tv version of the shining sucks
Name with No Man
obvious and stupid horror story and not so well acted by the
particulars. and that kid... i was hoping the ghosts would get him.
ugly, untalented, insufferable.
i hate kids.
Kennedy
is it?
--
"I cut my finger. That's tragedy. A man walks into an open sewer and dies.
That's comedy."
-Mel Brookes
"Name with No Man" <ritaka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1ae158c6.0207...@posting.google.com...
Ernest Fairchild
news:1ae158c6.0207...@posting.google.com...
GAAAK! What are you smoking! I don't want any. Kubrick's version
SUCKED.
> but what an
> obvious and stupid horror story and not so well acted by the
> particulars. and that kid... i was hoping the ghosts would get him.
> ugly, untalented, insufferable.
Well, you're weird.
> i hate kids.
Okay, make that insufferable. Go away.
Have a great day!
Ernest
_____________________
"We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin
Visit my website at http://www.public.asu.edu/~ernestf
Marin Vukovic
> > maybe i was too busy comparing it to kubrick's great film
>
> GAAAK! What are you smoking! I don't want any. Kubrick's version
> SUCKED.
Depends on how you look at it. If you're looking for a literal translation
of the book to the tv screen, then it wasn't good, but to say that Kubrick's
Shining sucks, that's a little too much. The movie itself is great and Jack
Nicholson produced a fantastic performance.
Marin
Ahmed Mahi Durgun
(twice on dvd, once on video)
As for Stephen Kings version. Bought that one too. They tried to make it as
close to the book, but when it
came to certain scenes (that Kubrick's the Shining 'copied' from the book)
they differed from the book. Was
very irritated by that, cause at that time I loved the book. Anywho
Stanley Kubrick's The Shining: Very high artistic value
Stephen Kings The Shining: Zero
King should've known better. Kubrick was the director and he was making His
movie.
King's probably satisfied with his own though.
"Do what you do best"
T Berk
It seemed like they couldn't let silence speak for itself. I mean they
couldn't let tension build, always had to keep things moving, hoping,
nervous like.
Other than scoping Moms I found I couldn't watch it.
TBerk
The Other Scott
> "Name with No Man" <ritaka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1ae158c6.0207...@posting.google.com...
> > maybe i was too busy comparing it to kubrick's great film
>
> GAAAK! What are you smoking! I don't want any. Kubrick's version
> SUCKED.
>
> > but what an
> > obvious and stupid horror story and not so well acted by the
> > particulars. and that kid... i was hoping the ghosts would get him.
> > ugly, untalented, insufferable.
>
> Well, you're weird.
>
> > i hate kids.
>
> Okay, make that insufferable. Go away.
Fish - Barrel - BANG!
Rita's just the torll Tony Gaza, dude.
-Scott
steve
On 23-Jul-2002, "Ernest Fairchild" <ern...@delphidude.com> wrote:
> > maybe i was too busy comparing it to kubrick's great film
>
> GAAAK! What are you smoking! I don't want any. Kubrick's version
> SUCKED.
I've heard this so many times, but I cant understand where it comes from.
The story itself isnt much, but Kubricks presentation and JNs acting are
both excellent. I'm picturing the image of JN dragging his injured leg
through the maze, backlit, breath clouding in the cold...and later his
frozen corpse in the cold light of day...or the horrific images like the
blood flood, or the axe through the chest...these are stunning. Love the
camera following danny around the hallways in typical Kubric fashion.
I never thought that film was great, but it's far more than respectible.
Ernest, why do you feel it "sucked"?
steve
--
"It aint me, man, it's the system."
Charles Manson
Rosenkrantz
Kubrick's version was a confusing, jumbled mess. Les look at the major
story problems:
1. The caretaker fellow drives all the way back from Florida, across
the country, thru the snow, only to get whacked in the chest with an
axe the second he walks in the door. In the book, he saved the mom &
son by driving them out in the plow. What the HELL was accomplished by
wasting screen time showing Scatman's (an excellent performnce btw) go
thru all this trouble only to die instantly. LAME!
2. The hedge maze: sure it LOOKED nice but all the kid had to do was
out run his old, alcoholic father? Piece of cake. Where was the
father's noble sacrifice as his pulls enough of his sanity together to
save his family and blow up the haunted hotel. The lack of emotional
courage in the film was pathetic.
In article <1ae158c6.0207...@posting.google.com>, Name with
Nimrod``
wrote:
>I'm sure others here will agree that, whiel visually stunning,
>Kubrick's version was a confusing, jumbled mess. Les look at the major
>story problems:
>
>1. The caretaker fellow drives all the way back from Florida, across
>the country, thru the snow, only to get whacked in the chest with an
>axe the second he walks in the door. In the book, he saved the mom &
>son by driving them out in the plow. What the HELL was accomplished by
>wasting screen time showing Scatman's (an excellent performnce btw) go
>thru all this trouble only to die instantly. LAME!
That's the joke, son. THE SHINING, like most of Kubrick's later work,
is black comedy. You didn't get it.
>
>2. The hedge maze: sure it LOOKED nice but all the kid had to do was
>out run his old, alcoholic father? Piece of cake. Where was the
>father's noble sacrifice as his pulls enough of his sanity together to
>save his family and blow up the haunted hotel. The lack of emotional
>courage in the film was pathetic.
Kubrick wasn't interested in that cliche...and I'm damn glad he
wasn't.
N``
Peter Tonguette
>I'm sure others here will agree that, whiel visually stunning,
>Kubrick's version was a confusing, jumbled mess. Les look at the major
>story problems:
>
>1. The caretaker fellow drives all the way back from Florida, across
>the country, thru the snow, only to get whacked in the chest with an
>axe the second he walks in the door. In the book, he saved the mom &
>son by driving them out in the plow. What the HELL was accomplished by
>wasting screen time showing Scatman's (an excellent performnce btw) go
>thru all this trouble only to die instantly. LAME!
This actually seemed like a pretty effective horror film device - building
suspense by removing all obstacles Jack has to killing his family. That we
expect Halloran to save them makes it >more< suspenseful. I didn't see any
problem, in terms of the story, with Wendy and Danny ultimately having to save
themselves.
>2. The hedge maze: sure it LOOKED nice but all the kid had to do was
>out run his old, alcoholic father? Piece of cake. Where was the
>father's noble sacrifice as his pulls enough of his sanity together to
>save his family and blow up the haunted hotel. The lack of emotional
>courage in the film was pathetic.
Let me ask you something. Which do you think is a more truthful ending
considering Jack's character and the bargain he's made with the Overlook - his
sudden noble sacrifice to save his family or his continuing spiral into
madness? You might also ask which is a more truthful depiction of human
nature.
Peter
Ernest Fairchild
news:ahjmsn$pui$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> Ernest, why do you feel it "sucked"?
Having gone round this Merry Go Round several times, I'm not sure, actually
;-). I just do.
Have a great day!
Ernest
_____________________
"Wouldn't it be funny if Elvis came back instead of Jesus?"
Ernest Fairchild
news:230720020930219196%rosen...@mac.com...
>
> 2. The hedge maze: sure it LOOKED nice but all the kid had to do was
> out run his old, alcoholic father? Piece of cake. Where was the
> father's noble sacrifice as his pulls enough of his sanity together to
> save his family and blow up the haunted hotel. The lack of emotional
> courage in the film was pathetic.
In the book, he didn't pull enough of his sanity together to blow up the
hotel, either. He "forgot" about the boiler, which always led me to think
that SK imagined some sort of "benign" spirit in the hotel, also, that was
able to keep from remembering the boiler until it was too late.
Dawn Taylor
Kennedy wrote:
> Considering that Kubrick's version sucked, that's not really saying much now
> is it?
Kubrick's film is much better than most people give it credit. When it first
came out, I despised it -- I expected the book, I *wanted* the book, and it
pissed me off that I didn't get it.
Having seen it again with some distance, it's an excellent film. And having
seen the TV version ... well, Kubrick's "Shining" looks even better. I realize
that King gave his stamp of approval to the TV movie, but it's awful -- and his
retro-fitting of "haunting as metaphor for alcoholism" is just plain
embarrassing.
Interestingly, Kubrick captured the feeling of the novel and the character of
Jack much, much better than the King-controlled TV film.
Dawn
(but none as good as The Simpson's "The Shinning")
Kennedy
thing.
--
"I cut my finger. That's tragedy. A man walks into an open sewer and dies.
That's comedy."
-Mel Brookes
"Dawn Taylor" <dta...@clackamasreview.com> wrote in message
news:3D3D7F5A...@clackamasreview.com...
Keith Work
> On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 14:30:23 GMT, Rosenkrantz <rosen...@mac.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I'm sure others here will agree that, whiel visually stunning,
> >Kubrick's version was a confusing, jumbled mess. Les look at the major
> >story problems:
> >
> >1. The caretaker fellow drives all the way back from Florida, across
> >the country, thru the snow, only to get whacked in the chest with an
> >axe the second he walks in the door. In the book, he saved the mom &
> >son by driving them out in the plow. What the HELL was accomplished by
> >wasting screen time showing Scatman's (an excellent performnce btw) go
> >thru all this trouble only to die instantly. LAME!
>
> That's the joke, son. THE SHINING, like most of Kubrick's later work,
> is black comedy. You didn't get it.
