-----Original Message-----
>From: Channing <
filmtroll@sbcglobal.net>
>Sent: Feb 24, 2007 10:41 PM
>To:
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: RARA-AVIS: Moral or Immoral?
>
>Except that Doug didn't "trash" Altman and
TLG.
>
>He suggested that the movie was a revisionist take on
the book.
How could he possibly know this without viewing it?
Hearsay?
>Which it is.
>
Perhaps. But the degree of revisionism involved is up for -
apparently endless - debate. Some people think it was more of
an update than a revisionist take. (Some of them are even the
critics you seem to respect.)
>> I don't like Altman and have
>> >never seen the movie, but I understand it to
be a
>> >revisionist take on the Chandler character,
no?
>
>Then Doug attacks REVISIONISM and only by inference
Altman or the movie--
>
I'd say his "inference" is pretty clear. If you go out of
your way to say something is revisionist, then you attack
revisionism, aren't you attacking the original subject?
Wasn't that the point of the post?
>> >Revisionism is a lazy man's crutch for
insight:
>> >pointing out that Marlowe, or characters
like him, are
>> >romantic idealized figures that could never
exist in a
>> >"heroic way", anyway, in reality seems to
me, again,
>> >to miss the point.
>> >
>> >doug
>
>Whoa! He really trashed Altman there. (NOTE THE
SERIOUS SARCASM)
>Altman might have missed the point. Ouch
>
Who's point are you talking about? Chandler's? His fans? Are
you actually saying Altman is too stupid to understand
Chandler? He actually missed some point somewhere? What is
this "point"? To take this last paragraph of Doug's and
somehow imply that this is a fair critique of a movie Doug
hasn't seen is a bit bizarre on your part, Channing. And if
you are saying that that paragraph does represent what
Altman's "point" was in the first place, that is a very thin
and - imo - erroneous take on that film.
>I've never seen SAW III but I can suggest that
it's
>a horrible movie based on the majority of film
critics
>across America who've said so. Paid professionals who
have
>watched a lot of movies.
I do not believe you said this. Clearly, I am completely
drunk now.
I don't need to have seen every
>single movie or read every single book to comment on
it.
>That's futile.
No. That's reasonable. But if you feel comfortable
criticizing things you have no personal experience with, it's
okay with me.
I certainly see no need to view SAW III either, but I can't
honestly offer an opinion on it other than, "that's not
something I want to see." And I base that on previews of the
film. That's not a movie I'd go to the critics for a call
on.
"I'm sorry I can't continue this argument
>because I haven't read X book. Give me two weeks and
I'll
>get back to this discussion."
>
Why do you feel your opinion would be vital to a conversation
if you had no personal experience with the subject at
hand?
>Oh, and I will go on record as saying that Altman
missed
>the point on The Long Goodbye. Ooh, scandalous. He
also missed the
>point on Popeye, OC and Stiggs, Dr. T and His
Women,
>Cookie's Fortune and even, gasp, Gosford Park, where
he
>made a whodunnit where the murder victim isn't even
killed
>until halfway into the movie and the mystery is
unsolveable
>by the viewer. I don't care how many awards that won,
it's
>a bad movie. I've SEEN all those movies, by the
way.
>
>-Channing
>
I could just as easily suggest that you missed the point on a
few of them. Is that possible? (I'm certain you missed the
point on Gosford Park based on your breakdown of the
movie.)
But if there WAS a point to O.C. and Stiggs, can you please
explain it to me? (Even if Altman missed it.)
TL
P.S. - I'm curious about something, Channing. You seem to
have seen a lot of Altman's films, even some more obscure
ones. Are there some of his other movies you like, or are you
just a glutton for punishment? Even I haven't sat all the way
through Cookie's Fortune.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 25 Feb 2007 EST