From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V1 #126 Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk loud-fans-digest Friday, June 15 2001 Volume 01 : Number 126 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? rou n d two (+ awful attemptatOTing) [C] Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? rou n d two (+ awful attemptatOTing) [C] [loud-fans] My friend JR [Cardinal007@aol.com] [loud-fans] Movies, good and bad ["Phil Gerrard" ] Re: [loud-fans] My friend JR [Roger Winston ] Re: [loud-fans] aube vs Ebert post-Skynyrd [JRT456@aol.com] [loud-fans] neKCid harvey [Miles Goosens ] Re: Fw: [loud-fans] Ebertmania! [Dan Schmidt ] Re: Fw: [loud-fans] Ebertmania! ["Aaron Milenski" ] Re: [loud-fans] Ot For Patti Griffin Fans [dmw ] Re: Fw: [loud-fans] Ebertmania! [Dan Schmidt ] Re: [loud-fans] aube vs Ebert post-Skynyrd [Roger Winston ] Re: [loud-fans] worst movie ever [Michael Mitton ] Re: [loud-fans] Ot For Patti Griffin Fans ["Andrew Hamlin" ] Re: [loud-fans] Hoo Haa! ["Andrew Hamlin" ] [loud-fans] The coo-coo, she's a pretty bird [Tim_Walters@digidesign.com] Re: [loud-fans] Ot For Patti Griffin Fans [AWeiss4338@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] Re: worst movie ever [Miles Goosens PS: if he's a "popular target" (Card7), might there be a good reason? (I > >loved C7's post on this, by the way.) JRT has asserted in the past that > >it's because liberals can't stand a colored dude going against them. That > >doesn't make any sense to me... Ahh, now I can [slightly] come to CT's defense. I. He became a target because he had the audacity to be black and have ideas that (1) were conservative, and (2) [and most importantly] differed from the views of the putative "black community." This ostensible monolith had one acceptable viewpoint, and his differed (the monolith, of course, had its opinions voiced by a limited number of folks, and those folks raced to denigrate any opposing viewpoint). He was an Uncle Tom, and the four networks (CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC), as well as the NY Times, Wash. Post, and LA Times, were quick to validate this view by running stories on his differences with black leaders. I think this ties in with whatever JRTaylor has said, from your comment. II. He became a target because he rarely participated in oral argument. The reporting media were quick to trumpet this after a few years on the Court. Implicitly, it demonstrated something (presumably he was incapable of "good judging"). As you know, Mr. Sharples, oral argument is spectator friendly, but largely unrelated to the decision-making process. While it's important on the Court, it probably influences one judge in ten arguments, if that. III. He became a target because for years he almost always voted for the same result and opinion as Scalia (he "voted with" Scalia). As a good Uncle Tom it was apparently easy to make him Scalia's "boy." The guy is open to lots of valid criticism, and -- more importantly -- his *positions can be debated and disagreed with. But let's not kid ourselves that he was only an easy target for criticism, esp. on a list of well-educated 50-and-under underground music fans, because his opinions and ideas suck. That kind of criticism takes the time most people seem unwilling to take to establish their ideas; conventional wisdom, bandwagons, and bumper-sticker ideas seem satisfactory to many folks these days. On both sides of the aisle. Back to my percocets and red wine, C7 ps no criticism for late hrs., mr. sharples............. pls. ppss All that criticism of CT for sexual harrassment....? I just know that he slept with at least three female employees during his (relatively) short stint there. Two names available upon request. I kept my dalliance to just one... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 03:07:48 EDT From: Cardinal007@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? rou n d two (+ awful attemptatOTing) In a message dated 6/14/01 9:33:04 PM, jsharple@bls.brooklaw.edu writes: >JRT: how exactly are churches harmed under my view? They have so many >other > >fora besides public schools, don't they? Where, exactly, can a group of 42 wild-eyed evangelists meet comfortably in a small community? Or, why can't the stamp club be asked to go to its other spots? Of course, I'd force all tax-free churches to provide access to atheist gatherings, so I lack credibility here (as well as other places). A compromise: let 'em use the church, but allow me to nail one down and hoist him before every meeting..... Not knowing what I do, C7 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 03:11:34 EDT From: Cardinal007@aol.com Subject: [loud-fans] My friend JR In a message dated 6/14/01 10:33:10 PM, rwinston@tde.com writes: >Didn't you read the "PLEASE DON'T FEED THE JRT" sign >when you resubbed??? I hope he continues to get fed. He frequently says things that are so patently true (yet not easily accepted here) that he should be fed. Indeed, he should be the crucible for quite a few ideas here. Plus, he gets all that Playboy hatchet .................. