive moral.

> Why shouldn't he succeed?  Should only
> really smart people have the right to be successful?  

Yes.
J.
________________________________________________________

J A Brelin	<Capuchin@teleport.com>		Capuchin
________________________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 12:09:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Capuchin <capuchin@teleport.com>
Subject: Glass Flesh II

I think we should get Social Distortion to do Gene Hackman.  Think about
it.
J.
________________________________________________________

J A Brelin	<Capuchin@teleport.com>		Capuchin
________________________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 12:19:55 PDT
From: "Capitalism Blows" <etews@hotmail.com>
Subject: i got a notch in my spine, baby:  it's lep-lep-leppo and the  j-j-j-j-jooves

wnew: "i hear the replacements wanted you to produce TIM, is that 
right?"
robyn: "huh!  you'll have to ask tim."

<Hey, there's an ad for the Neutral Milk Hotel album.  And written right 
on
the poster wasy "@satyricon 4/15" in blue marker.  Hey, that's tonight.>
damn!  i meant to tell all the portland fegs to go see them, but 
completely forgot.  glad at least a few of you made it.  did you get to 
see elf power as well?  they fucking stomped.  so much so, that during 
the first part of the nmh set, i was thinking, "this is very, very good, 
but not quite as good as elf power."  but then nmh really kicked it into 
gear in the second half.  mangum played on one of elf power's songs in 
seattle, for what it's worth.

<I pointed
out the be-mutton chopped fellow working the concession.  He was wearing 
a
Thoth shirt.  Made my day.>
lobstie has mutton chops now?  cool.

<The saw was
appropriately haunting>
yeah.  here's a really stupid question.  if you want to get a musical 
saw, do you just go down to the hardware store and pick one out?  or, do 
you have to get them custom made or something?

<EbCount:  People who bought the thing +1, People who love it +1.>
oh, man.  me too!  it's been stuck in my cd player since wednesday.  i 
keep saying, "ok, just once more, then i'll listen to something else."  
i've even been belting out, "i love you jesus cha-riiiiist!!  jesus 
christ i love you, yes i do!" all week long, which has generated no 
small number of befuddled stares around the old workplace, where it's 
usually very difficult for me to open my mouth without making fun of 
religion.
michael has alluded to this, but the album seems, to me, to be much more 
jeff's project, with a bunch of other people on it.  but listening to 
the show, you (okay, i) get the feeling that this is not only definitely 
a band, but also that, if it revolves around anyone, it's the drummer.  
jeremy barnes, right?  i mean, that guy fucking WHALES.
i quite regret not having purchased ON AVERY ISLAND when i had the 
chance.

<(Mini-rant: can someone - anyone - give me a film in which
JJL features and is not unbelievably mannered and 'look at me, I'm
acting'-ish?>
well, i thought she was great in Hudsucker Proxy.  but, i would, 
wouldn't i?

<my best guess is that the gig in question was in early 1987 -- maybe
early spring or the tail end of winter,  since i think jojo and i were
already living together.  eye was what, 1988? or later?  it was post, 
uh,
the one with "tropical flesh mandala," no?>
where's inspector pobjoy when you need him??  this is a toughie, doug!  
spiffing's gig list (by the way, does anybody know what ever happened to 
that guy?  he owes me money.)  --which is by no means complete, although 
it is certainly a useful resource-- lists only two solo gigs in 1987, 
both in la, in july.  the egyptians toured europe for the first part of 
the year.  so '87 is probably out.  the band played the 9:30 club in 
march of *'86.*  so, it could be that he did a solo show around that 
time.  but, again, no word of it on spiffing's list, and i can't find it 
on any bootlists.  

<Incidentally, you'll notice that I spared a list a review of the NMH 
show
in L.A. Didn't see the point of further gushing.>
i was wondering about that, eb.  i was quite looking forward to your 
review, if you must know.  

<to whit,
ratification by the Grand Feg Council>
let's see.  that would be:  bayard catron, tracy copeland, susan dodge, 
susan even, john barrington jones, and woj.  yes?

<I
suppose if plot and characterization are the most important factors for 
you,
then sure, it must seem terrible.>
what's so terrible about the plot and characterization?  i think it's 
magical the way he intertwines fantasy and reality.  and the happy 
ending makes a perfect bookend with Brazil.

