LIST BLAIR WITCH PLOT HOLES - Possible Spoilers
Ape Management
On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 01:55:27 GMT, nim...@earthlink.net (Nimrod``)
wrote:
>1) If this was "found" footage, how did Heather and the boys edit the
>"local folk" interviews"?
>
What editing are you referring to? The camera being switched on and
off? I don't recall any editing in theses scenes. I'll admit I could
be wrong, however. Anyway, who says the film is the complete footage
as found? The two film sources have clearly been edited together into
one package. Or do you think it's a "plothole" that we don't see the
2 sets of footage shown side by side on one screen or something?
>2) Why didn't they just follow the stream?
There was clearly more to their being lost than simple disorientation.
It seems clear to me that the witch, the woods or whatever is clearly
causing them to stay lost.
>
>3) If this is supposed to be real life, who has battery packs that
>last that long on cameras without being recharged?
>
The film contains a total of 88 minutes of footage. A film battery
pack contains, what, 2 hrs of juice? They're not walking around with
cameras running 24/7 and nothing in the film suggests that they are.
>4) Why did Heather and Mike keep filming each other right up to the
>end, after they were desperate for their lives and agreed that they
>didn't care about the movie anymore and just wanted to get out of
>there?
Good point. Someone in another thread suggested they were using the
cameras for light, which I think is reasonable, if a bit of a stretch.
>
>5) After they lost the map---or Mike threw away the map---why didn't
>they just rewind the tape in the camcorder and look at the map in any
>number of the shots they took of the map while they were studying it
>earlier?
>
Now THAT'S far-fetched. What are the odds that they could read the
precise details they needed from the footage of the map on whatever
tiny monitoring equipment they had?
>6) Why didn't one of them climb a tall tree and look for the edge of
>the woods?
>
See the answer to 2 above.
>7) Why didn't they drown that irritating Heather in the tub back at
>the motel room and just save themselves the grief?
>
Good point. However the character was supposed to be rather
irritating and full of herself.
How about admitting that you are irritated by the hype and are
enjoying repeatedly dogging this film online?
----------------------------
They get what they want
And they never want it again.
--Courtney Love
----------------------------
Michele317
>"local folk" interviews"?
>
<<What editing are you referring to? The camera being switched on and off? I
don't recall any editing in theses scenes.>>
they interview several people in that section of the film, but the interviews
have been cut apart and rearranged.
<<How about admitting that you are irritated by the hype and are enjoying
repeatedly dogging this film online?>>
i'm only annoyed by the hype because the movie didn't thrill me like i wanted
it to. i wish i enjoyed it half as much as some people did. and i still don't
know why they carried only one paper map and not enough flashlights.
Larax
>
>>1) If this was "found" footage, how did Heather and the boys edit the
>>"local folk" interviews"?
>>
>
><<What editing are you referring to? The camera being switched on and off?
>I
>don't recall any editing in theses scenes.>>
>
>they interview several people in that section of the film, but the interviews
>have been cut apart and rearranged.
Uh, according to the (yes, I know it's not real) backstory, Haxan has the
rights to all the footage shot by the filmmakers (HOURS of it), and they edited
it into what is known as The Blair Witch Project. Do you think the 90 minutes
of footage is all that was found? No. In real life, the three actors shot some
19 hours of footage- which I guess, would be about the same amount "recovered"
from the site.
-Lar...@aol.com
"Hosie Cow - It shoots water out of it's tail. Ya know, just like a real cow!"
Jon Cohen
camera man was caught up in it. He kept of recording everything-while
saying his last will and testament (or just about).
Yes-he did make it out.
--
Jon
To reply: Please use: Jon...@Bigfoot.com or ICQ # 948660
"Peace is made with yesterday's enemies. What is the alternative?"Shimon
Peres
Tymon
>
> To answer # 4 I will go to real life-went Mt. St. Helen's erupted-a TV
> camera man was caught up in it. He kept of recording everything-while
> saying his last will and testament (or just about).
> Yes-he did make it out.