>
And he sets it up with the "black comedy" of Scatman's pimped up
bedroom - that's classic stuff!
I was lucky enough to catch a midnight screening of The Shining last
Halloween at a local art house and it really has a MUCH greater impact
on the big screen - the soaring opening credits, those vistas, the
gigantic ballroom with the lights. Don't miss it if you have the
chance.
--
Keith Work
Video Editor
www.atnzone.com
Nimrod``
wrote:
>Nimrod`` <nim...@SPAMBLOCKwings.to> wrote in message news:<Jms9PTFdYk7dNAC4bMEfmdmTOp=f...@4ax.com>...
>> On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 14:30:23 GMT, Rosenkrantz <rosen...@mac.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm sure others here will agree that, whiel visually stunning,
>> >Kubrick's version was a confusing, jumbled mess. Les look at the major
>> >story problems:
>> >
>> >1. The caretaker fellow drives all the way back from Florida, across
>> >the country, thru the snow, only to get whacked in the chest with an
>> >axe the second he walks in the door. In the book, he saved the mom &
>> >son by driving them out in the plow. What the HELL was accomplished by
>> >wasting screen time showing Scatman's (an excellent performnce btw) go
>> >thru all this trouble only to die instantly. LAME!
>>
>> That's the joke, son. THE SHINING, like most of Kubrick's later work,
>> is black comedy. You didn't get it.
>>
>
>And he sets it up with the "black comedy" of Scatman's pimped up
>bedroom - that's classic stuff!
>
Yep. It's a hoot.
>I was lucky enough to catch a midnight screening of The Shining last
>Halloween at a local art house and it really has a MUCH greater impact
>on the big screen - the soaring opening credits, those vistas, the
>gigantic ballroom with the lights.
The whole thing is incredibly hypnotic and funny to boot.
N``
Kennedy
"Nimrod``" <nim...@SPAMBLOCKwings.to> wrote in message
news:Jms9PTFdYk7dNAC4bMEfmdmTOp=f...@4ax.com...
> wrote:
>
> >I'm sure others here will agree that, whiel visually stunning,
> >Kubrick's version was a confusing, jumbled mess. Les look at the major
> >story problems:
> >
> >1. The caretaker fellow drives all the way back from Florida, across
> >the country, thru the snow, only to get whacked in the chest with an
> >axe the second he walks in the door. In the book, he saved the mom &
> >son by driving them out in the plow. What the HELL was accomplished by
> >wasting screen time showing Scatman's (an excellent performnce btw) go
> >thru all this trouble only to die instantly. LAME!
>
> That's the joke, son. THE SHINING, like most of Kubrick's later work,
> is black comedy. You didn't get it.
I love dark comedies (one of my favorite movies is An American Werewolf
in Londom), but, while I did enjoy that bit, the movie, for me, just fell
flat--and not because I was basing it on the book (which I had not read at
the time). Of course I can't comment on the new version as I have yet to
see it.
Rosenkrantz
it? Typically Black Comedies (the king of comedy, dr. strangelove) are
making FUN or spotlighting a cliched trend.
I saw it at the theatres when it opened and aain, while beautifully
filmed and composed, it was bereft of any cohesive story elements. And
what was that ridiculous scene at the end with Jack in the old picture
about? What purpose did that serve othan than a very CLICHED twilight
zone element?
Please, go try it on someone else. Whenever a director thinks he can
take a find book and make it a better film and ends up screwing it up,
they should make them change the name of the resulting film.
Kubrick's would be called, "The Dulling". hehe
In article <Jms9PTFdYk7dNAC4bMEfmdmTOp=f...@4ax.com>, Nimrod``
Rosenkrantz
and son away, not the manical, over the top killer Jack Nicholson
portrays in the movie.
In article <ahju68$teobu$1...@ID-79033.news.dfncis.de>, Ernest Fairchild
Rosenkrantz
(everything pumped to the max) that we daw in One Flew Over the
Cuckoo's Nest or the Last Detail.
It was Jack Hicholson goes crazy in an old hotels and tries to kill his
family. The End. Oh and there's some pretty cinemaphotography but not
much plot. Maybe some ghosts, maybe not.
In article <3D3D7F5A...@clackamasreview.com>, Dawn Taylor
A Better Chungking_Cash
Shining" as a Kubrick tour de force through madness with Jack
Nicholson.
"Wendy, darling, light-of-my-life" is still one of my favorite lines
of all-time.
However, and it is rare that I enjoy anything off the tube, letalone a
t.v. movie, but I have to say I like the mini series as well. I like
seeing the more literal translation come off on the small screen and I
am able to get a feel of what Stephen King would have wanted (and in
'97 got).
Does anyone know exactly why the mini series was played again? It
debuted in 1997, and I was suprised to see it playing again on
television last night.
I doubt anyone cares, but Danny Lloyd, the child actor who portrayed
"Danny" in Kubrick's film grew up 20 mins. outside of my hometown in
the Midwest. The Internet Movie Database correctly states that he is
now a science teacher in the same area. The last I heard he teaches
Biology at my old community college (though I never met him) and
wishes not to be bothered about his role in "The Shining" as he is
sick of talking about it and never wanted to be an actor in the first
place.
Dawn Taylor
A Better Chungking_Cash wrote:
>
> I doubt anyone cares, but Danny Lloyd, the child actor who portrayed
> "Danny" in Kubrick's film grew up 20 mins. outside of my hometown in
> the Midwest. The Internet Movie Database correctly states that he is
> now a science teacher in the same area. The last I heard he teaches
> Biology at my old community college (though I never met him) and
> wishes not to be bothered about his role in "The Shining" as he is
> sick of talking about it and never wanted to be an actor in the first
> place.
Too bad he distances himself from it that way. Because if he stood in
front og his class and did that "Danny isn't here any more, Mrs.
Torrance" thing with his finger, it would kick serious ass.
Dawn
(red rum ... red rum ...)
M4RV1N
much.
Whomever invented cross-posting needs to be hit repeatedly about the ears with
a rolled-up newspaper.
Mark Ervin
Ernest Fairchild
>
> Too bad he distances himself from it that way. Because if he stood in
> front og his class and did that "Danny isn't here any more, Mrs.
> Torrance" thing with his finger, it would kick serious ass.
LOL!
Surfchan
Typically Black Comedies (the king of comedy, dr. strangelove) are making FUN
or spotlighting a cliched trend.>>
I think Kubrick was much too good of a director to concern himself with
*trends.* However, I do believe The Shining is a brilliant satire, with its
sighted targets no less than madness, self-destruction, isolation, and above
all, family. Like almost all of his work (and this includes 2001), I find it
deeply, disturbingly hilarious -- and often times, dare I admit it -- in a
laugh-out-loud sort of way.
The Shining also doubles as an extended metaphor for the white man invading
Native America. If you're truly interested in this conceit, I'm sure someone
will guide you to the appropriate portals on the web where you can read further
information on this subject.
John
says...
>
>I'm sure others here will agree that, whiel visually stunning,
>Kubrick's version was a confusing, jumbled mess. Les look at the major
>story problems:
>
>1. The caretaker fellow drives all the way back from Florida, across
>the country, thru the snow, only to get whacked in the chest with an
>axe the second he walks in the door. In the book, he saved the mom &
>son by driving them out in the plow. What the HELL was accomplished by
>wasting screen time showing Scatman's (an excellent performnce btw) go
>thru all this trouble only to die instantly. LAME!
Even in the TV version, it is Wendy that drives the snowcat from the hotel.
Kubrick looked at Dick's purpose in the story, saw it was to warn Danny and
deliver the means of escape. Once the cat was at the hotel, the poor guy
served no purpose further story purpose, so Kubrick eliminated him in cliched
horror film fashion. King had him hang around because he liked the character.
>2. The hedge maze: sure it LOOKED nice but all the kid had to do was
>out run his old, alcoholic father? Piece of cake. Where was the
>father's noble sacrifice as his pulls enough of his sanity together to
>save his family and blow up the haunted hotel. The lack of emotional
>courage in the film was pathetic.
In the book, Jack didn't blow up the hotel. When he realized he had forgotten
the boiler, he freaked, gave up his pursuit of his wife and son and headed as
quickly as possible to the basementdconSTOP the explosion. He never made it.
If it hadn't been for that he would have kept after them. There was no 'noble
sacrifice'. There was a brief moment when the so-called good Jack was able to
take control and tell Danny to run. Then the bad Jack was back and going after
him again.
Kubrick couldn't get the hedge animals realistic enough with the FX of the
time. He actually preferred the maze, and intended to include it from an
early draft, but he would have included the animals if he could have gotten
them realistic enough. Danny did not just run away from Jack, he outwitted him
and Jack was too far gone in his dementia to solve the maze. What that
represents is open to interpretation for the viewer.
I liked some of the TV version, Jack walking through the halls swinging the
mallet from wall to wall is one of the best TV scenes I've seen. But the end
of the TV version was awful! Hackneyed, TV happy ending with Jack watching
over his son's graduation from beyond the grave. What a piece of crap. It was
a direct rip-off from Return of the Jedi (the three Jedi watching the
celebration from beyond the grave) and it wasn't very good in that film
either.
