From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V8 #288 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Tuesday, August 3 1999 Volume 08 : Number 288 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Star Wars ["Capitalism Blows" ] Re: film & criticism, no Robyn ["Capitalism Blows" ] Re: Gene's JfS review ["Capitalism Blows" ] Re: EWS ["Capitalism Blows" ] for the 'ell of it ["Ghost Surfer" ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V8 #284 ["D B" ] Re: everyone's a critic ["D B" ] promise me this -- take me tonight ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] Re: Dis week, I'm anni innelectual, next week, I'm a PC thug [Miles Goose] King Fu Fighting ["Russ Reynolds" ] Crash, spoilers, UK gigs [toby ] Re: Dis week, I'm anni innelectual, next week, I'm a little mermaid ["Jas] EYES [candl@journey.com] I posit that you are a giant cantaloupe who has come to devour the earth [ultraconformist@mail.weboffices.co] Re: EWS ["JH3" ] Largo & other stuff [Griffith Davies ] Re: I posit that you are a giant cantaloupe who has come to devour the earth [Vivien Lyon Subject: Re: Star Wars even though it's been apparent since no later than its third week of release that Phantom Menace would not outgross Titanic, this is actually the first week that its cumulative sales have been behind Titanic's for the same number of weeks in release. in case you were wondering. From: Bayard Reply-To: Bayard To: Capitalism Blows CC: fegmaniax@smoe.org Subject: Re: Star Wars Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 19:23:24 -0400 (EDT) > > it's really *not* that big of a deal, in the final analysis. i mean, nobody > really gives a fuck, when it gets right down to it. for those who do, esp. Titanic-haters, (and I know there are a few of you), a fiend of mine send me this: http://www.the-movie-times.com/thrsdir/titanicVSmenace.html it's not a joke or anything, it's "the final analysis". np. the kennedys _life is large_ =b _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 01:46:40 PDT From: "Capitalism Blows" Subject: Re: film & criticism, no Robyn ," 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."> i just wanted to say publicly how greatly i appreciate miles' deft use of puncuation in this passage. it burns my bottom something terrible seeing how sloppily it's used in general. however... i can't let this pass. the reagan administration was more protectionist than all previous administrations *combined*. this isn't even counting the massive increase in "defense" spending (translation: corporate welfare) during his term, and his criminal union-busting activities -- more examples of anti-market behaviour. just remember the republican/democrat motto, kids, and you'll be fine: state protection for the rich, market discipline for the poor. works like a charm. _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 01:48:17 PDT From: "Capitalism Blows" Subject: Re: everyone's a critic i defy anybody to think that My Life As A Dog is any of these. From: Joel Mullins Reply-To: Joel Mullins To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Subject: Re: everyone's a critic Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 06:56:13 -0700 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 _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 01:51:09 PDT From: "Capitalism Blows" Subject: Re: Gene's JfS review 1. her name is spelled like this: "Michele." see? with only one "l." 2. the song is called Adoration Of The City, singular. do you have reason to believe that the title of the etching from which the song's title was pinched is plural? if so, out with it! _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 02:02:13 PDT From: "Capitalism Blows" Subject: Re: EWS eb, this is hogshit. you didn't like the movie. fine. but the movie has NOT been reviewed as a "guilty pleasure," or a chance for critics to "'let their hair down.'" go back and read the manifold favorable reviews. what do they almost universally say? that the film is *surprisingly intelligent*. that they were expecting "immature fart jokes," but came away bowled over by the thoughtfulness of the movie. i know you're of the opinion that your opinion is the only one that could possibly be valid when it comes to movies 'n' music. but don't you think the fact that so many people on this list love the movie so much, and have made such eloquent assertions of same might, just might, indicate that you're out of step on this one? which, as i say, is fine. be out of step. doesn't make you a bad person. but it's a bit unfair, i'd say, to, er, posit, that the only reason anybody could like the movie is because it's so damned dumb that it's funny. give me a fucking break. _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 05:24:21 PDT From: "Ghost Surfer" Subject: for the 'ell of it >Just a note . . .the painting is actually Michelle's, not Robyn's. >Makes me *really* want to see Adoration of the Cities! > >- --Quail just a note...the spelling is Michele. Her work is wonderful, funny and bright. Well worth the money. - - --Ghost ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 05:27:59 PDT From: "D B" 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. It's not like that at all. Writing, and critical writing at that, is an art form, Ebert's prowess - or not - notwithstanding. