«

Grand Inquisitor wrote:
> What's your point?

Well, I'll give you a hint: you've just made my point, at some length and
*far* better than I could have done. Thanks.

doug

--
"...like a kind of spider half inclined to free you..."
--Robyn Hitchcock

says...

> jayembee wrote:
>
>> In other words, you're ****ed off because they're wasting
>> precious resources on films you don't happen to like.
>
> I just wish they would stick to good movies rather than
> politically-motivated choices.

So, what are you saying? That a given movie can't be *both*
good and politcally minded? And I'm willing to bet that your
objection to the Altman films isn't that they are politically
minded, per se; it's probably because their political viewpoint
is different from yours. You probably wouldn't mind at all if
they released politically minded films that advanced a political
viewpoint you agreed with.

Which goes back to what I said before: you're ****ed off because
they're wasting precious resources on films you don't happen to
like.

> Nobody in their right mind (key phrase there) actuallys likes
> all that Warhol crap, or I Am Curious Yellow, etc.

Excuse me? Has your taste in movies now become the universally
accepted benchmark for deciding what fits a "right mind" and
what doesn't?

Personally, I don't care for the Warhol/Morrissey films. I'd
even go so far as to say they are the worst films in the
Criterion Collection. But I respect the fact that there are
people of reasonable taste and intelligence who *do* like them.

As for the I AM CURIOUS... films, back in my days at DEC, I was
an acquaintance of the man who was the co-translator of those
films, the late Martin Minow. He was an exceptionally intelligent
individual, and a wonderful human being. I know very few people
who would better fit the description of "in his right mind" than
Martin.

>> I respect Criterion's choices, even when I don't like them
>> Apparently, you can't do the same.
>
> Tell me, do you respect The Rock; Armageddon; Robocop; Bodies,
> Rest, and Motion; and Chasing Amy?

I still haven't seen BODIES, REST AND MOTION, so I can't say.

I loathe ARMAGEDDON.

I'm not wild about ROBOCOP, but when I read discussions about
it on the net, it's obvious that I'm in the minority.

THE ROCK is not a film I overly enjoy, but I don't think it's
nearly as bad as most people think it is.

CHASING AMY I absolutely *love*.

But all this is beside the point. I still respect Criterion's
choice to do those films, even if I don't like them. Because
I'm flexible enough to understand that other people have
opinions that differ from mine, but are perfectly valid
nonetheless.

I respect Criterion enough that I'm willing (indeed, have
been for the last 15 years) to buy any of their titles
"blind", because I've enjoyed dozens of excellent films
that I might never have bothered to pick up if not for the
simple fact that they were from Criterion. They may not
bat a thousand, but they're close enough (in my book) that
it's not worth quibbling about the difference.

-- jayembee

P.S. Besides, you don't like SINGIN' IN THE RAIN, so we
all know for a fact that your opinions on what constitutes
a good movie are extremely suspect.

says...

> Douglas Bailey wrote:
>
>> For that matter, what makes you so certain that _Secret Honor_
>> and _Tanner '88_ are being released for political reasons,
>> rather than for aesthetic or economic ones?
>
> Because they're crap, they're forgettable movies from an over-rated
> director.

Just as I thought. Your mind is so closed that you cannot fathom how
anyone could simply have a different, yet valid opinion than yours.
If they like something you don't, there *must* be some reason other
than mere personal taste.

>> And even if they are, since when are "good movies" and
>> "politically-motivated choices" mutually exclusive? _The Battle of
>> Algiers_, another upcoming Criterion release which centres on conflict
>> between Western and Muslim cultures, has a 100% approval rating on
>> rottentomatoes.com and is widely recognised as a classic film. "Good movie"
>> or "politically-motivated choice"?
>
> Good movie. What's your point?

His point is that THE BATTLE OF ALGIERS is just as "politically
motivated" as either of the Altman works. The fact that you think
it's a good movie, and (presumably) worthy of the Criterion
treatment, but not the Altmans supports my earlier contention
that it's not because the Altmans are "politically motivated"
that annoys you, but that they offer a political viewpoint
you despise.

In other words, you're not critiquing them for their artistic value
but for their politics.

It's amazing. I know a lot of liberals can praise the artistic value
of films like BIRTH OF A NATION or TRIUMPH OF THE WILL while still
abhoring their social and political viewpoints. But wave a film
with a liberal viewpoint in front of a right winger, and he starts
frothing at the mouth like Pavlov's mutt.

-- jayembee

In article <bXhRc.131353$> (Sun, 08 Aug 2004
04:25:43 +0000), Grand Inquisitor wrote:

> Hamilcar Barca wrote:
>>>Another politically motivated choice from Criterion
>
> Typical liberal, anybody who disagrees is a NASCAR-loving yokel.

Typical idiot: Imagines and complains about politically motivated choice while
posting a religiously motivated signature ("genesis of life ... faith").

> Well if you want to have a snob-off

Thanks, but no thanks. I make it a point to avoid discussion with
the brain dead: "Nobody in their right mind (key phrase there) ...".

> I'll mention that my tastes lean towards

Nobody cares, I'm sure

>Because they're crap, they're forgettable movies from an over-rated
>director.

Robert Altman is easily the greatest living American filmmaker. I'd like to see
you make something as good as THE PLAYER or BREWSTER McCLOUD.

jayembee wrote:
> Just as I thought. Your mind is so closed that you cannot fathom how
> anyone could simply have a different, yet valid opinion than yours.
> If they like something you don't, there *must* be some reason other
> than mere personal taste.
>

Not at all. For instance, I don't care for Fanny and Alexander but I
could see somebody else really liking it, and I wouldn't hold that
opinion against them. I don't believe my opinion is kind and I don't
think that something is crap just because I don't like it. However,
this also doesn't exclude the possibility that something I dislike
actually is crap.

