Letters to the Editor
tomreedtoon
Published Letters: 754 Editor's Choice: 80
-
It's David Lynch Part 2...you're all being played for suckers!
[Read the article: Finale wrap-up: "Lost"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How long has it been since you people were hypnotized by the equally-phony "Twin Peaks"? That show pulled the same tricks - as they say in semiotics, a whole pile of signifiers with no signifieds attached to them. The only place where David Lynch failed was that he made his contempt for the TV audience and his characters too obvious. He screwed over his audience with too much obvious glee, they caught on, and that doomed the show. What looked like an involved, intelligent mystery in its first few shows became another hose job. And Lynch's follow-up theatrical film was his upraised middle finger to the people stupid enough to retain some affection for the series.
Compare that to a similar show with a vast mystery at its core - "Babylon 5," which was carefully planned by its creator J. Michael Straczynski for a five-year run. There were mysteries in that show, and meanings to be revealed, but there was nothing in it that deliberately screwed over the viewer. At the end of each season, you didn't get the disappointment you inevitably felt with "Lost" or "Alias." You appreciated the storyteller for having told you a complete, well-written, coherent chapter. And at the end of it all, with the series having changed production companies three times and the central character dropping out after the first season, you still felt gratified.
Even with a group of good writers behind "Lost" - animation and comic legend Paul Dini among them - the producer runs the show, and I sense that Abrams hasn't got anything on his mind, any more than he did with his "Alias." For that matter, in regards to another letter, I don't think Havrilesky has changed her spots either, and she's preparing to vomit hot cynanide all over her readers any minute now.
-
edgore...could you be more specific?
[Read the article: Finale wrap-up: "Lost"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Specifically, in response to my statement...
For that matter, in regards to another letter, I don't think Havrilesky has changed her spots either, and she's preparing to vomit hot cynanide all over her readers any minute now.
edgore said,
Of course, I hope that you are right.
I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean that you enjoy being abused for liking television? I realize that some intellectual types think watching television is a more shameful vice than Christian parents beating their kids bloody, simply because they hate anyone who doesn't live in a metrosexual district. You want to beat yourself like an albino monk for the sin of liking "Will and Grace," well, good for you.
Or do you mean that Havrilesky is only good when she spews contempt on TV viewers? This is pretty standard stuff in the "free newspaper" reviewer gigs, where critics pretend to be superior to the popular media they review by showing how sparklingly witty they can be in their vitriol dispensing. It doesn't help the medium improve, and it gets boring after a while, but I suppose it helps the critics feel sophisticated.
In the past, Havrilesky has qualified for mulitple Rex Reed Medallions for Cynical Critic Posturing. Recently, she's actually shown signs that she might realize there are real human souls who like television, not all of them are people too declassee to plunge her gold-plated toilet, and that there in fact may be some virtue to the popular culture she's supposed to review. I realize this new attitude will ruin her reputation in the cappucino districts, even if it does make her a better writer. That's why I suspected she may yet revert to type, to gain the approval of the cafe crowd. I would mourn that day; it would mean she'd rather be chic than honest.