--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > > http://www.laweekly.com/film+tv/film/dreamgirls-and-inland-empire-performance-art/ > 15200/ > > > > > > ...obviously done by sone who drinks kool-aide, eh? > > > > Either that or it's in the same vein as the following > > art review, contained in another film: > > Only two possibilities, eh?
My commentary was on YOU, not the review or the reviewer. I live in France. I am *used* to reviewers "seeing" some- thing profound in a film that is basically a mess and says nothing, for the primary purpose of trying to get readers to believe that the reviewer is intelligent and they are not. *That* is understandable, if a little pathetic. More pathetic is the person who says, essentially, "Look at this, all you stupid people...here is a review that says that this mess of a film by a TMer is brilliant. Therefore TM is a good thing and you are all stupid." *That* is why you posted this review. All in all, Steve Martin was more honest than you were about the nature of art and the ability to see pretty much anything in it that you want: > "I like the relationships. I mean, each character has his > own story. The puppy is a bit too much, but you have to > overlook things like that in these kinds of paintings. > The way he's *holding* her... it's almost... filthy. I > mean, he's about to kiss her and she's pulling away. The > way the leg's sort of smashed up against her... Phew... > Look how he's painted the blouse sort of translucent. > You can just make out her breasts underneath and it's sort > of touching him about here. It's really... pretty torrid, > don't you think? Then of course you have the onlookers > peeking at them from behind the doorway like they're all > shocked. They wish. Yeah, I must admit, when I see a > painting like this, I get emotionally... erect."