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 05:31:19 PDT From: "D B" Subject: Re: everyone's a critic >Eb wrote: > > > yes, I think Lynch can be cold and inhuman. Imagine that. > >Examples? "Hidden" subtext: "Lead me somewheres else that I can put you in your place in..." ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 06:16:39 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: promise me this -- take me tonight I really have to stop replying to digests like this. But not just yet... > From: Eb > I was so hoping that you would approve. > OK, let's stick with the > rimshot/titillation/soundbite ending, then. "Fellatio"? Incidentally, how amusing that two of the films we're discussing so heatedly made such a production of using the word "fuck." ("Shut your fucking face, sailorfuckaaaaa...") > Incidentally, I can't even be sure if my alleged > hero Ebert directly agreed > with me about this. His comment was that he was > disappointed in the ending, > because it was "conventional." Kinda vague...so he > *might* be talking about > some other detail(s) of the closing minutes. > *Possibly*. Like perhaps the godawful pat way Dr. Bill and Mrs. Dr. Bill wrapped it all up in a nice "here's the moral of the story" package and, oh, by the way, all this talk of infidelity is so kinky! It's got me so hot! Let's run home and screw! You mean *those* conventional details of the closing minutes? > >-Markg > >(Who...takes some joy in maintaining his opinion > that South Park is the > >most enjoyable movie he's seen this year.) > > You know, I find this comment very telling. I think > this sort of attitude > explains a lot of the South Park film's critical > acclaim. You don't suppose a lot of the South Park film's critics just found it really funny, like so many of the normal humans who saw it did? > Critics love a > chance to "let their hair down," and embrace a Silly > Film. Or maybe they just dig non-pretentious entertainment that actually delivers. Go figure! > From: four episode lesbian > looking at the blariwitch.com website after the fact > has also magnified the > post-viewing spookiness of the film too. there's a > lot going on just under > the surface that doesn't really get touched upon by > the characters as they > interact with the people of burkittsville and, > later, with each other in > the woods. Yes! You must visit the website. The reason for this - -- let me try not to spoil anything here -- is that the film is flawed in leaving too much of the legend and backstory and interviews out and too much of the interaction-with-each-other-in-the-woods in. As one critic has pointed out, for three kids filming a documentary on the witch, they spend almost no time talking about her. I don't know what I would have thought of the film had I not been primed with the web site's backstory. Granted, the stuff in the woods is really key, but there's an awful lot of it, probably more than necessary. > i think i'm going to go see it again. I don't know if I can! I'd have to see a matinee this time so as to make sure I can sleep. > p.s. thumbs up for "run, lola, run" Really? The preview made it look iffy, but it also didn't give much away, so who knows. > since a lot of fegs have been sending html-formatted > and enriched text mail > to the list lately, i guess it bears pointing out > that non-plain text posts > are universally blocked for all lists at smoe.org. Yahoo! makes it look like I can send plain-text only by selecting the thusly-marked radio button underneath the composition window. If this post makes it through okay, it must mean Yahoo! is safe as long as one does that. > From: Mark_Gloster@3com.com > I thought the Mummy was a better flick, What did you like about it? I really hated it and I want to know what I was missing. Maybe it would have helped if I'd known it was supposed to be so all-fired campy going in, but as it was all I liked was yummy Brendan Fraser. And, um, yummy Arnold (?) Vosloo. > It might actually fuck me up pretty > bad if he ever > started gooing up about a Robyn tune the way he did > about Jr. Wainwright What does "gooing up" mean in this context? I really love Rufus Wainwright. I took a listen to see what all the hype is about. I said, "oh, my god! this sucks! I *hate* his voice! ...I want to hear that again, just to hear how much it sucks!" I did that about four or five times and then discovered I really, really liked it. Then I bought the album and really, really liked that, too, much to my annoyance because it's been so hyped by the same people who hype Ron Sexsmith. Then I saw Rufus's picture and really, really liked that, too (though he needs to eat more). > From: Joel Mullins > IMHO, Naked Lunch was about as > unwatchable as the book is > unreadable. I