Subject: Last temptation vs Passion
From: nadeauwilliams@hotmail.com

I just read your review/comparison you made of the last temptation of christ vs the passion of christ, which i found very interesting. However, i think that you should not put all the christians in the same bag. I'm catholic (somehow lapsed i should say), however im not a crazed right wing gun-toting redneck and I really liked the scorsese's flick and its signification and passion and do not see anything blasphematory in this film. I must say that im not american (im french canadian) and I have went to the U.S. maybe 5 times in my whole life, so I do not know how American catholics really behave and if they are really that bad and close minded. I must say I liked the passion, even though it is certainly not a masterpiece, but I felt that gibson made a somewhat personal flick, like scorsese did too. However I would not bring kids to see this movie, like I would not bring them to see Bertolucci's the dreamers neither.I think atheist people should see this only as a metaphor of struggling in life through conflicts and pain, if they don't believe in the spiritual side of the film. The problem with your review is that it is not neutral: you are clearly influenced by your beliefs and you blindly dismiss this film in the same way catholic freaks praise it. Between you and me, I would rather see hundreds of personal film like gibson and scorsese did instead of seeing mindless bullshit like Van Helsing or New York minute.

I respond:

Of *course* I'm influenced by my beliefs -- is there a person alive who isn't? Of *course* my review is not neutral -- the entire point of a review is not to be neutral but to express an opinion.

I, too, would rather see a hundred personal films than corporate product. But you can be sure that personal films will inspire personal reactions -- not neutral ones, not unbiased ones -- from those who watch them.

Subject: Reader comment
From: Matt Higgins [Mattscape21@Hotmail.com>]

Well, I'm not sure why your reader mail stopped dead at the Passion discussion, but whatever. I do think it is funny how Atheists and Religious fanatics are similar; they are on opposite sides but both are an equal from a reasonable centre of gravity. Do you actually think that being an atheist is better than being a Christian or a Muslim? You both purport to know some incontrovertible truth you cannot possibly know. So, why bother trying to explain the universe when you can barely review films? Which brings me to my next point; people have actually called you an elitist? Well, that is strange, because I thought only the lowest common denominator shared your taste in film. And you are a 'filosopher' no less, a very apt title but only because it is misspelled. Now you might think maybe you are the Pauline Kael type, shooting from the hip with the jargon of the American every(wo)man, but she was intelligent, had taste, didn't drop out of school to write screenplays at Starbucks. So, I'm not sure what particular stratum you occupy, it isn't the top because you are too trite and insipid for that, it isn't the bottom because your ego and snatch of education make you deluded enough to think you know something (ie. the existence of anything beyond what you can see in front of your face), and that you think you have an opinion worth sharing. Well, certainly, the mid-level critic already has an avatar with Roger Ebert, and he even watches and movies from countries other than America with at least some parity. So yeah, don't stop the simplistic delusions, it is the American Dream ...... Spielberg taught me that. I would be sad not to see your example every week or so, just showing that ego and talent are so far removed that they usually aren't coextensive. This is a good example to anyone with an iota of self-awareness. Of course, as a real philosopher once suggested, we can learn more from a bad example than from a good one. Thanks Teacher.

I respond:

So much anger! What's your problem?

Well, I'm not sure why your reader mail stopped dead at the Passion discussion, but whatever.

Stopped dead? You mean why haven't I posted more yet? For someone who clearly hates my site, you sure are a demanding reader.

I do think it is funny how Atheists and Religious fanatics are similar; they are on opposite sides but both are an equal from a reasonable centre of gravity. Do you actually think that being an atheist is better than being a Christian or a Muslim? You both purport to know some incontrovertible truth you cannot possibly know.

That's really funny. You think that claiming an invisible superhero lives in the sky and calling such a supposition absurd are on equally ridiculous footing? Do you also think it ridiculous to say there's no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny?

So, why bother trying to explain the universe when you can barely review films?

Just cuz you say a thing doesn't make it so. Why should I take your word for it that I can't review films?

Which brings me to my next point; people have actually called you an elitist? Well, that is strange, because I thought only the lowest common denominator shared your taste in film.

Hmm, such as? I don't exactly see mobs thronging to see *Dogville,* my top film so far this year? And I do see mobs thronging to see many of the films on the *bottom* of my list for the year.

If you're going to insult me, at least make some sense, man.

didn't drop out of school to write screenplays at Starbucks.

