 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
141.151.57.135
nt
Follow Ups:
w
But lucky me - I didn't pay to watch that dreck.
Cheers,
John K
Like all conservatives, you have a bad habit of trying to pass off gross generalizations as meaningful criticism: "vicious," "offensive," "idiotic."What EXACTLY did you not like about the movie? What EXACTLY was "vicious" about it? What EXACTLY was "idiotic" about it? Please refer to specific examples taken from the film.
Jeffery
***Like all conservatives, you have a bad habit of trying to pass off gross generalizationsLike all liberals, you have a bad habit of trying to pass off gross generalizations.
But you didn't respond to my post.Jeffery
'I'll Spit On Your Grave' It is out on DVD...I would like to see your opinion on this one.Later
D
No, I haven't seen it, but what I quickly read about it made me wonder why you would want me to see it? Is this description at all correct:"Part Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Part Friday the 13th Part III, a quintet of young adults heads to a former "research facility" in the country. At a gas station on the way, they hear about a series of murders in the area of the research facility from 25 years ago that have remained unsolved, but they head on, undaunted. Shortly after they arrive at the farm-like setting, violence ensues. Is it the work of the killer from 25 years ago?"
I am unfortunately quite familiar with the two films mentioned here, and I am not too hot on wasting my time on that sort of trash.
If that film is in any way indeed similar to those two, then I don't see the connection with Boys Don't Cry, which attemps to be a serious film. It's fault was not the lack of good intentions, it was a complete inaptitude of its creator, who obvioulsy thought that if some pepper was good for your dish, then two pounds of it would make it even "more better".
Lack of taste, good sense and skills, but no cynicism and idiocy that marks the teen slashers.
So... why?
Pretty much universaly despised by critics and moviegoers alike.
and had you in mind? Or your group of minions?Maybe you chose the wrong word. I did not like it, and never finsihed it due to the violence, but it sound like you are seeing non-existent political overtones.
No, I was seeing lame directing, albeit with a couple of good performances, all wrapped in a package overloaded with GRATUITOUS violence and cheap effects.I had to force myself to finish it. I am not too glad I did.
Things like violence and all that other nasty crap should be done with good taste and moderation, esle it becomes just a big exercise in indulgence a'la Natural Born Killers, and all other things start to disappear.
Since the film had extremely little in the directing area, this was a deadly combination.
"No, I was seeing lame directing,"How was it lame?
" albeit with a couple of good performances, all wrapped in a package overloaded with GRATUITOUS violence and cheap effects."
Gratuitous violence? You do know that this was based on a true story don't you? How could an accurate (and by all acounts it was quite accurate) account of actual violence be gratuitous when trelling a true story? The horror portrayed was real. Yoy think it should be toned down? I don't. What "cheap effects" were there?
"I had to force myself to finish it. I am not too glad I did."
It is a hard movie to watch. Some human truths are hard to look at. That doesn't mean the film was bad.
"Things like violence and all that other nasty crap should be done with good taste and moderation,"
Seems like an oxymoron to me. violence is nasty. I see no reason why film makers should have to pour perfume on a nasty subject. If a film maker is going to look at violence in the real world I don't think it should neccessarily be tamed down to lessen the blow.
"esle it becomes just a big exercise in indulgence a'la Natural Born Killers, and all other things start to disappear."
Accurate depictions of violence in the telling of a true story can hardly be indulgent.
Did you intentionally set up to write a post consisting of only falacies? You succeeded. I don't even know where to start, and my time is limited these days, so I will just go point by point quickly.
***"No, I was seeing lame directing,"
How was it lame?
Purely a matter of perception and experience. It is fine with me if you like it. But this is the summary point - all those ones below combined do not give you good directing.
" albeit with a couple of good performances, all wrapped in a package overloaded with GRATUITOUS violence and cheap effects."Gratuitous violence? You do know that this was based on a true story don't you?
You mean this is SOMEHOW related? It is not.
***How could an accurate (and by all acounts it was quite accurate) account of actual violence be gratuitous when trelling a true story?How? Simple. If done with taste and sense of proportion.
