From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V8 #285 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 285 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Eyes Wide and South Perk ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] everyone's a critic, and they should keep quiet about it [Christopher Gro] Re: fegmaniax-digest V8 #284 [edoxtato@intentia.com] Re: everyone's a critic [steve ] Re: Austin fegs! [tanter@tarleton.edu] film & criticism, no Robyn ["Miles Goosens" ] Re: everyone's a critic [hal brandt ] Re: everyone's a critic [hal brandt ] Re: Austin fegs! ["Gene Hopstetter, Jr." ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V8 #284 [Joel Mullins ] Re: Austin fegs! [Joel Mullins ] Criticism Revisited [The Great Quail ] Re: everyone's a critic [Eb ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V8 #284 [ultraconformist@mail.weboffices.com] Re: Criticism Revisited [ultraconformist@mail.weboffices.com] Re: everyone's a critic [Michael R Godwin ] Re: what's in a name? [Tom Clark ] Re: LOTR Update (NR) [Vivien Lyon ] re: Album count [Michael R Godwin ] how's annie? [Bayard ] Re: Album count ["JH3" ] Re: everyone wins... ["Chris!" ] Re: what's in a name? ["Jason R. Thornton" ] Re: everyone's a critic [hal brandt ] French fegs? [Bayard ] Volunteers needed [Terrence M Marks ] Re: Criticism Revisited [Joel Mullins ] Re: everyone's a critic [warning: EWS spoilers] [Eb Subject: Eyes Wide and South Perk >From: Eb >Hey, I saw "Eyes Wide Shut" tonight. Know what? For once, a film was a lot >*better* than my expectations. I think all films are of the same quality, and our expectations define whether we like them or not*. For example, I expected to hate the new Star Wars flick and ended up pleasantly entertained, rather than utterly disappointed, as I would have been had I gone in expecting an exciting and memorable film, or one matching the earlier trilogy in any way. Contrariwise, I expected to love Eyes Wide Shut. I did...while I was watching it. I drank in the truly lovely photography and set design and mood and music and all the rest of it. The horribly affected and banal and, in many cases, atrociously overacted dialogue I wrote off as contributing to the dream/nightmare atmosphere. It was afterward, when I was thinking about it, that I realized what an empty film I'd been enjoying. Granted, I'm sure most of America still thinks than an orgy, fancy costumes or no, is just the epitome of depravity and sexual dread. When you've attended a couple it loses its frisson. I really could go on and on about the monogamist flag- waving and the lack of depth to the "eroticism," but you get the general idea. It looked great (except for the thoroughly unerotic bevy of anorexic women), but it was without substance that I could see. Maybe it would help if I'd never before considered the possibility that married couples don't instantly lose all desire for sex with anyone else upon taking the vows. I.e., if I'd been an idiot. >A nice switch, after the letdown of "South >Park: Bigger, Noisier and Less Funny." I disagree here also. Once again, I was expecting a kind of mediocre big-screen adaptation, and the film turned out to be a scream. I haven't laughed that hard since I saw "The Spirit of Christmas" back-to-back with the original, uncut version of "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe." The music was brilliant, the self-referential plot perfect, the "noise" joyous. Probably the tightest and best film I've seen or will see all year, unless "Sleepy Hollow" turns out to be better than it looks (though it looks splendid). Blair Witch, by the way, is a film that improves as you think about it afterward. A late-night showing may *seem* like a good idea, but the movie spooks you long after you watch it and out of all proportion to its actual content. The habit you get into of speculating is hard to break. Drew, earworming on "Elizabeth Jade" (obRobyn) * Of course not. But it's fun to think about. - -- Andrew D. Simchik, wyrd@rochester.rr.com http://home.rochester.rr.com/wyrd/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 09:16:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: everyone's a critic, and they should keep quiet about it On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Eb wrote: > > Umm...ARE there people here who haven't seen the film yet, who are offended > by spoilers? Actually, yes! Well, I'm not *really* offended. So far I've been able to sense the approaching spoilers and skip over them, only seeing that there's something important about Kidman's last line; no harm was done. THIS time. Chris "Hey, I didn't spoil Blair Witch for you guys" the Squidster ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 13:43:52 GMT From: edoxtato@intentia.com Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V8 #284 >>You put way too much