I don't write screenplays in Starbucks, nor did I drop out of school to write screenplays, but your dishonest methods of argument are another reason why I cannot take you seriously.

So, I'm not sure what particular stratum you occupy, it isn't the top because you are too trite and insipid for that,

Examples?

it isn't the bottom because your ego and snatch of education make you deluded enough to think you know something (ie. the existence of anything beyond what you can see in front of your face),

I see. So anything that anyone claims, no matter how ridiculous, must be true if it cannot be conclusively proven otherwise. Got it.

But keep it up with the strawman arguments, cuz this is fun.

and that you think you have an opinion worth sharing.

All I can go by are what my readers say. More than a hundred thousand of them come around every month. They wouldn't all keep coming around and bringing their friends if they all thought like you, would they?

Well, certainly, the mid-level critic already has an avatar with Roger Ebert, and he even watches and movies from countries other than America with at least some parity.

You'll have to explain what you mean by "parity."

So yeah, don't stop the simplistic delusions, it is the American Dream

What?

I would be sad not to see your example every week or so, just showing that ego and talent are so far removed that they usually aren't coextensive. This is a good example to anyone with an iota of self-awareness.

You're a riot. Please, tell me more about me.

The reader responds:

No anger at all really, you must have read something into my letter that wasn't really there, just like you do with films. But seriously, why are you film tastes so jejune? You know, what it actually may be, I may just be sublimating my burning desire for you into smoldering hatred. Because that is what it is, an unreasonable and hate filled attack. But, I must say that said 'invisible superhero' (I assume you mean Jesus) was actually an extant human. And actually Santa Clause (ie, Saint Nicholas of Myra) did exist also as a real human at one point, and the Easter Bunny is not said to represent anything other than a symbolic character. But beyond that, what the former two represent, as people have conformed them for their own purposes is not for me to say, certainly not you. But I do think to make a comment on God at all is to not make a statement at all. Second, parity means equality (So maybe you should read more), I'm sure you didn't know that. The question is, do you even know anything about films not made in America in the 80's? Except for the drone imports of European feel-goods or Oscar contenders? Finally, You like Spielberg, I need no other argument to prove you have simplistic and American taste. So yeah, you may review movies from other countries, and British TV, but it doesn't look like you seek out anything different or unique from other countries. Oh and Dogville, brave statement, but your review of the film is off-base and people did go to see it, in fact the theatre was full when I saw it on a Thursday afternoon. But if you want to compare what some of your top 100 films represent, they are the Van Helsings of their time. And if, like you say, people flock to bad films in droves, how can you possibly suggest that the droves that flock to your site are discerning? I mean, if you want examples of how hackneyed your writing is I can point to the opening paragraph of Made-Up, which is the type of stuff freshman under-grads write in review of films. And finally, you said it yourself, and if it applies to me it applies to you; 'Just cuz you say a thing doesn't make it so'. Finally, no the point is not that anyone can claim anything and unless it is proven otherwise it is acceptable (so no, you didn't get me on that point), the idea is that if it is not proven either way do you think you are so smart as to know which way (though unproven) is correct? Well, that is pure reason, and another real philosopher had something to say about that as well.

and more from him:

And by the way I'm just fucking with you, I'm not really interested in your site and some of what you say is fine. I actually just wanted to see if what you said on your site was elementally accurate. And you responding to my 'you suck' FAQ is interesting in light of the fact that you have already answered it many times. Again, not a comment you need bother answering. Oh, and will you marry me?

I respond (to his second email):

Have ya *heard* of a paragraph break? Honestly...

I'm guessing, Matt, that you're either very young or have just never given up the righteous earnestness of the very young. Theses are *movies* we're talking about. Just movies. Also, the fact that you twist some things around and ignore other things merely to "support" your contentions also makes me suspect you're new to this "vigorous debate" thing. Nothing wrong with being young, or being passionate. Add some logic into the mix and you'll be doing fine.

No anger at all really, you must have read something into my letter that wasn't really there, just like you do with films.

See, interpretation is kinda part of the whole criticism thing. You may disagree with an interpretation, but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

But seriously, why are you film tastes so jejune?

Such a fancy word! Why are your tastes the way they are? And why do you *care* what my tastes are? Go read another critic who more closely matches your own taste.

You know, what it actually may be, I may just be sublimating my burning desire for you into smoldering hatred. Because that is what it is, an unreasonable and hate filled attack.