Nimrod``
<jonbk...@yahoo.comnospam> wrote:
>
>"Nimrod``" <nim...@SPAMBLOCKwings.to> wrote in message
>news:Jms9PTFdYk7dNAC4bMEfmdmTOp=f...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 14:30:23 GMT, Rosenkrantz <rosen...@mac.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm sure others here will agree that, whiel visually stunning,
>> >Kubrick's version was a confusing, jumbled mess. Les look at the major
>> >story problems:
>> >
>> >1. The caretaker fellow drives all the way back from Florida, across
>> >the country, thru the snow, only to get whacked in the chest with an
>> >axe the second he walks in the door. In the book, he saved the mom &
>> >son by driving them out in the plow. What the HELL was accomplished by
>> >wasting screen time showing Scatman's (an excellent performnce btw) go
>> >thru all this trouble only to die instantly. LAME!
>>
>> That's the joke, son. THE SHINING, like most of Kubrick's later work,
>> is black comedy. You didn't get it.
>
> I love dark comedies (one of my favorite movies is An American Werewolf
>in Londom),
Not "dark" comedy...black comedy. Two different things. Black
comedy, particularly the devilish way Kubrick played it, is played
straight. The reason so many black comedies aren't popular with
mainstream audiences or never register with the lumpen in the audience
is because so many people don't even realize it's a joke; a twisted
joke. The humor isn't telegraphed, so it flies right over the heads
of those slowboats who need a movie to say "these are the jokes,
folks". THE SHINING plays with space and time, along with the
implications and expectation we have for certain movie conventions and
cinematic shorthand.
AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON is not the same at all; it's also
nowhere near as good. But then, no John Landis film could be.
N``
Nimrod``
wrote:
>Black comedy? What was ironic, satircial or even remotely funny about
>it?
It's hilarious. Sorry you missed it. But then, many of our most
diabolical directors have been supreme black comedians, even when
working with nominally "straight" material.....most notably Welles,
Hitchcock, and Kubrick, of course.
>Typically Black Comedies (the king of comedy, dr. strangelove) are
>making FUN or spotlighting a cliched trend.
Those are just the ones obvious enough for you.
>Please, go try it on someone else. Whenever a director thinks he can
>take a find book and make it a better film and ends up screwing it up,
>they should make them change the name of the resulting film.
It's not a fine (I assume that's what you meant) book. It's an above
average potboiler with loads of dross and cliched padding. Anybody
who thinks it a "fine" book must be stuck in a fairly lowbrow rut.
What it was, was one of King's better concepts with his usual
fumblefingered execution. And he sold it...to the movies. And upon
doing that, he endowed the purchaser with the right to do whatever he
or she saw fit in the adaptation.
Much as Coppola did with that pulp potboiler called The Godfather,
Kubrick took a piece of pulp writing and spun it, elevating it into
something less staid and obvious, jettisoning its pulpier
elements...using it as a skeleton for his own sensibility. And it's
of higher stature as a film than King's work was as a book.
In this fashion, King is also similar to Hitchcock in the way that
Hitchcock repeatedly took pieces of routine or popular fiction with a
single intriguing idea and reinvented it into something greater, built
around his own unique sensibility.
N``
Boaz
I think they should be forced to read these postings.
Boaz
Adam
"Nimrod``" <nim...@SPAMBLOCKwings.to> wrote in message
Do you chuckle happily every time you remember how devilishly smart you are?
Nimrod ``
I do chuckle happily every time I watch Welles or Hitchcock or Kubrick
being devilishly smart....in fact, I often laugh out loud. The fact
that others may not get the joke is their problem, their loss, not
mine. And if you or anyone else feels insecure or threatened by that,
then it is your problem indeed.
N``
Kennedy
"Nimrod``" <nim...@SPAMBLOCKwings.to> wrote in message
To me, a Dark Comedy and Black Comedy ARE the same thing. Granted, I
laughed at Dr. Strangelove, and I enjoyed the first half of Full Metal
Jacket, but Kubrick is not worthy of the recognition he receives, IMNSHO.
>
> AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON is not the same at all; it's also
> nowhere near as good. But then, no John Landis film could be.
I've only ever seen one movie of John Landis', and I find it far
superior to ANYTHING Kubrick has ever done.
Nimrod ``
<jonbk...@yahoo.comnospam> wrote:
>
>
> To me, a Dark Comedy and Black Comedy ARE the same thing.
Well, you're wrong. You need to understand your terminology. You
can claim that satire and farce are the same thing, but you'll still
be uninformed, incorrect, and showing your ignorance about the words
you misuse.
>Granted, I
>laughed at Dr. Strangelove, and I enjoyed the first half of Full Metal
>Jacket, but Kubrick is not worthy of the recognition he receives, IMNSHO.
>>
>> AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON is not the same at all; it's also
>> nowhere near as good. But then, no John Landis film could be.
>
> I've only ever seen one movie of John Landis', and I find it far
>superior to ANYTHING Kubrick has ever done.
Yep....you sure are showing your ignorance.
N``
Xfoliate
>comedy, particularly the devilish way Kubrick played it, is played
>straight. The reason so many black comedies aren't popular with
>mainstream audiences or never register with the lumpen in the audience
>is because so many people don't even realize it's a joke; a twisted
>joke. The humor isn't telegraphed, so it flies right over the heads
>of those slowboats who need a movie to say "these are the jokes,
>folks"
>From: Nimrod`` nim...@SPAMBLOCKwings.to
if that's your definition of black comedy what is your definition of dark
comedy?
matt
Xfoliate
matt
Bob Tiernan
"Kennedy" wrote:
> Granted, I laughed at Dr. Strangelove, and I enjoyed the
> first half of Full Metal Jacket, but Kubrick is not worthy
> of the recognition he receives, IMNSHO.
I got tired of his over-used trick of having the camera
follow an actor for minutes on end it seemed. I also
like to spot where he's sloppy in ways that should have
been caught, easily. The trench scene in the first
reel of Paths of Glory shows boards for the camera
to roll on, and we're supposed to believe they are
planks that soldiers walked on. Well, they did have
planks, but they were perpendicular to the pathway.
The boards in Paths were so far apart that anyone
walking would not even be on them in the first
place, but would have to walk in the mud in the
middle.
BT
Bob Tiernan
"Virtue is more to be feared than vice, because its
excesses are not subject to the regulation of conscience."
-- Adam Smith
Mariusz Twardowski
>
> "Kennedy" wrote:
>
> > Granted, I laughed at Dr. Strangelove, and I enjoyed the
> > first half of Full Metal Jacket, but Kubrick is not worthy
> > of the recognition he receives, IMNSHO.
>
>
> I got tired of his over-used trick of having the camera
> follow an actor for minutes on end it seemed. I also
> like to spot where he's sloppy in ways that should have
> been caught, easily. The trench scene in the first
> reel of Paths of Glory shows boards for the camera
> to roll on, and we're supposed to believe they are
> planks that soldiers walked on. Well, they did have
> planks, but they were perpendicular to the pathway.
> The boards in Paths were so far apart that anyone
> walking would not even be on them in the first
> place, but would have to walk in the mud in the
> middle.
>
<delurk>
Is this what film criticism has come to? Forget plot, themes, subthemes, a
technically accomplished film, etc...but its those planks, those blasted
planks! Conclusion: Kubrick is overrated
SK seems to be the favourite scapegoat for these self-appointed cineastes;
shoot down a universally acknowledged film master so one can boast of
having an independent minded taste...but these sad attempts to justify
their opinion are really, really ridiculous...
Ironically, I speculate that if someone like this were to ever be swayed
to change their mind about Kubrick, it would be by the likes of Mr Wheat's
"theory" of 2001:ASO. That is, all the great discussion that goes on here
about themes, dialogue deconstrcution, etc. would be dismissed as
"pretentious"
Just speculation, of course
m.t.
> BT
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bob Tiernan
>
> "Virtue is more to be feared than vice, because its
> excesses are not subject to the regulation of conscience."
>
> -- Adam Smith
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A man sets out to draw the world. As the years go by, he peoples a
space with images of provinces, kingdoms, mountains, bays, ships,
islands, fishes, rooms, instruments, stars, horses, and individuals. A
short time before he dies, he discovers that the patient labyrinth of
lines traces the lineaments of his own face."
-Jorge Luis Borges
Kennedy
"Nimrod ``" <nim...@go-c.com> wrote in message
news:xsw+PTxmnbwKGl...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:13:20 GMT, "Kennedy"
> <jonbk...@yahoo.comnospam> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
> > To me, a Dark Comedy and Black Comedy ARE the same thing.
>
> Well, you're wrong. You need to understand your terminology. You
> can claim that satire and farce are the same thing, but you'll still
> be uninformed, incorrect, and showing your ignorance about the words
> you misuse.
Well, I guess the same could be said for a lot of things: Epic, for
instance. But, hey, I've learned to deal with the constant mis-use of THAT
word, so you can deal with the fact that, to me, a DARK comedy and a BLACK
comedy are the same. Both deal with dark subject matters that are supposed
to make you laugh, but many people fail to grasp.
>
> >Granted, I
> >laughed at Dr. Strangelove, and I enjoyed the first half of Full Metal
> >Jacket, but Kubrick is not worthy of the recognition he receives, IMNSHO.
> >>
> >> AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON is not the same at all; it's also
> >> nowhere near as good. But then, no John Landis film could be.