I am surprised are you not actually upset at the director for only showing SMALL part of what happened - I am sure you realize that. She showed perhaps 5% of real event - does that make you unhappy?
How about the 45 minute long rape scene in the Irreversible? Is that a BETTER film, because of that? Heck, it also left out many, many juicy details. No closeups. No penetration. But those things surely happened in "real event" - so why not put them on the screen in detail?
You apparently don't realize that the director knew she had to draw the line someplace... that is good start... but she drew it way off.
Details... details... this is what separates lame from art.
***The horror portrayed was real. Yoy think it should be toned down? I don't. What "cheap effects" were there?
It sounds like you should spend some time watching films where REAL horror is created without resorting to primitive and gratuitous means. There are many of them. It has been done for decades by tallented directors, and doesn't represent some black magic these days - just the skills... the skill that director obviously lacked.
"I had to force myself to finish it. I am not too glad I did."It is a hard movie to watch.
No. It is boring. Not hard.
***Some human truths are hard to look at. That doesn't mean the film was bad.
The film is bad, that is unrelated to the subject.
"Things like violence and all that other nasty crap should be done with good taste and moderation,"
***Seems like an oxymoron to me. violence is nasty. I see no reason why film makers should have to pour perfume on a nasty subject.
You simply don't get it. YOU are talking about parfume, *I* am talking about expressive means that are far stronger, but far less direct, than showing primitive violence.
***If a film maker is going to look at violence in the real world I don't think it should neccessarily be tamed down to lessen the blow.
Well, as I showed you above, it IS already great tamed down, so that is not the issue. The issue is that instead of simply reducing the amount, it should have been shown more strongly through better means. Simply showing twenty minutes of blood is never the most profound way... a good director can insite greater horror with hints, understatements, indirect alusions, that sort of things. Spend some time with the masters of horror film - I mean TRUE horror. Try the Repultion for starters. TONS of horror. No blood.
"esle it becomes just a big exercise in indulgence a'la Natural Born Killers, and all other things start to disappear."***Accurate depictions of violence in the telling of a true story can hardly be indulgent.
Of course they can be, as is "accurate depiction" of many other facts of life. Going to bathroom? How about VERY accurate depition of that? Would the accuracy make it artistic?But I think we are now making circles.
Back to moving boxes.
"Did you intentionally set up to write a post consisting of only falacies? You succeeded."
Are yo always an asshole or just on this forum?
" I don't even know where to start, and my time is limited these days, so I will just go point by point quickly."
***"No, I was seeing lame directing,"
How was it lame?
"Purely a matter of perception and experience."
No directing is an art and a craft. Lame by definition implies at least some fault with the craft. It is not purely a matter of perception. As for experience, what experience do you actually have in directing?
"It is fine with me if you like it. But this is the summary point - all those ones below combined do not give you good directing."
Nor does it give you bad directing hence you are left with an unsupported assertion. If you wish to say you did not like the directing fine with me. But your assertion that is was lame should be a supportable one. so far none has been offered.
" albeit with a couple of good performances, all wrapped in a package overloaded with GRATUITOUS violence and cheap effects."
Gratuitous violence? You do know that this was based on a true story don't you?
"You mean this is SOMEHOW related? It is not."
Actually it is.
***How could an accurate (and by all acounts it was quite accurate) account of actual violence be gratuitous when trelling a true story?
"How? Simple. If done with taste and sense of proportion."
Taste is a matter of, well, taste.
"I am surprised are you not actually upset at the director for only showing SMALL part of what happened - I am sure you realize that. She showed perhaps 5% of real event - does that make you unhappy?"
No.
"How about the 45 minute long rape scene in the Irreversible? Is that a BETTER film, because of that?"
I don't know, I never saw it.
"Heck, it also left out many, many juicy details. No closeups."
There were close ups. How can you get this simple fact wrong?
"No penetration. But those things surely happened in "real event" - so why not put them on the screen in detail?"
I'm sure there were many good reasons.
"You apparently don't realize that the director knew she had to draw the line someplace..."
