From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V8 #180 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, May 14 1999 Volume 08 : Number 180 Today's Subjects: ----------------- pi ["chad leahy" ] precognition [DDerosa5@aol.com] Pi (in the face) [Michael Wolfe ] Re: Pi (in the face) [MARKEEFE@aol.com] Re: precognition [dmw ] Re: precognition [Eb ] Re: Pi (in the face) [amadain ] Re: Pi (in the face) ["chad leahy" ] speaking of Law & Order.... [Eb ] Re: Pi (in the face) ["Paul Christian Glenn" ] Re: Pi (in the face) [amadain ] f*ck [Eb ] Re: precognition [Joel Mullins ] Re: random movies [amadain ] Re: random movies [Joel Mullins ] Re: Happy Highway Mummy [Ken Ostrander ] Re: random movies [amadain ] Re: random movies [MARKEEFE@aol.com] Re: random movies [Ross Overbury ] more movies [dmw ] Re: Happy Highway Mummy [Joel Mullins ] Re: random movies [Joel Mullins ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 14:37:23 -0500 From: "chad leahy" Subject: pi >I hope you mean that to say that the excellent packaging got you, that's exactly what i mean to say. it's refreshing to see movie packaging that contains something besides the typical (photographs of the actors accompanied by four star reviews from obscure movie critics). >I'll save Jeme the trouble. He's all indignant, because the mathematical >aspects of Pi aren't realistic enough for him. It's a geek objection, like >folks who went to see Jurassic Park and said it was a bad film only because >the cloning process didn't seem feasible. ;P wow. when i first read "a shitty fucking movie that is just plain offensive to the core" i was expecting more elaborate reasoning. i, like paul, enjoyed the movie. i have no clue as to whether or not the mathematical aspects were realistic. hell, i need a calculator to balance my checkbook. ;) the real right-brained chad ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 15:45:29 EDT From: DDerosa5@aol.com Subject: precognition well, thanks you all for ruining From Dusk Till Dawn for me--now that I know it's about vampires, I won't see it. (NO really, thanks--don't like vampires.) Seriously, though, speaking of pre-knowledge, I will usually buy an album if I really liked a band's last record, unless I hear it really sucks--and by the way, for those who heard from me that the new Old 97s record is a disappointment, many songs are growing on me. Books I read a bit of first, pets I read a bit on first, but sometimes surprises are nice. Sometimes not. Last night Vivien took me to see her roommate's new play, "Life in the Industrial Age" or something close. Her roommate was quite good (luckily, as he asked and I'm usually painfully honest in those moments), but the play was just dreadful--if I never see another play about serial killers (and especially anything else that blames nuclear testing, or even makes thematic connections), I'm a happy man. If I'd known what it was about ahead of time, I'd have saved two hours of my life. then we walked down the block to see a concert--Ladybug Transistor and Of Montreal. Viv only stayed for LT, and thought them "sugar water"--and I agreed: twee to the point of naffness, or somesuch. Even though many fegs had said some nice things about them (and I'm not going back to see who did and didn't), I thought they had no energy, played too many instruments to cover up the lack of songwriting, and in general were, pretty...pretty vacant. (And I'd heard a song off their album and kinda liked it!) Of Montreal (are they named after the Jesus movie? just wondering), on the other hand, were fun. Hokey, yeah, and occasionally pretentious--but I'm damn glad I stayed (whoever mentioned the Kinks influence was right on, both for good and bad--but I'll take Kinks descendants however I can get em). At least different songs sounded different, Kevin did varied things with his voice, and the various instruments (including those played by LT members) really broadened the songs. But from what I'd heard from others on this list, I'd contemplated leaving too--and am glad I didn't. Which just goes to show--something, but I'm not sure what. As for Joel, well, LFB's body was in the movie right? Why were you paying attention to all that plot stuff? And themes: pshaw! I would take your opinions more to heart if you didn't mention women's bodies so often--your Spice Girls line is still ricocheting around my cranium, and I hope it leaves someday. Let's just assume you like women's bodies, so you don't need to say it anymore. Lazing on a sunny afternoon, dave ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 19:53:32 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael Wolfe Subject: Pi (in the face) >I'll save Jeme the trouble. He's all indignant, because the >mathematical aspects of Pi aren't realistic enough for him. It's >a geek objection, like folks who went to see Jurassic Park and >said it was a bad film only because the cloning process didn't >seem feasible. ;P *sigh* I don't presume to speak for Jeme, but my own subjective reaction to the film was similar to