...And the cameraman that filmed his own death on the runway tarmac in
Guyana when the Reverend Jones sent his hit men to stop them from
leaving (back in '78 - Jonestown Massacre.)
tymon
--
"Some people like cupcakes exclusively while myself I say there is
naught nor ought there be nothing so exalted on the face of God's Grey
Earth as that prince of foods: The Muffin!"
- Frank Zappa
Andrew Ryall
: >i'm only annoyed by the hype because the movie didn't thrill me like i wanted
: >it to. i wish i enjoyed it half as much as some people did. and i still don't
: >know why they carried only one paper map and not enough flashlights.
: Because, Michelle, these are the kinds of people who go camping in the
: woods overnight intending to rely upon their camera lights and camera
: batteries for illumination in the dark, instead of using lanterns and
: flashlights like anybody with a lick of sense would....
Ever go camping? I have. Ever forget anything important?
I have. It happens. Plus, who's to say that their light
sources weren't trashed along with most of the rest of
their belongings?
A n d r e w R y a l l
_____________________________________________________
|
Term 4 Business | Web Site Developer
Memorial University | Design Base, Inc.
www.ucs.mun.ca/~v65arr | www.design-base.com
__________________________|__________________________
"E-mail is for nerds and pedophiles; write a letter."
- revelation from the new film by beacon of good
taste Roger Kumble (director of "National
Lampoon's Senior Trip"), "Cruel Intentions"
_____________________________________________________
Dave
>> I have. It happens. Plus, who's to say that their light
>> sources weren't trashed along with most of the rest of
>> their belongings?
> I've been camping countless times and I hike in the backwoods
> extensively. But even when I was a kid and my family went camping
> overnight, the first things you packed after tent and sleeping
> bags---was lanterns and flashlights. I can't remember going camping
> overnight and ever once forgetting something as obvious as a lantern.
> It's something you're hyper aware of if you know you're going to be in
> the woods in the dark; you might forget a can opener or a hatchet.
> But you don't forget a lantern or water.
They had flashlights. Remember the scene where Heather is patching
her pants? She is holding a small flashlight in her mouth. Josh is
also holding a flashlight in that scene. A lantern isn't required and
I've never taken one camping with me. They can be heavy and difficult
to store in a backpack. They only planned on staying in the woods for
one night, so it's reasonable to just have flashlights then.
They may not have been equipped as you or I would have equipped
ourselves, but keep in mind that they had lots of film equipment to
carry instead.
Dave
(da...@pdh.com)
BrandonDale
(Nimrod``) wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:33:46 -0400, Tymon <tym...@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Jon Cohen wrote:
>>>
>>> To answer # 4 I will go to real life-went Mt. St. Helen's erupted-a TV
>>> camera man was caught up in it. He kept of recording everything-while
>>> saying his last will and testament (or just about).
>>> Yes-he did make it out.
>>
>> ...And the cameraman that filmed his own death on the runway tarmac in
>>Guyana when the Reverend Jones sent his hit men to stop them from
>>leaving (back in '78 - Jonestown Massacre.)
>> tymon
>
>Do I really have to point out that these were guys filming specific
>events of relatively short duration---not every waking moment day in
>and day while terrified, including stumbling through the woods and the
>dark, right up to the bitter end?
I see where you're coming from, but it is a movie. If someone wasn't
filming, we wouldn't have much to watch, so I'm willing to suspend any
disbelief on this point. Plus it makes sense for Heather to be filming,
since it was keeping her sane. Mike's joining in on the filming could have
been better handled, but I don't think it was stretch. They knew they were
dead, so why not film it?
--
-Brandon Blatcher
R.I.P. Mark Sandman, singer/bassist of Morphine, 1952-1999.
BrandonDale
(Andrew Ryall) wrote:
>Nimrod`` (nim...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>
>: >i'm only annoyed by the hype because the movie didn't thrill me like i
wanted
>: >it to. i wish i enjoyed it half as much as some people did. and i
still don't
>: >know why they carried only one paper map and not enough flashlights.
Because they weren't expecting major problems. And as I recall during one
scene in the tent, all of them had flashlights.