And why would you indulge in such a waste of time?

But, I must say that said 'invisible superhero' (I assume you mean Jesus) was actually an extant human.

Well, actually, I meant "God," but whether or not a guy named Jesus actually lived does not prove he was anything divine, nor that he cares about who we sleep with.

And actually Santa Clause (ie, Saint Nicholas of Myra) did exist also as a real human at one point, and the Easter Bunny is not said to represent anything other than a symbolic character.

You really do have to stretch to maintain your point, don't you? You know full well what I was talking about. A nice guy named Nick does not equate a jolly fat elf who lives at the North Pole.

But beyond that, what the former two represent, as people have conformed them for their own purposes is not for me to say, certainly not you.

Sorry, but when people talk in all seriousness and not in metaphoric terms about supernatural things, I'm going to call them on their bullshit.

But I do think to make a comment on God at all is to not make a statement at all.

What does that mean?

Second, parity means equality (So maybe you should read more), I'm sure you didn't know that.

Oh, how you wound me. Of course I know the definition of "parity," but I don't know what they heck it means in the context you used it. But you knew that, too.

The question is, do you even know anything about films not made in America in the 80's?

Why is that the question?

Except for the drone imports of European feel-goods or Oscar contenders? Finally, You like Spielberg, I need no other argument to prove you have simplistic and American taste.

You really are full of yourself, aren't you?

So yeah, you may review movies from other countries, and British TV, but it doesn't look like you seek out anything different or unique from other countries.

Goodness me, please forgive me for not meeting your high standards. What can I do to redeem myself in your eyes?

Oh and Dogville, brave statement, but your review of the film is off-base and people did go to see it, in fact the theatre was full when I saw it on a Thursday afternoon.

Again with the twisting and the ignoring. *Dogville* played in something like 70 theaters in the U.S. Seventy. Now it's down to 53. It's made a little over a million dollars in box-office take. Sorry if you didn't get a prime seat when you saw the film, but that doesn't change the fact that very few people, relatively speaking, saw the film. But you knew that, too.

But if you want to compare what some of your top 100 films represent, they are the Van Helsings of their time.

If you say so.

And if, like you say, people flock to bad films in droves, how can you possibly suggest that the droves that flock to your site are discerning?

One hundred thousand people who come to my site versus the tens of millions who go to the movies in the U.S. Didja take math in school?

I mean, if you want examples of how hackneyed your writing is I can point to the opening paragraph of Made-Up, which is the type of stuff freshman under-grads write in review of films.

Ooo, freshman undergrads. That stings. But does my approval of the film meet with your approval, or is it just another symptom of my hopelessness?

And finally, you said it yourself, and if it applies to me it applies to you; 'Just cuz you say a thing doesn't make it so'.

See, I was asking for some kind of support to back up your namecalling, that's all.

Finally, no the point is not that anyone can claim anything and unless it is proven otherwise it is acceptable (so no, you didn't get me on that point), the idea is that if it is not proven either way do you think you are so smart as to know which way (though unproven) is correct?

So then, you're worshipping every deity that humanity has ever devised, on the off chance that one of them may be the right one and none of them have been definitively proven not to exist? It must keep you busy.

Well, that is pure reason, and another real philosopher had something to say about that as well.

You name-dropper, you. Well, sort of.

I respond (to his third email):

Despite the fact that it's so much fun fucking with you, no, I won't marry you.

The reader responds:

Have ya *heard* of a paragraph break? Honestly...

No, what is that?

Nothing wrong with being young, or being passionate. Add some logic into the mix and you'll be doing fine.

Young or passion, I think that beats cynicism regardless of age, and I love how people older than 32 justify getting old by calling it maturing. There are passionate and non-cynical people over 50 you know. And logic, you ignore things and partially select fragments and just respond with no reasoning behind why dismiss things. You know 'if you say so' or 'this is isn't logical' are not statements of merit, in fact they are meaningless.

See, interpretation is kinda part of the whole criticism thing. You may disagree with an interpretation, but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

Then why review anything at all, if taste is subjective why bother trying to inform others of your sole opinion?

Such a fancy word! Why are your tastes the way they are? And why do you *care* what my tastes are? Go read another critic who more closely matches your own taste.

I don't think that is a reasonable statement, it is illogical....what?

And why would you indulge in such a waste of time?

