From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V8 #284 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, August 2 1999 Volume 08 : Number 284 Today's Subjects: ----------------- smoking redux ["Capitalism Blows" ] Re: Album count ["Russ Reynolds" ] re: Album count ["Russ Reynolds" ] Re: [susan331@earthlink.net: Robyn story #2] [Joel Mullins ] Austin fegs! [Joel Mullins ] Re: Return of the Grievous Angel ["D B" ] re: Album count [Terrence M Marks ] re: Album count/Jewels for Stanley [Eb ] Re: LOTR Update (NR) [Bayard ] everyone's a critic [hal brandt ] what's in a name? [hal brandt ] Re: everyone's a critic [Eb ] more Janeane [hal brandt ] Sunday night thoughts [DDerosa5@aol.com] in the Arnold interview [DDerosa5@aol.com] Re: everyone's a critic [hal brandt ] Re: everyone's a critic [hal brandt ] Re: Sunday night thoughts [hal brandt ] Re: everyone's a critic [Eb ] Re: everyone's a critic [hal brandt ] Re: everyone's a critic [Eb ] Re: everyone's a critic [Joel Mullins ] Re: everyone's a critic [Joel Mullins ] Re: everyone's a critic [Joel Mullins ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 15:05:14 PDT From: "Capitalism Blows" Subject: smoking redux excerpt from an excellent interview with russell mokhiber and robert weissman in the latest number of jake sexton's excellent e-zine, Newswatch, : Question: What do you think is/was the most evil corporation in history?  Why? Mokhiber: Large controlling, undemocratic corporations are inherently bad, not good -- evil, if you must -- for life on the planet.  Which is more evil - -- Exxon, which makes millions by producing polluting, non-renewable petrochemical products and blocking renewal, non-polluting energy technologies or General Motors, which makes automobiles that burn those products and similarly works to block cleaner automobiles? You choose. Weissman: There is such a thing as corporate character or corporate culture - -- with different corporations demonstrating patterns of less or more egregious behavior -- but the differences among large corporations are not fundamental. Still, through their actions, some companies have accumulated worse records than others. As the worst, I'd probably pick the tobacco industry, for concealing evidence on the health hazards of smoking, marketing an inherently deadly product to adults and children with almost no restraints, mocking laws intended to control their behavior and buying up politicians in the United States and around the world. The World Health Organization estimates that 10 million people will die annually from tobacco-related disease by 2030. A huge portion of the responsibility for this carnage rests with the tobacco companies. Question: In your opinion, what is the most despicable action that has ever been taken by a corporation? Mokhiber: Like the 1999 Kentucky Derby, it's a crowded field. But General Motors criminal act of destroying the nation's mass transit system in the 1940s and 1950s tops my list. The company was convicted and fined $5,000. Weissman: What's important about the GM case, or the tobacco example, is the premeditation factor. These weren't accidents, or even foreseeable "accidents" that could have been avoided with more corporate care, like, say, the Bhopal disaster. These were intentional actions. _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 15:54:05 -0700 From: "Russ Reynolds" Subject: Re: Album count >Two Halves isn't a real album, it's two EPs collected on one LP. > >- - David Librik well, yes and no. It may have been conceived that way but I don't think the two sides were ever released as separate EP's. I've never seen any evidence of EP's with these titles in any of the many discographies I've scoured. The only release of these songs (excepting later compilations & bonus trax) was in LP format. I'd say that makes it a real album. - -rUss ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 16:02:33 -0700 From: "Russ Reynolds" Subject: re: Album count By the way, are we all in agreement that this is the most nerdy, anal retentive thing we've ever discussed on this list? - -rUss ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 19:11:37 -0700 From: Joel Mullins Subject: Re: [susan331@earthlink.net: Robyn story #2] Capuchin wrote: > > > INVISIBLE HITS > > > INVISIBLE HITCHCOCK > > > YOU AND OBLIVION > > Actually, many of the songs on the three of those were released in some > format before that point. Singles, videos, B-sides and EPs. You'd pretty > much have to count Storefront Hitchcock in that crowd. Yeah, I meant to count Storefront. I just forgot it. > A&M's Greatest Hits (the most ridiculously named album when > you realize that the whole record is pretty much B-sides and unreleased > material) I don't know where you came up with this. Of the 21 tracks on Greatest Hits, 12 were on the A&M albums. That's over half. Joel ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 19:12:47 -0700 From: Joel Mullins Subject: Re: Album count Russ Reynolds wrote: > > By the way, are we all in agreement that this is the most nerdy, anal > retentive thing we've ever discussed on this list? I'd definitely agree with that statement. Joel ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 19:14:41 -0700 From: Joel Mullins Subject: Austin fegs! I just got off the phone with the guys at 33 Degrees. They have confirmed that Robyn will be playing instore on Saturday, Aug, 7. The guy wasn't sure of the time, but he thinks it's at 5:00. So should we all meet up there? Joel ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 17:25:57 PDT From: "D B" Subject: Re: Return of the Grievous Angel Anyone heard the tribute to Gram Parsons yet? Some pretty sterling stuff there, and not a jot of James Taylor, OR Biz Limpkit. http://www.almosounds.com/parsons/navpage/nav3.htm ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 21:16:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Terrence M Marks Subject: re: Album count On Sun, 1 Aug 1999, Russ Reynolds wrote: > By the way, are we all in agreement that this is the most nerdy, anal > retentive thing we've ever discussed on this list? So, what's the total number of chords he's used on his legit albums? Terrence Marks Unlike Minerva (a comic strip) http://grove.ufl.edu/~normal normal@grove.ufl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 21:45:06 -0800 From: Eb Subject: re: Album count/Jewels for Stanley >By the way, are we all in agreement that this is the most nerdy, anal >retentive thing we've ever discussed on this list? Oh, thanks SO much for saying that...I had been resisting. Heh heh. Hey, I saw "Eyes Wide Shut" tonight. Know what? For once, a film was a lot *better* than my expectations. A nice switch, after the letdown of "South Park: Bigger, Noisier and Less Funny." I really admired the film a lot, though the concluding scenes were a bit unsatisfying, somehow. (I was expecting a revelation at the end which didn't come...oops, dopey me.) Man, the set design...I've seen few films before where I was just so *wallowing* in combing the frame with my eyes, looking at all the decorations, lighting, etc. Wow. I won't say anything about the plot because I don't wanna spoil, but that really grabbed me too. As much as I worship certain Kubrick films, I was afraid Eyes Wide Shut would be a big disappointment, based on the word-of-mouth. It wasn't. I actually think I like it better than The Shining and (definitely) Full Metal Jacket, myself. Speaking of Kubrick, I also recently saw Killer's Kiss, an early Kubrick film which I wondered if I'd ever get to see. Nifty. Not a great film (and besides, the lead actor has a bad case of man-boobs ;)), but fascinating to watch just to observe the foreshadowing of the stylistic greatness to come. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 01:26:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Bayard Subject: Re: LOTR Update (NR) On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, Vivien Lyon wrote: > But my main question is still "Who's playing Aragorn?" stuart townsend. =b (i'm back) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 23:56:10 -0600 From: hal brandt Subject: everyone's a critic RE: Cronenberg > VIDEODROME is highly unpleasant, yes, but far from > incoherent. > CRASH is as disastrous a movie as one is likely to ever > see VIDEODROME, THE FLY and eXistenZ are all you need. The rest (especially CRASH) are a waste of your life if you choose to watch them. I still can't believe that critics liked CRASH and panned David Lynch's LOST HIGHWAY which was out at the same time. RE: Kubrick > I saw "Eyes Wide Shut" tonight. For once, a film was a lot > *better* than my expectations. > I was afraid Eyes Wide Shut would be a big > disappointment, based on the word-of-mouth. It wasn't. I actually think > I like it better than The Shining and (definitely) Full Metal Jacket Amen, brother. > > the set design...I've seen few films before where I was...combing the > > frame with my eyes, looking at all the decorations, > > lighting, etc. Wow. Christiane Kubrick's paintings were also a beautiful adornment to Stanley's compositions. You are so right. The sets were eye-popping on the big screen. The 'streets of New York' were a little under-populated (did he forget to hire extras that day?), but it's a minor complaint. > I really admired the film a lot, > though the concluding scenes were a bit unsatisfying, somehow The end was totally satisfying and the last word that Nicole utters makes perfect sense. I wanted to cheer. Hooray for Stanley for having the guts to make an adult movie in an Adam Sandler world. > Speaking of Kubrick, I also recently saw Killer's Kiss, an early Kubrick > film which I wondered if I'd ever get to see. Nifty. Not a great film , but > fascinating to watch just to observe the foreshadowing of the stylistic > greatness to come. TCM was doing their Kubrick fest a couple of weeks ago and I, too, watched that one out of curiousity. It was a pretty lame noir film about boxing that Kubrick himself disowned. Much better was THE KILLING, which had a narrative style quite like PULP FICTION but was made in 1956. /hal (who