In Reply to: Thank you. But your condescension is once again duly noted. posted by clarkjohnsen on December 13, 2006 at 07:47:12:
My point about taking "a chance on this one" wasn't meant to minimalize the value of your review. To the contrary, I was only pointing out that your review may have swayed my decision toward seeing this film after all, as other folks I know have came away with either mixed or negative impressions (mostly due to the apparent level of gore, some folks calling it "torture porn").Also, I don't want to leave the impression that your published reviews aren't appreciated. By now I think that most folks around here are well aware that you are a professional, often paid for your reviews and columns; FTR, I have complimented your published work before. We may differ strongly on some things, but I respect excellence when I perceive it as such.
My general dismissal of "grey poupon" films is based on the fact that folks like Victor and patrick routinely push the foreign fare they like while ridiculing what other people like because they have a prejudice against the popularity, genre or scripting of a given film or series of films. Often they make their condescending assessments without even having seen the film or films in question, which is little more than trolling for reactions in my estimation.
All I ask of folks who choose to criticize a film is that they've at least seen the film prior to assessing it and commenting or linking other reviewer's opinions that correspond to what they believe to be the case. I rarely "excoriate" art house films that I've seen unless I dislike the content based on first hand impressions. However, I have no problem defining an entire genre of European art-house films as "grey poupon" when those who wax poetic on the subject turn around and trash films that other's enjoy, especially when they rarely bother to see the films in question.
I hope that this places things in a little better perspective, and in spite of the occasionally heated rhetoric, it isn't personal. I'd rather not be forced into the position of directing condescending comments toward those who appreciate certain types of films or generalize about the value of those films, but when they target popular films that I appreciate, usually with the intent of provoking negative responses, then turnabout is fair play. Other's mileage will vary, of course.
AuPh
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- No condescension intended. - Audiophilander 12:08:21 12/13/06 (6)
- "All I ask of folks who choose to criticize a film is that they've at least seen the film." That is of course a truism. - clarkjohnsen 08:18:11 12/14/06 (5)
- "Who are you to do this asking?" - Just a film aficianado desiring accurate, first-hand information ... - Audiophilander 02:22:58 12/15/06 (4)
- "No condescension intended, but is that clear enough for you, Clark?" Condescension alert! - clarkjohnsen 08:50:56 12/15/06 (3)
- How can one supply "pointers" for films admittedly unseen? - Audiophilander 10:12:08 12/15/06 (2)
- "You're apparently a humbug." Thanks, teach, that's good to know. - clarkjohnsen 12:17:56 12/15/06 (1)
- Well, if you're not full of yourself, then lets take a look at your half-empty glass: - Audiophilander 09:51:54 12/17/06 (0)