Because love is a hard thing to control

A nice guy named Nick does not equate a jolly fat elf who lives at the North Pole.

You brought them up first.

Sorry, but when people talk in all seriousness and not in metaphoric terms about supernatural things, I'm going to call them on their bullshit.

By talking about things in terms of pure reason? Wow, you sure do have faith in something pretty ephemeral too (that is, your intellectual faculties) without any sort of basis other than 'I can't see it so it mustn't be there', well is Antarctica there? Have you seen it? Can you feel emotions which you can neither describe nor define in concrete terms, ones which seem irrational? (I must admit, my love for you is certainly one of those)

What does that mean?

It means, the word God is essentially meaningless, try looking into exactly what logic is.

Oh, how you wound me. Of course I know the definition of "parity," but I don't know what they heck it means in the context you used it. But you knew that, too.

Well, admittedly yes, it was an unfair phrasing in both instances.

Why is that the question?

It is not really, and also unfair.

You really are full of yourself, aren't you?

It is hard not to be when mass media consumption of a country is Spielberg and Stephen King. And we wonder why you are such suckers for media manipulation, it is your birthright.

Goodness me, please forgive me for not meeting your high standards. What can I do to redeem myself in your eyes?

I don't know, review something different for once, but actually Hidalgo...please. Don't even try and compare it with Lawrence of Arabia (or Seven Pillars of Wisdom, you were unclear in which one you meant when name dropping old TE)

Again with the twisting and the ignoring. *Dogville* played in something like 70 theaters in the U.S.

The problem with a 'sustainable' film industry is that it has to have a control of distribution to the point of oligarchy. So the fact that Dogville is in so few theatres it is doing rather well actually. And don't forget to account for the fact that the box-office you mention is American, it does not correspond to other countries, from which other people read your reviews.

If you say so.

You can't tell me that 80 of the 100 films you mention have any particular artistic merit.

One hundred thousand people who come to my site versus the tens of millions who go to the movies in the U.S. Didja take math in school?

Okay, let's stretch the point further, as you stretched from my original point. Think of how many movies are to be seen each month in the theatre, not a lot compared to how many websites are on the internet. Add to that how many people surf the internet daily compared to how many people go to movies daily. Add to that that the internet is more accessible to most people in America and beyond than a theatre is.

Ooo, freshman undergrads. That stings. But does my approval of the film meet with your approval, or is it just another symptom of my hopelessness?

That film was shit really. But the girl in it is cute, Eva Amurri (or whatever her name is)

See, I was asking for some kind of support to back up your namecalling, that's all.

I don't see it very pertinent to quote from your writing directly.

So then, you're worshipping every deity that humanity has ever devised, on the off chance that one of them may be the right one and none of them have been definitively proven not to exist? It must keep you busy.

Well, if you can prove there is no such thing as "God", could you please write an essay about it and win the Nobel Prize posthaste. And if you can prove he does please do likewise and expect the same result. And I'm agnostic, I'm not hedging my bets, I can be honest and say I don't know, so I will not become an iconoclast or a worshiper.

You name-dropper, you. Well, sort of.

And finally, I'd just say that there is this philosopher (though not a speller really) on the internet who I am actually starting to like more than I did before.

I respond:

Have ya *heard* of a paragraph break? Honestly... No, what is that?

See that longish key over on the right side of your keyboard, the one that has the legend "RETURN" or perhaps "ENTER" on it? Use it once in a while.

Young or passion, I think that beats cynicism regardless of age, and I love how people older than 32 justify getting old by calling it maturing.

Well, that settles it: You're what, 16? 17?

There are passionate and non-cynical people over 50 you know. And logic, you ignore things and partially select fragments and just respond with no reasoning behind why dismiss things. You know 'if you say so' or 'this is isn't logical' are not statements of merit, in fact they are meaningless.

They weren't intended to be statements of merit, but statements of placating you: it's very tedious arguing with someone like you who thinks his opinion is irrefutable fact.

Then why review anything at all, if taste is subjective why bother trying to inform others of your sole opinion?

I dunno -- I didn't invent this reviewing thing. Some people have strong opinions about things and like to write about them, and some other people seem to enjoy reading such writings. We're all just killing time, waiting to die -- might as well fill it up with something.

I don't think that is a reasonable statement, it is illogical....what?

If. You. Don't. Like. My. Writing. Go. Away.

Reasonable and logical enough for ya?