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 10:27:28 +0100 From: "Phil Gerrard" Subject: [loud-fans] Movies, good and bad Andy, then Dan: >> Which reminds me to plug (again?) Alejandro Gonzalez >> Iqarritu's AMORES PERROS, a genuine Mexican film that >> opens with a bang, throws menace and >> heartbreak into its middle, and goes weird for the ending. One >> of my favorites of this year. Anyone else seen it? > >Though my tastes often coincide with yours, I didn't enjoy this film >-it had a sort of cruel, jittery feeling that put me off. - Dan I'm very unsure about 'Amores Perros' - partly because I saw it on a date (her idea, not mine), and it's frankly not that sort of movie - but there are moments from it, beyond the, um, viscerality, which have haunted me ever since. As a good auteurist, I may have to wait for Iqarritu to make a follow-up before I draw any firm conclusions. Dan: >I never liked Godard, but a few months ago I resaw A >BOUT DE SOUFFLE and was surprised to find myself liking it.... Although I'd loved the movie when I was in my late teens, when I saw it recently it looked incredibly shallow and misogynistic. Seberg's betrayal of Belmondo in particular bugged me: the femme fatale is a dubious and sexist concept in itself, but at least in most movies the filmmakers have the decency to grant such a character a halfway decent motive. Godard seemed to be implying that hey, she's a woman, what else would you expect of her? Truffaut's 'Tirez sur le Pianiste', on the other hand, now strikes me as a far superior and in many ways more daring movie. At the time it was released it didn't fare too well with either the critics or the public, which I guess may be why it hasn't quite attained the 'classic' status accorded to 'A Bout de Souffle', but I think it deserves a better rep than it's got. Rick wrote: >>wild. this reminds me of the "suicide by cop" scenario in a way. >> i've never heard of hiring a hit on yourself before, though. > >Speaking of bad movies, how many have used this scenario? Aki Kaurismaki, 'I Hired a Contract Killer'. Not a bad movie, but definitely not one of his best. Setting it in England was probably his biggest mistake, as the English actors seem totally out of their depth with Kaurismaki's deadpan style. Also, doesn't 'The Lady from Shanghai' use this device at some point? I tried to recall the plot and then my brain started to melt. As for suicide by cop in the movies, Melville's 'Le Samourai' uses this quite effectively. Highly recommended to all fans of Walter Hill, John Woo (when those two were good), and Michael Mann. Finally, a tentative ten of my own favourites: Sherlock Jr Taxi Driver Pepe le Moko His Girl Friday Heat Les Diaboliques Vampyr Throne of Blood Love and Death La Grande Illusion everyone has his reasons - peace & love phil Phil Gerrard Senior Admissions Officer The External Programme University of London E-mail: p.gerrard@eisa.lon.ac.uk 'Phone: 020 7862 8369 Fax: 020 7862 8363 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 03:14:49 -0700 From: rlewis@adnc.com (Russ Lewis) Subject: [loud-fans] The Loudfans' Movie Minute I see plenty of people have already seen Moulin Rouge. Too bad. I was going to warn you. Take two hours of vintage MTV (back when the "M" actually stood for "music"), run it through an Osterizer, and you get this. It's been years since I've seen such a preposterous pile of horseshit, and a hot, steaming one at that. I couldn't buy the story, I didn't care about the people, the anachronisms made for a one-joke show, and I couldn't wait for this thing to end. The only reason I didn't leave early was that I wanted to see the credits. HOWEVER...one thought kept nagging at me throughout the whole movie. I couldn't get over how much the Duke resembled Vivian Stanshall (Bonzo Dog Band). Did anybody besides me notice that? Scott Tissue El Cajon CA Just another asshole with a computer and an opinion. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 09:01:17 -0400 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: Re: Fw: [loud-fans] Ebertmania! Tim says, >If I remember correctly, when Ebert saw I SPIT, some members of the >audience >cheered during the rape scene. Having had a similar experience when I saw >WELCOME TO THE DOLLHOUSE, I can testify that the distaste it gave me for >the >film is very hard to shake, even though it's irrational. Actually the most disturbing experience of the type I've had was during OLEANNA, in which a student concocts a ridiculously unfair sexual harrassment charge against a professor, and at the end of the movie, he finally can't take it anymore and hits her. The theater where I saw the film (and, according to rec.arts.movies