managed to enjoy both, though I only really liked the book. (But is it readable? Is Burroughs *ever* "readable"?) Drew === Andrew D. Simchik, schnopia@yahoo.com _____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 14:48:57 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: harvest tunes On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Russ Reynolds wrote: > XTC's Harvest Festival > Neil Young's Harvest Moon (prob'ly something on the Harvest CD too) > mebbe BOC's Harvester of Eyes And there is an ace new Buck Dharma song also called Harvest Moon on the new(!) BOC album 'Heaven Forbid'. - - MRG ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 09:06:32 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: Dis week, I'm anni innelectual, next week, I'm a PC thug At 02:45 AM 8/3/99 +0000, edoxtato@intentia.com wrote: >I don't think I'm >anti-intellectual, Miles. In fact, it sorta fucks me off you'd think so. >You're reading a little too much in, without asking too much about, I fear. Sorry. But since what you originally wrote was: >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? Yeah, that still seems extremely dismissive of the value of criticism. But since now you go on to say: >What's been my gripe is that a good many folk simply substitute critic's >opinions for their own thoughts. In fact, the opinions are solid enough >that they don't bother to check out the film or play or whatever. That's a different complaint, and one that I can stand behind. But as someone else said in this discussion (Eddie maybe?), a *good* critic can write a negative review that might clue you in to the fact that *you* might actually like the movie in question. And if there were no film criticism, wouldn't these shallow folks just continue substituting other people's opinions (those of peers, most likely, or preachers or what have ya) for their own? Removing the critic from the equation is not going to help these people think for themselves. >And the part that leaves me agog is he got a PULITZER FOR WRITING MOVIE >REVIEWS. Not for a great story, not for a unearthing a tremendous scandal >in local, county, state, or national government, not for fighting human >rights violations or making Mark Gloster a household cleaning product, or >investingating illegal tox-c waste dumping, or anything else I'd deem >newsworthy, but for FOR WRITING MOVIE REVIEWS. Yeah, OK, they're well >written but he's essentially been given a fat check and a nice bomp on his >resume for HELPING TO PROMOTE A FILM. Now waitaminute -- those newspaper and wire-service "critics" who have their blurbs splashed across *every* cinematic cowpile, those folks are being given a fat check for *helping to promote a film.* Ebert, while more generous with praise than the late Siskel, writes as many negative reviews as positive ones. It ain't like Ebert is getting kickbacks from Fox and Disney like those other fellas. But even if that's not what you meant, even if we could still substitute "WRITING ABOUT A MOVIE" for "HELPING TO PROMOTE A FILM" and still capture your true meaning, your point still seems misplaced to me. It's not as though there's just one Pulitzer handed out every year, and a starf*cking Pulitzer committee gave it to Ebert and screwed over everyone else. Ebert won a Pulitzer in the *category* of "Criticism." In other words, his winning a Pulitzer did not mean that someone who unearthed a tremendous scandal, fought human rights violations, and/or made Mark Gloster a household cleaning product had the prize that was rightfully theirs ripped from their honest and deserving hands. Pulitzers in other categories like "Public Service," "Investigative Reporting," "Beat Reporting," and "Sharkboy Ubiquitizing" were still awarded. And yeah, even after reading your whole second post again, it still seems to me that at heart you're incredulous that anyone could take criticism seriously as a worthwhile activity. You've just said it in a more roundabout "innelectual" way. ;-) later, Miles ====================================================== Miles Goosens limited edition R. Stevie Moore CDs now available! http://www.rsteviemoore.com My personal website http://www.mindspring.com/~outdoorminer/miles "If a million people say a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing." -- Anatole France ====================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 07:24:42 -0700 From: "Russ Reynolds" Subject: King Fu Fighting If you've been looking for a copy of RH's hilarious cover of "Kung Fu Fighting" (on the "Alvin Lives In Leeds" CD) you'll find one up for grabs on eBay right now. - -rUss ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:44:34 +0100 (BST) From: toby Subject: Crash, spoilers, UK gigs > 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. For me, the problem was that it didn't involve you as much as the book; I found the book disturbing because it made me empathise with the characters, but the film was rather more disengaged. Good film, though. On the subject of spoilers - those