> >
> > I've only ever seen one movie of John Landis', and I find it far
> >superior to ANYTHING Kubrick has ever done.
>
> Yep....you sure are showing your ignorance.
What is so great about Kubrick? Everything I ever saw of his (with the
exception of Dr. Strangelove and the first 1/2 of Full Metal Jacket) was
absolutely horrible!
Nimrod ``
<jonbk...@yahoo.comnospam> wrote:
>
>"Nimrod ``" <nim...@go-c.com> wrote in message
>news:xsw+PTxmnbwKGl...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:13:20 GMT, "Kennedy"
>> <jonbk...@yahoo.comnospam> wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>> > To me, a Dark Comedy and Black Comedy ARE the same thing.
>>
>> Well, you're wrong. You need to understand your terminology. You
>> can claim that satire and farce are the same thing, but you'll still
>> be uninformed, incorrect, and showing your ignorance about the words
>> you misuse.
>
> Well, I guess the same could be said for a lot of things: Epic, for
>instance. But, hey, I've learned to deal with the constant mis-use of THAT
>word,
"Epic" does not denote only length, but can also denote scope and
scale. So unless you embrace both definitions of that word, you don't
understand that word either.
If you do embrace them both, then your misuse of "black comedy" makes
you guilty of the same thing of which you accuse others.
Take your pick. You're either willfully ignorant...or a willful
hypocrite.
>so you can deal with the fact that, to me, a DARK comedy and a BLACK
>comedy are the same.
Then you are ill-educated and misinformed and your word usage means
nothing. You can call a jackrabbit a "cantaloupe"...but it's still a
jackrabbit.
>Both deal with dark subject matters that are supposed
>to make you laugh, but many people fail to grasp.
Yes, but the approach is the operative factor, which you fail to
grasp.
>>
>> >Granted, I
>> >laughed at Dr. Strangelove, and I enjoyed the first half of Full Metal
>> >Jacket, but Kubrick is not worthy of the recognition he receives, IMNSHO.
>> >>
>> >> AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON is not the same at all; it's also
>> >> nowhere near as good. But then, no John Landis film could be.
>> >
>> > I've only ever seen one movie of John Landis', and I find it far
>> >superior to ANYTHING Kubrick has ever done.
>>
>> Yep....you sure are showing your ignorance.
>
> What is so great about Kubrick? Everything I ever saw of his (with the
>exception of Dr. Strangelove and the first 1/2 of Full Metal Jacket) was
>absolutely horrible!
Keep talking, Kennedy. You only provide further proof of what has
long been asserted about the intellect and attention span of the STAR
WARS fanboys.
N``
Ernest Fairchild
>
> Keep talking, Kennedy. You only provide further proof of what has
> long been asserted about the intellect and attention span of the
STAR
> WARS fanboys.
You're an extremely rude person. I'm going to assume you're a troll or
a social outcast with no skills at discussion. Either way, I think
I'll prefer to killfile you. It seems that you can't talk nice.
Ernest
_____________________
"We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin
Kennedy
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 20:38:51 GMT, "Kennedy"
> <jonbk...@yahoo.comnospam> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Nimrod ``" <nim...@go-c.com> wrote in message
> >news:xsw+PTxmnbwKGl...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:13:20 GMT, "Kennedy"
> >> <jonbk...@yahoo.comnospam> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > To me, a Dark Comedy and Black Comedy ARE the same thing.
> >>
> >> Well, you're wrong. You need to understand your terminology. You
> >> can claim that satire and farce are the same thing, but you'll still
> >> be uninformed, incorrect, and showing your ignorance about the words
> >> you misuse.
> >
> > Well, I guess the same could be said for a lot of things: Epic, for
> >instance. But, hey, I've learned to deal with the constant mis-use of
THAT
> >word,
>
> "Epic" does not denote only length, but can also denote scope and
> scale. So unless you embrace both definitions of that word, you don't
> understand that word either.
If you look at the original Epics (Illiad, for instance), they all fit
the same pattern: A hero, the supernatural, a preperation for battle, and a
battle. Length, scope, and scale have nothing to do with it, although many
people feel they do.
>
> If you do embrace them both, then your misuse of "black comedy" makes
> you guilty of the same thing of which you accuse others.
>
> Take your pick. You're either willfully ignorant...or a willful
> hypocrite.
I prefer willfully ignorant.
>
> >so you can deal with the fact that, to me, a DARK comedy and a BLACK
> >comedy are the same.
>
> Then you are ill-educated and misinformed and your word usage means
> nothing. You can call a jackrabbit a "cantaloupe"...but it's still a
> jackrabbit.
But those two are in two seperate fields. Dark can be another word for
Black, so it can be considered the same thing. A Jackrabbit and Cantaloupe
have not, so far as I know, ever been confused for one-another, and so they
that analogy does not fit your theory.
>
> >Both deal with dark subject matters that are supposed
> >to make you laugh, but many people fail to grasp.
>
> Yes, but the approach is the operative factor, which you fail to
> grasp.
Maybe so, but I see no difference.
>
> >>
> >> >Granted, I
> >> >laughed at Dr. Strangelove, and I enjoyed the first half of Full Metal
> >> >Jacket, but Kubrick is not worthy of the recognition he receives,
IMNSHO.
> >> >>
> >> >> AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON is not the same at all; it's also
> >> >> nowhere near as good. But then, no John Landis film could be.
> >> >
> >> > I've only ever seen one movie of John Landis', and I find it far
> >> >superior to ANYTHING Kubrick has ever done.
> >>
> >> Yep....you sure are showing your ignorance.
> >
> > What is so great about Kubrick? Everything I ever saw of his (with
the
> >exception of Dr. Strangelove and the first 1/2 of Full Metal Jacket) was
> >absolutely horrible!
>
> Keep talking, Kennedy. You only provide further proof of what has
> long been asserted about the intellect and attention span of the STAR
> WARS fanboys.
And where the fuck did this Star Wars shit come into play? Sure, I like
the original trilogy, and I think the new one sucks Donkey dick, but I am
nowhere NEAR what you might consider a fan boy.
Oh yeah: PLONK!
Xfoliate
>follow an actor for minutes on end it seemed. I also
>like to spot where he's sloppy in ways that should have
>been caught, easily. The trench scene in the first
>reel of Paths of Glory shows boards for the camera
>to roll on, and we're supposed to believe they are
>planks that soldiers walked on. Well, they did have
>planks, but they were perpendicular to the pathway.
>The boards in Paths were so far apart that anyone
>walking would not even be on them in the first
>place, but would have to walk in the mud in the
>middle.
>
>BT
nit pick do we? so many beautiful ideas in kubrick's movies... but damn those
planks! i can't belive people make mistakes... it's insane!
matt
larry legallo
<nim...@SPAMBLOCKwings.to> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 14:30:23 GMT, Rosenkrantz <rosen...@mac.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I'm sure others here will agree that, whiel visually stunning,
>>Kubrick's version was a confusing, jumbled mess. Les look at the major
>>story problems:
>>
>>1. The caretaker fellow drives all the way back from Florida, across
>>the country, thru the snow, only to get whacked in the chest with an
>>axe the second he walks in the door. In the book, he saved the mom &
>>son by driving them out in the plow. What the HELL was accomplished by
>>wasting screen time showing Scatman's (an excellent performnce btw) go
>>thru all this trouble only to die instantly. LAME!
>
>That's the joke, son. THE SHINING, like most of Kubrick's later work,
>is black comedy. You didn't get it.
And it still amazes me how many people don't get it. Nicholson's
hyperbolic (even for him) lunacy from frame 1, Duvall's spiraling
skittishness, Crothers' classic Uncle Tom turn... do people really
believe Kubrick set out to make a straight Stephen King adaptation?
Though it should be mentioned that the black comedy is only one of
many levels on which the film operates. I do know some people that
couldn't distinguish Stanley Kubrick from Stanley Kramer who name The
Shining as the scariest film they've ever seen. On one level, the
assaultive imagery may have been intended to mock the audience that
rejected the contemplative Barry Lyndon. On another level, it is a
cynical examination of the failings of the modern family.
From the opening sequence, where the camera follows Jack's car up a
winding mountain road, only to veer off over a cliff into an expansive
emptiness, Kubrick makes it clear that all bets are off with this
film. When Crothers drives all that way- with the utterly standard
cross-cutting that tracks his pursuit- only to be killed upon entering
the hotel, it's like an axe to the stomach of the King novel, every
traditional horror film convention, and the whole token black concept
all at once. That so many critics and viewers miss the parodic
elements screaming from every corner of this film makes it all more
hilarious.
This film truly gets better with each viewing. Even as a straight
thriller, it works magic. Kubrick creates more anxiety from having to
watch the impossibly elongated ash (which adheres to Hitchcock's
suspense philosophy and never falls) on Shelley Duvall's cigarette
when she's speaking with Danny's doctor than the whole Friday the 13th
and Nightmare on Elm Street series combined.
Nimrod ``
Microsoft Gump XP
corrupted it by replying:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> Take your pick. You're either willfully ignorant...or a willful
> hypocrite.
In my opinion, I'd prefer to be ignorant like claim Kennedy to be, than
arrogant (and an asshole), like you seem to be.
