Short Cranks Exemption

[David Nevin Friedman]

Hmmmm...I guess I misjudged you Greg.  My apologies.  Actually, I do tend 
to feel the same way about today's current Hollywood situation that you 
do...and people are always asking me to justify why I think Arnold 
Schwarzzenegger is an idiot...so I'm naturally interested in other 
people's averse reaction to popular movies.  And I do understand the 
distinction between film and movie...it's the difference between, say, 
Thomas Pynchon and William Faulkner (literature) and Tom Clancy and John 
Grisham (pop fiction--and I use 'fiction' looseley).

David Friedman
namdeirf at gwis2.circ.gwu.edu

Ignorance breeds complicity.

On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, Greg Montalbano wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Jul 1996 15:09:32 -0400 (EDT) you said:
> >Shawshank Redemption is merely a MOVIE, not a FILM?  Where did this come
> >from.  Shawshank Redemption is definitely not just a MOVIE.  It is an
> >artistically done film depicting the struggle of one person as indicative
> >of that of humanity as a whole.  This, it seems, is a common trait ALL
> >art has.  Or do you have other requisites for something being art?  And,
> >as far as Tim Robbins is concerned, your trite comments are unwarranted:
> >Tim Robbins directed Dead Man Walking.  Are you going to tell me that was
> >merely a MOVIE and not a FILM?
> >
> >Art critics have every right to be arrogant, as a lot of crap is put out
> >there, but just because something veers away from the traditional 'aura'
> >of good art (as I suspect you seem to think of Shawshank Redepmtion) does
> >not mean it is bad art.  Artists from Shakespeare to the Velvet
> >Underground have been labeled 'bad artists' according to the prevailing
> >opinions of the time; each came into their own, so to speak, however.
> >
> >(I know it seems bizarre to mention Shakespeare and the Velvet
> >Underground in the same sentence: I am just trying to convey the breadth
> >of artistic categories that have been ridiculed by those claiming to have
> >an objective 'truth' on what art, beauty, et., is.)
> >
> >David Friedman
> >namdeirf at gwis2.circ.gwu.edu
> >
> >Ignorance breeds complicity.
> >
> >On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, Greg Montalbano wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe we should keep in mind the fact that this is a MOVIE (as opposed
> >> to a FILM) --- and speaking of Tim Robbins, I think his movie THE PLAYER
> >> told us everything we needed to know about how movies develop & mutate
> >> in this country, and what moviemakers believe American audiences expect
> >> ("Yeah, it's like BIRDMAN OF ALCATRAZ meets 20,000 YEARS IN SING-SING...
> >> but funny!  Yeah, and with a happy ending!  Maybe we can get Julia
> >Roberts...")
> >>
> >
> Where did it come from?  A combination of arrogance, snottiness and a
> genuine distaste for the way movies (in the last 5 or 10 years) have
> gone for formulaic emotional MANIPULATION of their audiences.  I will
> admit that my judgement was extreme in this particular case;  I simply
> used it as an opportunity to blow off some steam at what I consider to
> be the sorry state of current movie-making -- and a chance to cite
> some vitriol from THE PLAYER.  (mea culpa, mea culpa, mea freakin' culpa).
> FILM vs MOVIE is from a private language used between me & a friend, who,
> about 20 years ago, began introducing me to Japanese, Eastern Euopean and
> no-name American "films" (imagine my suprise, having been raised on John
> Wayne & Walt Disney!) -- perhaps I've become (in my old age) a bit too
> knee-jerk in my reaction to A-merkin movies.
> And maybe I haven't.
> Oh, and I DON'T think it bizaare to mention Shaxpr & Velvet Underground in
> the same sentence -- works for me.
>