From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V5 #53 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Wednesday, March 19 2003 Volume 05 : Number 053 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: a/release [Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury ] o/adaptation ["Donald G. Keller" ] Re: o/adaptation [meredith ] B/teaser for next week and o/adaptation [Todd Huff ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:13:38 -0700 From: Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury Subject: Re: a/release What if it's been Angel all along, though? What if Angel worked out some kind of deal with the guy who was supposed to remove his soul, to make it look like he did but he really didn't--whatever is in that soul jar is not Angel's soul. After all, Evil Cordy didn't need the soul jar to talk to Angelus long distance--she used some kind of glowy stone the first time. If Angelus can play Angel well enough to fool people, why couldn't Angel play Angelus well enough to fool the Big Bad? Maybe Angel figures this is the only way to beat the Big Bad--by making it look like he's Angelus. I think that would explain why Lorne saw Angel when he "scanned" him. And why Angelus really hasn't killed any humans (that we've seen). I think he's trying to get Faith out of the picture for her own safety, even if it looks like he's draining her--he knows how much is too much. Either that, or he's trying to bring out the "bad" Faith, just as Buffy tried to bring out the "bad" Spike. They need to be as "bad" as they can to fight what they are going to have to fight--just as Angel has to be Angelus, or at least make people think he is Angelus. It's a theory anyway, and I wouldn't put it past Joss to do it that way. Phaedre/Kathleen workshop@burgoyne.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:38:41 -0500 (EST) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: o/adaptation I finally got around to seeing =Adaptation= tonight. In a word (split into four parts): Un. Be. Liev. Able. This is last year's film by the =Being John Malkovitch= team of Spike Jonze and Charles Kaufmann which has garnered several Academy Award nominations. Since it's based on outside material (=The Orchid Thief= by Susan Orlean), it doesn't have the Big Ideas (loony concepts, more like) that =BJM= had...but it's every bit as mind-bending. It's one of the most relentlessly metafictional works of art I've ever encountered; my intuition is that =every= event that takes place is discussed elsewhere, in the exposition. Peculiar as it is to talk about verisimilitude or representational art in a piece like this, it's one of the truest things I've ever run into about the writer's life. They say you can't really make a movie about the process of writing...but that's one of a number of things "you can't do" that Kaufman does anyway. (Adapting =The Orchid Thief=, a =New Yorker= profile, is another.) I don't really want to say too much about the movie, but I will say this: You may have read reviews that claim the movie is flawed because it goes off the rails at the end. Don't believe it for a minute. I'll take a stand and say that anyone who comes to that conclusion has failed to understand the movie. And it's not, in the end, that hard to understand, in my opinion; another viewing or two would be necessary to be sure, but I feel that the movie is =solvable=, in a way that, say, =Mulholland Drive= is not (though it's still a terrific movie itself). I don't see enough movies to make Top Ten lists, but =Adaptation= would be on mine if there was one. (Which is kind of an =Adaptation= kind of joke.) (P.S. I found the movie hysterically funny from first frame to last.) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:55:51 -0500 From: meredith Subject: Re: o/adaptation Hi, Don reviewed: >I finally got around to seeing =Adaptation= tonight. > >In a word (split into four parts): > >Un. Be. Liev. Able. I guess I shouldn't be too surprised to see that's your reaction. Everyone I know who has seen it has said it's one of the worst films ever -- and that includes some friends who agree with me that _Being John Malkovich_ is absolutely brilliant. Since many of these folks have very similar tastes to mine when it comes to film, I'd written it off ... but maybe now I'll put it on my Hundred Mile Long List Of Movies I Would Really Like To See But Will Never Have Time To Watch Because I Just Don't Have Time To Watch Movies. :} =============================================== Meredith Tarr New Haven, CT USA mailto:meth@smoe.org http://www.smoe.org/meth =============================================== Live At The House O'Muzak House Concert Series http://muzak.smoe.org NEXT UP: Vienna Teng, 3/29-30 =============================================== ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:04:50 -0800 (PST) From: Todd Huff Subject: B/teaser for next week and o/adaptation > I don't really want to say too much about the movie, > but I > will say this: You may have read reviews that claim > the movie > is flawed because it goes off the rails at the end. It had to. Put me on the list of those who loved Adaptation. Those who missed the teaser for next week's NEW Buffy can find it here: http://media.smgvbest.com/showphoto.php?photo=5787 Just click on the picture. . Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V5 #53 ****************************