Here we go again.
We've *done* this argument, in excruciating detail. And
recently, too.
While I happen to agree with Doherty on this topic (now if it
were a discussion of the relative merits of Mickey Spillane,
we'd be at odds again!), and don't care for the film (even a
little), I respect the assertions of the others on this list
that it's an "important" film, and so on, and so forth. It's
not the first "important" film that I don't either care for
or get, and I'm also sure that it won't be the last.
We all know Jim's capacity for tenacity and his spirited
defenses of his opinions past the point of most peoples'
endurance. If only personal tastes were dictated by the
willingness to defend your positions, Jim, *you* would be the
final arbiter of taste.
And Dave has obviously also made his opinion on the film
known (also over and over again, and recently, too), and
never the twain shall meet.
Are we going to kick this one around again so soon, just
because someone at the New York Times (surprise, surprise)
thinks it's a valuable film?
Just a thought-
Brian
----- Original Message -----
From: jimdohertyjr
To:
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 11:08 AM
Subject: RARA-AVIS: Re: NY Times article on
Altman's Long Goodbye
Dave,
Re your comment below:
> Bottom line: Altman got the spirit of the book
right.
Bottom line: It was the spirit of the book that
he got MOST wrong.
JIM DOHERTY
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 15 Apr 2007 EDT