Robert Naiman <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't know what it means to say that it's "bad as a documentary." > It's trying to get a story out about Latin America that is not widely > available in the US. At the moment, unfortunately, it's in a class by > itself so far in that regard, as far as a movie you have a chance of > seeing in a commercial theater.
obviously, the word should be gotten out. I thought it was clear that she was referring to its form, not its content, with her point of view being that of judging the quality of the craft. She thought the content was interesting. > Whatever your sister-in-law may think of it, it's not attributable to > a feature film director making his first documentary; Stone has made > several, going back many years; they have not been widely seen in the > U.S. I may have read more into what she said than she would have done (about his attitude as a maker of . Her problem was with the form, which was slip-shod (with stuff like white subtitles on a white background). Maybe to us civilians (non-documentary-makers) "a raffish, easy-going style" is a good thing, as Louis suggests,but if you can't read the subtitles.... I haven't seen the film yet, so I can't really comment. I just report 'em as I hear 'em. (speak about "raffish & easy-going"!). -- Jim Devine "All science would be superfluous if the form of appearance of things directly coincided with their essence." -- KM _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