>: Because, Michelle, these are the kinds of people who go camping in the
>: woods overnight intending to rely upon their camera lights and camera
>: batteries for illumination in the dark, instead of using lanterns and
>: flashlights like anybody with a lick of sense would....
>
>Ever go camping? I have. Ever forget anything important?
>I have. It happens. Plus, who's to say that their light
>sources weren't trashed along with most of the rest of
>their belongings?
They had flashlights. Several of them. Remember Heather was sewing by
flashlight, while Mike has another and Josh was filming.
Jason Travis
> flashlight, while Mike has another and Josh was filming.
Sewing? I got the impression she was rolling a joint in that scene. I
remember them talking about something "it's stupid, but will make them
comfortable."
duraBrandon
<jctr...@nospam.email.msn.com> wrote:
Na, I'm pretty sure she was sewing.
Dave
> > They had flashlights. Several of them. Remember Heather was sewing by
> > flashlight, while Mike has another and Josh was filming.
>
> Sewing? I got the impression she was rolling a joint in that scene. I
> remember them talking about something "it's stupid, but will make them
> comfortable."
She was sewing her pants. On of the guys comments that he thought it
was dumb for her to be doing that at that point. Heather was holding
a flashlight in her mouth.
Dave
(da...@pdh.com)
the disdamoned
Nimrod`` wrote:
> On 20 Jul 1999 04:39:04 GMT, miche...@aol.compost (Michele317)
> wrote:
>
> >>1) If this was "found" footage, how did Heather and the boys edit the
> >>"local folk" interviews"?
> >>
> >
> ><<What editing are you referring to? The camera being switched on and off? I
> >don't recall any editing in theses scenes.>>
> >
> >they interview several people in that section of the film, but the interviews
> >have been cut apart and rearranged.
> >
> ><<How about admitting that you are irritated by the hype and are enjoying
> >repeatedly dogging this film online?>>
> >
> >i'm only annoyed by the hype because the movie didn't thrill me like i wanted
> >it to. i wish i enjoyed it half as much as some people did. and i still don't
> >know why they carried only one paper map and not enough flashlights.
>
> Because, Michelle, these are the kinds of people who go camping in the
> woods overnight intending to rely upon their camera lights and camera
> batteries for illumination in the dark, instead of using lanterns and
> flashlights like anybody with a lick of sense would....
>
they had flashlights they used, you nimrod.
--
Where is the political outcry over the stock market causing
violent shootings?
dawnprincess
up to the end, after they were desperate for their lives
and agreed that they didn't care about the movie anymore
and just wanted to get out of there?
7) Why didn't they drown that irritating Heather in the tub
back at the motel room and just save themselves the grief?
My feeling is that Heather was irritating on purpose.
Several times in the process of her filming, the guys ask
her to stop it (even before they are completely freaked
out). I think it was important to establish that Heather
was an irritating person, who was totally obsessed with
filming this documentary, no matter what. And like the
other person said....during the scene that she apologized
to their parents, etc., it set up the idea that she might
just keep on filming figuring that they were going to be
killed and she wanted to leave some sort of documentation
about what had happened to them.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Scott Boterweg
There was a scene where Josh was filming Heather while she was brooding. He
mentioned that he understood now why she spent all of her time filming. It
made the world look like it was in another dimension and filtered out
reality somewhat.
Personally, after seeing Heather on the Tonight Show, I think that her
character was irritating and obnoxious because Heather (the real person) is
that way.
--
Scott Boterweg
s...@bellsouth.net
Too often, we lose sight of life's simple pleasures.
Remember, when someone annoys you, it takes 42 muscles in your
face to frown, but it takes only 4 muscles to extend your arm and
smack that person upside the head.
dawnprincess wrote in message <9342271...@www.remarq.com>...
Brandon Blue Eyes
<nbi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>4) Why did Heather and Mike keep filming each other right
>up to the end, after they were desperate for their lives
>and agreed that they didn't care about the movie anymore
>and just wanted to get out of there?
