In Reply to: Re: The first one didn't go down too well posted by Dmitry on August 6, 2000 at 12:22:24:
***Now I see what you meant. I agree, yet both T and B are primarily watched by the intellectuals(or wannabees), at least here in the States.I always get uneasy feeling about the use of that wannabees title. I guess I will take a wannabee any day over a zhlob, over someone who only burps Bud in front of a football game.
From that perspective being a wannabee is whole lot better than many other things in life.
I presume wannabee is in your use someone who only goes there because it is the in thing to do, according to the New York Times. The true test would be what this person would do if no one else was watching.
*That subject can be narrow sometimes, too specific. Neither Bergman or Tarkovsky usually have that. Perhaps becase their usual subject is the human being - something we supposedly know something about. Or do we?*
***Smart rethoric!***"Pursuit of the millenium" - read it, if you got time. Opens up a lot of things, the roots of which we would never've suspected otherwise.
Writing down.
***Unrelated, have you read Bogomolov's "In august of '44" aka "The moment of truth"?
No. Tell me more about it. I need a lot of cathing up to do.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Wannabees shwanabees - Victor Khomenko 14:34:50 08/06/00 (2)
- Re: Wannabees shwanabees - Dmitry 17:17:03 08/06/00 (1)
- In seventy nine (nt) - Victor Khomenko 18:10:20 08/06/00 (0)