Because love is a hard thing to control

Restraining orders are easy to get, you know.

You brought them up first.

Well, actually, you brought the subject up first when you decided to email me out of the blue and call atheism a crock.

is Antarctica there? Have you seen it? Can you feel emotions which you can neither describe nor define in concrete terms, ones which seem irrational?

Ooo, did you make up those simply devastating arguments all by yourself? Go read some books on atheism and freethought and come back with some arguments that haven't already been swatted down, like, a million times.

It means, the word God is essentially meaningless, try looking into exactly what logic is.

If the word God is meaningless, then why won't people shut up about him?

Well, admittedly yes, it was an unfair phrasing in both instances. It is not really, and also unfair.

And so you're not going to elaborate or rephrase them fairly?

It is hard not to be when mass media consumption of a country is Spielberg and Stephen King. And we wonder why you are such suckers for media manipulation, it is your birthright.

Why do you equate enjoyment of mass-produced entertainment product with brainlessness? I admit, the two often go together, but not always. One can enjoy junk food while also appreciating that it's nonnutritive, and while also still being able to appreciate non junk food.

I don't know, review something different for once, but actually Hidalgo...please. Don't even try and compare it with Lawrence of Arabia

Sorry, I already tried -- and succeeded -- in comparing the two. Maybe you don't like the comparison and disagree with it, but it's been made.

So the fact that Dogville is in so few theatres it is doing rather well actually.

I didn't say *Dogville* wasn't doing well for the limited release it's in. But the numbers don't change -- the vast majority of the moviegoing audience will not see the film.

You can't tell me that 80 of the 100 films you mention have any particular artistic merit.

I didn't say anything about their artistic merit. The list is about films that had a formative impact on me and that I continue to like. See my above statement about junk food.

Think of how many movies are to be seen each month in the theatre, not a lot compared to how many websites are on the internet.

Again, the numbers do not change. My audience is far more select than that to be found at an American suburban multiplex on a Saturday night.

That film was shit really. But the girl in it is cute, Eva Amurri (or whatever her name is)

Ah, subjective opinion passed off as objective fact.

I don't see it very pertinent to quote from your writing directly.

The point is not to quote from my writing directly but to explain your characterization of it in language that's somewhat more sophisticated than "It's stinky."

Well, if you can prove there is no such thing as "God", could you please write an essay about it and win the Nobel Prize posthaste.

Sorry, but the burden of proof lies with those making outrageous claims. And everyone knows you can't prove a negative.

And I'm agnostic, I'm not hedging my bets, I can be honest and say I don't know, so I will not become an iconoclast or a worshiper.

Well, I don't *know* either, any more than I *know* that unicorns don't exist. But in the absence of compelling proof and an abundance of evidence for their nonexistence, why should I even waste my time thinking too much about either?

And finally, I'd just say that there is this philosopher (though not a speller really)

You just don't get whimsy, do you?

on the internet who I am actually starting to like more than I did before.

But how do you know I even exist?

The reader responds:

See that longish key over on the right side of your keyboard, the one that has the legend "RETURN" or perhaps "ENTER" on it? Use it once in a while.

You just don't understand what tongue in cheek is do you?

Well, that settles it: You're what, 16? 17?

No, no, nice try, but how did you come to that conclusion....you might as well be religious with your deductive bollocks.

They weren't intended to be statements of merit, but statements of placating you: it's very tedious arguing with someone like you who thinks his opinion is irrefutable fact.

Oh, placating me? You mustn't understand what an argument is then in a sustained manner.

I dunno -- I didn't invent this reviewing thing.

Did you invent religion? No, do you play the game? no? Did you event atheism? No, do you play the game? yes. Do you have strong opinions, yes, but so does anybody. I guess it is true, you are just killing time till you die.....nice life. Some people at least attempt to make some sort of difference besides directing people to 'epic entertainment' because it gets you off the couch ( in America it is all the same anyhow...majority of trash and once and a while something good comes around inexplicably)

If. You. Don't. Like. My. Writing. Go. Away.

I like your writing, not your conclusions as some sort of sage wisdom (or even as some sort of reasoned opinion)

Restraining orders are easy to get, you know.

Do likewise.

Well, actually, you brought the subject up first when you decided to email me out of the blue and call atheism a crock.

You brought up the examples.....sad argument in the context.

Go read some books on atheism and freethought and come back with some arguments that haven't already been swatted down, like, a million times.

