From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V8 #286 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 286 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Criticism Revisited ["Miles Goosens" ] Re: Criticism Revisited [Eb ] Re: everyone's a critic [warning: EWS spoilers] [Capuchin ] great fucking Lisa Germano songs ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] Critical Mass [Michael Wolfe ] Re: Critical Mass [Capuchin ] HB vs Eb...in a STEEL CAGE! [hal brandt ] Re: Eyes Wide Shut ending [Joel Mullins ] Re: Criticism Revisited [Joel Mullins ] Re: response to (?) Bayard regarding Lynch's "humanity" [Joel Mullins ] Crashing Ebert [The Great Quail ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 13:53:35 -0700 From: "Miles Goosens" Subject: Re: Criticism Revisited On Mon, 02 Aug 1999 14:35:20 Joel Mullins wrote: >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. And when the general public runs into someone who actually attempts the more serious brand of criticism to which the Quail is referring, the reaction is "how can you hate PRETTY WOMAN/GHOST/TITANIC? It made a bazillion dollars and me and all my friends liked it, so you're a fancy-pants snob!" Or something like that. Part of this is symptomatic of the general disconnect between academic discourse and public discourse. When an academic insists that Ronald Reagan was not a conservative but a classical liberal (on economic issues, that is), he/she may be correct in a rather narrow sense, but going around telling people that Reagan isn't a conservative isn't going to make sense to most of those people. And telling academics that their language is counterintuitive doesn't go over big with them either. No, I don't have a solution to this problem, but I think you might see part of the reason I dropped out of graduate school... :-) But I digress. Quail is correct, but so is Joel. What I'd like to see is more people elevated to the realm of Quail discourse. And that, my friends, is a true challenge. More Siskel and Ebert: The one thing about 'em for which I will always be grateful is that they made me *aware* of a lot of films. The fact that their show aired substantial clips of the movies they discussed allowed lil' ol' me in Podunk, WV, to know a lot of titles and directors and such that never came within seven hours of the Blue Prince Twin. I pretty quickly sussed out that Gene and Roger weren't nearly as bright as they thought they were (key moment: when reviewing THE MOSQUITO COAST, both S&E kept complaining "I just couldn't like Harrison Ford's character." Well, DUH! You weren't supposed to!), but they did provide me with the means to grow beyond them, which counts for something. flim flam bamba lam, 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, 2 Aug 1999 13:58:25 -0800 From: Eb 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," If you only watched Siskel/Ebert to check whether their thumbs were up or down, then you were missing the whole ball o' wax. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 14:11:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: everyone's a critic [warning: EWS spoilers] On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Eb wrote: > 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. Inhuman and "feel-good romance" are hardly antonyms. You can make an evil misanthropic nightmare of a picture that's completely human and understandable. Just words. J. - -- ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 16:18:05 -0500 From: "JH3" Subject: Re: everyone's a critic Eb writes: >Do my comments about Eyes Wide Shut indicate my >thoughts about the climax of Mary Poppins, too? Monsieur >Verdoux? Glen or Glenda? Wait just one darn minute! Somebody *climaxed* in "Glen or Glenda"? I think I would've noticed THAT. John H. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 14:27:26 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: great fucking Lisa Germano songs "If I Think of Love." It really shouldn't work, and there's nothing special about it at any detailed level, but I really really adore it. Now: movies. > From: The Great Quail [snip] > 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!) [snip] Yes...I haven't read enough of any of these critics to venture an opinion of my own (but I often do anyway), but those who have give me plenty of reasons to worry. The worry is that the "ground-breaking," particularly for Foucault and Derrida, was more like a dog burying a bone in a lush and vibrant garden than a builder preparing to erect an edifice. Was there a reason you avoided pre-20th century critics? > From: Eb > Andrew: > >I think all films are of the same quality, and our > expectations define > >whether we like them or not*. > > Good *grief*. Check, please. Film critics criticize film instead of *real* literature only because they can't read*. > >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. 