originally posted 04.19.00
Bruce Crawford writes:
Dear Chick flick filosopher:
Your review of Ben-Hur: Not emotionally moving? Compared to what? Actually being at the crucifixion in person maybe?!
Homoerotica? Really? Your review tells the reader more about the critic than about the movie.

Chick flick filosopher,
I don't know whats' got into her,
doesn't think much of the brilliant Ben-Hur.
but this much we know for sure,
how dare a film portray religion, so profound,
for the politically correct and elite will frown,
because they say that films of faith cannot be art,
putting down Ben Hur for them is a start,
But the rest of the world knows for a fact,
that Ben Hurs' place in history is intact.

Winner of 11 academy awards, and 75 other accolades from around the world and voted best picture by the press in every city in the world in which it played! NO other film has ever or will ever achieve that.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Sorry, Ben-Hur is little more than cheesy, cornball fun. You insult me when you suggest that it's the film's portrayal of religion that has anything to do with my reaction. You want a film about faith that actually has something meaningful to say about the matter? Check out Dogma. Or The End of the Affair. (To name just two recent films.)
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Titanic won 11 Oscars, too, including Best Picture. But what does that have to do with anything? Do you base your reaction to a film on what other people have to say about it?

Bruce Crawford responds:
No bubble burst...Ben Hur also won a 12th award it shared with Panavision Inc, for the development of the 70 mm camera used in the film...and 75 other awards from around the world, Titanic (and NO other film) has done that , and Ben Hur won the more "important" awards, that Titanic did not, (Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor) Plus there are more awards given in more categories now than 40 years ago. Titanic just tied what Ben Hur has already accomplished at the Oscars.
And no I don't have to rely on what others have to say about a film, like your review for instance, I wouldn't let it influence my thinking either.
Films of faith that have something meaningful to say?! And of course Ben Hur does not right?How about when Judah is marched to the desert and denied water, until the hand of Christ brings him the gourd of water to save his life, and the Centurion who tries to stop it, but feels ashamed, and afraid, of Jesus' love. Like the scene where Esther basically recites parts of the Sermon on the mount, to a doubting and hate filled Judah... Judahs' forgiveness of Messala after the race....Jesus' love from the cross, (brilliantly filmed by Wyler, with the shot of Miriams hand with the bandages hiding the leprosy, then the quick cut to Jesus' hand on the cross, clearly portraying the healing power of faith) , and Judahs' return from Calvary, all the hate lifted from his soul, saying, "The sound of his voice took the sword from my hand"....that meaningful enough for ya?
I think you need to see it again, hopefully on a big screen, and sit back and enjoy!
You might see something there you overlooked before.
Have a nice day..

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Ben-Hur does not speak to me about religion in any meaningful way, in the same way that fundamentalists passionately reciting Biblical passages does nothing to sway me from my atheism. But a film like The End of the Affair (and even one like Dogma) at least makes me feel as if I can understand what people who profess to hold religious beliefs experience, and what those beliefs mean to them. Depicting Bible stories the way that Ben-Hur does only reinforces my belief that the stories at the root of Christianity are little more than fairy tales -- albeit often entertaining ones -- told by itinerant goat herders.

Bruce Crawford responds:
I completely support and defend your right to be an atheist. This is America, where you should be free to believe whatever you want. But..being an atheist, should disqualify your review of ANY Biblically based film,since you have an obvious bias against the very heart of the films' meaning! Just as Jerry Falwell would be disqualified, by some, for reviewing "The Teena Brandon Story" for his anti-Gay bias.
Glad you feel the stories , though, are entertaining!

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Sorry. I didn't realize Ben-Hur was intended only for Christian audiences. My mistake. Was it okay for me to review Schindler's List? I'm not Jewish, after all. Or German. Perhaps I should have excused myself from reviewing The 13th Warrior, since I do not worship Thor.
I would understand perfectly if the Moral Majority did not want to hire me to review movies -- but do you seriously expect me not to review a movie like Ben-Hur for a worldwide readership (which is what you get on the Web), the vast majority of whom will not be Christian? Don't people who share my lack of Christian faith deserve to know what kind of movie they can expect from Ben-Hur? I don't care what Jerry Farwell thinks of Boys Don't Cry, but I bet his followers would like to know what he thinks of it.