- Dave -
- Remove 123456 from my address -
- Keepin' it real and takin' it easy -
Microsoft Gump XP
and corrupted it by replying:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> You're an extremely rude person. I'm going to assume you're a troll or
> a social outcast with no skills at discussion. Either way, I think
> I'll prefer to killfile you. It seems that you can't talk nice.
That's the truth.
Nimrod ``
<123mu...@456eircom.net> wrote:
>'Twas an relatively innocent post from Nimrod `` before I saw it and
>corrupted it by replying:
>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
>> Take your pick. You're either willfully ignorant...or a willful
>> hypocrite.
>
>In my opinion, I'd prefer to be ignorant like claim Kennedy to be, than
>arrogant (and an asshole), like you seem to be.
>
Who cares. You've made no contribution to this discussion anyway.
When you've got something of consequence to say about the topic at
hand or the subject of this thread, perhaps your opinion will rate
consideration.
N``
The Other Scott
Then stop cross-posting, Nim.
You're not going to find what you want arguing with a *books* group.
I've read your opinions in the film groups, and agreed with a lot,
but this is just pointless, especially with readers of Stephen King.
-Scott
<\crosspost>
>
>
> N``
Xfoliate
>hyperbolic (even for him) lunacy from frame 1, Duvall's spiraling
>skittishness, Crothers' classic Uncle Tom turn... do people really
>believe Kubrick set out to make a straight Stephen King adaptation?
>From: lleg...@usa.net (larry legallo)
i'm really not following this shining is a black comedy thing... pehaps there
are moments that are darkly comedic (yes i used dark instead of black :P) but
to call the shining a black comedy is streching it quite a bit.
matt
Boaz
> where did all these kubrick haters come from all of a sudden?
>
> matt
They're Stephen King fans who were bused in via cross posting.
There goes the neighborhood.
Boaz
Microsoft Gump XP
corrupted it by replying:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> >In my opinion, I'd prefer to be ignorant like claim Kennedy to be, than
> >arrogant (and an asshole), like you seem to be.
>
> Who cares. You've made no contribution to this discussion anyway.
> When you've got something of consequence to say about the topic at
> hand or the subject of this thread, perhaps your opinion will rate
> consideration.
Whether you deem my opinion as one worth considering or not bears no
relevance to whether or not I should post it. I'm not looking for *anyone*
to 'rate' my opinion. I stated it because I stand by it. If anyone wants
to agree or disagree with me, it's up to them. What, do you think I should
start a new thread to discuss you being an asshole?
The Other Kim
>
> > What is so great about Kubrick? Everything I ever saw of his
(with the
> >exception of Dr. Strangelove and the first 1/2 of Full Metal Jacket)
was
> >absolutely horrible!
>
> Keep talking, Kennedy. You only provide further proof of what has
> long been asserted about the intellect and attention span of the STAR
> WARS fanboys.
Nice dance around the question. Seriously, please explain just what is
so damn great about Kubrick? I've seen three movies by him, The
Shining, 2001, and A Clockwork Orange, and I wouldn't pay to see any of
them again. Okay, I didn't pay to see the last two, but still...
As I've said earlier in this thread, his style just plain leaves me
cold. I can't enjoy anything that leaves me feeling cold and empty, and
he does that.
The Other Kim
Nimrod ``
Who cares if you stand by it. You stand by nothing. It's a useless,
worthless opinion which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Obviously you have nothing of real consequence to contribute or you
would...and it doesn't take a brainiac to show up only to call someone
else an asshole; that just proves how little grey matter you've got
percolating.
Next...
N``
David Kirkpatrick
I would say that it contains a great deal of black humor (as does Full
Metal Jacket and Lolita, for example, and to a lesser extent Paths of
Glory and Barry Lyndon), but that it is no "black comedy" overall. For
me to call it a black comedy it would need to follow the structure of a
comedy. To me, a black comedy contains the plot form of a kind of
escape from hell, but with winking understanding that the paradise
regained is actually hellish itself. In other words, it contains a
"happy" ending that is false, but intentionally so. Or it involves the
bad guy getting his just desserts, only the "bad guy" turns out to be
the hero and the audience is not drawn to sympathize with him in a way
that would experience the process as tragedy. Perhaps on this basis we
might think of The Shining as a black comedy, but the same logic would
identify Richard III as a black comedy. I think the real central
character of The Shining is the Torrance family as a whole and on that
basis, it plays out as genuine tragedy.
A Clockwork Orange and, arguably, Eyes Wide Shut fit this bill, in my
opinion, although not as spectacularly as Dr. Strangelove. The humor in
Eyes Wide Shut is comparatively low-key, but there are as many black
comedies that are sly and subtle as those that are robust and obvious.
What these three films have in common black-comedy-wise is that they
impose a comic form on tragic content, each ending with a kind of
exploding cigar. Mandrake successfully discovers the callback code,
Col. Kong successfully completes his mission, Dr. Strangelove is able to
walk again. It's like A Christmas Carol, but with an all-over twist.
2001 might also be regarded as a unique version of black comedy (in
which the humor is even more subtle than in EWS). Or perhaps it is a
"white tragedy", the theoretical opposite of "black comedy", which I
have yet to see coined. That is, it could be argued that the content of
2001 is ultimately comic (the triumph of evolution), but that the form
is elegiac (a farewell to humanity).
As for the difference between "dark comedy" and "black comedy", I don't
really get it. I think the real distinction is between "dark" or
"black" humor as a detachable ingredient of entertainment substance and
surface and "black comedy" as a structural principle that is a twist on
both traditional comedy and traditional tragedy.
David
Wag
Interesting how when you have a defensible point you desire to go on and
on and on. Now, when you're nailed to the wall, you mumble "next"...
Completely understandable, just... interesting.
Wag
Microsoft Gump XP
corrupted it by replying:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> Who cares if you stand by it. You stand by nothing. It's a useless,
> worthless opinion which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
> Obviously you have nothing of real consequence to contribute or you
> would...and it doesn't take a brainiac to show up only to call someone
> else an asshole; that just proves how little grey matter you've got
> percolating.
Ok, whatever. You seem to be very bitter. Did your goldfish die or
something?
Nimrod ``
<123mu...@456eircom.net> wrote:
>'Twas an relatively innocent post from Nimrod `` before I saw it and
>corrupted it by replying:
>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
>> Who cares if you stand by it. You stand by nothing. It's a useless,
>> worthless opinion which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
>> Obviously you have nothing of real consequence to contribute or you
>> would...and it doesn't take a brainiac to show up only to call someone
>> else an asshole; that just proves how little grey matter you've got
>> percolating.
>
>Ok, whatever. You seem to be very bitter. Did your goldfish die or
>something?
>
I'm not bitter at all...not remotely. Just had a great morning, in
fact, including a truly outstanding sensual interlude courtesy of a
beautiful woman I love dearly.
All of my observations about Kubrick, King, Kennedy, and even those
I've made about you, me illustrious Gump.....are all purely academic,
I assure you. I don't attach strong emotion to such things.
In fact, I'm having a great deal of fun.
N``
Fernando
see the beginning, does anyone know how begins the TV version? Haven't
read the book though.
A few things happened while watching:
1. Made me want to see K's film ofr the nth time.
2. The perfect casting of Danny Lloyd (not that I wasn't aware of that
before); the tv kid might be a good actor but not for this one, and
the dialogue didn´t help him much, which BTW, it's almost unbearable.
Regards.
Fernando
boa...@yahoo.com (Boaz) wrote in message news:<2f0136e5.02072...@posting.google.com>...
> m4r...@aol.com (M4RV1N) wrote in message news:<20020723164844...@mb-fl.aol.com>...
> > This thread is cross-posted from the Stephen King newsgroup, which explains
> > much.
> >
> > Whomever invented cross-posting needs to be hit repeatedly about the ears with
> > a rolled-up newspaper.
> >
> > Mark Ervin
>
>
> I think they should be forced to read these postings.
>
> Boaz
The Other Kim
Same type of thing happened here 5 years ago, when the miniseries was
being made. ABSK was inundated by folks from the Kubrick group who were
whining about why King would ever want the story he wrote told on any
kind of screen, when Stanley had already taken apart the original story
and turned it into some "masterwork of horror", or whatever nonsense
they called it then ("allegory on the treatment of the Native Americans"
is one I remember clearly, simply because of how ridiculous it was),
conveniently forgetting that Stanley's little "masterwork" really scared
very few people.
The Other Kim
Microsoft Gump XP
corrupted it by replying:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> In fact, I'm having a great deal of fun.
Ok, good. Me too. I wouldn't have the patience for it otherwise.
Padraig L Henry
>This thread is cross-posted from the Stephen King newsgroup, which explains
>much.
>
>Whomever invented cross-posting needs to be hit repeatedly about the ears with
>a rolled-up newspaper.
>
>Mark Ervin
Yes, its frustratingly depressing, and it once again provokes one to
progressively question one's own involvement in these increasingly
parasitic newsgroups.
Even a demented, inarticulate grunting-ape like Jack Torrance was
capable of coming up with a mantra considerably more imaginative than
"Kubrick's The Shining Sucks."
Newsgroups have come to relentlessly wallow at the level of their
weakest posters.
Padraig
Microsoft Gump XP
corrupted it by replying:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> Newsgroups have come to relentlessly wallow at the level of their
> weakest posters.
So has society.
But what the hell are you, elite?
