From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V2 #28 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 Tuesday, January 22 2002 Volume 02 : Number 028 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] One more time, and then I'll shut up [AWeiss4338@aol.com] [loud-fans] Re: One more time, and then I'll shut up [AWeiss4338@aol.com] [loud-fans] RE: pointed accounrs ["Brett Milano" ] Re: [loud-fans] Intro publishing (was: Re: here there and everywhere) [J] Re: [loud-fans] movie opinion [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey http://hometown.aol.com/aweiss4338/httpwwwgreatbigsomethingindex.html Andrea ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 01:07:00 EST From: AWeiss4338@aol.com Subject: [loud-fans] Re: One more time, and then I'll shut up PS the chat is next Thursday at 10 PM EST. Andrea ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 00:46:19 -0500 From: "Brett Milano" Subject: [loud-fans] RE: pointed accounrs I;d like to submit myself as a special case, both because I've never met a single loud-fan since joining this list (have had a couple nice e-mail exchanged, however), and because I discovered there are at least five people on this list that I already knew! Including at least one friend who has been on this list for years, and never posted once! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 00:43:04 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Intro publishing (was: Re: here there and everywhere) On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, West Moran wrote: > Maybe you could create a version for those of us with Palm Pilots, so we can > have a sort of GLFPS (Global LoudFan Positioning System). That wouldn't be necessary for me - I'm always right here in my own head. And where my head is, well, I'm sure someone will tell me. - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::a squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous...got me? __Captain Beefheart__ ps to Dana: Ha-ha, I found the missing note you stole! I'm using the CDRs to evade ASCAP goons while running a copyright-free bar! Mwah-hah-hah-ha! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 01:02:19 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] movie opinion On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Carolyn Dorsey wrote: > When I see a movie that lingers a little too long on a subject I wonder what > was the director trying to convey in that --like just focusing on someones > face or a scene or what ever too long . I feel like I'm supposed to be > moved and it's a pet peeve of mine. I didn't feel this happened in this > movie. What I mean by that is if it did happen it worked and I didn't feel > that it was obvious. This was a very sad and serious movie but I didn't > feel there were too many tricks or elements of it designed just for mass > appeal. It might help to know that the director is also a photographer known for his shots of Maine landscapes. Rose noted a certain similarity to David Lynch (who's a painter) - not in tone or affect, but in the way some shots seem designed to sink in visually, either before or instead of working in terms of plot. I will try not to include any spoilers here...things will make more sense to those who've seen _In the Bedroom_ than to those who haven't... I wasn't bothered by the pace at all; in fact, I think the pace greatly assisted the plot. In bland outline, what happens seems rather predictable, a series of movie cliches. But the slow pace (and some strong acting performances - Spacek and whoever played Creepy Mustache Boy in particular: from the first instant he was onscreen, I knew he was a jerk) allows us to see those apparently cliched situations as they evolve from character, and they thereby come to seem almost inevitable rather than a series of plot contrivances. What's interesting to me is the way the film places us pretty squarely in the parents' moral universe: it's exceedingly hard not to sympathize with their feelings, and to feel their actions - while technically "wrong" - ultimately are justified. However: that's while you're watching the film. To me, the closing shot of Matt in bed suggested any number of things: did his actions change anything, really? Certainly not the most obvious, painful, and impossible thing - and not their marriage, either. And of course, especially given the circumstances (not exactly *careful* - his best friend's land, etc.), the action creates another huge and burdensome weight for them - no matter how justified they might feel. - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::Oxygen isn't a text:: __David Robbins__ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 07:58:01 -0000 From: "Ian Runeckles & Angela Bennett" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] pointed accounts of people you know Steve writes: > 1999: Aaron Mandel, Dan Sallitt, Ian Runeckles Add Dr Didier Leonard who was at the same ana-organised gathering where I first met Steve in San Francisco... My minimalist list in meet order: ana, Phil Gerrard, Didier Leonard, Joe, Sue, Steve H, Bradley, Miles (and Melissa), and almost Stef Hurts who was at the same Posies show in London. Ian - happy because he finally found a copy of Camper van Beethoven's Our Beloved Revolutionary Sweetheart in Oxford Street HMV of all places... ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V2 #28 ******************************