Letters to the Editor
-
I would tend to disagree
I just saw the film and performance in question. Both were very interesting to me. Day-Lewis is powerful and enigmatic in a role that requires him to be just that. I had no trouble at all understanding Plainview. This was accomplished in his performance, plus there are at least three or four lines of dialogue in which he clearly states all you need to know about who he is. Almost all other dialogue he speaks are the things he feels are required of him if he is to function in a world of humans who don't interest him very much. I found the movie fascinating.
This article... not so much. After a couple of paragraphs, I was skimming. It seemed kind of desperate to make a case that I feel was unsupported by what I saw in the film. For Stephanie to write things like "But if the performance fails -- and this one does..." Wow. I thought his performance was very successful. Guess I was wrong, because Stephanie apparently has objective proof that here opinion is the correct one.
It's like, the other day I got an email from a professional writer who said, "Yeah, it's amazing how some writers mistake their opinion as being unassailable truth." That's about the clearest summation of the facts that I can think of.
In a few days, DDL will pick up another acting award. How awesome that only Stephanie will have been able to look at the performance through the eyes of true clarity. Only Stephanie.
Her reviews are often controversial on Salon, and in the past I have sometimes defended her, not because I think she is right, but because her job is not to bolster a commonly held opinion. However, sometimes, as in the case of this article, she does cross into the realm of the insufferably pompous. As someone up-thread asked, "Who is this WE" you keep talking about?"
-
Shut up shut up shut up!
Shut up!
I didn't know Salon hired reviewers who are totally goofed on skunk weed.
-
maybe next time PTA
Stephanie was far too generous to this "performance". I didn't buy it for a minute. The ending, in particular, capped by yet another over-the-top DDL tizzy, was ludicrous. Possibly enjoyed as high camp but don't plan on seeing it again to find out.
-
Talk about a Performance!
This sentence kind of says it all about this self-satisfied (self-satisfying?) review.
"The character's self-loathing comes off, paradoxically and unintentionally, as a manifestation of an actor's self-love."
Nice sounding but it doesn't say anything.
-
Stephanie Wassername
Just likes to get attention by swimming against the tide
It's a boring schtick and so, so obvious
-
Zacharek? Too mediocre to be good
As it happens, Stephanie, you may have the imprimatur of Salon to review films, but let's not get carried away with our own hubris.
The beauty of movie-making, and viewing, is that it's very much a personal experience.
What you're really saying is that everyone should perceive the movie and the performances the way you did, or that the film-makers should have made it the way you would have....or that the actors should have nuanced it the way you would have, if you could act, that is.
Fine, you have an opinion and I assume you're paid to print it;
but if it's all the same to you, I'll try to get what the creators are trying to convey, and form my own opinion.
In the meanwhile, something to consider: Perhaps you're too taken with YOURSELF?
-
My only question is, What's the point of this article?
The reason I was so poinent earlier is the "why". I always think in the "why" aspect. What is the purpose of this article?
To get people to not see the movie? Why on earth would a movie critic write two pieces on why someone should NOT see a movie. Normally "critics" write multiple pieces on something they like.
So to write with such venom TWICE, their must be a reason. Why would this "critic" was her time and credibility writing two hit pieces? Think on that.
It must be important. Was it worth your credibility Mrs Zacharek? How many people do you think were turned away, as opposed to how many WILL see the movie as a result of the passion on this message board? Whatever your reasons, your goal has backfired in this same case.
Isn't the internet great? :)
-
Rufus, because she's a movie critic
Her job is to critically examine movies. With the Oscars coming and DDL a favored nominee, the critique is timely.
Would it have made a difference if Ms. Zacharek had written an article on why DDL deserved to win?
Whether or not your or I agree with her, at least the article was a thoughtful essay on DDL's acting. What I don't get is all the vitriol in these letter pages (not accusing you, dude, but in general). It's not like Ms. Zacharek insulted everyone who like DDL; she just gave her reasons why she thought his portrayal was problematic.
Anyway, I'm rooting for Viggo Mortensen. I think DDL is a great actor, but while I was watching "Eastern Promises" I never paused to ponder the effort Mortensen was making to convince us of his portrayal. To me at least, that is a sign of a good acting.
-
response
"Would it have made a difference if Ms. Zacharek had written an article on why DDL deserved to win?"
Of course. :)
I went after this lady the first review. And I hadn't even seen the movie yet. Read it.
http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2007/12/26/blood/
Having never seen the movie, but knowing the work of this great actor, I still could speak out against this. Not know what the movie is about or having seen it, I still can rebute this bile. A hit piece. The same as we see in politics. But why.
Maybe I am a glass is half-full guy. Maybe I choose to look at the positives, in movies and in life. I'm not for mrs Zacharek to not be able to voice her opinion. Voice it by all means. But their are risks and rewards to propoganda such as this. The reward is hits( maybe if she hates the movie due to political or some other rationale, people will be turned off due to a negative review). But what is the risk of propogating for profit? There is a risk. That risk is credibility. She cannot have the reward without facing the chance of risk.
For people here to think the writers and blindly propogate and get hits (reward), but don't have to lose credibility, they are sorely mistaken.
So salon has two choices, as shown by the posts here.
1. Post their gossip and heresay and pretend it's news or a report or an article. Bring in their own propogandists to say how they think it is a good article and how everyone else in the world blogging is wrong. How their opinion is gold and reality has no place. Hope the leval of hits and money they make, makes up for all their lost credibility
Or.
2. they can write real articles. Stop the gossip. Stop trying to heard sheep. Let people make up their own mind.
If she hated the movie, great. If it's boring. If she doesn't like the actor. these are all good reasons to not like a movie and give an unfavorable review. She must face the consequnces but it is fine.
But this and the one previous are what is called HIT PIECES. It's intended to sink a film. Did you hear the whisper campaign regarding "The Golden Compass"? "It's a devil worshipping movie. Don't take you rkids to see it". What about rendition or "lions and lambs" and so on?
the gop (clinton's propogandists included) are fighting this verbal battle, and war of ideas everywhere. That is fine. That is their right as americans. But WE still have free speech. WE can still call the propogandists on their propoganda.
CREDIBILITY. REmember when a journalists life goal was credibility? And the motto was, "Do not become the story"? Good ideas. how did we get to here with liars and propogandists for profit? MONEY? LAZINESS? Fear?
Whatever the reasons, the propogandists have risks and rewards to their actions. No amount of jones effect, or bringing in freinds for balance will remove these people's need and responsiblity to face the risk. They can't blindly propogate without facing teh risk of losing credibility (ie their jobs)
I can be a newsman. If I say the sky is red I may lose credibility? I should not blame and attack others for trying to bring me to reality. that is the makings if an insane person (a crazy person who surronds themselves with other crazy people to hide the fact they are in fact crazy.)
Got me?
Write the bogus article (like walsh) but face the consequnces