email@example.com, "Brian Thornton"
> Here we go again.
> We've *done* this argument, in excruciating detail. And recently,
> 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-
That's not the point at all. The article makes what I
consider a coherent and valid argument that movie was made
very much in the spirit of the book, and this was both an
argument and background information about what Chandler was
going through when he wrote The Long Goodbye that was not
discussed previously. My suggestion, regardless of your
thoughts on the movie, read the article. I have no intention
of repeating all the rhetoric from before, but I personally
found the article interesting, and definitely provided a
different spin on things.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 15 Apr 2007 EDT