Actually I do realize that. Film making is not infinite. choices are always made. maybe you don't realize that straw man arguments and personal attacks against the person with which you are arguing do not support your assertions.
that is good start... but she drew it way off.
IYO based on your personal sensibilities. Again fine with me. But your sensibilities are not the standards for all art. Get over yourself.
"Details... details... this is what separates lame from art."
Not really.
***The horror portrayed was real. Yoy think it should be toned down? I don't. What "cheap effects" were there?
"It sounds like you should spend some time watching films where REAL horror is created without resorting to primitive and gratuitous means."
Primitive: crude or elementary.
Primitive choices seem fine when depicting "primityive" actions of "primitive" people. They actually seem quite appropriate and effective in this case.Gratuitous: not called for by the circumstances : UNWARRANTED
Obviously that is a matter of opinion. You may not agree with the choices made but they were made for reasons that make sense.
"There are many of them. It has been done for decades by tallented directors, and doesn't represent some black magic these days - just the skills... the skill that director obviously lacked."
And you have yet to support that assertion.
"I had to force myself to finish it. I am not too glad I did."
It is a hard movie to watch.
"No. It is boring. Not hard."
Some people find your choices in movies boring. Not everyone was bored with this movie.
***Some human truths are hard to look at. That doesn't mean the film was bad.
"The film is bad, that is unrelated to the subject."
No, the film is actually quite good. you just found it distasteful. There is a difference between your personal tastes and measures of artistic merit. this is something you don't seem to understand.
"Things like violence and all that other nasty crap should be done with good taste and moderation,"
***Seems like an oxymoron to me. violence is nasty. I see no reason why film makers should have to pour perfume on a nasty subject.
"You simply don't get it. YOU are talking about parfume, *I* am talking about expressive means that are far stronger, but far less direct, than showing primitive violence."
You don't get it. Choices were made that don't jive with your personal sensitivities. That does not mean those choices were universally less expressive in nature. They clearly worked for many viewers any number of which are smarter people with more knowledge and experience in film making than yourself.
***If a film maker is going to look at violence in the real world I don't think it should neccessarily be tamed down to lessen the blow."Well, as I showed you above, it IS already great tamed down, so that is not the issue."
It was hardly tamed down. It is an issue.
"The issue is that instead of simply reducing the amount, it should have been shown more strongly through better means."
Now you are changing your critique. Before it was about the "gratuitous" exploitation of violence. Now you are saying there were better choices. What would have been a better choice than showing the raw violence of such primitive acts?
"Simply showing twenty minutes of blood is never the most profound way..."
That isn't what happened. You may not see the art and craft that went into filming the rape scene in this movie but it was there. You want to disect it and offer better choices knock yourself out. I'd like to hear it.
" a good director can insite greater horror with hints, understatements, indirect alusions, that sort of things."
A good director can choose either course of action. Good directors are not limited to *your* sensibilities.
"Spend some time with the masters of horror film"
I have. By the way, this was not a horror film.
"- I mean TRUE horror."
You mean horror that *you* like. That is not any real world standard for "true" horror.
" Try the Repultion for starters. TONS of horror. No blood."
Good movie. It hardly proves that the choices made in Boys don't cry were not legitimate choices.
"esle it becomes just a big exercise in indulgence a'la Natural Born Killers, and all other things start to disappear."
***Accurate depictions of violence in the telling of a true story can hardly be indulgent.
"Of course they can be, as is "accurate depiction" of many other facts of life."
Fair enough, they can be indulgant.
" Going to bathroom? How about VERY accurate depition of that? Would the accuracy make it artistic?"
Depends on the context.
"But I think we are now making circles.Back to moving boxes."
Going from 'moving frames' to 'moving boxes', that is. ~AH
"Well, as I showed you above, it IS already great tamed down, so that is not the issue."No, it is not tamed down. There is not a filmmaker alive who can show 100% of the violence perpetrated upon a person when that violence happens over a period of years, and the number of events are so numerous that they could not be told within a two hour film. The Bible, for all it's length, does not include every sentence uttered and every journey taken by Christ. The film did not tame the violence. It merely depicted the more gruesome events that she underwent, and did so without pulling punches. I do not ask to see all the violence because I know that time contraints would make it impossible to demonstrate the totality of the violence. I do ask that if they are going to show a representative sample of the events, that they show it to me accurately. I doubt that she would have viewed the purpose of her life as some avante garde directors idea of an artsy picture.