<But for
all of that the film is too long, too dense, and Gilliam's camera far 
too
mobile.>
that's funny.  i think it's too short!  i wanted even *more* adventures.

<I think we should continue this thread, adding names to the sentence, 
until
either
Robyn's new CD/movie comes out, or when Jesus returns, whichever
one comes first.>
i'm betting on the latter.

<Butchered is a good word. Consider in this vein also the
unedited version of "Until The End of the World"...>
i can't believe you didn't mention The Man Who Fell To Earth, susan, 
that being one of your ten fave movies and all.  

<Why shouldn't he succeed?  Should only
really smart people have the right to be successful?  

Geez.....>
geez, indeed.  you're starting to sound like a socialist, marcy!  though 
Forrest Gimp is probably the closest movie i ever came to walking out 
of, i quite hear you.  that was one of the big problems i had with the 
left critiques of The Bell Curve.  they all (at least all the ones that 
i saw) just spent the whole time bashing the validity of the findings.  
but no one was asking the question, "so what?  what if some races *were* 
inherently less intelligent than others?  we know for sure that 
intelligence is distributed normally over the entire population.  but 
that's not the point.  the point is, you do the best with what you have. 
every person contributes whatever he or she is able to."  stressing 
again that it was the so-called socialist/radical publications that 
failed to even bring this up.

"The Dude abides"...I don't know about you, but i take comfort in that.  
It's good knowin' he's out there, "The Dude," takin' 'er easy for all us 
sinners.  Shesh...I sure hope he makes the finals.
            --The Stranger 


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 16:42:31 -0400
From: tanter <tanter@econs.umass.edu>
Subject: Re: Gump and Gumper

At 11:42 AM 4/18/1998 -0700, you wrote:
>As I recall, he's fairly happy no matter how much success he has... and
>it's more than just a little.  He's wildly successful in nearly every way
>a person can be while the normal or higher intelligence folks end
>miserably.  If it was just supposed to be a cute tale with a simple moral,
>then it was a heavy-handed and ridiculously overblown tale with a simple
>and somewhat offensive moral.

I don't know what it was "supposed" to be, but I like the fact that people
of higher intelligence are less successful than he.  A person's
intelligence can propel him only so far, the rest is luck.  If someone with
less intelligence can still do well with whatever good luck he has, then
good for him.  I wonder why you take it so seriously that you find the
moral "offensive."

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 16:45:47 -0400
From: tanter <tanter@econs.umass.edu>
Subject: Re: i got a notch in my spine, baby:

At 12:19 PM 4/18/1998 -0700, you wrote:
>geez, indeed.  you're starting to sound like a socialist, marcy! 

my work here is done....

;)

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 16:34:06 -0500
From: sdodge@midway.uchicago.edu (amadain)
Subject: Re: Gump and Gumper

>>miserably.  If it was just supposed to be a cute tale with a simple moral,
>>then it was a heavy-handed and ridiculously overblown tale with a simple
>>and somewhat offensive moral.
>
>I don't know what it was "supposed" to be, but I like the fact that people
>of higher intelligence are less successful than he.  A person's
>intelligence can propel him only so far, the rest is luck.  If someone with
>less intelligence can still do well with whatever good luck he has, then
>good for him.  I wonder why you take it so seriously that you find the
>moral "offensive."

I felt the same way Capuchin did, and I'd like to try to explain it in as
non-inflammatory a manner as possible :).

No one is knocking the mentally disabled having as much success in life as
anyone else. I doubt Capuchin goes around mocking the mentally handicapped,
kicking crutches from under people, or stealing candy from babies. I
certainly do not either, but every time I or anyone else criticizes "Forrest
Gump", you'd think this is the kind of people we are judging from the
reactions :).

One point he was trying to make I think was that the moral of the story is
very overblown. These people are not only "less successful" than Forrest,
they are VERY MUCH less successful than he, and many of them are painted as
"bad" as opposed to flawless Forrest (who is NOT flawless in the book, which
as dlang points out, is -very- different, so much so that the author was
very pissed off). The contrast didn't need to be -so- extreme, did it, to
make the point? I dunno, it bothers some people and doesn't bother others.
Whatever. It works if you look at it as a fairytale.