> In other words, you're not critiquing them for their artistic value
> but for their politics.
>

Actually, that's what you are doing. If I judged movies on their
politics I wouldn't like Grapes of Wrath, Star Trek, Modern Times, or
Birth of a Nation. However, you have let your political views lead to
you believe that movies like Tanner are good, you *want* to like it.

> It's amazing. I know a lot of liberals can praise the artistic value
> of films like BIRTH OF A NATION or TRIUMPH OF THE WILL while still
> abhoring their social and political viewpoints. But wave a film
> with a liberal viewpoint in front of a right winger, and he starts
> frothing at the mouth like Pavlov's mutt.

Complete and total lie. More often than not I find liberals unable to
enjoy a right-wing movie outside the accepted canon of classics (BTW,
are you inferring that Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will, movies
that espouse pacifism, socialism, and racialism?).

Plenty of left-wing critics denigrated Lean On Me, Stand and Deliver,
The Passion of the Christ, etc. for their politics alone.

--

"One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom,
a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural
causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith, has not
yet been written."

--Hubert P. Yockey, Journal of Theoretical Biology

Vlvetmorning98 wrote:
>>Because they're crap, they're forgettable movies from an over-rated
>>director.
>
>
> Robert Altman is easily the greatest living American filmmaker. I'd like to see
> you make something as good as THE PLAYER or BREWSTER McCLOUD.

Robert who? That's what film scholars will be saying a hundred years
from now.

--

"One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom,
a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural
causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith, has not
yet been written."

--Hubert P. Yockey, Journal of Theoretical Biology

jayembee wrote:
> So, what are you saying? That a given movie can't be *both*
> good and politcally minded?

Not at all. But given the low quality of these two movies (one a
hysterical tin-foil hat brigade conspiracy theory hit-piece on a rather
liberal Republican, the other a cynical socialist pseudo-documentary)
politics can be the only motivation here. You people want to believe
these are good movies and so you treat them that way. They aren't,
they're just political pieces that were rightly forgotten years ago.

> And I'm willing to bet that your
> objection to the Altman films isn't that they are politically
> minded, per se; it's probably because their political viewpoint
> is different from yours. You probably wouldn't mind at all if
> they released politically minded films that advanced a political
> viewpoint you agreed with.
>

Actually if they released treacle like We Were Soldiers or anti-hippie
pro-patriot sap like Forrest Gump I would mind. Notice that I don't
complain about their Eisenstein collection, movies by a Soviet
propagandist, because his movies are important historically. I watch
The Grapes of Wrath, Star Trek (the most communistic show in American
history), etc.

> Which goes back to what I said before: you're ****ed off because
> they're wasting precious resources on films you don't happen to
> like.
>

No, there are plenty of Criterion released movies I don't like and I
don't mind them being released either.

> Excuse me? Has your taste in movies now become the universally
> accepted benchmark for deciding what fits a "right mind" and
> what doesn't?
>

There's one word for avant-garde: fraud.

It's not art, end of discussion.

> Personally, I don't care for the Warhol/Morrissey films. I'd
> even go so far as to say they are the worst films in the
> Criterion Collection. But I respect the fact that there are
> people of reasonable taste and intelligence who *do* like them.
>

There are people of "reasonable taste and intelligence" who like to eat
poop. Doesn't make it okay.

> P.S. Besides, you don't like SINGIN' IN THE RAIN, so we
> all know for a fact that your opinions on what constitutes
> a good movie are extremely suspect.

Hypocrite.

--

"One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom,
a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural
causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith, has not
yet been written."

--Hubert P. Yockey, Journal of Theoretical Biology

Hamilcar Barca wrote:
>>Typical liberal, anybody who disagrees is a NASCAR-loving yokel.
>
>
> Typical idiot: Imagines and complains about politically motivated choice while
> posting a religiously motivated signature ("genesis of life ... faith").
>

Ad hominem attack. I actually dispelled your silly stereotype, all you
can do is make fun of my beliefs.

>>I'll mention that my tastes lean towards
>
>
> Nobody cares, I'm sure

Surely not you, because it shatters your ignorant (liberals are the most
ignorant people on the planet) preconceptions about me.

--

"One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom,
a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural
causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith, has not
yet been written."

--Hubert P. Yockey, Journal of Theoretical Biology

In article <ZiwRc.8775$> (Sun, 08 Aug 2004
20:46:49 +0000), Grand Inquisitor wrote:

> Hamilcar Barca wrote:
>>>Typical liberal, anybody who disagrees is a NASCAR-loving yokel.
>>
>> Typical idiot: Imagines and complains about politically motivated
>> choice while posting a religiously motivated signature ("genesis of
>> life ... faith").
>
> Ad hominem attack.

Yes, exactly. I responded to your ad hominem attack with another.

> I actually dispelled your silly stereotype, all you can do is make fun
> of my beliefs.

Okay. Politicians find it useful to label, with or without cause, as
"Liberal" those with whom they do not agree or as a simple insult. It's
only the most gullible and unintelligent among their followers who repeat
it blindly, much like a flock of parrots in the rain forest shriek in
unison when threatened.

> Surely not you, because it shatters your ignorant (liberals are the most
> ignorant people on the planet) preconceptions about me.

I have no preconceptions about you. You proclaimed your idiot politics
gratuitously. The most ignorant people on the planet are those who cannot
think for themselves and make unsubstantiated assertions when displeased.
In that vein, you failed to provide evidence that Criterion's motive is
political. Perhaps you'd like to rectify that situation now -- or perhaps
you're ignorant of Criterion's plan.