stock in Roger "I won a Pulitzer" Ebert. >Well, he DID win a Pulitzer, and that's impressive. Why? It's only film criticisim. Why review a reviewer's output? It's only opinion. Awarding a pulitzer on that basis is like handing out a loving cup to the local gardener's assoication for being the best judge at a flower show. What's impressive about that? - -Doc ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 08:59:37 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: everyone's a critic hal brandt: >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. Hey, I'd put in qualified recommendations for SHIVERS (or THEY CAME FROM WITHIN) and SCANNERS. - - Steve _______________ We're all Jesus, Buddha, and the Wizard of Oz! - Andy Partridge ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 09:21:20 -0500 (CDT) From: tanter@tarleton.edu Subject: Re: Austin fegs! Where is 33 degrees? Sounds like a good place to go--I want to get a photo of my Robyn with his namesake! Marcy ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 07:28:43 -0700 From: "Miles Goosens" Subject: film & criticism, no Robyn EYES WIDE SHUT: Didn't like it in the first place, and the more I've thought about it, the more horrible it's gotten. Flimsy script, wooden acting (oxymoron alert) from Cruise, horribly misdirected acting from Kidman, not enough Kidman to make the much-vaunted Cruise-Kidman real-life parallels into an added dimension of the film, the ludicrous orgy ceremony, the unintentionally hilarious post-orgy threats against Cruise (less like GODFATHER-style threats, more like being menaced by Monty Python), etc. etc. There are some good things about the film (lots of the photography and shot composition, of course; Leelee Sobieski; Thomas Gibson's two scenes -- now there's a good-looking fellow who can actually act!), but nothing that even comes close to redemptive. And it's damn hard to explain more about why I feel this way without getting into major spoilers! Lest you think me a major grump, this weekend I saw my first Hal Hartley film (yeah, I'm behind the times on this one, but there's not room to keep up with everything all the time), TRUST, which was just superb. Compelling characters and winning understatement (in many aspects -- acting, writing, directing) made for an eminently watchable film, and more than made up for any patches of overly-writerly dialogue or the occasionally stilted line reading of same. Doc sez: >>>You put way too much stock in Roger "I won a Pulitzer" Ebert. > >>Well, he DID win a Pulitzer, and that's impressive. > >Why? It's only film criticisim. Why review a reviewer's output? It's >only opinion. Awarding a pulitzer on that basis is like handing out a >loving cup to the local gardener's assoication for being the best judge at >a flower show. What's impressive about that? While I'm normally happy to take swings at Ebert (mediocre thinker masquerading as ubercritic) and the Pulitzer (the fact that Ebert won one only underscores its meaninglessness), the anti-intellectualism of Doc's post disturbs me. At some level, sure, it's "only opinion," but the activity of criticism has a good deal of worth, IMO. Anyone can indeed go "yay!" or "feh!" or "," but those who are able to go beyond that and explain the "why" behind their reactions perform a valuable service, one that can add dimensions of perception and context to the artistic endeavor itself. Plus like any other literary activity, certainly some critics' writings can be better than others'. This has nothing to do with whether one agrees with the critic; it's in the critic's keenness of mind and powers of expression. Thus it hardly seems to me like an impossible or useless task to say that some critics are better than others, even if it is an activity twice removed from some notion of sacrosanct "art." later, Miles - --- /===================================================================\ | Miles Goosens outdoorminer@mindspring.com | | http://www.rsteviemoore.com outdoorminer@zdnetmail.com | | http://www.mindspring.com/~outdoorminer | | | | "Why everything has to get in the way all the time I don't know." | | -- Janet Ingraham Dwyer | \===================================================================/ Free web-based email, anytime, anywhere! ZDNet Mail - http://www.zdnetmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 09:29:41 -0600 From: hal brandt Subject: Re: everyone's a critic Eb wrote: > Watch it, Hal, you're starting to frothe. > your added comment about A > > Clockwork Orange is just silly chestbeating. Silly chestbeating? I'm starting to froth? Maybe you just didn't understand my point and had to attack. Understandable. Meanwhile, we mostly agree about the film being good, so let's move on. /hal ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 09:33:37 -0600 From: hal brandt Subject: Re: everyone's a critic Eb wrote: > yes, I think Lynch can be cold and inhuman. Imagine that. Examples? /hal ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 11:07:19 -0500 From: "Gene Hopstetter, Jr." Subject: Re: Austin fegs! >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. Woo hoo! Excellent news, and a most excellent place for Robyn to play! I am *so* glad that worked out. >So should we all meet up there? My wife April and I will most definitely be there. I usually spend a pile of cash at 33 Degrees whenever I'm in Austin for a show (it's part of my Austin Routine), so it'll pay off even more this time. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 11:25:05 -0700 From: Joel Mullins Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V8 #284 edoxtato@intentia.com wrote: > > >>You put way too much stock in Roger "I won a Pulitzer" Ebert. > > >Well, he DID win a Pulitzer, and that's impressive. > > Why? It's only film criticisim. Why review a reviewer's output? It's > only opinion. Awarding a pulitzer on that basis is like handing out a > loving cup to the local gardener's assoication for being the best judge at > a flower show. What's impressive about that? Furthermore, a movie getting the "Two Thumbs Up" just doesn't seem to say much anymore. So Siskel and Ebert gave a movie "two thumbs up." Big fucking deal! Thousands of shitty movies have received that same recognition. - --Joel, who almost resisted the temptation to tell Ebert and other mainstream critics where they can stick their thumbs. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 11:35:49 -0700 From: Joel Mullins Subject: Re: Austin fegs! tanter@tarleton.edu wrote: > > Where is 33 degrees? Sounds like a good place to go--I want to get a > photo of my Robyn with his namesake! 4017 Guadalupe I've never been there myself, but from the address, I'd assume it's up north at 40th and Guadalupe. It does sound like a good place. I can't believe I've never been there before. I hope I'm not broke when I leave. Joel ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:45:18 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Criticism Revisited From Ed, >>Well, he DID win a Pulitzer, and that's impressive. > >Why? It's only film criticisim. Why review a reviewer's output? It's >only opinion. Oh, Ed. That hurts. Once, a long time ago, I posted a long letter in defence of criticism; specifically rock criticism. But the ideas are still the same, so let me run some of that by again. I know it sounds a bit florid and I name-drop a lot, but I was mad at the time and I was more impressed with my ability to name-drop than I am now. . . . _________ I do not, in general, like critics -- but only because there are far too many *bad* critics. Too many idiots that think their opinion is divinely inspired, no matter how uninformed or vulgar it might be. These morons plug into the Great American Fiction that "everyone's opinion is equally valid." Yup. Sure. I am thinking of many critics such as haunt those evil channels such as E-TV or those delightfully shallow magazines with dubious titles such as "Entertainment Weekly" or "TV Guide." But good critics -- real critics -- are worth their weight in gold, even when you violently disagree with them. In my opinion, some of these well-known ones include Travers and Fricke of "Rolling Stone," Roger Ebert from the "Chicago Sun," and Robert Hughes from "Time." Sister Wendy is up there too, heh heh. There are, of course, many others, and I am sure Eb could compile a list of hundreds. I will try to explain my position: Like it or not, a critic *is* an artist. It is a myth to think that everyone can be a critic -- a myth propagated by the profusion of these E-TV idiots mentioned above, and fueled by the American desire to blow hot air in a public place. But a true critic *is* an artist, although one of a different stripe. By writing about a piece, by critically exploring it, drawing fresh conclusions, forging connections that may not have been there *until* the critic creates them, by developing new metaphors to better understand the work -- all these are acts of creation. Like it or not, true criticism is an act of creation, an effort of will. The true critic takes a work to a new level through her criticism -- it is something impossible to do by the artist himself, or indeed, through a similar art. (Although many artists can also be critics, like TS Eliot or Umberto Eco. But those are two different hats.) We are talking about two modes of communication here, the primary art and the discourse built around it. Of course criticism can merely point out what is "bad" and what is "good," but a well-developed piece should make us see things in a new light, should create a new space in which we can understand the primary source as being a connected and involved entity. And that is not very fucking easy whatsoever. Just