"How about the 45 minute long rape scene in the Irreversible? Is that a BETTER film, because of that? Heck, it also left out many, many juicy details. No closeups. No penetration. But those things surely happened in "real event" - so why not put them on the screen in detail?"
You are comparing apples with oranges. "Irreversible" is a fictional story. It's purpose is not designed to educate, but rather to entertain. I assume that we are adults, and know what goes where without actually seeing the act. As a fictional story, how much is shown does not necessarily advance the story because we know the end result. I have no interest in the minute details because I know it never happened, and that the details are merely an idea in the filmmakers mind. On the other hand, because Boys Don't Cry is a true story, and I know that the subject actually lived an event, I want to see what happened. I know that what I am seeing is not because some filmmaker dreamed it up, but rather it has real world significance.
"Simply showing twenty minutes of blood is never the most profound way... a good director can insite greater horror with hints, understatements, indirect alusions, that sort of things. Spend some time with the masters of horror film - I mean TRUE horror. Try the Repultion for starters. TONS of horror. No blood."
Once again, you miss the point of the film. A horror film is meant to scare you. Some do it more artfully than others. Boys Don't Cry is not a horror film. It is not meant to scare you. I have no fear that some rabble is going to burst out of my closet, mistake me for a member of the opposite sex, and then rape me. A horror film is designed to place you in the position of the subject, which is why the best horror films involve events that many of us face. Boys Don't Cry was not meant to place you in the position of the subject, but rather to educate you on the subject's life: who she was, what happened to her, and what happened in her life that led her to her tragic ending.
"Of course they can be, as is "accurate depiction" of many other facts of life. Going to bathroom? How about VERY accurate depition of that? Would the accuracy make it artistic?"
Again, apples and oranges. I do not want to see someone going to the bathroom because I live that experience every day. I do not need to see a movie of someone going to the bathroom because I see that movie everyday of my life. Usually more than once a day. I do not happen to experience being mistaken for a member of the opposite sex, forcibly raped, then murdered. Those are somewhat unusual in my experience. You know, when I watch French films, which I do with some regularity, I do not want to see EuroDisney. Been there, done that.
Saying that a movie is not for you is different than saying it is crap. Approximately 95% of the countries best critic applauded the film. I am sure that you feel they are lemmings. I wonder: Your amplifiers are highly rated. If some reviewer reviewed one of your amplifiers, said it was crap, would you tell your prospective customers that that one reviewer found the answer that all the other failed to find, or would you tell that prospective customer that, given all the other positive reviews, that reviewer either missed something, had an axe to grind, or is an idiot? I think I know that answer. The same applies here.
Victor didn't like the movie because it portrayed Brandon Teena as a victim. If, for example, it had treated her rapists and killers as heroes, he wouldn't have had any problem with it. Then it would have been an "honest" and "brave" film.The violence in the film is extra gruesome for a reason. The filmmaker wanted to make the brutality of what was done to Brandon Teena crystal clear. And that's because the filmmaker wanted to make sure than no one left the theater believing that Brandon Teena asked for it. Which is what Teena's peers, local lawmakers and local press seemed to think.
Jeffery
I think the first question to ask yourself is why you see films. There are many reasons to see films. To be educated on an event or issue that you were not aware of. To simply be entertained. To laugh. To cry. To escape into another world. To see other cultures and learn about other people. To see "art", much as one listens to a symphony.Have you seen the documentary "The Brandon Teena Story?" You write that the violence was "gratuitous." Gratuitous violence is violence that was unnecessary to tell the story, placed there merely to titillate. If one of the purposes of seeing a film is to educate oneself to the actual event, when that film is based upon the actual event, then the violence in Boys Don't Cry was certainly not gratuitous, because the point of the film was to depict what she endured. The violence was there to educate, not to titillate. Frankly, I do not want a story sugarcoated. Tell me the way it was.