Padraig L Henry
<nim...@SPAMBLOCKwings.to> wrote:
>
>In this fashion, King is also similar to Hitchcock in the way that
>Hitchcock repeatedly took pieces of routine or popular fiction with a
>single intriguing idea and reinvented it into something greater, built
>around his own unique sensibility.
I'll assume, given your present cross-posting beleaguered state, that
your reference to "King" above was actually a keyboard-slipping
part-anagram, part-allegorical rendition of "Kubrick"?
Padraig
Padraig L Henry
Good points, David. I would just add that I'd like to suggest that
there is a significant difference between dark and black comedy; its
just that the former tends to be a very rare phenomenon in cinema, if
only because it is a much more difficult - and risky - form than the
latter. Off the top of my head, a superb example of dark comedy is
Woody Allen's Crimes and Misdemeanours, a film where the surface
comedy subtly serves to heighten the emergence of tragedy, when it
comes (black comedy never makes that gut-wrenching transition,
remaining, instead, entirely within its own formal frames of
reference, ie. it never gets serious). Dark comedy resolves itself
through ultimately tragedy, whereas black comedy is already resolved
through its initial premise.
I wouldn't classify EWS as black comedy either. Certainly it has its
black-comic moments ("What is IT!!?" Milich repeats, interrupting his
daughter's ugandan discussions with the Japanese gents, and Long-Beak
escorting Mandy from the Somerton Balcony, etc) but these are few and
far between. The film is black - and bleak - at the level of its
representation of the hopelessness and emptyness of contemporary
society and its values, but in Kubrick's hands this is hardly a comic,
school-boy, Dr S-like black treatment ...
Padraig
"If it bends, its comedy; if it breaks, its tragedy." ==> Allen's C&M:
cue picture of donkey.
Xfoliate
>so damn great about Kubrick? I've seen three movies by him, The
>Shining, 2001, and A Clockwork Orange, and I wouldn't pay to see any of
>them again. Okay, I didn't pay to see the last two, but still...
>
>As I've said earlier in this thread, his style just plain leaves me
>cold. I can't enjoy anything that leaves me feeling cold and empty, and
>he does that.
>
>The Other Kim
>
you would completely hate david cronenberg then. can you honestly say that
kubrick doesn't present interesting ideas to think about? personally his movies
leave me more curious then when i came in. to completely dis-associate yourself
from works that are cold blinds you to many certain inevitabilities of life.
sometimes things are fucked up... why not face it? don't blame kubrick movies
because some things are cold.
matt
Xfoliate
yeah i really should read all the posts before i state my confusion.
matt
Boaz
> Even a demented, inarticulate grunting-ape like Jack Torrance was
> capable of coming up with a mantra considerably more imaginative than
> "Kubrick's The Shining Sucks."
Yes, and I understand there was even an alternative ending where Wendy
tried to get Jack's manuscript published, figuring she may as well
salvage something out of that train wreck of a marriage she managed to
get out of (by attrition, of course), and maybe get some serious money
out of all aggravation and pipe-dreaming bullshit of his that she had
to put up with all those years. But the publisher rejected it, saying
in his letter that a thousand page manuscript with nothing on it but
"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" typed repeatedly doesn't
translate into profits in today's competitive book publishing market.
He also said in a p.s. that if she attempts to send it to another
publisher she should use another approach in her cover letter than try
to pass her late husband off as another Joyce and that his manuscript
is really taking the style of "Ulysses" into another level of
stream-of-consciousness writing, as editors and publishers *are* well
read and know better than to fall for that crap.
Boaz (author of "Portrait of an AMK Poster as a Young Man")
Xfoliate
>> to call the shining a black comedy is streching it quite a bit.
>>
>> matt
>A Clockwork Orange and, arguably, Eyes Wide Shut fit this bill, in my
>opinion, although not as spectacularly as Dr. Strangelove. The humor in
>Eyes Wide Shut is comparatively low-key, but there are as many black
>comedies that are sly and subtle as those that are robust and obvious.
eyes wide shut is a black comedy? guh?
matt
Xfoliate
>opinion, although not as spectacularly as Dr. Strangelove. The humor in
>Eyes Wide Shut is comparatively low-key, but there are as many black
>comedies that are sly and subtle as those that are robust and obvious.
>What these three films have in common black-comedy-wise is that they
>impose a comic form on tragic content, each ending with a kind of
>exploding cigar.
>From: David Kirkpatrick dak...@rogers.com
i'm going to go off on a limb here and say that i think pearl harbor is a black
comedy... only because people were dying all over the place and i couldn't stop
laughing.
matt
Xfoliate
>there is a significant difference between dark and black comedy; its
>just that the former tends to be a very rare phenomenon in cinema, if
>only because it is a much more difficult - and risky - form than the
>latter. Off the top of my head, a superb example of dark comedy is
>Woody Allen's Crimes and Misdemeanours, a film where the surface
>comedy subtly serves to heighten the emergence of tragedy, when it
>comes (black comedy never makes that gut-wrenching transition,
>remaining, instead, entirely within its own formal frames of
>reference, ie. it never gets serious). Dark comedy resolves itself
>through ultimately tragedy, whereas black comedy is already resolved
>through its initial premise.
>
>Padraig
i swear i think you guys are making this up as you go along.
matt
Greywizard
>> Even a demented, inarticulate grunting-ape like Jack Torrance was
>> capable of coming up with a mantra considerably more imaginative than
>> "Kubrick's The Shining Sucks."
>
>Yes, and I understand there was even an alternative ending where Wendy
>tried to get Jack's manuscript published,
Well, in the MAD magazine parody, it ends with a publisher making an
offer for the manuscript, reasoning that despite the manuscript
clearly being written from a deranged mind, "that's what people are
reading these days."
To reply, substitute "spam" with "coastnet"
----------------------------
The Unknown Movies
http://www.unknownmovies.com
----------------------------
Nimrod ``
wrote:
Ah, yes...thanks for the correction. I did indeed mean to say
"Kubrick is also similar to Hitchcock" etc.
N``
The Other Kim
M4RV1N wrote:
<snipping a bunch of stuff that I've already read too many times over
the years to even think about>
> I don't know how the intersection of the two newsgroups came about
initially,
> but I would think I would be justified in saying that virtually all of
the
> regulars of alt.movies.kubrick would have preferred that it had not
happened at
> all.
Guess again. It was someone from the Kubrick group who made the initial
crosspost and the "how dare King do that" attitude was just amazing
(sorry, but Stanley is not liked by everyone in the known world; deal
with it). Again, we're talking 5 years ago, and I don't know about amk,
but ABSK has very few of the regulars today that it had that long ago.
The Other Kim
Xfoliate
>crosspost and the "how dare King do that" attitude was just amazing
>(sorry, but Stanley is not liked by everyone in the known world; deal
>with it). Again, we're talking 5 years ago, and I don't know about amk,
>but ABSK has very few of the regulars today that it had that long ago.
>
>The Other Kim
well i don;t think that the "how dare king do that" sentiment has anything to
do with the popularity of kubrick... it just has to do with the fact that the
tv version of the shining sucked... at least through their perspective... mine
too.
matt
Xfoliate
plus weren't you the person who said that kubrick's the shining managed to
scare very few? did the tv version scare anyone?
i think one of the reasons that the kubrick version isn't well liked by some
people is that you have to use your imagination to come up with what in the
hell is going on... in my opinion that is much scarier than anything else and
way more challenging.
matt
Boaz
> Readding the crosspost since I don't recall seeing your name here.
>
> M4RV1N wrote:
>
> <snipping a bunch of stuff that I've already read too many times over
> the years to even think about>
>
> > I don't know how the intersection of the two newsgroups came about
> initially,
> > but I would think I would be justified in saying that virtually all of
> the
> > regulars of alt.movies.kubrick would have preferred that it had not
> happened at
> > all.
>
> Guess again. It was someone from the Kubrick group who made the initial
> crosspost and the "how dare King do that" attitude was just amazing
What is so amazing about the attitude? King managed to get the TV
version made because of the strength of his name. How many authors get
to have that advantage if they didn't like a film version of one of
their novels?
And just because a film attempts to be as faithful to the original
book source doesn't make it a good film. And this TV version of TS is
a prime example of my point.
> (sorry, but Stanley is not liked by everyone in the known world; deal
> with it).
Sorry, but Stanley was one of the world's greatest filmmakers of the
second half of the twentieth century. Just because he isn't liked by
everyone in the known world doesn't diminish his stature or greatness
as a film artist. Deal with that.
Again, we're talking 5 years ago, and I don't know about amk,
> but ABSK has very few of the regulars today that it had that long ago.
Which says something about ABSK compared to AMK, which not only has
many of the same regulars of five years past but a whole slew of
newcomers who have found a decent haven to intelligently express their
ideas and are regulars themselves now.
Boaz
Prater
screwed up King's plot and narrative and characters makes his "version"
suck. I have to agree with some of the previous replies in that Nicholson
made the character too crazy to begin with. The development wasn't there.
