Letters to the Editor
softdog
Published Letters: 186 Editor's Choice: 8
-
The weakness of the performance as a critic
[Read the article: Too great to be good]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In classic Salon fashion, Zacharek has already panned the movie. In her first essay she went on and and on about how much she hated what she saw as "grand intentions".
Now she gets a second round to say the same thing, except gleefully sticking it to an individual (an activit she really enjoys).
She omits the context of the movie as a whole, even though she wrote a whole essay about it and makes a personal attack on Lewis and his entire career because he plays the role as written and directed.
Yes, we get it. You felt the movie was trying to be epic and you didn't like it. Also, you think Daniel Day Lewis is pretentious, self-regarding and gossip about his method.
In addition Zacharek's weakens her critical voice with dictatorial mannerisms which undermine the idea it is criticism - a matter of taste.
If you play hectoring know-it-all, like Mark Kermode or Pauline Kael, you need to establish credibility and leave a hint of room for dissent. Instead Zacharek gives a verdict without proving she's qualified to judge.
It's worse for those familiar with her work: celebrity gossip, double standards for actresses, inane backlash reporting about how single gals vote, etc. She generaly takes a simplistic contrarian pose on everything. After years of plowing this row she can rarely shake the tone of "Looky here! I'm making a rebellious pronouncement!"
Perhaps her intent in quoting her actor friend is giving proper credit for a bon mot, but it seems like she's trying to present an unnamed "expert" as evidence.
Plus the essay rests on a narrow definition of "good" acting, one which I'd argue Zacharek doesn't believe herself. She praises overwrought, mannerist films like Redacted and Lions for Lambs.
Also, I noticed that headlines for Zacharek tends to flog the question "but is it enough?" Her most frequent critique are films which just don't do enough to please her. That she now rips into an actor for going over the top (and repeating himself) is highly ironic.
-
And also
[Read the article: Too great to be good]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I can totally see how the movie and the performance would be extremely annoying for someone not in the mood for such things. Many movies can be well made but not interesting or enjoyable.
Had Zacharek been spoken more as "me" instead of "we" and shown appreciation for the skill even if it totally failed for her, I doubt there would be such furor.
Instead she used this as a springboard to engage in analysis which uses many words to say rather meaningless things: "Day-Lewis plays emotions, not objectives -- that is, he decides on the emotion, or the effect, instead of allowing the emotion to emerge from the situation." How is a predetermined emtion not an objective? Why is deciding on an emotion - an actor's job - exclude basing that decision on the situation. She makes it sound like DDL is playing emotions with no connection to the plot.
She also engages in overreaching speculation about Daniel Day-Lewis as whole stating what thinks in a tone as if she actually knows: "Day-Lewis may have located what he thinks is the heart of Daniel Plainview," "he's blind to the fact that in two of his most recent performances" "Day-Lewis, one of the finest actors we've got, has every reason to love himself"
I sincerely doubt people would defend the move, or DDL, with such vigor where it not being attacked in such presumptious, provocatively asinine way. I could hate the film and be goaded by this tone.
-
The Monster is fed by Distance and Online Communication
[Read the article: I'm acting like a monster so my friends are deserting me]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Cary's advice is okay, but he overlooks a key element: this happened with an online, long distance relationship.
Online communication can be a major amplifier of all our worst tendencies.
It's mostly text and it's far harder to read intent and tone. You are reacting in complete isolation from the other person. This leaves you free to assume and say things you'd wouldn't in person or even on the phone (which can also create misunderstandings). Misunderstanding are a big risk, especially when you are upset.
Text is also a physical record. A freakout which exists in memory and gossip can still damn you, but can be healed with apologies and actions and the fading of time. A documented freakout can be worse as it's a record against any attempt to fix it.
Plus nothing can make ordinary desperation seem insane than multiple voicemale messages, emails, IMs, etc.
Which brings me to the other issue - a long distance relationship is a social monster trap. It's mostly absence and risks a variety of distortions, fantasies and excess emotions. Yes, some work in various ways, but many implode due to a lack of physical context.
Again what might seem like ordinary rancor in person can become something terrible when the participants are semi-strangers remote from each other.
Plus if you are getting older, are temperamental and have a stressful worklife, it is very easy to overinvest in a relatiohnsip with someone who isn't there. For needy people it's often easier to have a healthy perspective when you see the objects of your anxiety in the flesh.
So yes, you probably did act like a monster and need to work on that, but realize the situation probably made you seem and feel more monstrous than you are.
In the future, date people who live where you do and, more importantly, keep you online behavior under tight restraint. You'll be amazed at how much more sane you feel.