3/8 of the movie, but fully half the fun, if not more. Like Austin Powers, this was about jokes, not plot. Unlike Austin Powers, this was only unfunny in precisely one place**. > 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. "Fegmania." Like, duh. Drew * I don't sincerely believe this either, but you'll never know for sure unless you read till the end. ** That pathetic bit about Winona Ryder. There are probably other unfunny bits, too, but I can't recall them at the moment. The Bill Gates thing was a bit of a letdown, actually. === Andrew D. Simchik, schnopia@yahoo.com _____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 14:52:42 -0800 From: Eb Subject: response to (?) Bayard regarding Lynch's "humanity" OK, try this then: Lynch's characterizations are generally very thin. His characters usually feel like symbols, archetypes or quirky jokes rather than three-dimensional people (not unlike the Coens' characters, whom I have a similar problem with). He's not an "actor's director." His dialogue always feels extremely "written" -- there's little immersion in reality of the story. Instead of empathizing with the characters, you're much more likely to lurk outside the film and marvel at the director's "vision." And of course, I haven't even brought up the brutal, cold-blooded violence yet. And I'm not saying Lynch sucks either, mind you. Three or four of his projects, I really liked. The first two-thirds of Twin Peaks is the most mindblowing thing I've ever seen on television, and a couple of his films (if only a couple) really got under my skin. Including Blue Velvet. At his best, his strengths compensate for the above shortcomings. I did feel pretty iffy about Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me, Wild at Heart and Lost Highway. An "interesting" film isn't necessarily the same thing as a "good" film, and Lynch hasn't been getting past "interesting" with me, lately. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 14:54:29 -0700 From: Mark_Gloster@3com.com 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. Before I post on this again, to make Miles happy, I will go back to school for fifty-one years to try to achieve quailudian discourse properties, but certainly have reduced hit points and be then realigned as chaotic-evil/bizarre with a lemon twist, and a wicked muscular tic. I would probably also have to live in Central Park and chase rabbits all day. If one actually reads the "critical analysis" (review) instead of sound- byting it (thumbs-up, four-hundred-thousand stars) I think most reviewers do give enough analys to reveal their likes and dislikes and then over time one may compare their biases with his/her/its own. The best critics, and I am completely unabashed about putting Ebert here, do a good job of communicating in some way whether _I_ will like the film. They also assert what films are good films and bad, but usually _that_ alone has no bearing on whether I will like them. F'rinstance: I would gladly sit through _Mars Attacks_ (bad film) 10 times than watch _Raging Dull_ 1 more time. A good critic will usually be able to tell me if I will like the movie he's panning. Most will try to make me feel stupid and embarrassed for it, which makes them annoying- but they're still useful. "If you're a stupid fucking stupid bozo who is stupid, and happen to _like_ the incessantly horrible, grating, self-amused warblings and craplings of Mark Gloster and Big Rubber Shark, you will also probably like having your teeth planed with huge slabs of cement and also listening to Stan Ridgway, They Might Be Giants, and a few prog bands that are still breathing (but I contradict myself.)" (This [while technically incorrect, as only fans of Sonic Boom and SRL actually like having their teeth planed with huge slabs of cement] suggests what kinds of diseased people could like that kind of music and is therefore, despite dripping with (poor) judgment, a descriptive review.) >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! The idea of "analytical criticism" _of_ art strikes me as a little bit silly. I guess I would rather have math held up to analytical criticism, but I dunno everything. I think art creates a reaction in the audience, and people try to describe the moment using analytical terms for their reaction, but analytical scrutiny, too often, tends to miss the big picture or the gestalt meaning that reaches into the viewer. FYI, I generally alter my reading habits of a reviewer if too many times, in reviews, he/she/it burps or farts a one word jab at something I like, with little development. This is not to say that I don't appreciate the off-hand little dusting of bird turds that happen here, because a listserve is more conversational and people shouldn't be whacked for not volunteering or developing or redeveloping every thought he/she/it/we/you/they has/have. I almost hate to admit that I enjoy reading a reviewer lash into something with vicious wit. That dead reviewer Lester Bangs created a whole new form of art with most of his work. Lastly (lastly just can't really be a word): Yes, critix have some power, but reviewers living or dead can't tickle me into seeing some movies that just look like crap to me. No amount of hype got me into the theatres or video rental places (gimme three- fiddy-you don't suppose they are all run by the lochness monster do you?) to rent Titanic. The Great Quail couldn't even get me to go, and he offered sexual favors (come to think of it, that also weighed-in against it.) Happies, - -Markg (Who loved the scene in which Bill Gates was blown away in South Park, and takes some joy in maintaining his opinion that South Park is the most enjoyable movie he's seen this year.