They weren't fighting at the end. They had pretty much made up as best two
people can under those circumstances.
>AND
>7) Why didn't they drown that irritating Heather in the tub
>back at the motel room and just save themselves the grief?
she had a cute butt.
>My feeling is that Heather was irritating on purpose.
>Several times in the process of her filming, the guys ask
>her to stop it (even before they are completely freaked
>out). I think it was important to establish that Heather
>was an irritating person, who was totally obsessed with
>filming this documentary, no matter what. And like the
>other person said....during the scene that she apologized
>to their parents, etc., it set up the idea that she might
>just keep on filming figuring that they were going to be
>killed and she wanted to leave some sort of documentation
>about what had happened to them.
Probably. Plus it gave her something to do.
--
-Brandon Blatcher
You can do...things to strangers,
as long as you wear white and do it on a table.
FilmNutBoy
>My feeling is that Heather was irritating on purpose.
You know, everyone keeps saying how Heather was so annoying and obnoxious.
Somehow that never occurred to me while watching the movie. I wonder why? At
the risk of sounding PC (and anyone who knows me knows that I am very un-PC),
is this a gender issue? Do some people dislike Heather because she's an
opinionated, in charge woman? She's very forward, and had those boys under her
thumb; generally, many don't like females to act that way, even other females.
Now, I'm in no way suggesting that everyone who thinks Heather is irritating is
uncomfortable with strong, opinionated women. I realize that many of you
disliked her simply because you thought she was irritating, and nothing more.
I am simply asking if you think this may be PART of the reason why so many
found her unlikeable.
By the way, don't think I'm some kinda sensitive Alan Alda type. I hold out
the possibility that I ignored Heather's character flaws because I thought she
had a cute ass.
--Kevin
"Insert your favorite quote here."
Regina Alexandra Robbins
> You know, everyone keeps saying how Heather was so annoying and obnoxious.
> Somehow that never occurred to me while watching the movie. I wonder why? At
> the risk of sounding PC (and anyone who knows me knows that I am very un-PC),
> is this a gender issue? Do some people dislike Heather because she's an
> opinionated, in charge woman? She's very forward, and had those boys under her
> thumb; generally, many don't like females to act that way, even other females.
What????? Haven't you heard that women are barely discriminated against
at all anymore? Sheesh.
> Now, I'm in no way suggesting that everyone who thinks Heather is irritating is
> uncomfortable with strong, opinionated women. I realize that many of you
> disliked her simply because you thought she was irritating, and nothing more.
> I am simply asking if you think this may be PART of the reason why so many
> found her unlikeable.
What????? Don't you know that these issues are not complex? Either
someone is irritating or they aren't, and no one's motives are ever
confused. If you'd read this group long enough, you'd know that.
> By the way, don't think I'm some kinda sensitive Alan Alda type. I hold out
> the possibility that I ignored Heather's character flaws because I thought she
> had a cute ass.
A real, watermelon-juicy ass. (I am being sincere now.) God bless you.
Yours in sarcasm and big-assedness,
RAR.
_______________________________________________________________
"MES YEUX!"
-- Juliette Binoche, LES AMANTS DU PONT-NEUF
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Blue Eyes
filmn...@aol.comNOJUNK (FilmNutBoy) wrote:
>dawnprincess nbi...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>My feeling is that Heather was irritating on purpose.
>
>You know, everyone keeps saying how Heather was so annoying and obnoxious.
>Somehow that never occurred to me while watching the movie. I wonder why? At
>the risk of sounding PC (and anyone who knows me knows that I am very un-PC),
>is this a gender issue? Do some people dislike Heather because she's an
>opinionated, in charge woman? She's very forward, and had those boys under her
>thumb; generally, many don't like females to act that way, even other females.
>
>Now, I'm in no way suggesting that everyone who thinks Heather is irritating is
>uncomfortable with strong, opinionated women. I realize that many of you
>disliked her simply because you thought she was irritating, and nothing more.
>I am simply asking if you think this may be PART of the reason why so many
>found her unlikeable.