still hasn't seen STOREFRONT HITCHCOCK) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 23:58:32 -0600 From: hal brandt Subject: what's in a name? By the way, the FUKUOKU 9000 is no more, replaced by a new product borne of self-censorship...the FUZUOKU 9000. /hal ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 23:20:16 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: everyone's a critic Hal: >> I really admired the film a lot, >> though the concluding scenes were a bit unsatisfying, somehow > >The end was totally satisfying OK, so we disagree here. I thought the ending came off a little banal, and certainly gimmicky. I heard Roger Ebert say something similar. >and the last word that Nicole utters makes perfect sense. This is the thing I don't get. I heard SO much talk before seeing the film about The Last Word She Speaks. Big deal! So?? I don't see why this has been so much discussed as a major component of the film. It's not like she didn't say the same word several times earlier in the film...it's not like it represented some emotional breakthrough for her, some release from repression...I just don't understand the emphasis on this. I resist going into further detail, again because of the spoiler factor. I actually thought her last word was going to be something else, which WOULD have supplied a character revelation. Ah well. >TCM was doing their Kubrick fest a couple of weeks ago and I, too, >watched that one out of curiousity. It was a pretty lame noir film about >boxing that Kubrick himself disowned. Much better was THE KILLING, which >had a narrative style quite like PULP FICTION but was made in 1956. Sure, The Killing is far better. And yes, I also thought the most interesting thing about The Killing was the convoluted chronology of the narrative. But I still found Killer's Kiss very interesting, if only from a scholarly standpoint. Too bad the lead actor was such a stiff. Just going to throw out another film title here, which I recently saw and enjoyed a lot: The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie. So there ya go. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 00:24:42 -0600 From: hal brandt Subject: more Janeane posted on rec.arts.comics.dc.vertigo: > on Thurs. the 29th Janeane Garofalo was the > celebrity guest on "The Daily Show". While being > interviewed she plugged PREACHER as one of the comic books > (she called them graphic novels) that she's currently big > on reading. The plug for PREACHER came at the end of a > response to a question from host Jon Stewart about whether > she had read any of the comics on which her new movie, > Mystery Men, is based upon. She replied that she had seen > the Mystery Men in one her favorites, The Flaming Carrot, > and went on to list a few of her other regulars - > Eightball, Hate, Minimum Wage and a couple of more that I > can't remember at the moment (remembered the ones which > were ones I also read). As her graphic novels > recommendations wound down, Janeane also gave the "oh yeah! > and there's" final boost for PREACHER which she said a > friend had recently gotten her hooked on. Stewart of > course had know idea what she was talking about. I like Ms. Garofalo even better now! However, she needs to discover Cerebus, Stray ("Cool Beans!") Bullets, The Invisibles, Transmetropolitan and the proverbial many more. Chicks that appreciate comic books...er, I mean 'graphic sequential art novels in trade paperback form'...are great. I'm glad I married a woman that understands my enthusiasm for the form (and enjoys Cerebus and Preacher herself.) Maybe I'll see MYSTERY MEN tomorrow. Speaking of stars of that movie, it was cool seeing Paul Reubens on Jay Leno Friday night as himself. I am a little annoyed that his character "The Spleen" blatantly rips-off Howard Stern's "Fartman". Ruebens did mention that a new Pee-Wee flick is forthcoming. "Pee-Wee becomes famous and turns into a monster!" is how he described the plot. /hal ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 02:29:27 EDT From: DDerosa5@aol.com Subject: Sunday night thoughts Saw Storefront Friday night, with Viv and Doc and friends. then went and saw Apples in Stereo live. must admit (horrors) to this list that I liked the latter better, even though I had nothing to do with it coming to town. The movie was well made, I really liked the used of the Freeze riff in the opening, and the Storefront concept (when used) was quite cool. A few of the songs sounded fantastic, and I liked the song intros I'd not heard before. But having memorized the vinyl and not read song lists fromt he movie, I didn't realize that some of the best songs (Statue, Where do you go, the Jimi cover weren't in the movie), nor that final version of beautiful queen. I actually liked that it ended with Guildford, but that split screen thing seemed ingenious and utterly distracting at the same time. Other elements worked variously--Deni was quite good, I love watching her react to Robyn, but I can't believe Tim's place was held with a cone for one damn song. And thanks to Robyn's