Why don't you swat them down if you are such a synthesizer of knowledge...please do. Still ready with that Nobel Prize ballot to nominate you great sage.

If the word God is meaningless, then why won't people shut up about him?

I don't know why don't you? Because you use the term like it has meaning like a southern Baptist uses it.

And so you're not going to elaborate or rephrase them fairly?

Not when you don't, and at least I admit my manipulation, but then again manipulation is your métier and your worship.

One can enjoy junk food while also appreciating that it's nonnutritive, and while also still being able to appreciate non junk food.

Yeah, I'm going to dedicate a website to fast-food, a pernicious entity, one that kills people (not unlike blind faith in American idealism kills people, as I'm sure I don't need to illustrate). While I'm at it I'm going to dedicate a site to cigarettes because people find them enjoyable if they have no perspective (and no need to pass this off by saying "why don't you do that then")

Sorry, I already tried -- and succeeded -- in comparing the two. Maybe you don't like the comparison and disagree with it, but it's been made.

I can compare the face of a dog to the face of Viggo Mortenson successfully, but it does not make them similar in any educated perception

I didn't say *Dogville* wasn't doing well for the limited release it's in. But the numbers don't change -- the vast majority of the moviegoing audience will not see the film.

They can't because of Spielberg and George Lucas

I didn't say anything about their artistic merit. The list is about films that had a formative impact on me and that I continue to like. See my above statement about junk food.

See my statement above about junk food. And if you were raised on junk film you should have a junk conception, like someone raised on junk food would have a fat body.

Again, the numbers do not change. My audience is far more select than that to be found at an American suburban multiplex on a Saturday night.

Didn't I account for that in the statement?? Your audience doesn't come from the suburbs of an American city.

Ah, subjective opinion passed off as objective fact.

No, the film is shit if you have ever compared it to the ideas in the weakest of Godard films from the mid-sixties, you espoused as being original and interesting when it is old hat.

The point is not to quote from my writing directly but to explain your characterization of it in language that's somewhat more sophisticated than "It's stinky."

Read between the lines, as you should in film. Make more than superficial connections.

Sorry, but the burden of proof lies with those making outrageous claims. And everyone knows you can't prove a negative.

Really, Schopenhauer proved negatives as not being extant.....so read some books on negative terminology and see if your points haven't been swatted down....and not even a point really, but just that your ignorant statement is that such points can't be made, but they already have.

Well, I don't *know* either, any more than I *know* that unicorns don't exist. But in the absence of compelling proof and an abundance of evidence for their nonexistence, why should I even waste my time thinking too much about either?

You are an iconoclast, in the negative sense. And if you aren't either, you aren't an atheist. And here would be the perfect time for you to answer why you believe in Antarctica or irrational emotions without omitting them to feel 'justified'

You just don't get whimsy, do you?

You must not, because that is exactly what that was in the brackets.

But how do you know I even exist?

I don't, and don't portend to say so to a wide audience, this is just between you and me....or me and me. Or you and yourself frankly. (and yes, I do like talking to myself in that case)

I respond:

You just don't understand what tongue in cheek is do you?

I thought I'd made it clear that I do.

No, no, nice try, but how did you come to that conclusion....you might as well be religious with your deductive bollocks.

Deductive reasoning: You sound like a teenager to me.

Did you invent religion? No, do you play the game? no? Did you event atheism? No, do you play the game? yes. Do you have strong opinions, yes, but so does anybody.

You think so? The strongest opinion many people seem to have is who should win *American Idol,* and I don't think that really counts.

Some people at least attempt to make some sort of difference besides directing people to 'epic entertainment'

Ah, so anyone who isn't saving helpless babies or kittens from a war or a plague is wasting their life?

See above about tongue-in-cheekness.

I like your writing, not your conclusions as some sort of sage wisdom (or even as some sort of reasoned opinion)

I don't pretend to be sage or wise.

Why don't you swat them down if you are such a synthesizer of knowledge...please do. Still ready with that Nobel Prize ballot to nominate you great sage.

What on earth are you talking about? Nobel Prize? What?

I don't know why don't you? Because you use the term like it has meaning like a southern Baptist uses it.

I'll shut up about God when the God people stop trying to shove their nonsense down everyone's throats.

Not when you don't, and at least I admit my manipulation, but then again manipulation is your métier and your worship.