>
>By the way, don't think I'm some kinda sensitive Alan Alda type. I hold out
>the possibility that I ignored Heather's character flaws because I thought she
>had a cute ass.
Driven, headstrong, a leader AND a cute ass. No wonder I liked her.
Brandon Blue Eyes
> nom...@worldnet.att.net (Brandon Blue Eyes) wrote:
>
>>she had a cute butt.
>
>I don't think so. Put a pair of white jeans on her, and you could
>project the movie on her backside.
exactly.
scott tobias
> All I can say is, I live with a very mature, headstrong, take-charge
> woman and dearly love her for it. She's got an exceptional intellect
> and sharply developed opinions of her own. She gives great mind.
>
> And I found Heather annoying because she was shrill, shallow,
> immature, petulant, with a limited vocabulary---the antithesis of the
> woman I dearly love. Heather also has a very grating voice---flat,
> thin, and lacking resonance (poor qualities for an actress, I might
> add), and spends too much of the film shrieking with that voice in a
> hysterical manner.
>
I simply can't understand these complaints about the Heather character
and Donahue's astonishing performance. I don't think it's necessary for
her to be wholly likable or "give great mind" (I hope to never see those
three words written or uttered in succession again-- yuck) in order for
the character to be sufficiently complex or convincing. If you're
asking for Myrick and Sanchez to send the woman you dearly love out into
the forest, you've asking for another movie.
Part of what makes BWP such a remarkable horror movie is witnessing the
gradual psychological deterioration of the characters, a progression
marked by their increasing behavioral tics. I think it's fair to say
that Heather and Co. -- lost, hungry and hunted -- cannot be expected to
be at their most charming under the circumstances. Their nerves are
frayed and their minds are spinning in neurotic circles; the result may
come off as "petulant" and "immature" to you, but it makes perfect sense
dramatically. (A quick piece of advise, Nimrod: You may wish to avoid
the collective works of John Cassavetes).
To get back to Heather, I think she has an active, inquisitive mind and
an undeniable sense of responsibility towards her collaborators, as
evidenced by the harrowing, unforgettable "confession" sequence. As a
director, she's confident that she'll get the footage she needs and lead
all of them through the woods without harm. When her self-assurance is
turned against her by uncontrollable forces (map or not, *something* was
keeping them from leaving), she's left to deal not only with her own
unraveling, but an underlying guilt over that of her crew. Another
fascinating aspect to her character and the film, which Steve Erickson
brings out in depth in his review
(http://home.earthlink.net/~steevee/blair.html), is her attachment to
the camera and how her compulsion to keep it running cannot be written
off as stupid or inconsiderate. She's film-literate enough to hope that
when you reduce reality to image that you gain a certain distance from
it, protective wall that she wishes to extend to the others.
As for some of your other gripes, I don't think Heather's voice even
warrants criticism, unless you're ready to debunk great performances
from other actresses with less-than-agreeable voices (Brenda Blethyn in
"Secrets & Lies," Rosie Perez in "Fearless" and "White Men Can't Jump,"
etc.). Why you won't allow for hysterics from her is simply a mystery.
Since this has become longer than I'd anticipated, let me heap a little
more praise on BWP: Had the film not included a single suggestion of the
supernatural, if it were just about three college students taking a
Sunday hike, I still think it would be an accomplished piece of
naturalism. The technique, performances and improvisation are that
convincing.
Scott
--
Scott Tobias
http://avclub.theonion.com
"...the usual arts-and-entertainment section, with music reviews
and the rest." -- Hendrik Hertzberg, The New Yorker
Moviegoer
>she had a cute butt.
I don't think so. Put a pair of white jeans on her, and you could
project the movie on her backside.
As Ludwig Mies van der Rohe said, "Less is more."
That applies to the movie as well as Donahue's derriere. . . .
Moviegoer
>And I found Heather annoying because she was shrill, shallow,
>immature, petulant, with a limited vocabulary---the antithesis of the
>woman I dearly love. Heather also has a very grating voice---flat,
>thin, and lacking resonance (poor qualities for an actress, I might
>add), and spends too much of the film shrieking with that voice in a
>hysterical manner.