originally posted 08.23.99
Pat Sweeney writes:
Having viewed [How Green Was My Valley] on AMC last night, I looked at your review this a.m. to see whether you had anything to say about the utter unconvincingness of Walter Pidgeon in the role of a Welsh preacher. Every time he came on screen, with his incongruous American accent, I winced. His "big scene," denouncing the hypocrites in his congregation, was stagy and unconvincing, when it ought to have been the emotional climax.
All you had to say about this character, Mr. Gruffyd, was that he was "wooing" the mine owner's son's wife & ignoring gossip about it. Well, unless the version I saw on AMC was cut, this is not true. Angharad was, if anything, wooing him, until he gently shut the door between them. It was only afterwards, realizing that they could not wed (he didn't want her to have to share his hard life), that she allowed the suit by the mine owner's son. When she returned to the village after (?) years, she did not see the preacher, nor did he see her, even though both their hearts were breaking. Nevertheless, there was gossip, and, far from ignoring it, he confronted the congregation and, went no one would charge him, accused them of hypocrisy and walked out of the chapel, presumably forever.
I think this is an important point because the Gruffydd/Angharad relationship underlines the point that as the valley becomes besmirched, all things good and honorable become suspect and viewed as their opposites.
I'm just sorry they didn't get a better actor to play Gruffydd -- someone who was genuinely Welsh & strong, rather than the incongruously American (and rather wooden) Walter Pidgeon. And I note, of the many Academy Awards this movie won and was nominated for, Best Actor was not among them.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
It's been months now since I saw the movie, so my memories of it may not be perfect. Pidgeon's accent was incongruous, but I don't recall finding it too distracting, nor do I remember him as unconvincing in the role. It would have been far preferable to have a Welsh actor play the character, as you suggested, but casting Americans inappropriately is a tradition that unfortunately goes back to the beginning of Hollywood. I didn't find that it detracted from my overall enjoyment of the movie, in this case, but that's a very personal reaction that obviously everyone will not share.
I alluded only to a small part of the Gruffydd/Angharad relationship in the review -- it's impractical to go into too much detail in a short review. But we seem to agree that he represents another outside influence with some negative consequences for the small town and its inhabitants.

originally posted 06.07.99
Lawrence Davis writes:
I KNEW IT! .... before even going to the site to complain about the trashing of From Here to Eternity to find the name of the misguided author. A bra-burning rad feminist...without such a looney pre-agenda, how could ANY sane individual knock such a classic film! As soon as you saw the barracks (with no female "soldiers") you subconsciously HATED IT!!! This was, but no longer remains, the real world of military life....chicken shit officers, hard boiled noncoms and "grunts" who did or died for their country. You are right on only one point (and TOTALLY right)...you just don't get it! Go watch your worn out video of G.I. Jane!!!

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I've never burned a bra -- do you have any idea how much those damn things cost?
"Rad feminist"? You seem to have some issues about women.
My only agenda is: I want to be entertained by a film. That's it. Eternity didn't do it for me. How can I knock this "classic" film? Well, opinions are like assholes, my mother tells me. I've got one, you've got one, and they're both worth about the same.
Thanks for that analysis of my subconscious. You just saved me this week's trip to the shrink. Again, the quoting of soldiers after the word female leads me to think that you have some problems with more than half the world's population. What do you think is at the root of this?
So, you identify with the loser characters of this film? Do you like women who are trampy and then hate them for being that way? Do you go out of your way to sabotage your own career? These characters may be real, but it doesn't mean I have to like them or enjoy watching their antics on film.
I don't own a video of G.I. Jane, by the way.
Thanks so much for your charming letter.

Lawrence Davis replies:
Aaah, sorry old gal....was having a VERY bad day and guess I took it out on you. Didn't expect a response at all, let alone such a witty one. I've got nothing against women - vive la difference - however I do think you should revisit this film sometime. Have a good day, MaryAnn!

The Flick Filosopher responds:
(And he slinks away, tail tucked between his legs. What's that puddle on the floor?)

Lawrence Davis again:
HEY...don't get "cocky" MaryAnn. At least I HAVE a tail between my legs! First you imply I'm chauvanistic.....then, when I try and display a little chivalry, you wimp me out. I still think your problem with Eternity has more to do with James Jones than Fred Zinnemann et al, and is therefore off kilter as a MOVIE review. Sure, the characters were not particularly smart or noble but wasn't that the intended message of the scenario?....Hello!! I no more identified with them than with Hannibal Lecter, but The Silence of the Lambs was a riveting film, wasn't it? I retract my previous apologia....have a LOUSY day, MaryAnn!