Kubrick wasn't making a movie of King's book, he was stealing the best parts
to add to his horror movie. i like the TV remake because it sticks with the
plot and charater development, it ends (up until graduation) like the book,
and it gives a glimpse into the embedded evil (the hedges) of the hotel. And
the actress who played Wendy in Kubrick's had no moxy. King's women always
have Moxy (for example-Cujo, Rose Madder, Bag of Bones, Delores
Claiborne....). And teh whole point was that the little boy was a freak. You
almost wanted the hotel to win. That's why it's scary. We've all read books
or watched movies that scare with "BOO", but when what you want to happen
goes against what you know should happen...we frighten ourselves with that
insight. Thus the genius of Mr. King!
"Ahmed Mahi Durgun" <ahmedmah...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:ahjc51$h91$1...@scavenger.euro.net...
> My love for kubrick movies started with the Shining (still in my top2)
> (twice on dvd, once on video)
>
> As for Stephen Kings version. Bought that one too. They tried to make it
as
> close to the book, but when it
> came to certain scenes (that Kubrick's the Shining 'copied' from the book)
> they differed from the book. Was
> very irritated by that, cause at that time I loved the book. Anywho
>
> Stanley Kubrick's The Shining: Very high artistic value
> Stephen Kings The Shining: Zero
>
> King should've known better. Kubrick was the director and he was making
His
> movie.
> King's probably satisfied with his own though.
>
> "Do what you do best"
>
>
>
>
Xfoliate
>screwed up King's plot and narrative and characters makes his "version"
>suck. I have to agree with some of the previous replies in that Nicholson
>made the character too crazy to begin with. The development wasn't there.
>Kubrick wasn't making a movie of King's book, he was stealing the best parts
>to add to his horror movie. i like the TV remake because it sticks with the
>plot and charater development, it ends (up until graduation) like the book,
>and it gives a glimpse into the embedded evil (the hedges) of the hotel. And
>the actress who played Wendy in Kubrick's had no moxy. King's women always
>have Moxy (for example-Cujo, Rose Madder, Bag of Bones, Delores
>Claiborne....). And teh whole point was that the little boy was a freak. You
>almost wanted the hotel to win. That's why it's scary. We've all read books
>or watched movies that scare with "BOO", but when what you want to happen
>goes against what you know should happen...we frighten ourselves with that
>insight. Thus the genius of Mr. King!
>From: "Prater" am...@kconline.com
so kubrick's version sucked because it wasn't the book? that's what i'm
getting. why is a movie a good movie only after you compare it to the book?
matt
Nimrod ``
>It was always Stephen King's Shining...never Kubricks. The fact that he
>screwed up King's plot and narrative and characters makes his "version"
>suck. I have to agree with some of the previous replies in that Nicholson
>made the character too crazy to begin with. The development wasn't there.
>Kubrick wasn't making a movie of King's book, he was stealing the best parts
>to add to his horror movie. i like the TV remake because it sticks with the
>plot and charater development, it ends (up until graduation) like the book,
>and it gives a glimpse into the embedded evil (the hedges) of the hotel. And
>the actress who played Wendy in Kubrick's had no moxy. King's women always
>have Moxy (for example-Cujo, Rose Madder, Bag of Bones, Delores
>Claiborne....). And teh whole point was that the little boy was a freak. You
>almost wanted the hotel to win. That's why it's scary. We've all read books
>or watched movies that scare with "BOO", but when what you want to happen
>goes against what you know should happen...we frighten ourselves with that
>insight. Thus the genius of Mr. King!
Have you had this condition since birth?
N``
Boaz
These people just don't get it, nor, does it seem, will they ever get
it. They are like many people, unfortunately, who think the only
purpose filmmakers should serve is to make films of their favorite
books, and then be letter-faithful to the text. They appear to not
think of film as its own separate art form. Comparing a film to the
book in which it is based is the worst form of film criticsm--with the
exception of those who only look for mike shadows or other continuity
errors and can't discuss a film beyond that level.
I suppose if these King fans want to treat his books as some sort of
sacred text that's their prerogative. I found the book "The Shining" a
potboiler, a nicely written potboiler, but displaying a literary
conceit that only attempts to aspire to Poe instead of having the
depth and feel of Poe--or Lovecraft or any of the other real greats of
the horror genre.
What this all seems to come down to is not that Kubrick "ruined"
King's book, but that Kubrick didn't provide to the King fans a film
in which they could watch while holding the book in their hands and
follow along, already knowing what to expect, but now having the
"advantage" of seeing it instead of attempting to tax their
imaginations to try to visualize it themselves. How can anyone feel
"scared" when they already know what about to happen next from having
read the book prior to seeing the film?
Again, I ask, is that all a film is good for? I had a few English Lit
teachers in high school who thought that way as well; the ones I had
in college were,for the most part, a little more forgiving and open
minded. Nevertheless, there is still this misconception that watching
a movie is inferior to a book; that may have come from TV. I feel it
is important that people read books and read regularly, but it is also
important to see a film--a good film--for what it is and be able to
"read" the language of cinema instead of seeing a movie as merely an
extension of some literary source and not good for anything else. What
about those films that were conceived as films and have no literary
source?
In any case, Matt, it's no use arguing with the King fans. They've dug
in their heels long ago. Perhaps the best thing is to let the thread
play out.
Boaz
Winston Castro
>
>These people just don't get it, nor, does it seem, will they ever get
>it. They are like many people, unfortunately, who think the only
>purpose filmmakers should serve is to make films of their favorite
>books, and then be letter-faithful to the text. They appear to not
>think of film as its own separate art form. Comparing a film to the
>book in which it is based is the worst form of film criticsm--with the
>exception of those who only look for mike shadows or other continuity
>errors and can't discuss a film beyond that level.
>
>In any case, Matt, it's no use arguing with the King fans. They've dug
>in their heels long ago. Perhaps the best thing is to let the thread
>play out.
>
>Boaz
Nicely put Boaz, but if many English Lit. teachers even have
trouble grasping the facts and concpets which you have just spelled
out, I believe your words are going to fall on deaf ears in regard to
the 'S. King fan-boy set.'
Leigh Mulvihill
"Name with No Man" <ritaka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1ae158c6.0207...@posting.google.com...
> maybe i was too busy comparing it to kubrick's great film but what an
> obvious and stupid horror story and not so well acted by the
> particulars. and that kid... i was hoping the ghosts would get him.
> ugly, untalented, insufferable.
>
> i hate kids.
I love kids - couldn't eat a whole one though!
Xfoliate
>potboiler, a nicely written potboiler, but displaying a literary
>conceit that only attempts to aspire to Poe instead of having the
>depth and feel of Poe--or Lovecraft or any of the other real greats of
>the horror genre.
>From: boa...@yahoo.com (Boaz)
poe and lovecraft... good stuff.
>In any case, Matt, it's no use arguing with the King fans. They've dug
>in their heels long ago. Perhaps the best thing is to let the thread
>play out.
>
>Boaz
>
true indeed... can't help but watch these trains crash though.
matt
Jim
I was about to make "a modest proposal".
David
Gawd, really. How can anyone in his right mind compare Kubrick -- even
when he's not at the top of his game, as in "The Shining" -- with a
mass-market hack like King?!
I betcha his 24-year-old American Studies professor told him to
"re-examine" King.
Ahmed Mahi Durgun
> Kubrick wasn't making a movie of King's book, he was stealing the best
parts
> to add to his horror movie.
He was making his own movie. thus: Stanley Kubrick's The Shining
> i like the TV remake because it sticks with the
> plot and charater development, it ends (up until graduation) like the
book,
That's not wat Kubrick wanted (obviously). Cuuuuz...he was making his own
movie
> and it gives a glimpse into the embedded evil (the hedges) of the
hotel.
Kubrick felt that it should be done as he intended (leaving behind the
special-effect
complexity of the hedges) The maze, cuuuuz..he was making his own movie
And the whole point was that the little boy was a freak.
Ooooooooh. We just didn't get it. Now I see I really feel guilty of hating
that boy.
oh wait a second...we were SUPpoooosed to hate him....Still hate him though.
Oh
boy how I hate that kid. hate...... hate....................... hate. Still
hate him.
You
> almost wanted the hotel to win. That's why it's scary.
Kubrick was making his own movie as he intended.
We've all read books
> or watched movies that scare with "BOO", but when what you want to
happen
> goes against what you know should happen...we frighten ourselves with
that
> insight. Thus the genius of Mr. King!
In the mean time you've dissmissed all innovative or at least 'brilliant'
approaches in
moviemaking by Kubrick because of this lousy reason. HOW ABOUT Kubrick
picking those all-known charecteristics of horror-movies/books. 'putting it
in a film'
and making it the best horror picture ever.
So whatever you come up with. I will keep saying Kubrick made own yadayada.
Ending with the conclusion that I'm so sorry for you that it Wasn't The BOOK
he
put on screen, but a film wich of I think was far greater then the tv
mini-series (or Blade 1&2)
"but displaying a literary
conceit that only attempts to aspire to Poe instead of having the
depth and feel of Poe"
true
hate that kid
Ahmed Mahi Durgun
> Kubrick wasn't making a movie of King's book, he was stealing the best
parts
> to add to his horror movie.
He was making his own movie. thus: Stanley Kubrick's The Shining
> i like the TV remake because it sticks with the
> plot and charater development, it ends (up until graduation) like the
book,
That's not wat Kubrick wanted (obviously). Cuuuuz...he was making his own
movie
> and it gives a glimpse into the embedded evil (the hedges) of the
hotel.