most theaters around the country) erupted in cheers at this point. My impression of the whole thing was that David Mamet had written a story so preposterous that we were intended to root against the woman--it's as if by creating this ridiculous situation he was trying to make most claimis of sexual harrassment look phony and undeserved. I was disgusted with him and with the people in the theater foor being foolish enough to fall for it (and to let their real hatred of women show loud and clear when they cheered.) I later read an interview with Mamet where he said he was surprised everyone sided with the professor--he thought that there actually was some validity to what she said and the fact that he eventually turned to violence showed that all along he was the person she claimed he was. I guess it just shows that an audience reaction is not necessarily something a filmmaker intended. I've read several interviews with Meir Zarchi, who wrote and directed I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE (as DAY OF THE WOMAN, remember), and there's no doubt the movie was intended as some sort of feminist statement (and it's only the advertising and retitling that turned it into an exploitation film. His next film was also retitled for the exploitation market as DON'T MESS WITH MY SISTER, and it, too, is really more of a low-budget art film than an expolitation film). I'm sure he never expected that the crowd would find the movie funny or that they'd side with the rapists. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 07:13:57 -0600 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] My friend JR At Friday 6/15/2001 03:11 AM -0400, Cardinal007@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 6/14/01 10:33:10 PM, rwinston@tde.com writes: > > >Didn't you read the "PLEASE DON'T FEED THE JRT" sign > >when you resubbed??? > >I hope he continues to get fed. He frequently says things that are so >patently true (yet not easily accepted here) that he should be fed. Indeed, >he should be the crucible for quite a few ideas here. That's fine, as long as Sharples (or any other lawyer who uses big words) doesn't do the feeding. Just kiddin' - I love ya, John. You too, Card, but not as much or in quite the same way. Later. --Rog - -- When toads are not enough: http://www.reignoffrogs.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 09:35:22 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aube vs Ebert post-Skynyrd So I spend a long night rocking out in Long Island, and come back to find that 1) someone refuses to research the ridiculous notion that Ebert ever called for censorship, 2) someone else finds out that Ebert did call for a movie to be banned from theaters but suggests that isn't real censorship, and 3) the person who originally refused to research the ridiculous notion that Ebert ever called for censorship thinks that it's pretty clear that Ebert called for censorship. To further confuse the issue, I should add that there are times when I'm not sure if even the government has the power of censorship. Also, anyone into Dogme should check out "I Spit On Your Grave" to see it done right. "Don't Mess With My Sister," incidentally, was just released on DVD. I was only kidding when I commented on how much everyone on this list loves judicial debate, and I'll avoid defending a perfectly reasonable Constitutional stance. Still, jsharple@bls.brooklaw.edu writes of attacks on Clarence Thomas: << JRT has asserted in the past that it's because liberals can't stand a colored dude going against them. That doesn't make any sense to me... >> As a conservative, I try to judge people as individuals. Therefore, any past statements should have only asserted that JSharple dislikes uppity Negroes. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 08:39:30 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: [loud-fans] neKCid harvey At 07:39 PM 6/14/2001 -0700, Carolyn Dorsey wrote: >Dana wrote- > ><<<<<Piano', >>>>>>>>>> > > >I agree about The Piano. Everyone kept telling me how great it was and I >thought it was so disappointing. Thinking about this movie reminds me of >the naked Harvey Keitel thread from a few years back! I can feel our ana, whether she's on the list or not, shuddering at the very mention of "Nekkid Harvey." Despite having members of King Crimson follow me everywhere (Fripp's years in Charleston, WV, teaching guitar; Adrian Belew moving to Nashville a few years ago), tonight will be the first time I'll see KC perform. Can't wait. I did finally spot Adrian Belew out and about, before the outdoor Richard Thompson show in October '99. Melissa and I were sitting outside South Street, a notable local diner adjacent to the performance space, waiting to be seated for dinner. I spotted Belew coming down the street, holding hands with a small female offspring. I whispered to Melissa, "there's Adrian Belew!" Ade and child stepped into the restaurant briefly, then walked past us on down 20th, and I could swear that Adrian said to his child in horrified tones, "they recognized us." Geez, did I have on my stalker outfit or something? Wasn't like I waylaid him, demanded forty autographs, and told him that only *I* know that if you play "When I Say Stop, Continue" backwards there's a secret erotic narrative about Al Gore. (Everyone on Elephant-Talk knows that.) Melissa has since theorized that Belew's discomfort was her fault, as she was already staring at him, not recognizing him but thinking "that man is wearing the godawfullest ugly hat she'd ever seen." Maybe we can creep out Trey Gunn tonight. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jun 2001 10:06:15 -0400 From: Dan Schmidt Subject: Re: Fw: [loud-fans] Ebertmania! "Aaron Milenski" writes: | Actually the most disturbing experience of the type I've had was | during OLEANNA, in which a student concocts a ridiculously unfair | sexual harrassment charge against a professor, and at the end of the | movie, he finally can't take it anymore and hits her. The theater | where I saw the film (and, according to rec.arts.movies most theaters | around the country) erupted in cheers at this point. My impression of | the whole thing was that David Mamet had written a story so | preposterous that we were intended to root against the woman--it's as | if by creating this ridiculous situation he was trying to make most | claimis of sexual harrassment look phony and undeserved. I was | disgusted with him and with the people in the theater for being | foolish enough to fall for it (and to let their real hatred of women | show loud and clear when they cheered.) | | I later read an interview with Mamet where he said he was surprised | everyone sided with the professor--he thought that there actually was | some validity to what she said and the fact that he eventually turned | to violence showed that all along he was the person she claimed he | was. I guess it just shows that an audience reaction is not | necessarily something a filmmaker intended. I didn't see the movie, but I saw the play (same actors and director), and I didn't get the sense that Mamet was taking sides at all (nor did it seem like the rest of the audience did). I wonder if the type of audience was different, or if people have different reactions when watching a movie vs. a play, or what. - -- http://www.dfan.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 10:31:47 -0400 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: Re: Fw: [loud-fans] Ebertmania! >| I later read an interview with Mamet where he said he was surprised >| everyone sided with the professor--he thought that there actually was >| some validity to what she said and the fact that he eventually turned >| to violence showed that all along he was the person she claimed he >| was. I guess it just shows that an audience reaction is not >| necessarily something a filmmaker intended. > >I didn't see the movie, but I saw the play (same actors and director), >and I didn't get the sense that Mamet was taking sides at all (nor did >it seem like the rest of the audience did). I wonder if the type of >audience was different, or if people have different reactions when >watching a movie vs. a play, or what. In the interview I read, Mamet said the play never got that reaction, so something about it was different. If it's the same two actors, I doubt that the dialogue was changed in any important way. Perhaps the immediacy of watching a play creates a different audience perspective. From the movie, I got the sense that we were supposed to think she was wrong, and her assertions certainly did seem preposterous to me. Strangely enough, that year I saw no less than three films in which a woman sexually harrassed a man. Make of that what you will. Aaron, who slightly knew Debra Eisenstadt a few years before she acted in OLEANNA _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 10:52:58 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Ot For Patti Griffin Fans On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, jenny grover wrote: > AWeiss4338@aol.com wrote: > > > > Someone on another list sent this. Why am I not suprrised it's Interscope > > doing this. > > interscope is becoming notorious for this sort of thing. and i can't pull m' usual, "damnit, you KNEW it was a deal with the devil," because some of the artists getting most spikily screwed by interscope never actually SIGNED with interscope to start with. but the back story was very interesting. i have praised, in print, and stand by the praise, whoever was repsonsible for the decision to NOT clean up, prettify and band-ize _Living with Ghosts_. I think it's much better record than _Flaming Red_, not because the songs on _Flaming Red_ are poor or anything, but because there's more stuff in the way between the