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Chivalry? It seemed to me like you were just wimping out of a debate you initiated. You weren't expecting to get a response from me, you say, much less a reasoned one, obviously, and you chickened out when you did -- that's how it looked to me.
How can I discuss a movie without discussing the characters? Is any movie based on a book exempt from criticism aimed at anything other than the visuals?
I suppose the characters in Eternity are not meant to be seen as particularly smart or noble... but I find it really hard to feel sorry for people who so deliberately go out of their way to screw themselves up. And sympathy, it seems to me, is part of the aura surrounding this film: that Sinatra dies a noble death, that Lancaster and Kerr are one of filmdom's most romantic couples.
Silence is riveting, and Lechter is a riveting character. He may have been insane, but he had a lot more personal integrity than anybody to be found in Eternity.
I wasn't looking for an apology. You can dish it out, but you can't take it, eh?

Lawrence Davis replies:
To clarify, MaryAnn, I did not wimp out on the "debate" and only apologized for the FORM, not the CONTENT of my original remarks. As tou your lack of sympathy for people who deliberately "screw themselves up" in movies, you must have hated Olivier's Hamlet, Kirk Douglas' Young Man With A Horn, Lonely Are The Brave, Champion.....I could go on and on. Lechter "had a lot more personal integrity" than anyone in Eternity??!! Methinks you should start writing out your epistles and holding them at least 24 hours for sober second thought, lest the recipient merely dismiss you as impulsive and one brick short. A little humour goes a lot further than "flaming"! My exchanges with you (excepting of course the first) were ALL tongue-in-cheek, but the sullenness you now begin to evince is most unbecoming.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Well, I don't think Hamlet is a particularly sympathetic character, but he is a lot more intriguing than most characters of any stripe.
Lechter was true to himself -- isn't that what personal integrity means? He wasn't hypocritical, and he had a sense of honor and fairness (okay, a skewed sense of these things, but still it was a code he followed for himself).
Funny, your first e-mail was the one I would be most likely to take as less-than-serious!
Sullen is the last thing I am. I guess my dry sense of humor doesn't come across well in text.

[And I never heard from him again. I guess I'll have to learn to behave in a more attractive way so that men won't find me "unbecoming." I'd hate for someone like Mr. Davis not to like little ol' me.--MaryAnn]

originally posted 05.31.99
Jordan Hoffman writes:
A Man for All Seasons takes place in a different century -- one in which English-speaking people were much more willing to die and become martyrs in their own mind than they are now (much like it remains in other countries still...) Did this bother you in Braveheart with respect to Nationalism?
That you share no similar faith with More (& I'm with you on that) should not make the film any less fascinating. It should make it more so.
Finally, though, to call its "debates" uninteresting is to betray your unwillingness to accept a different for on filmmaking. Yes -- it was originally a play, so the word is the star. Can you turn the Die Hard side of your brain off for a few and listen as well as look?

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Even though I made my biases clear in my review, I have no problems with enjoying a story about a faith in which I don't believe -- two movies in that vein that spring immediately to mind that I love are Jesus of Montreal and The Black Robe -- if the movie can make me buy into the passion of the religious character. A Man for All Seasons did not do that for me. Man lacked the passion -- though of course this is just my opinion -- that a film like Braveheart or Gandhi had in spades.
Likewise, I have no problem with films where "the word is the star," as you say, and I certainly don't have a "Die Hard side to my brain" that needs turning off, which you would see if you looked around my site a bit more. Action movies on the whole do nothing for me if the characters are uninteresting (check out my review of Armageddon, for one example). The passion I'm speaking of has nothing to do with action -- it has to do with an actor conveying to me a character's beliefs and worldview in a way I can believe. A Man for All Seasons did not do that.
Thanks for writing.

originally posted 03.19.99
alanp@mounet.com writes:
I'm eagerly counting down the days until the awards are handed out, as I'm sure you are. I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know how much I've enjoyed your Oscar Special this year. I've been dropping by on an almost daily basis to read your thoughts on the past Best Picture winners. Good luck with your site and with everything!

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Thanks so much for your lovely comments! I'm glad you're enjoying my site. I am indeed looking forward to this year's Oscar ceremony, if only to see all the hideous getups on half the stars. I take the Oscars pretty much with a grain of salt. Nominations and awards don't make films great -- only the films themselves and the people behind them can do that. Fortunately, the vast majority of the Best Pictures are really wonderful films.
I hope you'll continue to stop by The Flick Filosopher.

originally posted 03.08.99
SLBecker63@aol.com writes:
I have a few disagreements with your article on Mrs. Miniver. I am a history student at the University of Cincinnati and am studying WWII films. You say, "Mrs. Miniver was such potent propaganda for Britain that it influenced the American decision to join the war." There are two problems with this. Mrs. Miniver was a Hollywood film that was made after the U.S. had joined the war. You also say it is an "unsentimental account." In Mass Observation done by the British government several viewers said that it was very sentimental. These errors not aside, I enjoy your site very much.
Thank You,
Steven L. Becker