Apparently Jason Dean (Christian Slater) forgot to kill one of the
Heathers. Either that, or Veronica Sawyer (Winona Ryder) is the Blair
Witch.
[And, "Heathers" is a GREAT MOVIE!]
scott tobias
>
> On Mon, 09 Aug 1999 21:59:19 -0700, scott tobias
> <swto...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >Nimrod`` wrote:
> >
> >> All I can say is, I live with a very mature, headstrong, take-charge
> >> woman and dearly love her for it. She's got an exceptional intellect
> >> and sharply developed opinions of her own. She gives great mind.
> >>
> >> immature, petulant, with a limited vocabulary---the antithesis of the
> >> woman I dearly love. Heather also has a very grating voice---flat,
> >> thin, and lacking resonance (poor qualities for an actress, I might
> >> add), and spends too much of the film shrieking with that voice in a
> >> hysterical manner.
> >>
> >
> >and Donahue's astonishing performance. I don't think it's necessary for
> >her to be wholly likable or "give great mind" (I hope to never see those
> >three words written or uttered in succession again-- yuck) in order for
> >the character to be sufficiently complex or convincing. If you're
> >asking for Myrick and Sanchez to send the woman you dearly love out into
> >the forest, you've asking for another movie.
> >
>
> shouldn't be surprised. The reason I mentioned the woman in my life
> and her attributes was not because I felt the character in the film
> should be like her---but because Kevin wondered, in his original post,
> if the reason some folks didn't like Heather was because she was a
> "strong, opinionated woman" and he went on to say that he was "in no
> way suggesting that everyone who thinks Heather is irritating is
> illuminating that point. Perhaps you should have read his post a
> little more closely, then you might of understood my references.
Point taken, but your irritation with Heather still doesn't account for
your belief in her inadequacy as a character or the inadequacies of
Donahue as an actress. This was the crux of my entire post, which
you've chosen not to address.
> In truth, Heather is more a girl than she is a woman, and there's
> nothing in the least astonishing about her performance; I've seen
> countless like it---and countless better hysterics from other,
> smarter, more textured actresses in acting workshops.
Well, if you think Donahue turns in a lousy performance, we can do
nothing but agree to disagree. But I'm interested: What makes her
character a girl instead of a woman? I assume you're trying to say
something about her maturity or integrity. If so, why was it necessary
for Myrick/Sanchez to give you a "woman" (however you're ready to define
the word) rather than the character as is, warts and all, in order for
BWP to be a better movie?
> Oh, and as far as my "gives great mind" comment---fuck you too and the
> horse you rode in on.
>
Oh, don't be a baby. John Tesh and Connie Selleca still making
appearances and "Chicken Soup For The Soul" still perched on the
bestseller list, our nation's gag reflexes are already working overtime.
Scott
scott tobias
> >Point taken, but your irritation with Heather still doesn't account for
> >your belief in her inadequacy as a character or the inadequacies of
> >Donahue as an actress. This was the crux of my entire post, which
> >you've chosen not to address.
>
> Actually, yes I did, in my original post. I spelled out what I
> disliked about her and her character (which was herself) in great
> detail in my original post.
Deja currently lists 268 posts on this thread in its various forms. I
assume that when you point to your original post, you're not speaking of
that embarrassingly literal "list the plot holes" crap, are you? All
you have to say about Heather in that post is that the men should have
drowned her back in the motel room. Where could I find a more detailed
analysis of Heather to consider?
> >> In truth, Heather is more a girl than she is a woman, and there's
> >> nothing in the least astonishing about her performance; I've seen
> >> countless like it---and countless better hysterics from other,
> >> smarter, more textured actresses in acting workshops.
> >
> >Well, if you think Donahue turns in a lousy performance, we can do
> >nothing but agree to disagree. But I'm interested: What makes her
> >character a girl instead of a woman? I assume you're trying to say
> >something about her maturity or integrity. If so, why was it necessary
> >for Myrick/Sanchez to give you a "woman" (however you're ready to define
> >the word) rather than the character as is, warts and all, in order for
> >BWP to be a better movie?
