Re: RARA-AVIS: Re: NY Times article on Altman's Long Goodbye

From: Brian Thornton (
Date: 15 Apr 2007

Here we go again.

We've *done* this argument, in excruciating detail. And recently, too.

While I happen to agree with Doherty on this topic (now if it were a discussion of the relative merits of Mickey Spillane, we'd be at odds again!), and don't care for the film (even a little), I respect the assertions of the others on this list that it's an "important" film, and so on, and so forth. It's not the first "important" film that I don't either care for or get, and I'm also sure that it won't be the last.

We all know Jim's capacity for tenacity and his spirited defenses of his opinions past the point of most peoples' endurance. If only personal tastes were dictated by the willingness to defend your positions, Jim, *you* would be the final arbiter of taste.

And Dave has obviously also made his opinion on the film known (also over and over again, and recently, too), and never the twain shall meet.

Are we going to kick this one around again so soon, just because someone at the New York Times (surprise, surprise) thinks it's a valuable film?

Just a thought-


  ----- Original Message -----
  From: jimdohertyjr
  Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 11:08 AM
  Subject: RARA-AVIS: Re: NY Times article on Altman's Long Goodbye


  Re your comment below:

> Bottom line: Altman got the spirit of the book right.

  Bottom line: It was the spirit of the book that he got MOST wrong.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 15 Apr 2007 EDT