Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
GW in Ohio
Published Letters: 198 Editor's Choice: 2
Camille sez: Aside from Francis Ford Coppola's "Godfather" series, with its deft flashbacks and gritty social realism, is there a single film produced over the past 35 years that is arguably of equal philosophical weight or virtuosity of execution to Bergman's "The Seventh Seal" or "Persona"?
Camille: Could it be you're stuck in an artsy-snobby time warp in which only films from the past by foreign directors with subtitles and oppressively heavy philosophical implications can be considered classics?
I'll give you two films from the 1990s that rightfully belong in the "classic" category:
A League of Their Own (1992). This film, about the pioneering women's professional baseball league that flourished during World War II, is full of history and social relevance, not to mention a great story and a superb performance by Tom Hanks (as a drunken ex-major leaguer). Geena Davis, Rosie O'Donnell and Madonna round out the roster and there's a great cameo performance by Jon Lovitz as a cynical, wisecracking baseball scout. Who said socially relevant films can't be fun? Penny Marshall was the director.
Groundhog Day (1993). You want heavy philosophical implications? How about a film about a world-weary TV weatherman who must live the same day of his life over and over, and over....until he gets it, not just "right," but perfect? Bill Murray is perfect as the smartass weatherman, Phil Connors. Andie MacDowell pairs up with Murray in one of the most touching love stories ever on film. Harold Ramis directed.
I would add a third film in the "classic" category, but I don't know if you're ready to appreciate the subtle nuances of Rodney Dangerfield's "Caddyshack."
I've always considered Camille Paglia to be one of the most engaging observers of the contemporary scene. I find her writing and insights fresh, witty, and informed.
But when I start reading the comments about her columns by Salon readers....well, I'm just appalled. You people are brutal. You show no mercy and you take no prisoners.
Geez, lighten up a little, folks. Camille is nowhere near as bad as some of you believe.
In any case, please add my one, lonely vote in favor of Camille. I look forward to her column every month and I appreciate her willingness to engage reader responses in her columns.
Some sample responses from Salon readers:
Publishing her without at least a laughtrack or tiny 'total egotist shit sandwich' icon/ pointers alongside is simply offensive. –oceans2007
Next time you let Camille just dump her inbox onto your sight could you give her a word limit?
I ask because its kinda fun to watch her disassemble every month into her nested loop of tired themes (like which has-been actress she’s twiterpating over this week, the dazzling genius of Rush Limbaugh, etc.) but it’s just too damn long when you give her eight pages!
I’m not asking you to give her the axe, just limit her to three or four paragraphs so we can get a chuckle in before moving on to serious writers like Greenwald and Kamiya. –Chad Bagley
Stop... just make her stop. Starts to read like some cheesy effect from an old Dr. Who episode. While sometimes fun to watch... we've all moved on... and she should too... –slancio103
Christ this is bad writing. Again, why is this twit getting a paycheck when you could probably hire Digby? We like various voices, but they must be intelligent. Greenwald was a smart hire. Now give us Digby or somebody comparable and lose Camille. --gttim
Camille: Good analysis of the Iraq debacle and the post-9/11 behavior of Christine Whitman. You're absolutely right that the Bush administration, mired in mediocrity and incompetence as it is, drags down everyone associated with it, including otherwise competent people like Whitman.
One paragraph you wrote is sure to bring down the wrath of our liberal colleagues, but I nevertheless agree with you that the actions of the Bush administration in safeguarding us from terrorist attack at the expense of some of our personal liberties is one of the few things it's done right.
You wrote: "The Bush administration assures us that, thanks to its invisible hand, we are far safer than we would have been with a bleeding-heart Democrat at the helm. I suspect this is true: The lack of scruple about constitutional guarantees that has been openly flaunted by Vice President Dick Cheney might well have nipped nascent conspiracies in the bud -- though at the price of the massive surveillance and targeting of innocent citizens."
Why don't you all just quit your bitching about Hillary?
So she's not the perfect Democrat (both Obama and Edwards seem to be preferred by rank-and-file Democrats and by independents who've come over because of the incompetence of Bush).
If she does become the Democrat nominee she'll still be way better than anyone the hapless Republicans can throw up there. Can you picture a Giuliani administration? A Romney presidency? Neither can I.
We've endured 7 years of the Bush administration...7 years of the most incompetent leadership the United States has ever known. At least with a Hillary presidency we'll have a chief executive who is both competent and intelligent.
If we can't have Obama (who seems to be a largely unknown, untested entity) or Edwards, we'll be just fine with Hillary.
So sit down and shut up.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