songs, the intensity of Griffin's vocal performance, and me. I saw Griffin play most of _Flaming Red_ acoustically and was riveted & transfixed. The ablum was, well, it was *good*... (I feel the same way about Amy Rigby. I still want her to make a solo acoustic record, and a live-to-2-track band record with no damn backup singers or keyboard sweetening.) ...and I wonder allasudden how many of the other records (Roseanne Cash's _10 songs_?) that had a similar story circulated about them ("the demos were so good we knew we shouldn't interfere with them") were not actually the preferred choice of the artist, record company, or both?? - -- d. = i do what i am told. i am not opinionated. i accept without | dmw@ = questioning. i do not make a fuss. i am a good consumer. |radix.net = pathetic-caverns.com * fecklessbeast.com * shoddyworkmanship.net ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jun 2001 10:52:45 -0400 From: Dan Schmidt Subject: Re: Fw: [loud-fans] Ebertmania! "Aaron Milenski" writes: | >| I later read an interview with Mamet where he said he was surprised | >| everyone sided with the professor--he thought that there actually was | >| some validity to what she said and the fact that he eventually turned | >| to violence showed that all along he was the person she claimed he | >| was. I guess it just shows that an audience reaction is not | >| necessarily something a filmmaker intended. | > | >I didn't see the movie, but I saw the play (same actors and director), | >and I didn't get the sense that Mamet was taking sides at all (nor did | >it seem like the rest of the audience did). I wonder if the type of | >audience was different, or if people have different reactions when | >watching a movie vs. a play, or what. | | In the interview I read, Mamet said the play never got that reaction, | so something about it was different. If it's the same two actors, I | doubt that the dialogue was changed in any important way. Oops, I just checked imdb, and the actors were different; I saw Rebecca Pidgeon in the play, and Debra Eisenstadt was in the movie. (William H. Macy in both, though.) | Perhaps the immediacy of watching a play creates a different | audience perspective. From the movie, I got the sense that we were | supposed to think she was wrong, and her assertions certainly did | seem preposterous to me. It's almost ten years ago now, so I don't remember it that well, but what I remember is not that she was in the right but that he was in the wrong too, and was guilty at the least of pretty bad judgment if not harassment. I did sympathize with him at the start, less so as the play went on. - -- http://www.dfan.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 9:28:20 -0600 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aube vs Ebert post-Skynyrd JRT456@aol.com on 2001/06/15 Fri AM 07:35:22 MDT wrote: > So I spend a long night rocking out in Long Island, and come back to find > that 1) someone refuses to research the ridiculous notion that Ebert ever > called for censorship, 2) someone else finds out that Ebert did call for a > movie to be banned from theaters but suggests that isn't real censorship, and > 3) the person who originally refused to research the ridiculous notion that > Ebert ever called for censorship thinks that it's pretty clear that Ebert > called for censorship. We humans down here are maddeningly confusing and inconsistent sometimes, aren't we? You should've seen what I was like *before* the sex change. Anyway, I hope it didn't cause you too much consternation. The only thing I continue to have issue with is this "refuses to research" bit. I just don't think it's too much to ask that you at least clarify what you are talking about or give an example. I don't expect you to provide website links to relevant discourses, and I don't always believe what I read on the Internet anyway, but I think it would help your case more if you put an example in your first volley instead of in the indignant follow-ups. (But then of course you wouldn't have the opportunity to tell people to "Do the research!"). Incidents that are an ingrained part of the East Coast communal mind may be unheard of to those of us in the Sticks. If Katie Couric came on my TV this morning and said "Chelsea Clinton killed a man with her bare hands when she was six", I'd want to know what her sources were. I'm not going to travel to Arkansas and start questioning the local authorities, her relatives and childhood friends. Granted, your assertion was not nearly so outrageous, but it was something that didn't jibe with my exposure to Ebert. Nor did I call it a "ridiculous notion" - I just said it was hard from me to believe and asked where you got your info from. But then again, I can hardly take you to task for making short, pithy snide comments. So did Skynrd play "That Smell"? That really is my favorite LS song. Later. --Rog - -- When toads are not enough: http://www.reignoffrogs.