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I wish I could remember where I read it, but the "decision to join the war" thing was alluded to in some review of Mrs. Miniver I read. You're right, though: the timing is off. The movie may have actually been made before the U.S. joined the war, but it wasn't released until June 1942, after American troops had already been sent to Europe. At any rate, many sources do say that the movie helped bolster the American public's support for the Allies. I'll amend my review with a correction.
Sentimentality, though, is a subjective thing. I don't know what "Mass Observation done by the British government" means, or when this survey was taken, but I found the film to be surprisingly straightforward and clear-eyed.
Thanks for writing.

originally posted 02.28.99
Delsyn@email.msn.com writes:
[The Godfather Part II spoilers]
I was reading through your discussion of The Godfather Part II, and while I found the review perceptive (as always) I must disagree with your choice of memorable movie moment. You picked Vito's return to kill the don who murdered his family. A powerful scene certainly, but it doesn't hold a candle to the most amazing moment in the movie. I'm referring of course to the New Year's party in Cuba when Michael gives Fredo the "kiss of death." That moment conveys so much in the movie, boiling down the instant when Michael chose to dispense with his loyalty to family in favor of his loyalty to The Family.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
You're right -- that is a powerful moment. But I loved, and was stunned by, the casual brutality of Vito's revenge. He doesn't just stab the guy, he practically eviscerates him. That was a demonstration, I thought, of the intense loyalty to family that Vito passes on to his children. Merely killing the man who offed Vito's parents and brother wasn't enough -- it had to be nasty.

originally posted 02.13.99
In my review of The Apartment, I linked to Nick Davis's similarly negative review. His response:

nkd4@cornell.edu writes:
I'd like to return the favor of thanking you for not thinking this movie is the greatest thing since sliced bread. My review of The Apartment is definitely one that has generated more negative feedback than most others on my site, and people always seem so intent on defending it either on technical principles or with recourse to Billy Wilder's reputation. I'm glad that you also weren't buying all of those excuses and perceived the movie to be as contrived and its protagonist as pathetic as I did. Thanks both for your own review (and the tip-off to my page, what a nice gesture!) and for being in touch! I'll be so interested to keep reading your assessments of other Best Pic winners, though I won't yet divulge which other ones strike me as Great Academy Follies of the past. :)
Best wishes,
Nick

originally posted 02.03.99
respect@aros.net writes:
Kudos to you on naming Kenneth Branagh's triumphant version of Hamlet as the best filmed version available. I wonder if the only reason it was not nominated for Best Picture was because it was four hours long, and many viewers did not want to sit through a film that long. I give Branagh credit for just trying to tackle the subject, let alone come off succeeding brilliantly. However, what did bother me was the 1941 Oscar, which you completely lack mentioning Citizen Kane, which many consider to be the best film ever made. While I realize that you merely want to focus on the film that won, I think a little subjectivity could be had... why not mention the one film that deserved to win the award but didn't due to controversy? Just a thought...
Boyd Petrie
Respect's Movie Reviews

The Flick Filosopher responds:
You hit it right on the nose -- I'm focusing on the movie that won. Not why it won, not other worthy nominees. Watching 70 movies in a short period of time is work enough -- I'd've had to watch 5 times that many to see every nominee. Never mind trying to find all those videos and paying to rent or buy them, and then the time spent watching and reviewing them. I don't get paid for this, you know!
I know there's lots of controversy over which films win Oscars, and I don't mean to imply any endorsement of the winners by reviewing them. The theme was timely, with this year's ceremony coming up, and it really was just an excuse to watch a bunch of great old movies.
I'll probably do the AFI 100 next (there's lot of overlap with the Best Pictures, anyway) -- and again, it's not an endorsement of a controversial list. I just wanna catch up on good old films I've never seen, or haven't seen in years.

originally posted 01.27.99
jwbklyn@email.msn.com writes:
Interesting take on The Great Ziegfeld. FYI, the original Ziegfeld theater, which stood on Sixth Avenue, long ago made way for an office building. The current Ziegfeld was built around the time the original vanished and has always been a movie theater.
Just discovered your site -- looking forward to exploring it.
Sincerely,
Jay Winer

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Doh! I stand corrected.

[all letters reposted 06.06.00]

[home] [archive] [new to video/dvd]
[articles] [search the site] [faq]
[join the mailing list] [reader mail] [links]
[awards] [goodies] [manifesto]

thechick@flickfilosopher.com

(Warning: I won't correct your grammar or spelling!)

Copyright © 1997-2000
MaryAnn Johanson.
All rights reserved.