From: Michael M. Butler (butler@comp-lib.org)
Date: Thu Mar 07 2002 - 22:02:03 MST
Technotranscendence wrote:
>
> On Thursday, March 07, 2002 7:52 PM Miriam English miriam@werple.net.au
> wrote:
> > My first response to anyone who totally pans a movie is to suggest
> that
> > they try making a movie. It is *really* hard. It is even harder to do
> in a
> > way that affects people, as this one did for an heck of a lot of
> people.
>
> The problem with this is then you have to completely give up judging
> anybody or anything. E.g., you can't say a restaurant serves bad/boring
> dishes and has bad decor and service unless you're a restauranteur. Or,
> on another note, you can't criticize the free market economy unless you
> build an economy yourself.:)
I didn't hear Miriam say "you can't criticize x...". I heard her say "try
x...".
These are distinct things. She indicates, at most, that "total pan" criticism
of x comes easier when you haven't tried to accomplish x.
Do you dispute that point? If so, on what basis? What informs your decision?
Is someone who has never even tried to create a movie, or even write a page of
screenplay, somehow _better_ qualified to totally pan a movie?
And a movie is not at all the same as a meal at a restaurant. Meals at
restaurants must be served more or less at an arranged time, on demand. The
closest analogy to that in the film world would be criticizing a specific
venue/showing of a movie, e.g. the 5:10 showing of AI at the Oaks Theater in
Cupertino on March 5, 2002. And I have done that sort of criticism: poor
focus, low illumination, etc. have caused me to ask for my money back.
That said, it's a truism that a restaurant can't afford to have a "bad day".
And it *is* sad when a movie obviously has had a ton of money thrown at it and
fails to satisfy. Examples abound.
I agree with the non-panners that AI, like Vanilla Sky, at least gives one a
place to stand when discussing the issues raised. I agree that both have
flaws. I also think that they both "work" to _some_ degree, even if neither
one is a movie *I* would have made.
Totally panning a movie (or other work) frequently tells far more about the
reviewer than about the movie. I guess you could say that I generally totally
pan "total pan" reviews. Sue me, it's just my opinion.
ObConfession:
I used to hate _The Stars My Destination_ because of an utter science gaffe in
the first part of the book--gravitation of small objects being observable at
close range in a short time. I changed my mind. The rest of the story more
than makes up for it.
I still hate _Lord of the Flies_ because of a fundamental science gaffe in it.
The difference is, the author of _Lord of the Flies_ could have easily
_checked_ whether nearsighted peoples' glasses focus light to a burning
point--he just didn't *bother*. And if Piggy isn't both nearsighted *and*
"useful" because of his glasses, the entire story falls apart. *BZZZT*. Up
with _that_ I will not put.
Hemimyopically yours,
MMB
--
butler a t comp - lib . o r g
I am not here to have an argument. I am here as part of a civilization.
Sometimes I forget.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:50 MST