My worship? You're like a poet -- an incomprehensible one, but still...

Yeah, I'm going to dedicate a website to fast-food, a pernicious entity, one that kills people

I'm sure the fast food and cigarette fan sites already exist. Still, movies don't kill people.

They can't because of Spielberg and George Lucas

You honestly think that if mainstream audiences weren't flocking to Spielberg movies they'd all go see the likes of *Dogville* instead?

See my statement above about junk food. And if you were raised on junk film you should have a junk conception, like someone raised on junk food would have a fat body.

Well, then, I'm clearly a hopeless case, so why are you bothering?

No, the film is shit if you have ever compared it to the ideas in the weakest of Godard films from the mid-sixties, you espoused as being original and interesting when it is old hat.

Clearly, I am not your flavor of film critic. Go read reviews somewhere else.

Read between the lines, as you should in film. Make more than superficial connections.

Hard to do when I have no idea what you're trying to say half the time.

here would be the perfect time for you to answer why you believe in Antarctica or irrational emotions without omitting them to feel 'justified'

I don't "believe" in Antarctica. No faith is required. I could go there for myself. And emotions are not "irrational" -- they exist as biochemical functions of our bodies. No need for faith or "belief" there, either.

What is there to "believe" about Antarctica, anyway?

The reader responds:

Deductive reasoning: You sound like a teenager to me.

Actually, it was inductive....just trying to see what level of philosopher I was dealing with. Oh, and is that supposed to hurt my feelings, you should be ashamed of yourself if you can't properly argue with a teenager. Which honestly you can't, being dismissive is one of the saddest ways old people pass off arguments they aren't properly intelligent enough to be engaged in.

The strongest opinion many people seem to have is who should win *American Idol,* and I don't think that really counts.

Yeah, good point, people direct their opinions in idiotic and meaningless directions.

Ah, so anyone who isn't saving helpless babies or kittens from a war or a plague is wasting their life?

See above about tongue-in-cheekness.

What on earth are you talking about? Nobel Prize? What?

Yeah, nobody has proven incontrovertibly God (or some manifestation) doesn't exist, but because it can't be proven, you are just as susceptible to suggestion as a religious person is. You think it doesn't because a book or David Cross makes material arguments which are easily invalidated.

I'll shut up about God when the God people stop trying to shove their nonsense down everyone's throats.

A lot like your atheist non-sense.

My worship? You're like a poet -- an incomprehensible one, but still...

You aren't like a poet at all, and equally incomprehensible.

I'm sure the fast food and cigarette fan sites already exist. Still, movies don't kill people.

Read above, the simplistic ideas of Good and Bad do.....and Spielberg is a big a part of creating a simplistic and Manichean cultural climate which makes it easy for people to believe in bad guys and good guys and do you honestly need and example of what this leads to? If you do, don't bother replying.

You honestly think that if mainstream audiences weren't flocking to Spielberg movies they'd all go see the likes of *Dogville* instead?

No, they'd go see a Speilberg spin-off.....but think back before your heyday in the 80's, a decade earlier the most popular films were alternative and meaningful, almost for a full 9 years.....and people did flock. (and if you need me to spell it out explicitly, which is no surprise, I'm talking about THE 70'S, just thought I'd head off one of you 'wah' remarks because you obviously can't read anything other than that which is spelled out for you with no sub-text)

Well, then, I'm clearly a hopeless case, so why are you bothering?

Your stinging retorts are getting just weak and capitulatory

Clearly, I am not your flavor of film critic. Go read reviews somewhere else.

Again.

Hard to do when I have no idea what you're trying to say half the time.

Again.

I don't "believe" in Antarctica. No faith is required. I could go there for myself. And emotions are not "irrational" -- they exist as biochemical functions of our bodies. No need for faith or "belief" there, either.

Okay, if you think Science explains everything read some books about science. You know, no field of science can even explain the essential elements of it's own field, let alone the world. Pyschology is little more than reason, logic has incompleteness theory, physics super-string theory and random results in chaos theory make it null (among others) So don't be so sad as to blindly be one of Voltaire's bastards. It looks sad to someone on the outside.

What is there to "believe" about Antarctica, anyway?

How do you know it exists exactly? Because someone told you, because you've seen images of it.

And honestly, no point in responding, your arguments are getting flat and shallow.

[so I didn't respond--maj]

07.29.04

to batch #1 | to batch #3