of us in the UK don't get to see "Eyes Wide Shut" or "Blair Witch Project" for two or three months yet! Please don't spoil anything! Oh, and is anyone else going to the London or Cambridge Robyn gigs? Anyone tried to get tickets yet? toby ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 10:05:04 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: Dis week, I'm anni innelectual, next week, I'm a little mermaid At 10:41 PM 8/2/99 -0700, Joel Mullins wrote: >Violence, as well as sex, sells! It's that simple. I didn't watch the entire episode of *That '70's Show* last night, but I did hear one of the characters say: "Horror movies turn chicks on faster than porno." - --Jason "now how much would you pay for the Zapruder film?" Thornton ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 13:45:34 -0400 From: candl@journey.com Subject: EYES Just a note on EYES WIDE SHUT... When 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY was released back in '69, seemed like a lot of critics hated it: terrible dialogue, wooden acting, etc. Now it is generally recognized as the classic it is. I wonder, does the title of EYES WIDE SHUT have anything to say about we the audience (voyeurs)? Is there a deeper message to the movie, maybe something that is missed on first viewing? Especially if you go to see the movie with the blurbs in the ads on your mind: "sexiest movie of all time" blah blah blah yeah right. Approaching EYES WIDE SHUT as the hottest movie of the year definitely sets you up for a let down. I found it rather tame, myself (the sex, anyway). Maybe on one level, Kubrick was trying to tell us something....like, if all you really want to see is steamy sex, don't sit in a theater - go home and f*ck. :) Chas - --- "Art produces ugly things which frequently become beautiful with time. Fashion, on the other hand, produces beautiful things which always become ugly with time." - Jean Cocteau ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 13:17:02 -0600 From: ultraconformist@mail.weboffices.com Subject: I posit that you are a giant cantaloupe who has come to devour the earth >this is one of my peeves about graduate school. if i want a job, i need to >talk the talk. but why the fuck do we need words like "posit" and >"reify?"** "Posit" is a perfectly good word. I've been using it in writing and conversation for years, and I never went to grad school. No one ever asks me what it means or gives me a strange look when I use it. Any fool would think it was in common use or something. Love on ya, Susan 'Momus? That guy is sinister!' Marilyn Manson, as reported by Haig Bedrossian ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 13:24:21 -0500 From: "JH3" Subject: Re: EWS >>You know, I find this comment very telling. I think this sort of attitude >>explains a lot of the South Park film's critical acclaim. Critics love a >>chance to "let their hair down," and embrace a Silly Film. It's >>*comforting* for someone who's normally forced to prove how highbrow >>and esoteric he is, to turn around and defy everyone by saying "Heh >>heh...here's my guilty pleasure." I don't think "comforting" is quite the word for it. When people know that they're defying the expectations of others, maybe they tend to feel a bit mischievous, because basically it's just fun to mess with people. It's a feeling of superiority, really. I myself do it all the time. Maybe it makes me feel more multi-dimensional, while I'm at it. You could even argue that this is one of the attractions of being a Robyn Hitchcock fan, even though the critics tend to like Robyn most of the time. But is that really why so many critics did favorable reviews of South Park? Personally, I agree with Eddie: >eb, this is hogshit. you didn't like the movie. fine. but the movie has >NOT been reviewed as a "guilty pleasure," or a chance for critics to "'let >their hair down.'" go back and read the manifold favorable reviews. Still, I don't think Eb's going back and reading the favorable reviews is gonna do it. And what gets me isn't that he ehhh'd the movie, but that as a critic, he somehow felt compelled to *dismiss other critics* as being the sort of people who would give South Park a good review just because doing so makes them feel better somehow. You often see that in serious criticism pieces where the critic disagrees with the prevailing opinion about something: Apparently it isn't enough to just explain why he/she disagrees; he/she has to explain how those on the other side came to such a misguided conclusion, and that explanation often has little to do with what's being criticized. Why that is I don't know (and in Eb's defense I don't think he does it very often), but I think it might help to explain why some people don't think very highly of the form. Nobody likes to hear that the "real" reason they like/dislike something is because they're giving in to some selfish ulterior motive, or because they possess some sort of flaw or weakness in their character. John "he sprouts... he spores!!!" Hedges ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:39:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Griffith Davies Subject: Largo & other stuff Fegs, Robyn is scheduled to play at Largo on Thursday, 26 August. My guess is that he will join Jon Brion on Friday, 27 August. And he just might sit in with Grant Lee Philips on Saturday, 28 August. I didn't make it to any of the L.A. area Hitchcock appearances this past weekend (too busy and an ill wife). I did tape the KCRW thing on saturday. While driving back from the protest march, I did listen to a little of it - really bad mix (vocals too loud, and almost no guitar). Plus, the DJ was giving commands to his assistants, and it went out over the air, right on top of one of Robyn's songs. Oh well... So, did any LA Feg make it to Largo, Rhino Records, or the Palace? griffith _____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 12:57:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Vivien Lyon Subject: Re: I posit that you are a giant cantaloupe who has come to devour the earth - --- ultraconformist@mail.weboffices.com posits: > "Posit" is a perfectly good word. I've been using it > in writing and > conversation for years, and I never went to grad > school. But Susan, I thought you *was* in grad school! Vivien "But Resusci, you *is* a chick!" -Dr. Clayton Forrester to the Resuscitation Annie he is trying to seduce. ps- I think 'thingify' is a much better word than 'reify.' _____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 15:27:37 -0600 From: ultraconformist@mail.weboffices.com Subject: Re: I posit that you are a giant cantaloupe who has come to devour the earth >But Susan, I thought you *was* in grad school! Oof. Did I ever give that impression? I hope not. I am not now in grad school, tho I would not go so far as to say "nor will I ever be". My time at UC has been spent entirely as an undergraduate. What may have been misleading is that I do refer to a lot of things in the past tense, as my undergraduate career has been very stop and start. I often refer to things in the past as having happened "when we were in college", meaning usually when I was in college with that particular person, or when I was "living the student lifestyle in gay ole Hyde Park". That may be where it comes from. If someone asks me where I did undergrad, I say UC, because that is true. If they go farther and ask me about my grad studies, then I have to tell them the embarassing truth- that I'm still technically an undergrad at the ripe old age of 28 :). Love on ya, Susan 'Momus? That guy is sinister!' Marilyn Manson, as reported by Haig Bedrossian ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 16:34:27 EDT From: DDerosa5@aol.com Subject: talking about the screens in front of us... I don't want my computer screen to be about movie screens any more. Not for a while. boy, you on-line communities sure got yer pros and cons. whingingly, dave ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 16:56:10 -0400 From: michelle wiener Subject: Re: I posit that you are a giant cantaloupe who has come to devour the earth i refuse to be reduced to the size of my...er, ego. and thanks for the offer, but i just ate. ultraconformist@mail.weboffices.com wrote: > "Posit" is a perfectly good word. I've been using it in writing and > conversation for years, and I never went to grad school. > > No one ever asks me what it means or gives me a strange look when I use it. > Any fool would think it was in common use or something. i didn't mean that these were difficult words to understand, although going back through my previous message, the context suggests as much. i just think they're silly words. they both seem incomplete, like they need more letters. and there are countless other perfectly good words to use that don't sound as pompous as "reify." not that you are for using "posit" in every day conversation, although you're the first person i've heard tell of that does. only times i've heard it aloud are at conferences, with people reading their papers. i'm just frustrated. i want whatever work i produce to be accessible and i try to resist as much as possible using this kind of language, the use of which has recently struck me as nothing more than academic dick-waving (ex: "The success of colonial appropriation depends on a proliferation of inappropriate objects that ensure its strategic failure, so that mimicry is at once resemblance and menace"[1]--no hard words there, but strung together like that seems unnecessary to me), but i also know that i can never escape from it. then, i teach students to write papers that would reach the widest audience possible, and i'm supposed to write a dissertation to reach the narrowest audience possible. have i mentioned that i'm from minnesota, where complaining is considered healthy exercise? * homi bhabha (the most fun name in the biz--can't say it without thinking of that ministry song) cheers, michelle np. the donnas. really, really loud. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V8 #288 *******************************