Had the violence not been in the film, then the film could have been ten minutes: she pretended to be a boy in rural America, she hooked up with another girl who thought she was a boy, and she was killed by some rabble. But that was not the point of the film. The point of the film was to educate you as to what she endured, from beginning to end, which could not have been accomplished had the violence not been shown. It was very necessary to the story. If you are not interested in the violence, do not watch the film. But because you did not appreciate the importance of the violence does not make it gratuitous. I suspect that despite your distaste for violence, you know more about Teena Brandon and her life after seeing the film than before. Not pleasant. Not necessarily entertaining. But certainly educational.
If you want to be entertained, view films that are presumably high art, cause you to laugh, cry, etc., then look elsewhere. But to blame a film because it did not satisfy the purpose you watched in the first place is at best unfair, at worst arrogant. You chose the film, it did not choose you. Review the film that was made, not the film you would have made.
If you watched the documentary, you would realize that the events as depicted in the film are very close to the real life events. The documentary included real interrogations by the local law enforcement of the physical beatings she endured. Local law enforcement was not very sympathetic, to say the least. Does this make it necessarily a great film, or a better film? No. But it makes it more educational than one which did not depict the real events as they actually happened. The subject matter of the film is unpleasant. Why cop out?
I personally see films for all the above reasons. Sometimes I like to eat ice cream, even though it provides little nutritional value, and sometimes even when I am not hungry. I appreciated Boys Don't Cry because it allowed me see an event, warts and all, that I would not have been able to see otherwise. Why? Because there are times I am curious to see things, even bad things, that others must go through. You apparently have little interest in seeing things that other people must experience and endure as long as it has no direct impact on you or your life. That is fine. But then, why see the film in the first place. Since Friday, I have seen Kill Bill, Vol.II, Good Bye, Lenin!, Bon Voyage, Shrek II, and am in the process of watching Scooby Doo II. Very different films different reasons for watching. I do not see all for the same reasons, and do not expect the same reasons for watching to be satisfied.
Lastly, I am not sure what you mean by "lame directing." The purpose of directing is to communicate the story, which was most clearly accomplished. Was it the best directed film of 1999? Probably not. What should the director have done differently?
one of the best films of the year. Ohh that's right -- it was.It's unfortunate you have such a narrow view of film - probably why you would never ever make it as a film critic. Lucky for the world.
but from what I read here, this type of movie isn't his particular cuppa tea. However, I too disagree about his characterization of this movie, strongly.This was a powerful, difficult to watch, movie. And possibly part of his revulsion lies in the story itself? From the beginning, even without knowing the story, you knew the protagonist, such as she was, was doomed. And watching that doom creep up on her, was very painful indeed. As good as Hillary Swank's portrayal was, and it was powerful, I give huge props to Peter Stormare's portrayal of the psychotic antagonist. Scary from his first scene. Frankenstein's monster isn't needed to manifest horror when you have portrayals of this type. Hard to believe it is the same actor playing the hero from Breaking Glass. All in all, an excellent, memorable, yet very painful to watch, classic. Not for all tastes definitely/
The atrocity is that it was based on factual accounts. What a sad statement that makes about the true morals of America.I believe the performances were captivating to say the very least.
***The atrocity is that it was based on factual accounts.I guess that settles it then. Great movie. I didn't know this was all it takes.
However, you failed to state the reasons for your dislike. My suggestion to you is this: attempt to be respectful and don't ridicule the opinions of others. Grow up, Richard!J
Good advice, but it will fall on deaf ears. The right wing has now decided that the very notion of tolerance is intolerable and must be stamped out (witness the recent stupid attacks by prominent conservatives on SpongeBob SquarePants). Their twisted reasonibg seems to be that any benevolence towards differences will lead to open - mindedness and that can't be allowed.
You mean stating it is based on a true event somehow qualifies as an opinion?OK, then I respect THAT!
...but don't care to get into a discussion about it at present.
How so?
I wouldn't mind to engage in a discussion... at some other time. Now I barely have strength to move my fingers, so I am simply stating my opinion.
Maybe you should finish your vodka and think it over.
