REVIEW: The Color Purple - Are you kidding?
epic
>Well, two things have happened over the last couple of weeks. I
>saw _The_Color_Purple_, which broke the long dry spell, and there
>seems to be a flood of good-to-excellent films to fill the void
>(_The_Trip_to_Bountiful_, _Down_&_Out_In_Beverly_Hills_,
>_Hannah_and_Her_Sisters_, and _Murphy's_Romance_). I'll
>concentrate on the former, and try to avoid the emotional diatribes
>The film, The_Color_Purple,
>reminds me of a cross between _To_Kill_A_Mockingbird_ and
>_Gone_With_the_Wind_ without the Epic Movie touches.
How dare you compare The_Color_Purple with such classics!
The problem with this film was that it had too many epic touches.
Especially, the up-in-the-air boom shots that you refer to in the
next paragraph.
>Spielburg is not afraid to do a up-in-the-air boom shot now and
>then, something we've seen dozens of times in the fabulous space
>operas; here, I was surprised to find that it works well also. Even
>the interior shots have texture and light (although often smokey),
>and you have the feeling that you're watching an adaptation of an
>old family classics, except old family classics usually don't
>discuss prejudice and lesbianism much.
This movie didn't discuss lesbianism I'm not sure that it discussed
prejudice either. I hold firmly to my original conviction that
this film didn't say anything at all.
>Very,
>very few people can place physical force in a stare or a hand held
> forward; but Ceilly, towards the end of the film gives the
>impression that Christopher Reeve in his blue-n-red jammies
>couldn't do better.
Oh was she acting, I couldn't tell?
>When looking at the script, though, the thing which made this film
>work for me (besides Goldberg) was the way that the conflict and
>drama and pain were balanced with comic character elements in
>each actor. It gives the film a flavor of Twain or Dickens (the
>latter in particular), in that the modern bleakness is not
>permeating every frame of the movie.
Comparing this film's effectiveness with that of Twain or Dickens.
I think I am going to be sick!!!!
I hated this film. I can't believe that it was nominated for an
Academy Award.
The one thing that I do agree with you about, is that
The_Trip_To_Bountiful and Hannah_and_Her_Sisters are excellent
movies. I did not see the other two films that you refer to.
Both The_Trip_to_Bountiful and Hannah_and_Her_Sisters were wonderful
movies because they were quietly evocative and provocative.
These movies did not beat you over the head with trite imagery
and canned emotional response.
SS
" AJT, please save a cookie for me."
m.r.leeper
closer to my feelings than you are.
>>The film, The_Color_Purple,
>>reminds me of a cross between _To_Kill_A_Mockingbird_ and
>>_Gone_With_the_Wind_ without the Epic Movie touches.
>
>How dare you compare The_Color_Purple with such classics!
And when GONE WITH THE WIND came out there was probably someone
standing there saying "it's no BIRTH OF A NATION." Why do people think
that nothing modern can be as good as something old? I have a lower
opinion of GONE WITH THE WIND than most. None of COLOR PURPLE was as
dull as the post-War parts of GWTW.
>The problem with this film was that it had too many epic
>touches. Especially, the up-in-the-air boom shots that you
>refer to in the next paragraph.
Frankly, I didn't notice.
>>and you have the feeling that you're watching an adaptation of an
>>old family classics, except old family classics usually don't
>>discuss prejudice and lesbianism much.
>
>This movie didn't discuss lesbianism I'm not sure that it
>discussed prejudice either.
Not in words, but I think that the implication that there was a lesbian
ralationship going on. And as for prejudice, I would say it is closer
to straight out bigotry. Albert assumed that women were so inferior to
him that he could turn his wife into a slave. In film you can discuss
without specific words. You can have wordless sequences that say a
lot.
>I hold firmly to my original
>conviction that this film didn't say anything at all.
I have to disagree on this one.
>
>>Very,
>>very few people can place physical force in a stare or a hand held
>> forward; but Ceilly, towards the end of the film gives the
>>impression that Christopher Reeve in his blue-n-red jammies
>>couldn't do better.
>
>Oh was she acting, I couldn't tell?
I think you are in the minority on this one if you think that she was
not a good actress. There is one scene in which she had people in the
audience openly weeping.
>
>>It gives the film a flavor of Twain or Dickens (the
>>latter in particular), in that the modern bleakness is not
>>permeating every frame of the movie.
>
>Comparing this film's effectiveness with that of Twain or
>Dickens. I think I am going to be sick!!!!
See my comment on GONE WITH THE WIND. I frankly find Goldberg's
sincerity more convincing than your compliants here.
>
>I hated this film. I can't believe that it was nominated
>for an Academy Award.
WITNESS seems a favorite of some. COLOR PURPLE is much better than
WITNESS. I know you didn't like TCP, but I think you go a little
overboard in flaming Moriarty. Just about any film will have a
divergence of reactions, but from my experience you are way off to one
end of the spectrum of opinion I have seen (not that that implies you
are wrong, just alone).
Mark Leeper
...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
Paul Sweazey
> Comparing this film's effectiveness with that of Twain or Dickens.
> I think I am going to be sick!!!!
>
> I hated this film. I can't believe that it was nominated for an
> Academy Award.
>
> " AJT, please save a cookie for me."
I am so sad to hear that my tears of sadness and of joy were wasted
on such a poor film. They really fooled me this time.
Paul Sweazey {decvax,ucbvax,...}!tektronix!tekecs!pauls UUCP
Tektronix, Inc. tekecs!pauls@tektronix CSNET
P.O. Box 1000, M/S 61-215 tekecs!pauls.tektronix@Udel-Relay ARPANET
Wilsonville, OR 97070
--
Paul Sweazey {decvax,ucbvax}!tektronix!tekecs!pauls
Tektronix, Inc Work: 503-685-2563
P.O. Box 1000 Home: 503-692-5016
Wilsonville, OR 97070
m.r.leeper
>My opinion
>is that in order for any review of any type to be useful to
>the readers of that review it must help to inform them of
>whether they would like the movie or not. If a reviewers
>opinions consistently disagree with the average movie
>viewers is that reviewer really providing a service by
>reviewing movies?
Speaking as someone who agreed with most of the general public on TPC
but who is often in stark disagreement with most people. (I really
liked LIFEFORCE, for example, and I know of about half a dozen people
at most who could stomach the film.) I would say (and have several
times on the net) that a reviewer has two responsibilities only. They
are to give his/her true opinion of the film, and if the reviewer knows
of some reason that he/she would be prejudiced for or against the film,
to say so up front. I think a critic has more of a responsibility to
be objective, but few really are. A critic really evaluatates the film
based on the critic's broad base of knowlege. A reviewer simply gives
the general public one more data-point to judge a film on. Besides,
before I see a film I don't want to know very much about it. That is
why I rarely want to read reviews before seeing a film or I just want a
capsule review. After I have seen it, I want to read why a reviewer
disagreed with me about a film as much or more as why one agreed with
me.
Mark Leeper
...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
s.e.badian
Many people I know will read reviews by critics that they usually
disagree with because this tells them what to go see just as much as
the critic that they agree with. If I hate everything that critic A
likes, well, next time he adores a movie, I'll know not to see it. Of
course life is rarely so black and white, but you get the idea.
Sharon Badian
ihnp4!mtgzy!seb