| home |
RSS feed | ||
 | ||
|
Reader Mail
selected reader mail from late September through mid November 2001 | ||
find the latest reviews at the new home page
 get your daily movie dose at the Cinemarati blog
| |
Subject: Glitter Hi- I just read your Glitter review. I really wish you hadn't poked fun at Mariah Carey's bout with mental illness. Speaking as a survivor, I know depression and other forms of mental illness are extremely painful, and can be difficult to survive. They aren't an indication of personal weakness; they part of the vulnerability of being human. Not even a star deserves to be mocked for that. Now making fun of her bad *movie* is another proposition. A-OK with me. I respond: If "exhaustion" is a mental illness, then 95 percent of the American public is mentally ill. Forgive my cynicism, but Mariah's "breakdown" got her new movie and new album more publicity than she'd ever have hoped to get otherwise.
Subject: Thank you! I read your response to an article (Culture, Aug. 27) in Time magazine and applaud you for your integrity in responding back to Time.....I am now going to read your reviews and look at them with the same critical eye that I evaluate the films I watch with and will let you know how your opinions jibe with my own...... I respond: Thanks. I hope you enjoy my reviews whether you agree with my opinions on the films or not!
Subject: Chekhov's Gun! Quoth she [in my Bandits review]: "Some writer -- wish I could remember who -- once said, about the crafting of a story, that if there's a gun on the drawing-room mantelpiece in Act I, someone sure as hell better get shot in the drawing room with it in Act III; and if someone gets shot in the drawing room in Act III, there sure as hell better have been a gun on the drawing-room mantelpiece since Act I." This was Anton Chekhov, more or less. A "Chekhov's Gun" is thus an object, feature, or person that's introduced conspicuously, and then never used. It happens with appalling regularity in movies (often, I think, the result of sloppy editing choices, and not just sloppy writing). I'm not sure which is worse -- watching a movie where you can see all of the metaphorical guns on mantle pieces and are thus not surprised when they are used, or watching a movie where you see the guns, and then wait in vain for them to be used, because, hey, there they were. (and the actual quote from Chekhov is "If there is a gun hanging on the wall in the first act, it must fire in the last". Yay, Google.)
Subject: Dogma Did you write two different reviews of Dogma? I read your review today and I remember it being a little different. Did you change anything? I respond: Except for correcting typos, I don't change my reviews once they're posted. If I have something substantive to correct, I'll add an addendum to the end of the review. It's too easy to change things on the Web -- I think it's important for people to be able to trust that my reviews aren't going to change, and the best way to gain that trust is not to change them.
Subject: Pledge Review Your review of The Pledge was probably the lamest review I have ever read by someone passing as a film critic. Your comments would be expected, understandable, and even acceptable if made by the average filmgoer unnerved by looking for a couple of hours of mindless fun and instead seeing The Pledge. You, however, should be expected to offer a more sophisticated and knowledgable take on this film. Go back to the cineplex to wallow in the true examples of creepy manipulation e.g. Seven, or preferably, take a few humanities classes and a survey of cinema class to get up to speed. I respond: So, your understanding of The Pledge -- which, presumably, does not agree with mine -- is correct, and mine is wrong? I went to film school, so I have taken that survey of cinema class you suggest. Perhaps you can explain to me what I missed. Do you know of a cineplex showing Seven right now? I'd love to see that one on a big screen again. The reader responds: Wow! Thanks for the response. I appreciate that you took my comments seriously enough to email back. Two nights ago I watched with a friend in his 'home theater' the dvd version of The Pledge and found myself very moved by it - one of those 'this is what the cinema can do' viewings, when you are involved intellectually, emotionally, and sensually. Until I take the time to specifically address your comments - let me say that what upset me the most was the attempt to explain the discomforture and uncertainty you (and probably everyone else, including me, who saw it) felt as incompetence or oversight by the cast and crew responsible for making it. In short, because you didn't like it, it had to be a poorly made film, or at least disreputable in intent and/or effect! Also, the unfavorable comparison to 'Seven' truly irked since I found it exploitative and formulaic. I did not like the overall style/feel as well...yet if I were to give a review, I would have to admit that it was a very competent and effective shock/thriller. A very good film, but not my cup of tea at all. 'The Pledge' certainly deserves at least the same assessment. Someone who enjoys and studies film certainly does not have to like/enjoy 'The Pledge' or any other film, but it is hard to imagine it being dismissed in such a way. I wish I had seen it on the big screen, but it was in and out of the local theaters in a matter of two weeks; perhaps it should have gone only to the 'art film' theaters where it would have found a more perceptive audience. I respond: I think you may have missed the sarcasm in my response. You may have been "involved intellectually, emotionally, and sensually" by this film. I wasn't. In short, because you didn't like it, it had to be a poorly made film, or at least disreputable in intent and/or effect! That's not what I said at all -- read my review again. I complained about the heavy-handedness of the film, of the cheap manipulation it indulges in. That's not me saying "it's a bad film because I didn't like it" -- that's me saying "I didn't like it because it's a bad film." Those are two completely different arguments. Whether you agree with my assessment of the film doesn't matter, but I think you're misreading my review because you did like the film. There's a difference between a well-made film that is not one's cup of tea, and a poorly made film that is not one's cup of tea. I think I've adequately explained why I think The Pledge is poorly made. Again, whether you agree with me is beside the point. it is hard to imagine it being dismissed in such a way. Just because you think the film is well made does not mean that everyone must agree with you. perhaps it should have gone only to the 'art film' theaters where it would have found a more perceptive audience. Oh, please. Read my reviews on a regular basis, and you'll see that I have no trouble "understanding" arthouse films, and that I am a "perceptive audience." Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean my opinion -- which is supported in my review -- is any less right than your opinion. The reader responds: Ok... About the sarcasm - I really did appreciate that you responded to my attack; your tone comes through loud and clear. You were involved by The Pledge, very involved, however negatively. You tried to carry a tone of smart-assed dismissal in your review, but it was quite clear there were some strong issues going on. Perhaps a direct confrontation with your reaction might have provided the starting point for a truly probing review... You did not explain why The Pledge is a poorly made film; you did an excellent job of explaining what you didn't like about it. That is valid on its own terms, and can be entertaining, but hardly constitutes well-informed film criticism, certainly not a review with an IQ. Can you really still maintain that The Pledge is poorly made film? Oh well, my original intent was to stand up for the integrity of an intelligent and well made film, to call into question your review of The Pledge and hopefully make you take a look at your approach to reviewing films - especially in light of your online presentation image. I respond: I offered specific examples of what made me consider The Pledge a poorly made movie, which I explained in my last reply to your comments. You have not explained, however, why your opinion of the film as "intelligent and well made" is any more valid than my supported opinion that it is not. Nor have you explained why your positive emotional reaction to the film is more indicative of an intelligent response to a film than a negative one is. I think we must agree to differ on this one, unless you can resolve these discrepancies for me.
Subject: Shallow Hal Thanks for articulating so perfectly what is wrong with Shallow Hal. Your review put what was bothering me about it very well. I also don't see the point of making Shallow Hal ugly (unless that's his inner ugliness we're seeing). It's those high school "cafeteria princes"--or the men they grow into--who really need that kind of comeuppance. I'll bet women would have packed the theatres in droves to see some handsome, shallow guy fall in love with a woman who, under ordinary circumstances, he wouldn't give the time of day.
Subject: Orson Welles movies I enjoy your site & think you write very good reviews, but I was browsing through your site today and noticed that you don't have a review of a single Orson Welles movie. No 'F for Fake,' no 'Trial,' not even 'Citizen Kane.' (I don't consider 'The Third Man' to be an Orson Welles movie since all he did was act in it.) It's bizarre enough alone to not have a review of 'Citizen Kane' on your site, but how does run a site that does movie reviews without any Orson Welles movies at all? This is like writing a history of philosophy without mentioning Socrates, it doesn't make any sense. It doesn't seem from your material that you have anything against Orson Welles. Do you find Welles and his reputation too intimidating to review? Do you think it would make you too much of a mainstream critic to review him? Is it that you don't think you could do a review justice without seeing a movie in the theater and you just haven't seen any of them in the theater? I respond: No, it's that this is a hobby site -- I don't get paid for my work, in other words -- and there are only so many hours in the day. I'm sure I'll get around to reviewing some of Welles's movies eventually.
Subject: factual error Prot claims that K-PAX is 1,000 light years away, not 20 as stated in your review [of K-pax]. I respond: Doh! That kinda ruins my joke about the shrink and his wife, doesn't it?
Subject: Nerdy little narrator? Just wondered if since you wrote this [my review of Around the World in 80 Days] you found out who that 'nerdy little narrator' was, Miss Johanson. One of the most influential and most highly thought of journalists in American history. Want to reword this review now? I respond: What makes you think that I don't know who the narrator is? What, famous journalists can't be nerdy? Perhaps the problem is that you're reading "nerdy" as an insult, when it was not intended that way. No, I do not want to reword my review. The reader responds: 'Nerdy' and 'little' are both insulting in the context you use them. I only suggest rewording for your sake--the sentence as it stands makes you come off as both ignorant and rude. I'm sure you are neither. I respond: If the nerdy little narrator writes to tell me he's insulted, I'll reword my review. Until then, it stays as is. The reader responds: Well, I see I was wrong. You are both ignorant AND rude. I respond: You make assumptions about the intent of my writing -- and assume that the intent you see is the only possible way something could be interpreted -- and you then suggest that I change my work to suit your sensibilities... and I'm ignorant and rude? The reader responds: Yes, dear, you are. |
| ||
| home |
RSS feed | ||