his. For my part, I had trouble with how the film equates intelligence and reason with extreme social maladjustment and psychosis, all under the camouflage of pseudo intellectualism. I would imagine that Jeme's objections were on similar grounds. The Chicago Reader's website has a *great* piece on this film, at: Go read it. It's a lot better than the one I wrote. Here's an excerpt from their's: ...In this way Pi hammers home its real message: math is a paradigm for the madness of our age, for all the dehumanizing processes industrial society uses to manufacture knowledge and belief. The plight of the genius poignantly illustrates the crisis of modern consciousness the mind alienated from the fruit of its labor. For Max rational thought turns out to be a trap through which his native insights can be extracted by ruthless financiers and power-mad fanatics, the behind-the-scenes elites who dominate the world. Worse, math blinds him to the wisdom of the heart, as embodied by his next-door neighbor, an attractive young woman who brings him home-cooked meals, tousles his hair, and coos, "You need a mother." She represents all things life affirming, loudly enjoying orgasmic trysts while poor Max tinkers with his computer and suffers psychotic episodes. Looking for advice, Max turns to an older colleague named Sol Robeson, who tells him he needs to give up rational thought altogether. "Stop thinking, Max," Sol urges. "Just feel, with your intuition." Sol knows what he's talking about; his own encounter with The Number precipitated a stroke. "It's death, Max!" he croaks. The film's lesson couldn't be clearer. Thinking is bad, rational, controlling, and exploitative. It leads to brain trauma and death. Feeling is good intuitive, empathic, and nurturing. It leads to healing and sex. So for all its trappings of erudition, the film's attitude is profoundly anti-intellectual... (written by Bill Boisvert) - -Michael Wolfe ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 16:36:44 EDT From: MARKEEFE@aol.com Subject: Re: Pi (in the face) In a message dated 99-05-14 16:13:00 EDT, Michael Double-Yuh writes: << I don't presume to speak for Jeme, but my own subjective reaction to the film was similar to his. For my part, I had trouble with how the film equates intelligence and reason with extreme social maladjustment and psychosis, all under the camouflage of pseudo intellectualism. I would imagine that Jeme's objections were on similar grounds. >> Interesting. I think I saw it more of an endorsement of living in the moment, rather than obsessing over the ultimate truth. Living in the moment could mean having loud sex, but it could also mean enjoying a good game of chess (was that what they played? no, it was some other game, right? ah, whatever). Anyway, I thought it was more about obsessing over the meaning of life when the real meaning of life is just enjoying it while you can. Math was more of a vehicle for the message, rather than the actual subject of the film, as I saw it. - ------Michael K. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 16:37:58 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: precognition On Fri, 14 May 1999 DDerosa5@aol.com takes joel to task: > As for Joel, well, LFB's body was in the movie right? Why were you paying > attention to all that plot stuff? And themes: pshaw! I would take your > opinions more to heart if you didn't mention women's bodies so often--your y'know -- and i swear i don't mean this in a condescending way -- i find it sort of bizarrely refreshing that joel is so candid about being a bit of a horndog, but also interested in exploring things like the themes of complex movies. it's easy to get stuck in little elitist islands and think things like, "oh, everyone who isn't an ardent feminist is an idiot." but the reality is that we come from all sorts of different cultural backgrounds that color our perceptions and thought processes, and maybe even more important, we're fundamentally inconsistent critters, perfectly capable of being smart in some ways and dumb as posts in others. (math is another perenially good example...) so, anyway, even thought joel ocassionally writes a line or two that makes me cringe, he writes a lot of stuff that i think is pretty insteresting, and i respect his honesty, and i'm glad he's here. and you know what? i kinda like women's bodies too, or some of them anyway. so there. - -- d. n.p. sparklehorse _vivadixieyeahwhatever_ n.r. pullman, phillip _golden compass_ wow!! - - "seventeen!" cried the humbug, always first with the wrong answer. - - oh no!! you've just read mail from doug = dmw@radix.net dmw@mwmw.com - - get yr pathos:www.pathetic-caverns.com -- books, flicks, tunes, etc. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 13:48:37 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: precognition dmw: >i kinda like women's bodies too, or some of them anyway. so there. Does this mean you like some women's bodies in their entirety, or some parts of every woman's body? Please clarify. Eb PS I extracted (yep, that's the word I would use) a few minutes of conversation from Rick Gershon today...no Hitchcock advances available, in the near future anyway. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 16:00:38 -0600 From: amadain Subject: Re: Pi (in the face) >I don't presume to speak for Jeme, but my own subjective reaction >to the film was similar to his. For my part, I had trouble with >how the film equates intelligence and reason with extreme social >maladjustment and psychosis, all under the camouflage of pseudo >intellectualism. This is such a common cultural trope that I'm not sure how many people even notice it anymore. Go see "Good Will Hunting". It will make you feel better. Particularly the part where he bests a snotty Harvard student, not through brawling, but through out-braining him, and it's a triumphant moment. Another poignant moment is the one where his buddy tells him he's wasting his potential out there on the construction site, and how sad he would be to see Will still out there with him in 20 years. The character who mentors Will, Robin Williams, is a feeling person, but also an academic, a teacher, and -isn't- out to teach the kid that his problem is that he doesn't feel enough. Although he is attempting to teach compassion, I think, but the issue is more one of Will's immaturity (a genius, but still very much an adolescent) than of his gifts having made him a neurotic mess. While I have some other problems with that film, I do have to say that overall, it does not send the message that outstanding intelligence spells interpersonal doom. Far from it. And if you want to discuss cultural impact, this film was a good deal more popular than "Pi". Love on ya, Susan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 15:58:07 -0500 From: "chad leahy" Subject: Re: Pi (in the face) >the film equates intelligence and reason with extreme social >maladjustment and psychosis, all under the camouflage of pseudo >intellectualism. i disagree. using this logic could we conclude that "lust for life" equates artistic brilliance with manic depression? am i missing your point entirely? >Thinking is bad, rational, >controlling, and exploitative. if this were rephrased, i would be more apt to agree. *over* thinking is bad and controlling. i guess that's what i got out of the movie. perhaps aronofsky's intent was closer to your point of view. chad ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 14:11:44 -0800 From: Eb Subject: speaking of Law & Order.... I hear that NBC has officially cancelled "Homicide." Out, Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 16:13:45 -0500 From: "Paul Christian Glenn" Subject: Re: Pi (in the face) >The film's >lesson couldn't be clearer. Thinking is bad, rational, >controlling, and exploitative. It leads to brain trauma and >death. Feeling is good intuitive, empathic, and nurturing. It >leads to healing and sex. So for all its trappings of erudition, >the film's attitude is profoundly anti-intellectual... Urg - I don't get this from the film at all. If anything, it makes a deeper statement about knowledge as a method of salvation, or put another, the dangers of knowledge as an end rather than a means. np: Paul Christian Glenn | "Besides being complicated, trance@radiks.net | reality, in my experience, is http://x-real.firinn.org | usually odd." - C.S. Lewis Currently Reading: "The Two Towers" by J.R.R. Tolkien ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 16:24:01 -0600 From: amadain Subject: Re: Pi (in the face) >i disagree. using this logic >could we conclude that "lust >for life" equates artistic >brilliance with manic depression? >am i missing your point entirely? Well, not -entirely-. But there is this sort of cultural trope, damn near a part of the collective unconscious. A recent part, actually- much as I love Shelley, Keats, et al, I think their generation was responsible. Prior to the romantic era, artist was a -job-. More accurately, painter, sculptor, these things were your job, and you were a skilled sort of workman. A scholar was also, in a way, a sort of workman, though above these in the class-ranking, because his was not manual labor. With the romantic era came a cultural emphasis on individualism (there is not a little correlation with this being the age when factories started to proliferate, but that can be someone else's thesis, it's off the point for what I want to say). That's about when you started to get these notions of the artist as "out there", "strange", afflicted with divine madness. I wouldn't say "Lust for Life" equates artistic brilliance with any specific illness. But it is another in a long series of portrayals of the artist as the Other from another planet, just as "Pi" is a portrayal of the intellectual as the Other from another planet. The only serious difference is that the "artist" is shown as overly irrational, and the "intellectual" as overly rational. Love on ya, Susan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 15:08:58 -0800 From: Eb Subject: f*ck Publicityland is doing ZERO ticket buys for Tom Waits' L.A. shows, and tickets are a cool $67.50 apiece. Owwwwch. For anyone else, I'd instantly say "Screw that," but in this case, I'm really considering it. Hrm.... Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 18:16:43 -0700 From: Joel Mullins Subject: Re: precognition DDerosa5@aol.com wrote: > As for Joel, well, LFB's body was in the movie right? Why were you paying > attention to all that plot stuff? And themes: pshaw! I would take your > opinions more to heart if you didn't mention women's bodies so often--your > Spice Girls line is still ricocheting around my cranium, and I hope it leaves > someday. Let's just assume you like women's bodies, so you don't need to say > it anymore. Well shit! I didn't realize I'd mentioned women that much. And what Spice Girls line? Anyway, all I was doing was explaining my reasons for renting the movie, which were it looked kinda cool and LFB was in it. Those were my reasons and I believe that other people wanted to know them. Furthermore, if all I wanted was women's bodies, I'd rent Sorority Babes at the Slime Bowl-A-Rama or a good porn and not worry about plot. However, this is not the case. And just because one of my reasons for renting the movie had to do with a pretty girl doesn't mean my opinion of the film is any less valid. Joel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 18:56:56 -0600 From: amadain Subject: Re: random movies >on mislabelling: i really am sympathetic to joel -- the first time i saw >_vampire's kiss_, i found it, for god's sake, in the *comedy* section. Well, Joel found this in the "new releases" section, so a filing miscalculation isn't what's at work here. That being said, I agree with whoever said (I'm pretty sure it was Aaron), that these classifications are a crock. It reminds me of people who try to organize their music collection that way. All of these needless headaches over what category Ray Charles goes in, or whether or not a current album by a "classic" rock artist goes in with your current cds or your classic rock cds. IT'S MADNESS. Just put them in alphabetical order and have done! That way you -always- know how to find everything, and you don't have to stop and think whether you put Taj Mahal in blues or rock. Not sure how well alphabet alone would work for a video store, with what appears to be so many people going in and trying to pick up comedies at random. Oddly enough, I have yet to see anyone complain about how they were in the mood for heavy drama and ended up with "The Philadelphia Story", or how they were in the mood for horror and ended up with "Fahrenheit 451". Appears to be mainly a comedy thing. Perhaps the solution is trying to find more knowledgeable staff, but I'm not holding my breath on that one. More accurate box labelling might help too. If "Vampire's Kiss" didn't say "dark" or "hysterical and disturbing", just what the hell's going on with these boxes, anyway? >and yes, it's funny in a hysteria-edged way, a fine film on its own terms, >but scarcely the light divertisement my girlfriend and i were in the mood >for. Oh, I thought it was brilliantly funny, but you're right, not a "light divertissement". I think part of the reason it failed at the box office was because it was not marketable as anything in particular, being equal parts comedy, horror, and vehicle for showing off the manic talent of N. Cage. Audiences don't seem to like movies that aren't readily identifiable- Aaron's co-worker wouldn't know what to make of a film like this. In general I think comedy-horror is probably box-office death, unless the balance skews heavily in favor of one or t'other, as in "Love At First Bite" (about vampires, but extremely silly) or "Scream" (mostly horror, with occasional nudge-nudges). Which is unfortunate, cause I love movies that are close to equal parts comedy/horror, particularly comic vampire movies, for some reason. "Fearless Vampire Killers" is the coolest- maybe even the model for the genre, since it's the earliest with which I'm familiar. But not many people are going to dare to make 'em with that kind of box office failure history. Actually I think you might possibly have better luck with "Vampire's Kiss" now than they did in 1987 or whatever. On the other hand, people stayed away from "The Cable Guy" too, which was pretty similar in many respects. Love on ya, Susan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 19:16:58 -0700 From: Joel Mullins Subject: Re: random movies amadain wrote: > In general I think comedy-horror is probably box-office death, unless the > balance skews heavily in favor of one or t'other, as in "Love At First > Bite" (about vampires, but extremely silly) or "Scream" (mostly horror, > with occasional nudge-nudges). Which is unfortunate, cause I love movies > that are close to equal parts comedy/horror, particularly comic vampire > movies, for some reason. "Fearless Vampire Killers" is the coolest- maybe > even the model for the genre, since it's the earliest with which I'm > familiar. But not many people are going to dare to