Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by Audiophilander (A) on April 11, 2006 at 00:39:25

In Reply to: Re: We'll apparently just have to agree to disagree. posted by Analog Scott on April 10, 2006 at 09:43:06:

... in the hands of folks like Victor & patrick who turn to scatological references at every opportunity to show disrespect for popular films considered too bourgeois for their menu, words can become the "tools of fools."

>>> "The only time I find their Kaka comments offensive is when they go unsupported." <<<

That's almost all the time in my humble, albeit well informed, opinion.

>>> "The language is not an issue to me." <<<

It is with me, perhaps because I take language seriously and consider articulate communication and non-inflammatory rhetoric essential for expressing informed opinions that don't devolve into personal exchanges. Of course, I also believe in measured responses, and when someone attacks a film or series of films in such a manner as to indirectly attack the tastes of another, then turnabout is fair play as the saying goes.

>>> "Nme one instance of a director being fired and then running of with the film elements in a Keystone cop like chase..." <<<

As a film historian I could describe many similar instances where directors were forced to run across the border into Mexico in a Keystone Kop manner and schemed to hide their films from process servers during the period when Keystone and other California based studios were at odds with the MPPC (Edison's Patent cartel).

I could also cite examples of esteemed directors like Eric Von Stroheim who bucked the system, were fired during the production or removed after filming was completed and barred from participating in the editing of their work.

Then there's the case of Orson Welles and Citizen Kane! At one point Welles apparently DID abscound with the negative and hid it because William Randolph Hearst was applying pressure on several studios to either buy the film from RKO and burn the negative and all existing copies after columnist Hedda Hopper caught a private screening and reported the contents back to her boss.

I know that some of the stuff you saw in Kong relating to Carl Denham's harrowing escape seemed far fetched to the point of implausability, but I've read quite a few film history books which recorded many such bizarre events during the early days of film, and whether embellished or not, it's all based on actual events.

>>> "I agree to disagree." <<<

We can agree on that, unfortunately. My biggest problem was with patrick's inane scatological remarks that not only insult PJ's Kong, but by implication the tastes of anyone who appreciates the movie; I find such comments out of place here. If you simply dislike the movie and feel that it doesn't work for you, that's fine, but avoiding the use of scatological euphemisms makes it easier to discuss differing views and find common ground to appreciate contrasting opinions.

That's my 2 cents, adjusted for inflation. :o)

AuPh