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 08:59:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Tiger Reel Subject: [loud-fans] Re: worst movie ever coincidentally, ebert this week put "do the right thing" on his list of "great movies" on his website. vis a vis ebert: i actually think roger ebert is one of the few high profile movie critics with smidgen of self-respect and intelligence. here in LA we are stuck with kenneth turan of the la times, a writer with limited cognitive abilities who more often than not is satisfied to be a corporate studio shill.(still reeling from the rave he gave "the mummy returns.") - --- Michael Mitton wrote: > JRT wrote: > > > Drop out of the Flat Earth Society and go find > your own examples. Any decent > > Internet search should bring up plenty about how > Siskel & Ebert actively > > tried to ban one of the most feminist movies ever > made. You should also find > > references to how they went around claiming that > "I Spit On Your Grave" will > > make men want to rape women. > > I searched around and did find that they tried to > ban the movie, in the > sense that they couldn't believe respectable > theatres were showing the > film, and they did try to get theatres to stop > showing it. But THAT > doesn't advocate censorship. Now, if they were > actively appealing the > government to ban the film, that's a different > story, but I didn't find > that. Incidentally, I also found that feminist > organizations were > "outraged" at the time. > > > (Strangely, it was implied to be a positive > > development when "Do The Right Thing" was supposed > to start riots all over > > America.) > > For the record, here's what Ebert wrote in his > original review: > > "Some of the advance articles about this movie have > suggested that it is > an incitement to racial violence. Those articles say > more about their > authors than about the movie. I believe that any > good-hearted person, > white or black, will come out of this movie with > sympathy for all of the > characters." > > --Michael Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more. http://buzz.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:45:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Mitton Subject: Re: [loud-fans] worst movie ever From Aaron, who meant to send this to the whole list. - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 08:50:11 -0400 From: Aaron Milenski To: mlmitton@phoenix.Princeton.EDU Subject: Re: [loud-fans] worst movie ever >I searched around and did find that they tried to ban the movie, in the >sense that they couldn't believe respectable theatres were showing the >film, and they did try to get theatres to stop showing it. But THAT >doesn't advocate censorship. Now, if they were actively appealing the >government to ban the film, that's a different story, but I didn't find >that. Incidentally, I also found that feminist organizations were >"outraged" at the time. I did some searching too, and found that Ebert and Siskel indeed did claim that the movie would want to make men rape women (something I completely disagree with.) The organizations that were outraged may not have actually seen the movie, just as the religious groups who protested LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST didn't see it. If they did they'd notice that the very first thing on the screen was a credit that said it was an imaginary story. It's also not above exploitation promoters (read about SNUFF, for example) to hire fake protesters to give a movie publicity. all Siskel and Ebert succeeded in doing was turn an unkown movie into a huge hit that to this day remains very popular on video. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 10:11:25 -0700 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: Fw: [loud-fans] Ebertmania! >Oops, I just checked imdb, and the actors were different; I saw >Rebecca Pidgeon in the play, and Debra Eisenstadt was in the movie. >(William H. Macy in both, though.) Ms. Pidgeon re(pre?)-cometh! A family friend saw a production of the play in Seattle, or maybe it was Tacoma. She was shocked to read in the program that the young woman playing the part of the young woman was also credited as "fight choreographer." Maybe the professor doubled on coffee, Andy "I must be cruel, only to be kind." - --Shakespeare, from HAMLET, III, 4 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 10:18:03 -0700 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Ot For Patti Griffin Fans I agree, mostly, with Doug, but I just pulled out LIVING WITH GHOSTS, after not playing it for a few years, and wow. I missed out big time not putting it on my 1996 Top Ten list. Suppose I should give the Basehead another whirl too, Andy "Sumer is icumen in, Lhude sing cuccu!" - --"Cuckoo Song," circa 1225 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:31:24 