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 16:16:21 -0600 From: hal brandt Subject: Re: what's in a name? Jason R. Thornton wrote: > > "Eyes Wide > Shut" > 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." Yes. Exactly! /hal ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 21:24:35 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael Wolfe Subject: Critical Mass >> 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! Oh man. This exchange is threatening to blast a huge crater from the left side of my skull. I completely agree with Quail. I have been known to dabble in writing criticism (though I'm currently on hiatus to work on, err... other projects), and while my success is up for debate, I have always aspired to the ideal that he describes. I try to not merely offer a subjective value judgement (even a well supported one), but to illuminate new facets of the subject of criticism. Thus drawing from the power in the work while simultaneously adding to it. However, I also completely agree with Joel. While Joel says that he completely disagrees with Quail, I don't think that that's necessary. Nothing Joel says actually contradicts what Quail says. While Quail describes the lofty, poetic ideal of criticism, Joel talks about how criticism is perceived. Apples and oranges. Furthermore, regardless of how close each critic gets to actually attaining Quail's ideal, one must take Joel's position into account. What does it matter how much a critic enhances a work if all that people perceive him as doing is sticking his thumb up or down? Inasmuch as the purpose of writing is to communicate, if this is the perception of the critic's work, what has he actually DONE? To invoke the old cliche, if a tree falls in the middle of the forest and no one's around to hear it, does it make a sound? In addition, given the existence of such expectations, the more the critic is in the public eye, the more pressure will be exerted on him to conform to those expectations. This is one reason why I have such respect for Roger Ebert. Even throwing the regrettable "thumb system" into the mix, no critic with such huge exposure has done more to broaden the critical expectations of the mass public. Janet Maslin's flacid writing doesn't reach half the audience that Ebert gets, and she doesn't approach half of his wit and insight (she reminds me of a fashion comentator, to be honest). Other critics with his exposure, like Leonard Maltin or Gene Shalit, are reduced to pathetic parodies of critical discourse -- their words consists entirely of sound bites custom crafted to either fit on a quarter page flyer in the New York Times or lamely send up some well-publicized piece of advance hype associated with Hollywood's all-too easy targets. Certainly, there are other critics who I enjoy reading more (Michael D'Angelo on the internet, for example), who provide more insight, and enhance films for me more (Jonathan Rosenbaum of the Chicago Reader), and critics whose opinions I respect more (see Ebert's placement of Dark City near the top of his best of '98 list). But I think that the man deserves his due for being such a pioneer and for striving so much to not sell his profession short, and it's easy to overlook that. Oh, and I agree with Eb on Eyes Wide Shut, and David Lynch's movies. Lynch's upcoming one (to be distributed by Disney) could, uh, break the pattern (which is not to say that it might not have other problems). I liked South Park more than he did, though. And to the fellow that says that all movies are equally good -- tell me, what color is the sky where you come from? - -Michael Wolfe ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 15:35:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Critical Mass On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Michael Wolfe wrote: > Furthermore, regardless of how close each critic gets to actually > attaining Quail's ideal, one must take Joel's position into account. > What does it matter how much a critic enhances a work if all that > people perceive him as doing is sticking his thumb up or down? > Inasmuch as the purpose of writing is to communicate, if this is the > perception of the critic's work, what has he actually DONE? To invoke > the