TL wrote in response to Patrick King:
> Of course you are free to hate. This is America.
Luckily for the rest of us, we are also free to criticize the
critics.
>
>You think you live on a one-way street,
Patrick?
I might ask TL the same question.
I can't speak for Patrick (or for anyone else), but my skin
is thick enough to take it in a portion equal to that in
which I dish it.
> I don't think any of the fans of this film have
tried to take your opinion from you or even change your mind
on the subject. Who would care enough?
Well, you, for one. Doherty for another. You both present
arguments that strike me as being designed to pursuade, to
convince. What is this sort of discussion if not an attempt
to pursuade others to at least consider your own point of
view? If you're going to "criticize the critics," and you're
not attempting to sway them, are you merely holding them up
to so much ridicule? That seems both empty and a bit
cruel.
I say, "I don't like Altman's 'The Long Goodbye,' and here's
why." There's nothing more to it than that. I don't make
statements that could easily be construed as implying that if
you don't agree with me you're an ass/idiot/Republican.
People disagree with me all the time, and most of them are
friends of mine. I don't take it personally, and I have yet
to take anything said here personally. But then, I kind of
like to argue about stuff like this. On the other hand, I
don't think that people who *like* Altman's version of "The
Long Goodbye" are either any smarter or any stupider than I
am. I just think they see it differently than I do, and
occasionally when I talk to them about things like this, I am
in fact pursuaded.
BUT telling me that I'm in some way "limited" because I don't
"get" the bold, artistic vision of (insert name of artiste of
your choice here) is just bullshit. Art is art, and while it
need make no apologies, it also shouldn't get a free pass for
its own sake.
For example, I've heard it said (by my father, of all people)
that James Joyce didn't write to be heard, he wrote to
express himself, and left it to others to try to understand
him. While I celebrate his right to do so, I don't think that
he (or in this case his ghost, or his hat holders) gets to
run me down as some sort of idiot because I don't take the
time to try. I have no more obligation to work my way through
Joyce's canon than he did to lead me through it. I hope I've
expressed myself clearly on that point.
The same goes for the terribly uneven (my opinion here) work
of Robert Altman.
> We've simply stated our side of the debate. And
tried to do it without too much vehemence.
Well, if without "vehemence," certainly not without a fair
amount of sarcasm (to which I also plead guilty) and not a
little condescencion.
> But you, Jim, and Brian have used harsh tones and
demeaning language from the start.
Again, I can't speak for the others, but since my name was
mentioned here, I'll repeat myself: I don't like Altman's
"The Long Goodbye." I've defended that statement ad
infinitum. I'll let the others speak to their own roles here.
I would like to take this opportunity to suggest that you,
TL, might be painting with too broad-of-a-brush in the
statement you made above.
> The very existence of the movie and the idea that
anyone could possibly appreciate it seems like an insult to
the three of you.
Poppycock. Or hyperbole, take your pick. I *live* for the
differences in our opinions and I *absolutely* respect the
right of others to disagree with me. I would agree that Jim
seems deeply offended by its existence. He'd have to speak to
that, though. I suppose it's possible that some of my early,
"Yeah! Me too!" statements echoing my distaste for what I
consider a rambling, sprawling, frequently boring trainwreck
of a movie might have blurred the lines on that point. Again,
I hope this clarifies things.
> Usually people who resort to slander in a debate are
supporting a weak argument.
I think I smell a lecture coming on.
> There is no right or wrong when determining whether
you enjoy or dislike something that your fellow man feels the
opposite about. There is only opinion. And as > they say,
"Opinions are like asses. Everyone has got one."
Let me finish the quotation for you, the way I've always
heard it: "...and they all stink."
> Also, I'm not sure why you are dragging the public
in to this. It is clear that on this board and on sites like
the IMDb that the haters of this film are in the
minority.
I've got to take exception with this last statement. I've
seen no clear indication that "the public" feels strongly
about this film one way or another, from either side of this
discussion.
> It has grown in stature over the years to be
regarded as something of a classic.
By whom? The "public"?
> If you want to say you hate the film,
fine.
Great. I hate the film. It bored the piss out of me. Since
you've got no problem with that, I think we're good.
> But don't say you speak for the public.
*I* didn't. I think you're confusing me and that other guy
with Jim again. I remember when he and I disagreed about
Spillane a few months back that he always seemed (to me) to
be taking the position of "authority" in the conversation, as
if he were speaking for others, or for society, but then
again, that's just my perception.
> Let each person speak for themselves.
I couldn't agree more.
> Well, the war I predicted weeks ago came to pass. It
is amazing how polarizing this movie is. Could it be THE MOST
CONTROVERSIAL FILM IN THE P.I. > GENRE?
I dunno. I just finally saw "The Black Dahlia," and in light
of how bad I thought it was (when it could have been so good)
and how absolutely terrific I thought "HOLLYWOODLAND" was,
maybe I need to go watch "The Long Goodbye" again to see
whether TBD actually makes it look better.
But I think that might be a whole other thread
entirely.
All the Best-
Brian
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 15 Feb 2007 EST