Did you hate it because you disagree with the point, or didn't want to see the topic portrayed.Maybe it shattered your idealogies/values.
I thought it was powerful and Hillary Swank's performance was stunning...but then too were the guys'. Frightening, yes. Crap, No.
Later
D
Why but why must it be mean, when one disagree?
came across that way. I guess I was matching the tone of the post a little too much. In fact, I would like to hear his views, not punch him in the face....:)Later
D
Glad!
His views are more than worth. Take a look at the search machine.Patrick
He is no more infallable than the rest of us. I respect Vic's opinions here, and yours [and others] as well, even though they don't always jive with my experience and likes/dislikes...something that is true of all critics. However, the better ones will explain why they like or dislike something.I don't care for the fact that Vic often resorts to such sweeping hyperbole in describing his reactions to a film....without any reasoned criticism, opinion fails to inform.
Later
D
Well, over the years here I wrote opinions on perhaps hundreds films. Some were quick one liners, others were quite long, most fell in between. You don't like the fact not all my posts are long and detailed? Well, why don't you start writing long detailed ones? This is just as much your forum as it is mine.So I will continue writing posts as long as I see it fit for the occasion. You have the right to read them, to ignore, to write your own.
There are million one-line posts here, BTW. A one-lines is a legitimate form of expression. And as I said - you don't like their proportion - fight by writing your own detailed posts.
But in all seriousness that lame film here doesn't deserve more than it already received.
You sell yourself short and deny us the experience of learning why you feel the way you do, when you come here and leave nothing but 'scorched earth'.
So, I don't really agree that one liners are entirely legitimate...especially when they express such strong feelings.I still would like you to explain the basis of your opinions, positive or negative. Of course, detailed posts tend to reveal more about the writer...we get to see you more clearly.
Later
D
Nobody is infallable. But the course of the years pared with an open mind and experience, may be just a little more than some.
I respect all opinions also. But some are more articulate and founded as others.
Some times you just get weary and exlplain not all, that is in my case often the case.
Bambi b and Victor write the best critics for me.
But is that so important?
Fine is the possibility to learn and to communicate.
And how often we made noises for nothing?
Respect and good manners, is much nicer, is it not?
Patrick
(1) Respect and good manners: Would anyone disagree? But respect not only has to do with avoiding name calling, derogatory comments, etc. I cannot, and would not, defend anyone calling Victor a name, making a personal attack, or using derogatory comments toward him because of an opinion he expressed, no matter how much I disagreed. And I would, as would I am sure you, ask those people to stop.But also feel that respect extends to other people's opinions. Respect for another's opinion requires, I think, more than simply saying, after someone has stated an opinion, provided with analysis that required work, effort, and time, that the film, and by implication the poster's opinions, was "caca." Someone has taken the time to express an opinion. I would think that they deserve more than "caca" in response. You agree? Which leads to the next point.
(2) I have no problem with people stating opinions. My issue is generally with people who express an opinion without any analysis. "Component A sounds good." What does that really tell you? How does it sound good? Why does it sound good? Is it perfect? Give me some analysis. Support the opinion with more than "It is so because I say it is so." That was the argument of the playground. We are adults, no?
"Directing was lame." That is a conclusion. Tell me why it was lame. The film was "vicious." That is a conclusion. Tell me why it was vicious. The purpose of the forum, I thought, was to advance dialog. Reciting conclusions does not advance the dialog. And frankly, Victor, or anyone else on this board, are too intelligent to simply recite conclusions. Granted, analysis requires more work and thought. Because we are stating opinions on films that other may have not seen, and may be interested in seeing, is it not fair to them to provide them more information so they could know whether to spend time and money to see the film. What do they learn by "It was caca?"
(3) State your biases up front. Some people have a predisposition against audio products made in Mid-East, or tubes, or solid state. If you are reviewing them, it is only fair to tell the reader of those biases. I would think the same applies here. I have no doubt that many are of the mindset that if it is made in Hollywood by a major studio, it must be bad. Or if it has special effects, it must be bad. Or if professional critics loved it, I know, I won't like it. That makes me smarter, because, well, smart people do not follow the herd. If those are your prejudices, fine. But say so.
