Letters to the Editor
-
deering
re: Your letter.....
And you just know Anonymous 10:02's...
...idea of a "real life" is trundling his/her equally-ignorant brats around 'burb-land or gentrified city-space while training them to look down on anyone who is about more than empty grades and vacuous careers. Your friend is lucky you "left" him "behind"...
-- deering
I just want you to know that intellectual snobs like yourself are the reason I come back to Salon every day. Your self-absorbed condescension is so much more interesting than the troglodyte communications one sees on other websites.
Keep up the good work!
-
I would bet that
995 out of a thousand precious snowflakes extolling the greatest that is indie film have never seen one. But that's part of the charm, isn't it?
-
SAY WHAT?
For the first time in years there are actually 4 or 5 movies that I am looking forward to seeing that don't have a dang thing to do with The Rock, the Olsen Twins, or a host of other teenie bopper and/or so-called family fare crap films shown at the area's mulit-plexes - which charge an arm and a leg, by the way, for all that glorious sap called talent.
And I don't care if you call them indies or what. They are the kinds of movies that we all couldn't wait to come out, and gladly forked over the dollars to see the first week they came out. I'm lucky if I make the multiplex once a year anymore!
Stop sniveling, carping, and complaining. And yes, the Oscars are the awards show where Hollywood pats itself on the back. The same could be said of The Grammys, the media's version of awards, The Tonys, and all the rest. What's wrong with that? Hell, all you guys ever report on and cover anyway are Best Actor, Best Picture, Best Director, and what color of dress no-talent J-LO is wearing.
There was a time when Americans could watch, understand, and appreciate the fare that is now sadly referred to as indies. It's just too darn bad they have to be an exception to the rule, rather than the rule.
The multiplexes are for the families (corporate Mctoons), teenagers (Legally Blonde, Olsen Twins), and young adults who want to be tintillated to death with slash n gash gore, sleeze, predictable plots and story lines, and action scenes(car crashes and things blowing up).
-
dear, dear deering
leaving things behind like clothes that don't fit, a tasteless meal or a bad relationship is healthy and the mark of personal growth
only nostalgic elites pining for the good old daze of Janis Joplin and Jane Fonda yearn for those left behind.
lookforward and visit that lake or park. sitting on cum-stained theatre seats, hugging that 10 dollar bucket of organic popcorn while waiting for the film to start is NOT to everyone's liking and do remember to bring more Kleenex next time --- you ASS.
-
Dear RunRun23:
Actually, many years ago someone (presumably jokingly) suggested that the only way to really determine who was the "best actor" of the year would have been to make all of the nominees stand up on the Oscar stage and recite the soliloquy from "Hamlet," then tally the votes.
Hmmm..."Oscar Idol"...
-
On Michael Medved
I wonder if there's a computer guru out there who could answer a question.
I wonder how Medved's income has been effected since he became the voice of the morally challenged. When I see him stammering away to take the culture back in time, I can't help wonder how much of it was because he saw the opportunity for wider distribution of his wares.
The best you get from Democratic anarchistic armchair critics is an argument over film, but with the moralists you get readers and rewards. In case you haven't noticed, that's who runs the really big show--with no end in sight.
Think of all the newspapers in Kansas and bible colleges clammoring for affirmation. It's an old formula for pols and pundits (Andrew Sullivan comes to mind) so why not for film critics? Who says they have to live in the bowels of the East Village if they say the right things?
Another of my favorties is Mr. Morgenstern (I hope that's the right spelling) at the Wall Street Journal. He's the opposite--a tits and ass man pretending to be a film critic. If he's still there, I'll bet he gets along just fine with Rupert.
Behave children, behave.
-
I think I can! I think I can!
Another interesting phenomenon; tangential to the actual Oscar race, is the rise of the so-called "little indie that could". This goes back to at least 2004 when "Sideways" became a hit with a certain critical mass of moviegoers (and Merlot haters). Since then, we've had "Crash", "Little Miss Sunshine", and "Juno" assume the same mantle. This is always billed as a surprise marriage between the little-known indie and the blockbuster-weary public. But is this phenomenon really so serendipitous?
All of these films are born on the film festival circuit, and you can bet that the studios have their fingers to the wind at those initial screenings in Telluride and Toronto. When, and only when, a "Sideways" or "Juno" generates a certain amount of street buzz, the studio bidding machines come out in full force. As such, these festivals allow studios to test market before they actually invest a single $.01 on the films themselves. Furthermore, when it comes time to release these films in the theatres, there's a pretty high probability that they'll become "sleeper" hits. Of course, this approach will occasionally backfire. The Iraq war-themed drama "Grace is Gone" was a huge audience hit at last year's Sundance Festival, and was the beneficiary of an intense bidding war, but it failed to catch on with critics and ultimately became a box office dud. Still, when you consider the economics, it makes overwhelming sense for studios to go shopping for indies rather than try to make these films on their own.
On an entirely different note, what in tarnation is a $5000 "mumblecore" film? Could it finally be that Andrew Bujalski is getting some love from the mainstream press?
-
And to think that once upon a time Medved was actually good!
During the 70s and 80s Michael Medved, along with his brother and other collaborators, wrote some very funny books of movie criticism, starting with "The 50 Worst Movies of All Time and How They Got That Way" or something to that effect. No political posturing, no plugs for Viagra or investment schemes, just pointed, pungent and slightly snarky analyses of famous artistic and/or financial "golden turkeys."
But somewhere along the way, Big Mike decided that it was not enough to simply review films; he believed that the world was waiting to hear his political punditry as well, and if he could combine both ("Hollywood vs. America") so much the better.
Sort of sad, really.