Kubrick felt that it should be done as he intended (leaving behind the
special-effect
complexity of the hedges) The maze, cuuuuz..he was making his own movie
And the whole point was that the little boy was a freak.
Ooooooooh. We just didn't get it. Now I see I really feel guilty of hating
that boy.
oh wait a second...we were SUPpoooosed to hate him....Still hate him though.
Oh
boy how I hate that kid. hate...... hate....................... hate. Still
hate him.
You
> almost wanted the hotel to win. That's why it's scary.
Kubrick was making his own movie as he intended.
We've all read books
> or watched movies that scare with "BOO", but when what you want to
happen
> goes against what you know should happen...we frighten ourselves with
that
> insight. Thus the genius of Mr. King!
In the mean time you've dissmissed all innovative or at least 'brilliant'
approaches in
moviemaking by Kubrick because of this lousy reason. HOW ABOUT Kubrick
picking those all-known charecteristics of horror-movies/books. 'putting it
in a film'
and making it the best horror picture ever.
So whatever you come up with. I will keep saying Kubrick made own yadayada.
Ending with the conclusion that I'm so sorry for you that it Wasn't The BOOK
he
put on screen, but a film wich of I think was far greater then the tv
mini-series (or Blade 1&2)
"but displaying a literary
conceit that only attempts to aspire to Poe instead of having the
depth and feel of Poe"
very true
hate that kid
Shiloh
"David" <dobe...@NIHILSPAMsocal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3d443f50...@news-server.socal.rr.com...
But if king was so far below kubrick, why did kubrick adapt the shining?
I also wonder why Kubrick collaborated with a hack like Arthur C. Clark
Wag
"Microsoft Gump XP" <123mu...@456eircom.net> wrote in message
news:lvp0ku80tp5gs09iu...@4ax.com...
> 'Twas an relatively innocent post from Nimrod `` before I saw it and
> corrupted it by replying:
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> > In fact, I'm having a great deal of fun.
>
> Ok, good. Me too. I wouldn't have the patience for it otherwise.
>
>
> - Dave -
Isn't it sweet that all these nice, polite Kubrick people have a little group
where they can hang out together and feel normal?
Must be funded by some civic minded liberal group with a social conscience
working overtime, eh?
Just think... they have nothing in common with anyone except one another
and- ugh, critics!
;-)'d
Wag
David
>But if king was so far below kubrick, why did kubrick adapt the shining?
I don't know what Kubrick's thinking was specifically, but I'm sure
Kubrick aficionados can tell us.
As far as the great guys adapting or springboarding from lesser guys
or even cruds, it's not at all strange. It is pretty common in the
arts.
I don't mean to insult King if he's your thing, but to me he's just
mass-market ordinary, worth a couple of cheap jolts (nothing wrong
with that per se).
Prater
through time, albeit still in the process, and to say that King is
mass-marketable is shown to be false by the inability of most people (in
this group as well it seems) to understand King's work. For someone to alter
his work to "make their own movie" is an insult to the originality and
imagination of the original creator/author. No matter how good the director
is when looking at the merits of his abilities, the fact remains that he
took what was someone else's and selfishly transformed it into something
else. The fact that we all disagree on what is "good" or "better" shows that
they are two different creative entities with their own impressions upon us.
Oh and I was never lame enough to take American Studies. There are much more
interesting and selfless (if there is such a thing) cultures to study. And
I'm usually referred to as "she" or "her"
-the eighth wonder of the world
PS. Thanks for the support, Cat!
Xfoliate
>where they can hang out together and feel normal?
>
>Must be funded by some civic minded liberal group with a social conscience
>working overtime, eh?
>
>Just think... they have nothing in common with anyone except one another
>and- ugh, critics!
>
>;-)'d
>Wag
the critics liked kubrick?
matt
Nimrod ``
>Actually my ability to appreciate the original work of an individual came
>through time, albeit still in the process, and to say that King is
>mass-marketable is shown to be false by the inability of most people (in
>this group as well it seems) to understand King's work. For someone to alter
>his work to "make their own movie" is an insult to the originality and
>imagination of the original creator/author. No matter how good the director
>is when looking at the merits of his abilities, the fact remains that he
>took what was someone else's and selfishly transformed it into something
>else. The fact that we all disagree on what is "good" or "better" shows that
>they are two different creative entities with their own impressions upon us.
How naive. There was nothing "selfish" about it at all. King was
paid extremely good money and he sold it; it's that simple. After
that, the buyer can do whatever he or she wants with it. Mr. King
took the money and ran, giving them the right to do just that. I
imagine his spending of every one of those bucks was guilt-free and
without apology.
So, do you think it was selfish of Francis Coppola to make a much
greater work out of THE GODFATHER than the pulp novel he used as a
springboard? How about all those classic westerns adapted loosely and
freely from pulp western novels that were very popular with readers?
How about Orson Welles' classic TOUCH OF EVIL, based upon a little
potboiler pulp novel called "Badge Of Evil" by Whit Masterson. Does
Whit's routine little book matter a whit to you now? Or is it only
big famous authors who you know about and who make a lot of money that
should get special treatment according to your creaky theory?
Cinematic history is loaded with great and classic films, based
nominally upon some potboiler popular novel, where the filmmakers took
the barest bones of the plot and made something substantially
different and much improved from its pulp origins. No doubt, you've
even seen and greatly enjoyed some of those films, but ain't got a
clue about the long-forgotten-book-you-never-heard-of which they were
based very loosely upon.
N``
Nimrod ``
You're just wagging your willy, Wag. There are loads of everyday
people out there who love Kubrick's film of THE SHINING and are not
particularly Stanley Kubrick fans or dwell on the director one way or
another.
As to the Kubrick ng....it's no different than all those folk over in
the Stephen King ng, engaging in masturbatory martyrdom whilst
diddling each other's navels in celebration of the fine literary
nuances of CUJO or CHRISTINE. And having dropped into both ngs on
occasion, I have to say that the Kubrick bunch doesn't spend anywhere
near as much time whining as those in the King cattle car. Funny
thing is how they don't much begrudge Mr. King all that money he's
taken from those big bad movie people who he sells his stuff to, by
and large giving the buyers carte blanche to do as they will. By the
way, how many pulp-titles has our boy cranked out as of this date
(honing and crafting each word, no doubt)?
N``
Microsoft Gump XP
it by replying:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > > In fact, I'm having a great deal of fun.
> >
> > Ok, good. Me too. I wouldn't have the patience for it otherwise.
> >
>
> Isn't it sweet that all these nice, polite Kubrick people have a little group
> where they can hang out together and feel normal?
>
> Must be funded by some civic minded liberal group with a social conscience
> working overtime, eh?
>
> Just think... they have nothing in common with anyone except one another
> and- ugh, critics!
Yeah, and for some reason, they don't like Stephen King, and their civic
minded sponsors don't seem to realise that they don't like other people
either.
Stephen King did *nothing* to you people!!! He's an ok guy! Give him a
chance, willya!
- Dave -
- Remove 123456 from my address -
- Keepin' it real and takin' it easy -
Wag
"Nimrod ``" <no...@go-c.SPAMBLOCKcom> wrote in message
news:0RdFPeOh+ZWsEP...@4ax.com...
You're housebound, aren't you? And you're housebound because
an inebriated author with amazing talent hit you as you jay-walked,
didn't he? And a selfish, pompous, "artsy" type director happened
to walk by and call 911 on his cell phone, thereby saving your life,
didn't he?
Golly-gosh, you haters are so transparent.
Wag
Wag
"Nimrod ``" <no...@go-c.SPAMBLOCKcom> wrote in message
Personally, I love Kubricks film. The main difference between groups,
however, is that King regularly gets his lumps in the King group, for we
know that not all he touches is somehow divinely blessed. Somehow I
get the feeling it just ain't that way in Kubrickville.
Over there I'm relatively sure it's "All hail Stanley!"
Over here, it's often, "Awww hell, Stephen!"
Intellectual honesty.... you guys should try it.
Wag
Nimrod ``
You are pitifully grasping at straws, Wag; betraying your own
insecurities and sorry constitution. I ain't remotely housebound and
you're the one whining because others celebrate the works of a
particular filmmaker, just as many other filmmakers are celebrated and
praised and discussed in this ng. That isn't about hate at all.
It's also mighty hypocritical of you to be thumping your chest about
"haters" in the same post where you smear with words like "selfish,
pompous, artsy"....making your breed of hatred not only palpable, but
simpleminded to boot.
And I notice that you haven't got the cajones or intellect to actually
address the points I made about adapted novels; instead, you employ
the mundane spineless approach...making a personal attack on the
person with whom you disagree instead of dealing straightforwardly
with the issue in the debate.
N``
Nimrod ``
Don't know how to break this to you, little one...but I'm posting from
rec.arts.movies.past-films, the ng where I generally hang out. I
haven't visited the Kubrick ng in many a moon.
And you might consider looking up some of my old posts where I've not
only been plenty critical of Kubrick in years past, have had published
criticism of his work, and have even gotten into lengthy dispute on
same topic in the Kubrick ng, actually going to bat for a certain film
critic who generally disdained his work.
In other words, you don't know what you're talking about. You're so
busy leaping to lame assumptions that you couldn't know the first
thing about intellectual honesty, because you're too busy practicing
rank stupidity.
N``