Letters to the Editor
-
Draft Dodgers Are Now The New American Heroes.
I was happy to see a reference in this article concerning the post-World War 2 film "The Best Years of Our Lives" which mentioned Harold Russell's role in that movie. Russell lost both hands while conducting a training course in the use of grenades when one accidentally exploded. No American did not denigrate him because the accident happened at home rather than in a war zone. Compare this to Anne Coulter's disparaging triple-amputee Senator Max Cleland's loss of three limbs during the Vietnam War. Cleland had already been awarded numerous medals for heroism and this tragic injury was the result of him accidently picking up a loaded grenade while serving IN VIETNAM NOT IN WYOMING OR TEXAS. Wee shall see if McCain will be able to use his own status of heroism successfully to get elected. Cleland failed to do so after losing to a man who was deferred because of a high school football injury. Maybe those of us still alive who served in World War 2 should finally realize how much our country has changed since then. Today it seems the most admired people are those who AVOIDED serving in our wars as witness many are now our leaders exhorting us to support their foreign wars. Steve, WW2
-
"Excessive Competence" ??
I used to enjoy your criticism. Lately, however, it seems to have devolved into belaboured and arbitrary contraianism that is a disservice to you as a writer and critic and we the readers. Your arguments come off as thinly reasoned exercises in pouting in the corner. For instance, Daniel Day-Lewis is such a great actor that he's no longer any good? Seriously? Moreover, your poo-pooing of "No Country for Old Men" tells me that perhaps you don't know how to read cinema very well.
I would say that like most other film critics (from whom you clearly take such great pains to distinguish yourself) you suffer from excessive structuralist competence. Yet what is that long lost piece of cinema against which all others are judged?
I've seen people slam you in these threads before, being, often times, quite nasty. I don't want to go there, as you have compiled a large archive of respectable, sometimes excellent, film criticism. The word archive is key, however: I think your best work may be behind you in the realm of film criticism, as you seem to have little left to contribute except hissing from the back row.
-
What?
Not one word about Joseph Gordon-Levitt? One of the best actors of his age?
Man.
-
what's wrong with you people?
If you really think that the review is that bad, send a private email to the editorial staff for the website. Don't form some insulting diatribe and post it in the comments section of a review. It's like yelling very loudly in a restaurant about what a complete screw-up your waiter was and how they must be a complete idiot because everybody knows that you don't bring steak sauce to the table cold. You look like a jackass. You don't act like that in polite company. If you have a genuine issue that you don't think the waiter can fix when you politely address them about it, then you talk to the manager.
Believe it or not, most of us don't really care what your opinion of the author's talents are. We're commenting because we want to agree/disagree with the review's take on the movie, not discuss the inherent value of the author herself.
-
1000 Apologies
Willidigital,
I don't know if you were writing to me, but if so, I do so humbly apologize for offending your sophisticated sensibilities. My disagreement with the recent thrust of the critic's body of work was ungentemanly. This, I now understand, is no way to behave in polite society.
In the future, I will restrain myself and, other than sending letters to the editor (which, as we know, are all read, thoughtfully considered and acted upon), I will take your advice to heart, shut up, and eat whatever crap your "chef" sends to my table. I know now that's what's truly important is not to make a scene.
P.S. There is nothing wrong with me or anyone else who calls b.s. on shallow, uninformative criticism.
-
A Criticism of Criticisms About Critics of Critics.
I, for one, like reading letters like AchillesisCrying's-- why shouldn't readers get to regularly review the critics on Salon if they'd like? Sometimes the readers comment are far more interesting and entertaining than the articles themselves (it seems to be the sole explainable reason for Camille Paglia's continued presence on Salon, as the hostile letter pages in response to her articles tend to be fun, imaginative, and witty in a way that Paglia hasn't been for at least a decade and a half).
And as to the suggestion that readers should comment only on the film and not the critic in the letters section, it's not like Stephanie Zacharek avoids reviewing the person over the work whenever she please. Heck, this is the writer who recently offered us a long diatribe out of nowhere about the actor Daniel Day Lewis in addition to her previous review of There Will Be Blood; that sure as heck wasn't any singular film review, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander, if you ask me. Besides Salon's critics presumably get a paycheck for what they write, but folks like AchillesisCrying do it for free, so bully for them.
-
@Klooster
You're right about some things, wrong about others. You're right that everyone signs an eight-year contract upon first enlistment, and that they can be called back at any time during that period. But that's not all stop-loss encompasses; under stop-loss, the service can keep personnel from ETS'ing even after the eight-year period is up.
And you're right that back-to-back combat tours seriously degrade effectiveness. But it doesn't keep the Pentagon from doing exactly that to its people.
I have two very good friends who were sent on back-to-back tours, one who doubled up in Afghanistan, another in Iraq. The first one went back for her second tour with pieces of shrapnel already embedded in her kidney. In the second one's case, he was also stop-lossed even though he'd already put twelve years in. He was one of the most dedicated soldiers I've ever known, someone who loved the Army with all his heart and soul and had never wanted to be anything but a career soldier. Now he's so disgusted with the way he and everybody he serves with have been treated that he just wants to get the hell out.
And they're finally letting him out ... after using him up, leaving him with a host of combat-related medical conditions, and threatening him that if he doesn't keep jumping through hoops right up until his ETS date, he won't be eligible for any VA medical care or service-connected disability. Fortunately for him, he's smart enough that he knew what to do -- he found a friendly Congressman who would take him on as a pet project, and apparently enough threatening phone calls were made that now he's in the clear and getting the benefits he deserves.
So that's at least two good, dedicated soldiers who loved their country and their service who have been used by the Pentagon in ways that you claim don't happen. What you describe is the way things are supposed to work. What I'm describing (and what the film describes, to tie this back to the subject at hand) is the way things actually are.