make 'em with that kind > of box office failure history. What about Brian de Palma'a Phantom of the Paradise? It's a comedy/horror/musical. And it's great. Very campy. And the music is fucking great! Paul Williams stars and wrote all the music. It's probably my favorite of this particular genre. Joel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 11:30:50 -0400 From: Ken Ostrander Subject: Re: Happy Highway Mummy >>he's right. Kicking And Screaming is really a terriffic movie. saw it >>several times. ditto. "if Plato is a fine red wine, then Aristotle is a dry martini" >I've seen wannabe-Quentin-Tarantino movies and wannabe-Alfred-Hitchcock movies >but this is the only wannabe-Whit-Stillman flick I've ever seen. Tons o' fun. still haven't seen the last days of disco. metropolitan and barcelona were fabuloso. ken "when you're an egoist, none of the harm you do is intentional" the kenster ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 20:21:02 -0600 From: amadain Subject: Re: random movies >>I love movies that are close to equal parts comedy/horror, particularly >>comic >> even the model for the genre, since it's the earliest with which I'm >> familiar. >> But not many people are going to dare to make 'em with that kind >> of box office failure history. >What about Brian de Palma'a Phantom of the Paradise? Um, which of these three things are you referring to? What I mean is, are you pointing to that as an earlier model of the genre than "Fearless Vampire Killers"? As something that contradicts my assertion that these films don't usually do well at the box office? Or are you just recommending it? It sounds like something I might like. >It's a comedy/horror/musical. And it's great. Very campy. Sounding a bit like "Rocky Horror". Do I have it right or is it more on the scary side than that? I guess when I'm talking about comedy/horror, I mean something more specific that I'm not sure of the name of, but it IS an identifiable kind of movie. It has at least a few moments of real terror in it, and the laughs are not really the laughing out loud kind. They're more.....I dunno, moments of tension than moments of release. Like the scene in "Fearless Vampire Killers" when the older vampire's son starts trying to seduce the vampire killer's apprentice by saying he's showing him how to court a girl and then being like, "here, you be the girl", sneaking his arm around him, giving him a small bouquet, etc., and eventually IIRC he chases him around the bedroom and tries to kiss him- classic bedroom farce stuff, but with the male vampire's apprentice in the reluctant virgin role. It's impossible to describe in words how hilarious and yet how very uneasy this scene is. Even now. I can't imagine what 1967 audiences thought. In other words, it's funny but in a really uneasy way. Not a cathartic laugh. It's a laugh that ratchets up the tension that much more. I think maybe now I know why these movies aren't that popular. Most horror filmmakers are pretty kind about giving an audience equal parts tension/release in the form of big just plain silly laughs or that trick where, say, you think the murderer's at the door, but it actually turns out to be Aunt Gladys with a birthday cake in hand. These horror-comic movies haven't really got much of that sort of "release" built in- they don't show the viewer much mercy and that makes them difficult to watch. Love on ya, Susan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 21:31:25 EDT From: MARKEEFE@aol.com Subject: Re: random movies In a message dated 99-05-14 19:59:59 EDT, Susan writes: << It reminds me of people who try to organize their music collection that way. All of these needless headaches over what category Ray Charles goes in, or whether or not a current album by a "classic" rock artist goes in with your current cds or your classic rock cds. IT'S MADNESS. Just put them in alphabetical order and have done! That way you -always- know how to find everything, and you don't have to stop and think whether you put Taj Mahal in blues or rock. >> But if you're in the mood only for vocal jazz, but you're not exactly sure *which* vocal jazz CD you might want to put on? I find a certain amount of categorizin' of the home library to be quite handy. But it could get ridiculous pretty easily. The classic vs. current rock artists segregation scheme you mentioned, for instance, seems pretty silly. - ------Michael K. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 21:40:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Ross Overbury Subject: Re: random movies On Fri, 14 May 1999, amadain wrote: > It reminds me of people who try to organize their music collection that > way. All of these needless headaches over what category Ray Charles goes > in, or whether or not a current album by a "classic" rock artist goes in > with your current cds or your classic rock cds. IT'S MADNESS. Just put them > in alphabetical order and have done! That way you -always- know how to find > everything, and you don't have to stop and think whether you put Taj Mahal > in blues or rock. True to a point. I wonder if I could remember the name of that gamelan band who does the "Barong and Keris Dance" CD I've got filed away in my international section? After a while, sheer volume makes sub-catagorisation a plus. You've all heard me gripe before about the micro-catagorisation of pop music sub-genres in record shops. I guess the difference between me and the record shop is that I know where I'm likely to file a particular artist. The system I use at home only has to be good enough for me. As a result, I've got classical, international, reggae/calypso, rock/pop, blues and jazz categories. Music is filed by artist in the section that best describes most of the music I own made by that artist. Jeez, it's not all that futile! Hey, where do I file Roni Size/Reprazent? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 23:02:49 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: more movies was thinking about Susan's contention that "comedy" is more prone than other genres to accusations of mislabeling. i think the comedy/drama axis is often implicitly assumed to be a division also between escapist entertainment and something that offers the possibility of deeper artistic satisfaction, but also demands more of the viewer, and is more likely to strongly affect the viewer's state of mind after the film is over. so comedies that *do* demand more of the viewer, or god forbid might leave the viewer depressed or disturbed ... _vampire's kiss_, say, or _the after hours_ ... are effectively in some neverneverland in the blockbuster's taxonomy. ...just back from seeing _election_. liked it. friend said critic said it was thinly veiled parody of u.s. presidential elections; methink alleged said critic him have rock in head or see maybe different movie. ...i tried the just-one-alphabet approach, but i wound up moving the "classical" stuff back into its own category, roughly ordered by period, since i have so much classical stuff that features more than one composer, and i could never remember if something was filed under handel, say, or scarlatti, or telemann. much easier to flip through baroque. oh yeah... On Fri, 14 May 1999, Eb wrote: > Does this mean you like some women's bodies in their entirety, or some > parts of every woman's body? Please clarify. y'know, i started to give this query a straight answer, but fortunately i stopped myself in time. - -- d. - - "seventeen!" cried the humbug, always first with the wrong answer. - - oh no!! you've just read mail from doug = dmw@radix.net dmw@mwmw.com - - get yr pathos:www.pathetic-caverns.com -- books, flicks, tunes, etc. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 21:58:32 -0700 From: Joel Mullins Subject: Re: Happy Highway Mummy Ken Ostrander wrote: > > >>he's right. Kicking And Screaming is really a terriffic movie. saw > it > >>several times. > > ditto. "if Plato is a fine red wine, then Aristotle is a dry martini" All of Chet's little sayings were hilarious. I loved how he always said, "and I'm paraphrasing myself here..." Funny stuff. > still haven't seen the last days of disco. > metropolitan and barcelona were fabuloso. I loved Metropolitan but was disappointed with Barcelona. I should probably give it another chance. I wasn't in the mood for high comedy that night, I guess. I haven't seen The Last Days of Disco either, which is weird because I was really excited about seeing it. I don't know why I haven't seen it yet. Joel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 22:13:19 -0700 From: Joel Mullins Subject: Re: random movies amadain wrote: > >What about Brian de Palma'a Phantom of the Paradise? > > Um, which of these three things are you referring to? > > What I mean is, are you pointing to that as an earlier model of the genre > than "Fearless Vampire Killers"? As something that contradicts my assertion > that these films don't usually do well at the box office? Or are you just > recommending it? It sounds like something I might like. Yeah, I was just recommending it. I doubt it did very well at the box office either. And it wasn't an earlier model of the genre. I think it came about 8 years after Fearless Vampire Killers. It's kind of a rock n roll version of the Phantom of the Opera story. > Sounding a bit like "Rocky Horror". Do I have it right or is it more on the > scary side than that? I wouldn't say it's very scary. Maybe a little uncomfortable at times, but not really scary. > I guess when I'm talking about comedy/horror, I mean something more > specific that I'm not sure of the name of, but it IS an identifiable kind > of movie. It has at least a few moments of real terror in it, and the > laughs are not really the laughing out loud kind. Yeah, these laughs aren't really the laugh out loud kind either. And there probably is at least one moment of real terror. But it's a different kind of terror than you might find in Scream or something like that. This may be what you're describing. Joel ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V8 #180 *******************************