I suspect those are the same people who cannot provide analysis to support their opinions. Because there is none. Can you make a one line statement to express an opinion? Sure. But so can any rube.
There seem to be fair number of people that are upset with Victor and his responses to their posts. I will not enter that fray. But Patrick, do you not find it odd that you generally agree with Victor, that you dislike most of the same films he does, and like most of the same films he does, and respond to generally the same posts he does, and yet no one has complained about how you express your opinions?
First thank you for sending such a...complete answer!
And yet a lot disagree... If you see some of the rude answers, you can only think than many are missing them ...The good manners and the respect.
Nothing against a little " heat-up " of course, but in all fairness.
Well with time you learn to know your friends, and, few words may be enough, of course here like in real life it is always a new begining, but some of us stick here long enough to know and appreciate ( ? ) each others....
We have a common knowledge and a same view of a kind of culture, which may call for a few missunderstanding for some, but anyone is entitle to ask for clarification!
So it is not a big fuzz, what Victor or someone else write ...Lame....or worst film of the year ( I did ). Like in a club, there is a kind of common language and thinking, in different faction of course!
Take the discussion of LOTR...You will see how childish but funny it can be sometimes...
Kaka is a kind of take a short way and a word Victor create and with time work well.
The first time, I discuss here with him ( Victor ) it was about " Solaris " he loved it and I wrote " Zzzzzzzzzz " having saw it the first time at the festival of Cannes and then after the projection, the interview with the director Mr.Tarkovsky, which was at the time, even more boring, so we start our film " relation " in this way, but in the mean time I learnt through him so many beautiful " boring " Russian films that it enriched my life...
So that is the meaning, exchanging and learning from each other.
" State your biases up front " Well we try not to have any! And if I say and think that, as an example, Hollywood in an industry with mostly as only goal " money " it is I feel just the truth, industry food can be at best acceptable.
But Hollywood was always an industry, but with some of the moguls back then it was a kind of different, as they also had some artistic pretentions, who I sorely miss today.
Smart people says what the think and as freely they an be. That it why I call them " smart "He-he...
Victor, believe me, has something to say! Make please a research...If you find then that it is not so, so count me in the same category.
And there you are wrong, if you knew how a many did attack me the same way they did with Victor!
The only difference is that I try to a certain point, to have more patience, I have a temperament that is more soft, maybe, and I know that it is mostly a waste of time, because time learnt that. Without any arrogance I hasten to add. If I would be more " practical " I would act like he does.
Trust me, he is one of the finest guy around.
You just have to learnt to know him.
I realize these things about both you and Vic. Many times I respect your opinions, but occasionally I need more than simple one liners...especially 'pure offensive caca'. Although, some films are not worth more...:)I expect the intelligent to be able to respond with a little more than that, when it is required/requested. Even in his post, Vic said he would 'discuss later'...well, is it now? By posting here, with such authority, one assumes the position of critic, even if only on an informal/amateur basis.
I like to know what social/cultural/political beliefs color a critic's opinions. This helps me know what to expect from them and about the films they comment on. No, Victor is not Peter Travers, but he has seen many more films than most here, including me, and his opinions matter...but only if he cares to respect the others here, and support his opinions with his reasoned ideas, not just quick, empty one liners...if not for your benefit, then ours.
Respect, like love, can only be had in the same measure as one gives.
Later
D
You see sometimes there are imperatives like private one or buisness like or some times both together.
Gentlemen just don´t ask. They feel.
Well we are the result of so different sensibilities, and of course we are all " coloured " if we would not we would not be human.
The point is the own knowledge of himself and the trying to be as correct with one self and the others, in one word to be honest.
We all are suffering, of " my point is right " " your is not ", but more or less.
Victor respect every one, as long as they shown some willing to discuss honestly. But he will not when attack unfairly he will then give a harsh answer and he is fully entitled to do so.
They looked for it & they got it.
If you want to discuss a given matter he will never not answer you in the most serious way.
Never.
I couldn't agree more nor state it better.Later
D
nt
adfgh
nt
He-he....
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