The other point is really the thing that's touchy. It's not the concept of a
mentally handicapped person being successul or the impact that one person's
goodness has on the people around him that really rankles. These are both
fine things. It has to do with the fact that American culture does not like
smart people. This is so old a bias that it even long ago trickled down to
language- "smart-ass" "smart aleck" "smart mouth" &c., which are insults.
And people who -are-  noticeably smart are picked on as children and as
adolescents, and even in adulthood are often supposed to smother it or at
the very least be overly modest so that other people don't "feel bad"
(actually when I was growing up my mom advised me to "tone it down" and not
talk about books so much because other kids would feel bad and not like me).
As one of these "smart kids" (and I know full well there are lots of others
lurking around this list :)) I am very very weary of this shit. I mean, if I
can slamdunk like Michael Jordan then every thinks I'm really cool, but if I
know more words than some other people I'm not supposed to let on so that
they don't feel bad about it.  I mean, I don't get angry or get an
inferiority complex because other people are better at slamdunking or guitar
playing or physics than I am. If someone uses a word or expression I don't
know, I ask them what it is and am glad to have learned something, I don't
get all het up about "you show-off using these ten dollar words". What the
hell is that about? Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses and it would
be nice to be valued for mine without the majority of people thinking I'm
egotistical and elitist just because I use a word they don't know. It's
really really frustrating. And so when I see something like "Forrest Gump"
being celebrated it makes me feel a little resentful, and I suspect that
this is how others on this list who objected to the film feel as well. It
feels like another slam on our intelligence, only with a feel-good veneer. 

Love on ya,
Susan

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 16:47:04 -0500
From: sdodge@midway.uchicago.edu (amadain)
Subject: Re: Until The End + soundtrack plug

>Wow.  I've seen it on video, and I loved it.  It was quite long--two and a 
>half to three hours--but mentioned nothing about being the "special unedited 
>version" or "director's cut." 

That's the official release. Or the butchered cut, depending how you view
these things :).

>butchered cut.  Is the longer version on video as well, or just laser disc or 
>something like that? 

AFAIK it is only out on laser disc, though I think probably a film version
can be rented as well.

> How long is the longer version?

I don't really remember exactly, it's been awhile, but I think it was about
6 hours. Unless you have a laserdisc lying around *grin* your best bet is
probably a college film society or something like that. Although the "Music
Box" here in Chicago was showing it on Saturday afternoons for awhile.

>The soundtrack's great, too, with a fantastic Talking Heads song which they'd 
>saved for the film (it would've sounded great on _Naked_) and one of R.E.M.'s 
>most moving songs ever, "Fretless."  Worth checking out.

The soundtrack was a lot more profitable than the movie, and mostly really
great (I liked Elvis Costello's "Days" cover a lot too, the one that later
ended up on "Kojak Variety"). One of the few cases where a movie that
prominently advertised its soundtrack was actually good :). And I suspect
Hugo Boss may have ended up selling a lot of menswear to those who saw it
too, since the clothes looked so good on Sam Neill and William Hurt, but
that's less easy to verify obviously :).

Love on ya,
Susan

Heard a really cool unfamiliar World Party song today on the reddio,
something like "If you ask me to come out tonight, I'll go". Is it a new
single or an old tune that I missed by not being up to speed with things
World Partyish? Very Beatlesque (well, it's Karl Wallinger, duh!) with nice
piano bits on it. Actually for the first few secs I thought it was Badfinger! :)

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 15:35:06 -0700
From: Eb <gondola@deltanet.com>
Subject: Re: Until The End + soundtrack plug

Susan wrote:
>The soundtrack was a lot more profitable than the movie, and mostly really
>great (I liked Elvis Costello's "Days" cover a lot too, the one that later
>ended up on "Kojak Variety"). One of the few cases where a movie that
>prominently advertised its soundtrack was actually good :). And I suspect
>Hugo Boss may have ended up selling a lot of menswear to those who saw it
>too, since the clothes looked so good on Sam Neill and William Hurt, but
>that's less easy to verify obviously :).