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: [loud-fans] worst movie ever (scott) While reading about all the horrible things that our deposed dictator, Roger Ebert, did to censor films during his reign, I came across the following: - - Airport scenes in _Into The Night_ (qv) and _Coming To America_ (qv) have a call over the PA system for a ``Mr Frank Ozkerwitz'' to pick up the white courtesy phone. This is 'Frank Oz' (qv)'s real name. Landis has a fetish for Oz and The Muppet Show. And couldn't help thinking about a song by Oz loving Scott Miller on Attractive Nuisance. It probably never entered Scott's head... - --dana ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 10:35:50 -0700 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Hoo Haa! >(Around the same time as Drac, Coppola's son Roman made a great low budget >piece of camp called "Spirit Of 76"...find it!). I'm fond of that film, though it's uneven--gotta love Julie Brown's cameo eh?--though I thought I should mention that while Roman Coppola did the script, the story, and the directing, came from another Hollywood baby, Lucas Reiner, Carl and Estelle's son. The younger Reiner has a picture called GOLD CUP, too, but I haven't seen that one. Used to have it in my "picks" section next to TELEFON, Andy "Los Angeles at the end of the century. Los Angeles at the end of the century." - --complete "Plot Outline" of Lucas Reiner's second film GOLD CUP, at the Internet Movie Database ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 10:57:46 -0700 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: [loud-fans] The coo-coo, she's a pretty bird >"Sumer is icumen in, > Lhude sing cuccu!" > >--"Cuckoo Song," circa 1225 Prominently featured in THE WICKER MAN, which is neither the best nor the worst movie ever made, but does feature Britt Eklund in the nood. "Winter is icumen in, Lhude sing goddam!" - --Ezra Pound ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 14:43:33 EDT From: AWeiss4338@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Ot For Patti Griffin Fans In a message dated 6/15/01 11:05:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dmw@radix.net writes: > ...and I wonder allasudden how many of the other records (Roseanne Cash's > _10 songs_?) that had a similar story circulated about them ("the demos > were so good we knew we shouldn't interfere with them") were not actually > the preferred choice of the artist, record company, or both?? > > Sheryl Crow's Tuesday night Music Club had something like that going on, except they had recorded the album, didn't like it, and scrapped it. Andrea ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 14:10:31 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: worst movie ever At 08:59 AM 6/15/2001 -0700, Tiger Reel wrote: >vis a vis ebert: i actually think roger ebert is one >of the few high profile movie critics with smidgen of >self-respect and intelligence. here in LA we are stuck >with kenneth turan of the la times, a writer with >limited cognitive abilities who more often than not is >satisfied to be a corporate studio shill.(still >reeling from the rave he gave "the mummy returns.") Can't comment on Turan one way or the other, but I'll always recommend the NASHVILLE SCENE's senior film guy, Jim Ridley. I think he's slid just a bit since the SCENE added Noel Murray and Donna Bowman to the mix -- sometimes his reviews seem a bit shaded by PC concerns more characteristic of the other two critics than of Ridley's own unfettered muse. (Noel and Donna are good writers, don't get me wrong, and both of 'em are way better than Roger "I wanted to like the character more!" Ebert.) Nevertheless, Ridley remains one of Nashville's great resources and treasures. You can always hop over to http://www.nashvillescene.com to read for yourself. Sadly, Ridley's one-paragraph "capsule reviews" in the weekly film listings aren't on the web, and the SCENE's online archives begin just after his epic dismemberment of WATERWORLD. But I'll reproduce two of short takes from this week's SCENE -- one rave and one dis -- to give you a taste of Jim's prose stylings: MOULIN ROUGE: Forget those weakly pulsing rave cash-ins like HUMAN TRAFFIC; this is the movie musical as trance-inducing freak-out - a 180 beat-per-minute dance remix of CHILDREN OF PARADISE, Melies, Bollywood, CABARET, and a bonkers Ken Russell extravaganza, set to some of the sugariest, sappiest radio fodder you never wanted to hear again. And miracles of miracles, it works - - it's a pop symphony composed entirely of bells and whistles. In 1900 paris, the hearbroken writer Christian (Ewan McGregor) looks back on the sinful Moulin Rouge nightclub and his love for the doomed singer Satine (Nicole Kidman) - who inspired him to flights of artistic and romantic fancy, even as money forced her into the arms of the nefarious Duke (Richard Roxburgh). From