look to the literary field for a host of examples (and to be fair, a host of complete and utter bullshit.) I am particularly thinking of the ground-breaking work of Jorge Luis Borges, Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Harold Bloom, Umberto Eco, and many others. (Again, not that I agree with everything they say!) Now as I have said before, my opinions are informed by my own bias towards post-structuralism. But I feel it is safe to say that most people today accept that criticisms is *not* merely a stream of "opinions" placed in a "transparent" medium of language. . . . ___________ Anyway, after that I went on a long defense of Eb, whom I have come to learn since then is indefensible, but I still agree with the basic ideas. . . . La la la, off to comb the archives for nude binaries of Eddie Tews, - --Quail ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Great Quail, Keeper of the Libyrinth: http://www.libyrinth.com "Countlessness of livestories have netherfallen by this plage, flick as flowflakes, litters from aloft, like a waast wizzard all of whirlworlds. Now are all tombed to the mound, isges to isges, erde from erde . . . (Stoop) if you are abcedminded, to this claybook, what curious of signs (please stoop) in this allaphbed! Can you rede (since We and Thou had it out already) its world? . . . Speak to us of Emailia!" --James Joyce, Finnegans Wake ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 09:57:47 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: everyone's a critic The ever-indignant Hal: >> yes, I think Lynch can be cold and inhuman. Imagine that. > >Examples? His films. All of them. >> Watch it, Hal, you're starting to frothe. > >> your added comment about A >> > Clockwork Orange is just silly chestbeating. > >Silly chestbeating? I'm starting to froth? Maybe you just didn't >understand my point and had to attack. Understandable. Oh, brother. No, your "point" was just a lame hyperbole. "If you like the South Park film, then you'd probably like to listen to a hour of fart noises." "If you like the Grateful Dead, then you'd probably like 20-minute bongo solos, too." About the same level of sophistication there. Very silly. Andrew: >I think all films are of the same quality, and our expectations define >whether we like them or not*. Good *grief*. Check, please. >The music was brilliant, the self-referential >plot perfect, the "noise" joyous. Probably the tightest and best film I've >seen or will see all year. Yeah...50 minutes of plot, 30 minutes of silly songs. Yup, they managed to pad South Park out to a full-length film...barely. As for Ebert winning the Pulitzer, decry the worth of criticism all you like, but here's the simple fact: Ebert won that prize, and thousands of other critics didn't. There must be a reason for that. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:13:27 -0600 From: ultraconformist@mail.weboffices.com Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V8 #284 >Why? It's only film criticisim. Why review a reviewer's output? It's >only opinion. Awarding a pulitzer on that basis is like handing out a >loving cup to the local gardener's assoication for being the best judge at >a flower show. What's impressive about that? The award wasn't for his opinions, it was for his WRITING. Which is often witty, elegant, and perceptive. I don't just mean film reviews, either- he's written some very insightful think pieces over the years. You don't have to like them, but it's not quite the same thing as a garden show judge. He wasn't awarded the prize for having great opinions. Love on ya, Susan 'Momus? That guy is sinister!' Marilyn Manson, as reported by Haig Bedrossian ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:18:04 -0600 From: ultraconformist@mail.weboffices.com Subject: Re: Criticism Revisited >Once, a long time ago, I posted a long letter in defence of >criticism; specifically rock criticism. But the ideas are still the >same, so let me run some of that by again. I know it sounds a bit >florid and I name-drop a lot, but I was mad at the time and I was >more impressed with my ability to name-drop than I am now. . . . And thanks for reposting this! I was so irritated by what Ed had to say that I sorta knee-jerked on it. If I'd thought a little bit, I would also have included a bit about informed opinions. You beat me to it. Love on ya, Susan 'Momus? That guy is sinister!' Marilyn Manson, as reported by Haig Bedrossian ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 18:35:03 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: everyone's a critic What is this Pulitzer Prize, and who is eligible for it? The only place that I have ever heard of it before is in an interview with Groucho, where he says something like "Kaufman and Ryskind went on to win the Pulitzer Prize for 'Of thee I sing' - no schmucks they!", so I assumed that it was for writing plays - but obviously the remit is wider than that. - - MRG PS I have no idea what 'Blue Velvet' was about. I liked 'True Stories', though. PPS In my view, gruyere is like cheddar, edam and gouda - sufficiently well-known not to require caps. I've seen them all spelt with caps, though. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 10:36:09 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: what's in a name? On 8/1/99 10:58 PM, hal brandt wrote: >By the way, the FUKUOKU 9000 is no more, replaced by a new product borne >of self-censorship...the FUZUOKU 9000. Anybody speak Japanese? Does this word translate to anything? - -tc, who likes the dubbed version of "Iron Chef" more than the subtitled version. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 10:38:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Vivien Lyon Subject: Re: LOTR Update (NR) - --- Bayard wrote: > > But my main question is still "Who's playing > Aragorn?" > stuart townsend. So I went to a Stuart Townsend site to find out who this guy is. He's essentially an Irish Keanu Reeves. Yeah, he's got a dark-eyed brooding thing going on, but he's a) too short, and b) way WAY too young. Let's hope he can act- I haven't seen any of the three films he's done. I should be crossing myself and thanking a god I don't believe in for the merciful fact that the American Keanu Reeves is far far away from New Zealand. Vivien Thanks, Bayard. _____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 18:49:38 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin 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? Well, no, I would have said that the great "How do you file your albums?" thread, which reappears periodically, had the edge. - - Mike "Stanier, taper-boilered, introduced 1934, adapted from the Fowler Crab 2-6-0 with inclined cylinders" Godwin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 14:04:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Bayard Subject: how's annie? Eb-ert: > >> yes, I think Lynch can be cold and inhuman. Imagine that. > His films. All of them. Most of them. But interestingly, not his TV shows. By the by, I recently watched _Lost Highway_ again and IT MADE SENSE. That's a good film. A big hint is given when Pullman's character is in bed with his wife early on. I also like the naming of the two main female characters. Have you really watched all his films? There's over a dozen... You must be a bigger fan than me, by far! Though someone did send me _the grandmother_... > Andrew: > >I think all films are of the same quality, and our expectations define > >whether we like them or not*. > > Good *grief*. Check, please. Check footnotes, please! =b >but he's a) too short, and b) way WAY too young. Perhaps they will use "the technology" to make him tall, as they do to make the hobbits short. (; "We have the technology. We can make him better, stronger, faster, older, a better actor..." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 13:08:54 -0500 From: "JH3" 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? >Well, no, I would have said that the great "How do you file your albums?" >thread, which reappears periodically, had the edge. Don't forget the ever-popular "Songs by other artists with the same titles as songs by Robyn Hitchcock" thread, which I'm sure we all hope will never reappear, periodically or otherwise. JH3 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 11:27:52 -0700 From: "Chris!" Subject: Re: everyone wins... Michael R Godwin wrote: > > What is this Pulitzer Prize, http://www.pulitzer.org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 11:32:44 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: what's in a name? At 10:36 AM 8/2/99 -0700, Tom Clark wrote: >>By the way, the FUKUOKU 9000 is no more, replaced by a new product borne >>of self-censorship...the FUZUOKU 9000. > >Anybody speak Japanese? Does this word translate to anything? Interestingly enough, "fukuoku" translates to "mini-vibrator." "Fuzuoku" translates as "euphemism for 'mini-vibrator.'" "9000" is Shinto numerological code for the final word spoken in "Eyes Wide Shut," which was almost as good as the final word used in Gabriel Garcia Marquez's short story "No One Writes to the Colonel." Anyhow, I still think the film is nothing short of brilliant - especially that FINAL WORD, which struck me as more of great sigh than a "jolt." - --Jasonzilla ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 12:41:18 -0600 From: hal brandt Subject: Re: everyone's a critic After a bit of sophomoric name-calling, Eb wrote: > your "point" was just a lame hyperbole. *lame examples of hyperbole that had nothing to do with my original 'point' snipped* > About the same level of sophistication there. > Very silly. And then, when asked to provide examples of David Lynch being "cold and inhuman" wrote: > His films. All of them. Care to stop being curt and expound on your insights? I'm really curious because characterizing Lynch as inhuman is just absurd. You sound like Elvis Costello in the seventies talking about Ray Charles because your statement is just argumentative, not to mention uninformed. Silly at best, to speak to your level of sophistication. Why am I bothering?, /hal PS- You never did reveal the 'last word' that you would have substituted in Eyes Wide Shut to make it a better picture. Lay it on me, if you have it and maybe you'll win a Pulitzer. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 15:24:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Bayard Subject: French fegs? passing this on - I am one of the 500 French fans of Robyn Hitchcock and would like to join the big fegmaniax club and give some help. For those who read French and still fancy some good old paper articles, the next issue of the French Fanzine Abus Dangereux due to be out in september will include an interview of the man itself. For those who would like to fill their archives, 2 other articles were issued in 1994 with original photographs taken in Paris. More information may be provided by contacting me at cathi.mini@fnac.net Bravo encore pour le site ! Cathimini ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 15:32:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Terrence M Marks Subject: Volunteers needed Hi. I need a few people who aren't familiar with my comic strip to look a few things over and answer a few questions. (If you volunteer, please don't become familiar with the strip in the meantime. It'd just ruin things.) I'm working on an introduction and need to make sure that normal* people can get what's going on. *: normal for my purposes, that is. Terrence Marks Unlike Minerva (a comic strip) http://grove.ufl.edu/~normal normal@grove.ufl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 14:35:20 -0700 From: Joel Mullins Subject: Re: Criticism Revisited The Great Quail wrote: > But I feel it is safe to say that most people > today accept that criticism is *not* merely a stream of "opinions" placed > in a "transparent" medium of language. . . . I completely disagree with this. Criticism to *most* people is "Siskel and Ebert gave this two thumbs up," or "Rolling Stone gave that album 4 stars." It's just a ratings system of opinions as far as the general American public is concerned. Granted, this "ratings system" is very influential. Many people look to Rolling Stone and MTV and other mainstream places to find out what they should and shouldn't like...and they don't care *why* they should or shouldn't like it. The group of people who know that good, analytical criticism is an art form are a *very* small group. The rest of the world may have their favorite poets, but they've certainly never heard of Barthes or Derrida and wouldn't know a deconstructive analysis if it bit them on the ass! Joel ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 13:55:30 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: everyone's a critic [warning: EWS spoilers] The ever-childish, grudge-bearing Hal snitted: >> your "point" was just a lame hyperbole. > >*lame examples of hyperbole that had nothing to do with my original >'point' snipped* It was exactly the same thing. "Oh, you weren't thrilled with the final scene of Eyes Wide Shut? Then you must think Clockwork Orange's ending was bad, too." Moronic attempt at discrediting me, with totally specious reasoning. Makes no more sense than the similar examples I provided. Say, what other film endings can you predict my response to, based on my post about Eyes Wide Shut? Do my comments about Eyes Wide Shut indicate my thoughts about the climax of Mary Poppins, too? Monsieur Verdoux? Glen or Glenda? Clue me in. >And then, when asked to provide examples of David Lynch being "cold and >inhuman" wrote: > >> His films. All of them. > >Care to stop being curt and expound on your insights? I'm really curious >because characterizing Lynch as inhuman is just absurd. "Absurd." It's awfully hard to use that word without sounding like a pompous ass, isn't it? Yeah, I'm the verrrrry first one to ever say Lynch is a bit inhuman, eh? Who could NOT be bowled over by the feel-good romance, love and warmth of his films? The ultimate date-movie director, to be sure. He *always* puts me in the mood to cuddle-wuddle. >PS- You never did reveal the 'last word' that you would have substituted >in Eyes Wide Shut to make it a better picture. Lay it on me, if you have >it and maybe you'll win a Pulitzer. After seeing the first half of the film, I guessed that it would be "Fidelio." And obviously, her saying "Fidelio" would've been a major revelation. Eb ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V8 #285 *******************************