Until the End of the World is probably my favorite pop-song soundtrack
ever. Great stuff. However, it's somewhat of a "cheat," because very few of
the songs play any estimable role in the film. It's almost like Wenders got
all these songs FIRST, and then had to figure out how to slip them into the
film somehow, without distracting anyone from the story. "OK, I can stick
20 seconds of this song on her car radio...15 seconds of this one on the
barroom jukebox...." Etc.

So, great soundtrack. But not well-used in the film.

On the other hand, I think Paris Texas, The State of Things and Wings of
Desire all exploited their soundtracks to maximum effect.

Jurgen Kneiper is a striking talent, who really has been underused. Check
River's Edge for further details.

Eb

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 18:41:42 -0400
From: tanter <tanter@econs.umass.edu>
Subject: Re: Gump and Gumper

At 04:34 PM 4/18/1998 -0500, you wrote:
>The other point is really the thing that's touchy. It's not the concept of a
>mentally handicapped person being successul or the impact that one person's
>goodness has on the people around him that really rankles. These are both
>fine things. It has to do with the fact that American culture does not like
>smart people. This is so old a bias that it even long ago trickled down to
>language- "smart-ass" "smart aleck" "smart mouth" &c., which are insults.
>And people who -are-  noticeably smart are picked on as children and as
>adolescents, and even in adulthood are often supposed to smother it or at
>the very least be overly modest so that other people don't "feel bad"
>(actually when I was growing up my mom advised me to "tone it down" and not
>talk about books so much because other kids would feel bad and not like me).

I understand what you're saying and I don't think you're entirely wrong.  I
started wearing glasses when I was 4 and despite the fact it was actually
not a reflection on my IQ, I was teased for being smart.  When my
intelligence did show through, I didn't experience much more than the
occasion smirk in a class but then most of my classmates were pretty smart,
too, so it wasn't a big deal for us.  I actually find it's more of a
liability to be smart in graduate school--ironic as that may seem.  But to
respond to your point about the teasing, I think euphemisms for the
"mentally challenged" (god, is there a right phrase??) are far more
abundant--- "hey, stupid!"  "just how stupid _are_ you?"  "you're such an
imbicile!" "oh I'm such a dummy" and lots of other things, often said in
non-threatening ways.  People with low IQs are much less valued in society
and they are usually treated like non-people.  I live in an area where
people with low IQs are employed at a local large chain grocery
store--they're baggers.  You should see the way a lot of people treat
them--no smiles or thank yous or anything.  It's as if they are a piece of
furniture like the counter.  Some people pull their kids away from them.
That rarely happens with your usual fairly smart person (otoh, folks with
IQs over 200 are usually treated in a similar way because they must be
freaks to be so smart....).  I don't have a problem with one movie showing
a person of lower than average intelligence having a fairly good life.
"Good Will Hunting" might be seen as another part of the spectrum, with the
character of high intelligence hiding his ability and working a job often
filled by people of lower intelligence (though not always.  My uncle was a
janitor in a school system for years and he was a smart guy.) and has to
practically forced to allow the academics to wallow in his intelligence.

Anyway, it's all subjective.....

Marcy


>As one of these "smart kids" (and I know full well there are lots of others
>lurking around this list :)) I am very very weary of this shit. I mean, if I
>can slamdunk like Michael Jordan then every thinks I'm really cool, but if I
>know more words than some other people I'm not supposed to let on so that
>they don't feel bad about it.  I mean, I don't get angry or get an
>inferiority complex because other people are better at slamdunking or guitar
>playing or physics than I am. If someone uses a word or expression I don't
>know, I ask them what it is and am glad to have learned something, I don't
>get all het up about "you show-off using these ten dollar words". What the
>hell is that about? Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses and it would
>be nice to be valued for mine without the majority of people thinking I'm
>egotistical and elitist just because I use a word they don't know. It's
>really really frustrating. And so when I see something like "Forrest Gump"
>being celebrated it makes me feel a little resentful, and I suspect that
>this is how others on this list who objected to the film feel as well. It
>feels like another slam on our intelligence, only with a feel-good veneer. 
>
>Love on ya,
>Susan
>
>
>
>
>
>

------------------------------

End of fegmaniax-digest V7 #150
*******************************