comments, I very much noticed how little he seemed to enjoy himself. In general, I'd like to own it on video (assuming that someday I will own a VCR), but I can't see really using it to try and convince friends that they should listen. I am bugging Chicago friends to go see it (to justify Facets' effort to show it), so we'll see how they like it--if they're honest with me... Apples and Beulah, on the other hands, were both great. No major analysis, just good catchy R&R shows. I talked with Robert briefly, including spritzing him with my water bottle (he looked quite hot). He thanked me and touched my shoulder too; it's like a club! Talked with Hilary briefly too, she seemed cool. Just read all the weekend digests and don't have much to add. Dont' care about James taylor. Don't care how many albums RH has put out, though I would like to get a copy of Where are the Prawns and some ealry Soft Boys stuff--I think NASA Clapping has put me back in the mood, after hearing the three albums and 1976-1980 to death. I guess that's why I spurged on I. History. Oh yeah, I also got a book copy of Girl in my soup yesterday. No picture on the cover of raymond, just Peter Sellers and Goldie Hawn. Haven't read it yet, will let you know. By the way, I also got the tape of the Chicago instore, and am making a dub of it right now for Eddie. Soudns pretty good, the first song is not through a PA, so it's soft, but the quality sounds good, but then I'm no expert. I am willing to trade it with other fegs (let me know), or you can go through Eddie. Hey Eddie, if I come out for the WTO protests in November, can I stay at your place? How long do you think folks will be protesting? Cronenberg--just saw him tonight on the Canadian comedy the Newsroom. Very deadpan--wanted to talk aboot Crash, but everyone was asking about the exploding heads in Scanners instead. I liked Naked Lunch and some other middle period films--think some of the early ones are interesting but crappy, and the very recent ones somewhat dull and pretentious. But, what do I know? Not much, apparently, dave ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 02:35:10 EDT From: DDerosa5@aol.com Subject: in the Arnold interview Robyn rapped: "You know, I wouldn't want to have to make a living busking on Haight Street, but on the other hand, when Y2K happens and everything crashes, you'll still just be able to ring me up on a manual phone and I'll strum my songs to you." I love this quote almost as much as I like the idea of a manual phone. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 00:42:48 -0600 From: hal brandt Subject: Re: everyone's a critic > >The end was totally satisfying > > OK, so we disagree here. I thought the ending came off a little banal, and > certainly gimmicky. I heard Roger Ebert say something similar. Ebert gave Lynch's BLUE VELVET one star (!) and also wrote the screenplay for BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS. Not the first guy I look to for intelligent discussions of films that focus on human sexuality. > > >and the last word that Nicole utters makes perfect sense. > > This is the thing I don't get. I heard SO much talk before seeing the film > about The Last Word She Speaks. Big deal! So?? I don't see why this has > been so much discussed as a major component of the film. It's not like she > didn't say the same word several times earlier in the film...it's not like > it represented some emotional breakthrough for her, some release from > repression...I just don't understand the emphasis on this. I resist going > into further detail, again because of the spoiler factor. I actually > thought her last word was going to be something else, which WOULD have > supplied a character revelation. Ah well. I didn't hear any of the discussion beforehand (I saw the film on opening night) and I actually whispered 'the word' to my wife right before Kidman's character did. It made perfect sense to me that she would say that at that moment. What else?! This is very hard to discuss without spoilers, dammit. I love that Stanley said about the film that depending on where you are in your personal life, you'll get different things out of it. It works on a whole lot of different levels. /hal ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 00:45:23 -0600 From: hal brandt Subject: Re: everyone's a critic > >The end was totally satisfying > > OK, so we disagree here. I thought the ending came off a little banal, and > certainly gimmicky. I heard Roger Ebert say something similar. Ebert gave Lynch's BLUE VELVET one star (!) and also wrote the screenplay for BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS. Not the first guy I look to for intelligent discussions of films that focus on human sexuality. > > >and the last word that Nicole utters makes perfect sense. > > This is the thing I don't get. I heard SO much talk before seeing the film > about The Last Word She Speaks. Big deal! So?? I don't see why this has > been so much discussed as a major component of the film. It's not like she > didn't say the same word