--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], 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.
Of course they aren't "critical opinion." > As for the film itself, as an exercise in fair- > ness and "intellectual honesty," or maybe just > to see whether her *obvious* "critical opinion" Obviously *not* "critical opinion." > (not to mention slander of Mel Gibson and his > film Not slander, either. *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. And a substantial number of scholars who know something about Maya history agree with the person I quoted. See the compendium of quotes from these scholars that I posted awhile back. Several of them (including the Salon writer), by the way, *did* express "critical opinion" of the film. These opinions were uniformly positive, praising Gibson's great skill and artistry as a filmmaker. Judy's still never > seen the film, and is even claiming that she has > "never expressed a critical opinion about it." Right, I never have. > Go figure, eh? I guess *this* is her definition > of the "intellectual honesty" that she accuses > so many of us of *not* having. What's intellectually dishonest is to claim I was expressing "critical opinion" of the film. > At least I saw "Inland Empire." *After* you had proclaimed it to be "stupid" (and then deleted the post). 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. The only way I wouldn't be "right" is if the various scholars who have pointed out the film's historical inaccuracies were lying about them. > Interesting, eh? More than you suspect.
