Letters to the Editor

• Mega-response Part 2

  [Read the article: Art movies: R.I.P.]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  (10) Were the flashbacks in "The Godfather II" really so "deft"? They were structured in a fairly standard way -- "look, he's motivated to do X because back then he experienced Y." They were solid and straightforward, much like decades of flashback-structured films before.

  (11) You've already been raked over the coals pretty well regarding "Star Wars." The latter 3 films were riddled with flaws in tone, acting, dialogue, and story (mitochlorians in the blood make Jedis powerful? say what?). As long as we're talking sci-fi/fantasy, did you not enjoy the "Lord of the Rings" films? For pure imagination, have you seen much Japanese animation ("Paprika")? Did not the first "Matrix" film have some of the grandeur you long for? Or Spielberg's latter films, like "Minority Report" (how can you hate it if it's got Max Von Sydow?).

  (12) Regarding long takes, Jim Jarmusch did quite a bit with them in the '80s/'90s. Lars Von Trier and the Dogmatists have pushed the patience boundaries as well. Did you see Gus Van Sant's experimental films of the last few years? Talk about long takes. What is it you really want? Even you, Camille, admit that these same artists played out their styles and approaches. How many films can one watch that pore over a woman's every facial twitch before it fails to reveal anything new? How many Godard jump-cuts can change the sensory response to editing?

  (13) You say "very few young people" have patience for slower films. Perhaps. But did you actually poll them? Isn't the problem simply that the studio machine doesn't support much film art that doesn't have an explicit, sellable plotline? The industry has changed. It has more competition: Cable, serialized TV shows, video games, the internet. There are many more doors into other worlds than the one door you had access to in your youth. Yet....some people are still seeing the old movies. You don't know about it, Camille, because they're doing it behind closed doors, renting Netflix DVDs on better and better home systems. How about recommending more of your favorites?

  (14) I said it before, but I gotta tell you....sleeping next to reels of film is a little *cuckoo!* *cuckoo!* How do you know they didn't sneak in the reels from "Bedtime for Bonzo" instead? They probably did, and you thought it was "Persona" the whole time, cooing in your dreamy sleep, thinking it had special meaning. I mean....it's possible.

  (15) You went from praising art films in one breath to mocking them in the next -- complaining about the ending to "Jules and Jim" and whatnot. Which is it? Are art films a sadly lost appreciation or did a lot of them just totally suck, leading to their own demise? Make up your mind, Camille.

  (16) "Today, anything goes, and nothing lasts." Are you sure? Or is it that there is just so much accumulating media, we get lost in it. Even the movies that stand out are washed away in the next month's onslaught of new releases. But come on, you have to admit that a few gems hold up over time. I thought "Election" was a profoundly funny and yet morally complex, thought-provoking film. Same with "Fight Club" once you get past the goofy plot twist. These films hold up, Camille. Every now and then I watch one over again to check....yep, still terrific. Why aren't you paying attention? And did you happen to notice that the so-called classic years of cinema also produced a relentless heap of dross?

  (17) I see your point about modern movies lacking "religion" or a religious-like impulse. Outside of Bergman, I don't necessarily think a lot of the older films had this, either. But somebody else here mentioned Daron Aronofsky's "The Fountain" and it's a nice counter-example to what you're saying. I think you will find additional counter-examples if you look. Again, I blame a trend toward irony: Few want to take things seriously because few want to risk being labeled pretentious and humorless. I mean, what greater sin could there be in a Leno-interview world than that?

  (18) I don't understand why you call out the "crop" of atheists writing books against religion. What you call a crop is only a trend of media exposure for just a couple books -- namely, the Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins books. Such books have been written before, throughout the last couple decades, and mostly as a response/antidote to the sizable political power of contemporary fundamentalism. Why do you detest the fact that people wish to counter-balance these forces? Why do you accuse Dawkins of being "culturally challenged"? Did he wear a shirt that offended your fashion sense? Have you considered that you see as their "narrow mental world" might be attributed to their desire to stay on-message when they've only got about 3 minutes per soundbite-driven interview to communicate their ideas?

  (19) How on earth do you think a couple of atheists writing books about atheism is "fatal to future art"? I don't see the cause-and-effect there, unless you think there can be no art without organized religion to motivate it. And I don't think that's what you're saying. So....what the hell are you talking about?

  (20) You say you worship nature and art. OK. You also want the major religions taught in (apparently) grade school. Um, good luck with that. Outside of general understanding of people's psychology, and history, what do you feel is the value of learning religion? A philosophical quest for purpose and meaning? (If so, why does that require religion as a vehicle?)

  Permalink Thursday, August 9, 2007 09:07 AM