the first shot, director Baz Luhrmann revels in artifice and brazen theatricality: The pace is exultantly fast, the colors hypersaturated, the sets a melange of toy silent-movie cityscapes and digitized tchotchkes. But the stylized frenzy boldfaces the emotions in the goofy pop songs, rendering warhorses like "Your Song" and "Silly Love Songs" shockingly fresh and pertinent. And the actors perform them the only way they can work: fearlessly, as if their hearts cannot allow a single word to be suppressed. I don't care how dumb it sounds; when McGregor steps into a cotton-candy dream of a Parisian cloudland and sings "Up Where We Belong" to Kidman with guileless wide-eyed sincerity, it's so goddamn thrilling you could cry. I wouldn't want every movie to be this manic and marshmallowy, but it's a wonder to behold - a reminder that movies can be as life-affirming in their fantastic excess as in their austere humanism. Kidman has never seemed so alive on screen; the boldly flamboyant cast includes John Leguizamo as Toulouse-Latrec, Jim Broadbent as the impresario Zidler, and Matthew Whittet as a struggling Eric Satie. Luhrmann and Craig Pearce wrote the script, and Donald McAlpine contributed the eye-popping cinematography; Jill Bilcock did the editing, a bombardment that would give Darren Aronofsky Japanese-cartoon seizures. THE ANIMAL: In a comedic year that started with fisting cows and jacking off pachyderms, watching Rob Schneider lewdly pat the haunches of a comely goat seems downright tame. Sadly, so does most of this flea-bitten farce, which squanders a great premise about a milquetoast evidence-room clerk (Schneider) unleashing his inner beast after a mad scientist stitches him up with animal organs. Schneider, who resembles the Three Stooges' Larry bummed out on cough suppressants, plays the lead as a loveable underdog, in lockstep with the loser-makes-good formula flogged to the bank by executive producer Adam Sandler. But what's needed is a manic mutt, and the laughs fizzle because Schneider's animal side lacks the edge of an irrepressible id - he's just a mope who catches Frisbees in his teeth. And with director Luke Greenfield staging every obvious gag as a conveyor belt of cascading anvils, the movie quickly neuters its central joke. The best bit is a sidebar in which the hero's obligatory African American acquantance (Guy Torrey) complains he's being patronized as a form of subtle racism - he can't even rouse whites to indignation blowing smoke in their faces. If he'd been the main character instead of the usual peripheral black buddy, the premise would have had more bark, and some bite to go with it. The movies' champion passive aggressor is SURVIVOR sweetheart Colleen Haskell, who turns her first starring role into a blitzkrieg of cuteness: Every time she flexes her dimples and smiles shyly, she seems to be pissing out her territory against Renee Zellweger. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:08:03 EDT From: DOUDIE@aol.com Subject: [loud-fans] Lenola and some other great records.... I think these guys have been discussed on this list before, but just in case, I am really enjoying Lenola's new record, GIVE ME SOME LIFE. It is on File 13, a philly label that put out the recent Lilys EP. Lilys fan should snap this up, they sound like Eccsame period Lilys with Michael Quercio singing lead. I suppose Three O' Clock fans should pick this up too. Those comparisons are a bit pointless since they have a very original sounds. I am hoping to book a show for them, Tris McCall, and the Negatones (an awesome Brooklyn band I have begun to manage) at Maxwell's sometime in late August so stay tuned. Also currently in constant rotation are the Spoon CD, GIRLS CAN TELL, Laptop's OPENING CREDITS (fans of Sammy's TALES OF GREAT NECK GLORY should snap this up, though this is way more 80's/John Hughes sounding). Kings of Convenience's QUIET IS THE NEW LOUD is definitely worth owning, especially for hungry Belle and Sebastian fans. Lastly, any Richard Davies fans out there who never bought the Moles reissue of UNTUNE THE SKY snap it up before it goes out of print. I will now swear by every record Davies has been involved with as indispensible. Anyone else feel cheap that they bought the new Air record? Cheerio. Steve Matrick ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 14:14:42 -0500 From: Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? rou n d two (+ awful attemptatOTing) Sharples, then Card: >JRT: how exactly are churches harmed under my view? They have so many >other > >fora besides public schools, don't they? Where, exactly, can a group of 42 wild-eyed evangelists meet comfortably in a small community? <><><><><><><><><> Don't they have a church to meet in? Did somebody burn it ot the ground or something? - --Dennis ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V1 #126 *******************************