Re: RARA-AVIS: Moral or Immoral?

From: Channing (
Date: 24 Feb 2007

Except that Doug didn't "trash" Altman and TLG.

He suggested that the movie was a revisionist take on the book. Which it is.

> I don't like Altman and have
> >never seen the movie, but I understand it to be a
> >revisionist take on the Chandler character, no?

Then Doug attacks REVISIONISM and only by inference Altman or the movie--

> >Revisionism is a lazy man's crutch for insight:
> >pointing out that Marlowe, or characters like him, are
> >romantic idealized figures that could never exist in a
> >"heroic way", anyway, in reality seems to me, again,
> >to miss the point.
> >
> >doug

Whoa! He really trashed Altman there. (NOTE THE SERIOUS SARCASM) Altman might have missed the point. Ouch

I've never seen SAW III but I can suggest that it's a horrible movie based on the majority of film critics across America who've said so. Paid professionals who have watched a lot of movies. I don't need to have seen every single movie or read every single book to comment on it. That's futile. "I'm sorry I can't continue this argument because I haven't read X book. Give me two weeks and I'll get back to this discussion."

Oh, and I will go on record as saying that Altman missed the point on The Long Goodbye. Ooh, scandalous. He also missed the point on Popeye, OC and Stiggs, Dr. T and His Women, Cookie's Fortune and even, gasp, Gosford Park, where he made a whodunnit where the murder victim isn't even killed until halfway into the movie and the mystery is unsolveable by the viewer. I don't care how many awards that won, it's a bad movie. I've SEEN all those movies, by the way.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 24 Feb 2007 EST