several times earlier in the film...it's not like > it represented some emotional breakthrough for her, some release from > repression...I just don't understand the emphasis on this. I resist going > into further detail, again because of the spoiler factor. I actually > thought her last word was going to be something else, which WOULD have > supplied a character revelation. Ah well. I didn't hear any of the discussion beforehand (I saw the film on opening night) and I actually whispered 'the word' to my wife right before Kidman's character did. It made perfect sense to me that she would say that at that moment. What else?! This is very hard to discuss without spoilers, dammit. I love that Stanley said about the film that depending on where you are in your personal life, you'll get different things out of it. It works on a whole lot of different levels. On second thought, forget all this and give me a good ol' Garry "don't call me Penny" Marshall film (preferably with Richard "don't call me Will" Gere and Julia "don't call me Bambi" Roberts.) /hal ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 00:54:05 -0600 From: hal brandt Subject: Re: Sunday night thoughts DDerosa5@aol.com wrote: > Cronenberg-- I liked Naked Lunch Can't believe I forgot that one. Add it to my list of Cronenberg faves. /hal ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 00:09:45 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: everyone's a critic >Ebert gave Lynch's BLUE VELVET one star (!) and also wrote the >screenplay for BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS. Not the first guy I look >to for intelligent discussions of films that focus on human sexuality. Yadda yadda. I never place much stock in that "Pick one or two counterexamples, and expand those to an overall indicator" style of argument. And I liked Blue Velvet a lot, but I don't think it's an unassailable film. I can easily see someone else thinking it's contrived, inhuman and too self-conscious. >I didn't hear any of the discussion beforehand (I saw the film on >opening night) and I actually whispered 'the word' to my wife right >before Kidman's character did. It made perfect sense to me that she >would say that at that moment. What else?! This is very hard to discuss >without spoilers, dammit. See, to me, revealing the last word isn't even a "spoiler." It's not even significant. It's just a cute tagline, a gimmicky little jolt to the audience. Almost like Ahnold saying "I'll be back." The advance hype led me to believe it was something more. Yes, it made "sense" for her to say that. But the tone of that climactic comment didn't mesh with the sophisticated tone of the previous storytelling. It was much more of a mainstream, audience-manipulating tactic. If that line really needed to be in the story, there should've been further, more "cinematic" denouement which followed that scene. In my opinion. Umm...ARE there people here who haven't seen the film yet, who are offended by spoilers? Jes' let us know.... >On second thought, forget all this and give me a good ol' Garry "don't >call me Penny" Marshall film (preferably with Richard "don't call me >Will" Gere and Julia "don't call me Bambi" Roberts.) Not sure what your point is, here. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 01:46:18 -0600 From: hal brandt Subject: Re: everyone's a critic > >Ebert gave Lynch's BLUE VELVET one star (!) and also wrote the > >screenplay for BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS. Not the first guy I look > >to for intelligent discussions of films that focus on human sexuality. > Yadda yadda. I never place much stock in that "Pick one or two > counterexamples, and expand those to an overall indicator" style of > argument. And I liked Blue Velvet a lot, but I don't think it's an > unassailable film. I can easily see someone else thinking it's contrived, > inhuman and too self-conscious. You put way too much stock in Roger "I won a Pulitzer" Ebert. Must be the 'Eb' connection! ;) Watch "The Critic" some more. I miss Gene. Lynch 'inhuman'? Yadda yadda yerself. > revealing the last word isn't even a "spoiler." It's not even > significant. It's just a cute tagline, a gimmicky little jolt to the > audience. Almost like Ahnold saying "I'll be back." No, no, no. That's just wrong. > Yes, it made "sense" for her to say that. But the tone of that climactic > comment didn't mesh with the sophisticated tone of the previous > storytelling. It was much more of a mainstream, audience-manipulating > tactic. If that line really needed to be in the story, there should've been > further, more "cinematic" denouement which followed that scene. In my > opinion. " 'Nuff said!", I say. Why do we need to see what happens next in these characters lives? Maybe you needed to see them live happily ever after? I don't get where you're coming from, but I sure would like to hear what you thought she should say that would've been more "sophisticated". Seeing your desire for a more cinematic denouement in Eyes Wide Shut, you would probably have