old cliche, if a tree falls in the middle of the forest and no > one's around to hear it, does it make a sound? Or, as perfectly parodied in Clerks by a woman in RSG(?) Video reading the back of a vhs box, "They say so much, but they never tell you if it's any GOOD!" J. - -- ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 16:42:47 -0600 From: hal brandt Subject: HB vs Eb...in a STEEL CAGE! Eb, in a petulant frenzy, wrote: > > The ever-childish, grudge-bearing Hal snitted: Eb, that is just pathetic. Grow up, please. Please! We don't agree on some things. That's all. Be more civil. It's a discussion, not a war. > 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. Your alternate ending wins no Pulitzer. In my opinion. As for Lynch, you say: > Who could NOT be bowled over by the feel-good > romance, love and warmth of his films? If I wasn't acutely aware of your sarcasm, I would agree with your statement. "Wild At Heart" is a great example. I'm thinking of the scene where Sailor and Lula are driving with the radio on. They hear bad news on every station. Finally, out of frustration, Lula screams for Sailor to "find me some music on this radio, RIGHT NOW!" He tunes the radio to some fuck-ass rock 'n' roll, they pull the car over to the side of the road and do a passionate, wild dance with each other as the camera pulls back to capture a Panavision sunset. Inhuman? OK, how about Laura Palmer's face at the end of Fire Walk With Me? All of Elephant Man? There's plenty more examples and you haven't given me a good argument to the contrary yet. > He *always* puts me in the mood to cuddle-wuddle. /hal ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 17:43:46 -0700 From: Joel Mullins Subject: Re: Eyes Wide Shut ending Eb wrote: > 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. Wow! I didn't think of that. That *would* have been a *major* revelation. I think Eb may have a good point here. But his criticism grows from the fact that he had heard talk about Kidman's last word before he saw the movie. I saw it on opening night and so I didn't hear any of this talk, and therefore, I liked the ending. But after seeing this, I have to agree with Eb. If she had said "Fidelio," that would have been a major shocker! Joel ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 17:45:36 -0700 From: Joel Mullins Subject: Re: Criticism Revisited Eb wrote: > If you only watched Siskel/Ebert to check whether their thumbs were up or > down, then you were missing the whole ball o' wax. I, personally, didn't watch much Siskel and Ebert at all. I'm just saying that *mainstream* America only watched S and E to find out where their thumbs were. Joel ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 18:05:23 -0700 From: Joel Mullins Subject: Re: response to (?) Bayard regarding Lynch's "humanity" Eb wrote: > Lynch's characterizations are generally very thin. His characters usually > feel like symbols, archetypes or quirky jokes rather than three-dimensional > people (not unlike the Coens' characters, whom I have a similar problem > with). He's not an "actor's director." His dialogue always feels extremely > "written" -- there's little immersion in reality of the story. Well, this is exactly what I like about Lynch. I'm not a huge fan of his, but I have liked several of his films, most notably Wild at Heart. And the reason it worked for me was *because* Nicolas Cage's character was a "quirky joke"...a "symbol"...an "archetype." He was just plain hilarious in that snake skin jacket (or whatever skin it was). Blue Velvet and Lost Highway were both enjoyable. They definitely made me think. But I haven't been impressed with any of his others. Personally, I think Lynch makes better movies than most of today's "Hollywood" studios. What exactly Eb, do you consider a "human" movie? Patch Adams? Maybe...but it also sucked! Personally, I think Jim Jarmusch is the most brilliant writer/director around today. And I think Paul Auster should write more scripts. So Eb, are they "human?" Joel Instead of > empathizing with the characters, you're much more likely to lurk outside > the film and marvel at the director's "vision." And of course, I haven't > even brought up the brutal, cold-blooded violence yet. > > And I'm not saying Lynch sucks either, mind you. Three or four of his > projects, I really liked. The first two-thirds of Twin Peaks is the most > mindblowing thing I've ever seen on television, and a couple of his films > (if only a couple) really got under my skin. Including Blue Velvet. At his > best, his strengths compensate for the above shortcomings. I did feel > pretty iffy about Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me, Wild at Heart and Lost > Highway. An "interesting" film isn't necessarily the same thing as a "good" > film, and Lynch hasn't been getting past "interesting" with me, lately. > > Eb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 18:57:39 -0700 From: Joel Mullins Subject: Re: Critical Mass Michael Wolfe wrote: > Nothing Joel says actually contradicts what Quail > says. While Quail describes the lofty, poetic ideal of > criticism, Joel talks about how criticism is perceived. Apples > and oranges. I never meant to say that I disagreed with Quail on his ideas of criticism. What I said was that I totally disagreed with his belief that *most* people see criticism as something more than a "ratings system." Most people, in fact, do not see criticism that way. And when I say "most people," I am talking about mainstream America, not the people on this list. I feel pretty safe in saying that we are all deviants. Joel Furthermore, regardless of how close each critic > gets to actually attaining Quail's ideal, one must take Joel's > position into account. What does it matter how much a critic > enhances a work if all that people perceive him as doing is > sticking his thumb up or down? Inasmuch as the purpose of > writing is to communicate, if this is the perception of the > critic's work, what has he actually DONE? To invoke the old > cliche, if a tree falls in the middle of the forest and no one's > around to hear it, does it make a sound? > > In addition, given the existence of such expectations, the more > the critic is in the public eye, the more pressure will be > exerted on him to conform to those expectations. This is one > reason why I have such respect for Roger Ebert. Even throwing > the regrettable "thumb system" into the mix, no critic with such > huge exposure has done more to broaden the critical expectations > of the mass public. Janet Maslin's flacid writing doesn't reach > half the audience that Ebert gets, and she doesn't approach half > of his wit and insight (she reminds me of a fashion comentator, > to be honest). Other critics with his exposure, like Leonard > Maltin or Gene Shalit, are reduced to pathetic parodies of > critical discourse -- their words consists entirely of sound > bites custom crafted to either fit on a quarter page flyer in the > New York Times or lamely send up some well-publicized piece of > advance hype associated with Hollywood's all-too easy targets. > Certainly, there are other critics who I enjoy reading more > (Michael D'Angelo on the internet, for example), who provide more > insight, and enhance films for me more (Jonathan Rosenbaum of the > Chicago Reader), and critics whose opinions I respect more (see > Ebert's placement of Dark City near the top of his best of '98 > list). But I think that the man deserves his due for being such > a pioneer and for striving so much to not sell his profession > short, and it's easy to overlook that. > > Oh, and I agree with Eb on Eyes Wide Shut, and David Lynch's > movies. Lynch's upcoming one (to be distributed by Disney) > could, uh, break the pattern (which is not to say that it might > not have other problems). I liked South Park more than he did, > though. And to the fellow that says that all movies are equally > good -- tell me, what color is the sky where you come from? > > -Michael Wolfe ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:27:00 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Crashing Ebert I can't take it anymore. Crash was one of my top three movies of 1997. I loved Crash. Don't let the naysayers scare you away. It was one of the most original and disturbing movies made this decade. And only Cronenberg could have pulled it off. Now, I could go on and on and on about why Crash was so good. But I leave you with this link: http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/1997/03/032101.html Which is Ebert's review; and I must say, he says it better than I could. I, by the way, also like Ebert, and I think he is a much better reviewer that Siskel was. I don't always agree with him, of course, but I respect him. (Other favorites include Peter Travers and Janet Maslin; of Rolling Stone and the New York Times respectively.) And you know what? I respect good movie critics. There's this common idea that everyone can be a movie critic, that it's easy. It isn't. The problem is, on so many crappy shows and newspapers and magazines, anyone who can watch a movie and express their opinions seems to be hailed a critic. . . . but to be a good critic takes a lot more. It takes a solid knowledge of cinematic history. It takes a grounding in the classics, a working understanding of how films are made, and, most importantly, the ability to detach the cynicism of having seen 1000 sucky movies to really open your mind and praise a film when it does something praiseworthy. And I think Ebert has all that. So I just wanted to chime in to defend both David and Roger. You may now visit the concession stand. - --Quail Oh, yes -- and Dead Ringers. Another *great* Cronenberg film. . . . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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 ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V8 #286 *******************************