--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > By the way, have you seen Apocalypto yet? :-) > > > > > > Not interested. > > > > > > Have you seen Lynch's latest movie yet? You know, > > > the one you said was "stupid" before you'd seen > > > it (and then deleted the post)? > > > > As a matter of fact, yes. They showed it here in > > France on satellite because Lynch was one of the > > guests at the recent Cannes festival. Didn't like > > it much, but it *was* much better than his entry > > for the "Chacun son cinema" compilation, which was > > so odd that it appears to have been deleted from > > the distribution copy of the film. > > > > Have *you* seen the film yet, or is your relation- > > ship with it...uh...similar to your relationship > > with enlightenment, too? :-) > > Nope, but I've never expressed a critical > opinion about it, either (just as I have not > done so with either "The Sopranos" or > "Apocalypto," you see).
>From FFL Message #126122, which was mainly a repost of someone else's ideas from Salon.com, but which contained the following lines, *all* written by Judy Stein, who has *still* never seen the film. The subject line was Judy's, the text in brackets in the second paragraph was Judy's, and the full concluding paragraph was Judy's. I'm sure she doesn't consider any of them "critical opinion," but I'm not sure how many people would agree with her. As for the film itself, as an exercise in fair- ness and "intellectual honesty," or maybe just to see whether her *obvious* "critical opinion" (not to mention slander of Mel Gibson and his film *that she never saw) was warrented, see above. Judy's "Not interested." Subject: Mel Gibson, Christian bigot ...If there were ever an apocalypse in the history of the Maya -- and herein lies the ultimate demoralizing irony of the movie -- it would be because of European contact. But in the movie, after two hours of excess, hyperbole and hysteria, the Spaniards represent the arrival of sanity [i.e., Christianity--JS] to the Maya world. The tacit paternalism [and bigotry--JS] is devastating. To highlight what the writer tactfully leaves implicit, Gibson has slandered the Maya and mangled history for the purpose of exalting the purported superiority of Christianity. I saw Apocalypto, and feel that the author who wrote the article was WAY off-base, and had seen the film through his own "I'm a scholar and I don't get no respect and this pissant director is famous and more handsome than I am"-colored glasses, missing what was really onscreen. Several people on this forum who have seen the film agree with me. Judy's still never seen the film, and is even claiming that she has "never expressed a critical opinion about it." Go figure, eh? I guess *this* is her definition of the "intellectual honesty" that she accuses so many of us of *not* having. At least I saw "Inland Empire." I think it was stupid. That doesn't mean that everyone will think it was stupid. Many French critics liked it. Then again, the French like Jerry Lewis. But at least the French critics and I saw the films in question. Judy is so confident that she's "right" that doing that is unnecessary. Interesting, eh?