changed Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange to include Anthony Burgess' 21st chapter from his novel. While this would have been a structurally sound idea true to the author's original vision, it would've softened the impact of the final scene (as would any post-script in EWS.) /hal ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 01:31:45 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: everyone's a critic >> Yadda yadda. I never place much stock in that "Pick one or two >> counterexamples, and expand those to an overall indicator" style of >> argument. And I liked Blue Velvet a lot, but I don't think it's an >> unassailable film. I can easily see someone else thinking it's contrived, >> inhuman and too self-conscious. > >You put way too much stock in Roger "I won a Pulitzer" Ebert. Well, he DID win a Pulitzer, and that's impressive. But anyway, I only pointed out that he agreed with me...not I arrived at this judgment only because I slavishly agree with everything Ebert says. Because I certainly don't. And yes, I think Lynch can be cold and inhuman. Imagine that. >> revealing the last word isn't even a "spoiler." It's not even >> significant. It's just a cute tagline, a gimmicky little jolt to the >> audience. Almost like Ahnold saying "I'll be back." > >No, no, no. That's just wrong. Difference of opinion. >" 'Nuff said!", I say. Why do we need to see what happens next in these >characters lives? Maybe you needed to see them live happily ever after? >I don't get where you're coming from, but I sure would like to hear what >you thought she should say that would've been more "sophisticated". >Seeing your desire for a more cinematic denouement in Eyes Wide Shut, >you would probably have changed Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange to include >Anthony Burgess' 21st chapter from his novel. While this would have been >a structurally sound idea true to the author's original vision, it >would've softened the impact of the final scene (as would any >post-script in EWS.) Watch it, Hal, you're starting to frothe. I am NOT saying that I wanted to "see what happens next." I'm just saying that the last scene seemed kinda gimmicky and mainstream, and lacked the cinematic sweep of the typical Kubrick conclusion. I'm not asking for more plot, just a few more silent images, a sense of "wrapping up the package." Something along those lines. Meanwhile, your added comment about A Clockwork Orange is just silly chestbeating. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 06:49:34 -0700 From: Joel Mullins Subject: Re: everyone's a critic Eb wrote: > This is the thing I don't get. I heard SO much talk before seeing the film > about The Last Word She Speaks. Big deal! So?? I don't see why this has > been so much discussed as a major component of the film. It's not like she > didn't say the same word several times earlier in the film...it's not like > it represented some emotional breakthrough for her, some release from > repression...I just don't understand the emphasis on this. I resist going > into further detail, again because of the spoiler factor. I actually > thought her last word was going to be something else, which WOULD have > supplied a character revelation. Ah well. I thought the last word *did* supply a character revelation. Or at least, a revelation for us about her character. Joel ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 06:56:13 -0700 From: Joel Mullins Subject: Re: everyone's a critic Eb wrote: > Yadda yadda. I never place much stock in that "Pick one or two > counterexamples, and expand those to an overall indicator" style of > argument. And I liked Blue Velvet a lot, but I don't think it's an > unassailable film. I can easily see someone else thinking it's contrived, > inhuman and too self-conscious. Ya know, I can easily see someone thinking these exact things about *any* movie. Joel ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 06:59:32 -0700 From: Joel Mullins Subject: Re: everyone's a critic hal brandt wrote: > " 'Nuff said!", I say. Why do we need to see what happens next in these > characters lives? Maybe you needed to see them live happily ever after? > I don't get where you're coming from, but I sure would like to hear what > you thought she should say that would've been more "sophisticated". > Seeing your desire for a more cinematic denouement in Eyes Wide Shut, > you would probably have changed Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange to include > Anthony Burgess' 21st chapter from his novel. While this would have been > a structurally sound idea true to the author's original vision, it > would've softened the impact of the final scene (as would any > post-script in EWS.) Well, I kind of agree with you here about A Clockwork Orange. That final scene is great and it really works with the rest of the film. However, IMHO, the book is much better when the 21st chapter is included, and it wasn't the first time I read it. Joel ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V8 #284 *******************************