>
> I never once said they had to give me a "woman". That is your fatuous
> supposition. Again, you seem not to be paying attention. I was
> commenting on Kevin's remark when he wondered, in his original post,
> if the reason some folks didn't like Heather was because she was a
> "strong, opinionated woman". And I said, "in truth, Heather is more a
> girl than she is a woman". That was my observation and it meant
> nothing more and nothing less...
But your observation is clearly meant to reflect negatively on her
character and the movie, right? You did, after all, list your annoyance
with her as a "plot hole" (huh?) in BWP. And you never bothered to
define your criteria for what makes a "woman," either. But I guess when
faced with a "strong, opinionated woman," your solution is to combat it
by reducing her to a "girl" and wishing her character's demise at the
hands of two men in the motel bathroom.
Scott
Chris Seamans
FilmNutBoy wrote in message
<19990809181257...@ng-cd1.aol.com>...
>You know, everyone keeps saying how Heather was so annoying and
>obnoxious. Somehow that never occurred to me while watching the movie. I
>wonder why?
It did occur to me once I saw the flood of Heather haters on the newsgroups.
I was wondering if and when the question would get posed.
>At the risk of sounding PC (and anyone who knows me knows that I am very
un-
>PC), is this a gender issue? Do some people dislike Heather because she's
>an opinionated, in charge woman? She's very forward, and had those boys
>under her thumb; generally, many don't like females to act that way, even
other
>females.
I think that may be at the crux of the absolute hatred of Heather and her
character that some people have.
>Now, I'm in no way suggesting that everyone who thinks Heather is
irritating is
>uncomfortable with strong, opinionated women. I realize that many of you
>disliked her simply because you thought she was irritating, and nothing
more.
>I am simply asking if you think this may be PART of the reason why so many
>found her unlikeable.
I'd bet money on it. I agree that lots of people just found her irritating,
but still there's something to be said for the fact that she was very
outspoken and the plot of the film seemed to indicate that she actually did
know what she was doing to a certain extent. Put a girl in charge in a film
and the misogynists will come crawling out of the woodwork.
>By the way, don't think I'm some kinda sensitive Alan Alda type. I hold
out
>the possibility that I ignored Heather's character flaws because I thought
she
>had a cute ass.
I hold out the possibility that I ignored her character flaws because she's
more or less a Philly girl... hometown pride and all that rot.
Shawn Hill
: You've completely, totally, missed the point, Scott. But I guess I
: shouldn't be surprised. The reason I mentioned the woman in my life
: and her attributes was not because I felt the character in the film
: should be like her---but because Kevin wondered, in his original post,
: if the reason some folks didn't like Heather was because she was a
He didn't miss the point. He just disagreed with it.
: "strong, opinionated woman" and he went on to say that he was "in no
: way suggesting that everyone who thinks Heather is irritating is
: uncomfortable with strong, opinionated women". I was merely
: illuminating that point. Perhaps you should have read his post a
: little more closely, then you might of understood my references.
: In truth, Heather is more a girl than she is a woman, and there's
: nothing in the least astonishing about her performance; I've seen
: countless like it---and countless better hysterics from other,
: smarter, more textured actresses in acting workshops.
Different strokes. She seemed like a woman to me, and her performance was
compelling and even subtle at times.
: Oh, and as far as my "gives great mind" comment---fuck you too and the
: horse you rode in on.
One has to wonder how strong and independent the woman you describe is, if
your final reference to her involves such a blatant sexual metaphor.
Shawn
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
= +
+ "I'm a human costume with veins of gold =
= I'll face the punching bag, do what I'm told +
+ till I get old, and have to dwell =
= in the Valley of Iron Men" +
+ --GbV =
= +
+=+=sh...@husc.harvard.edu+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
VM
> Well, you obviously have yet to learn the difference between a woman
> and a girl in this life---because Heather acts more like a stubborn
> adolescent girl than she does a strong woman. I didn't have to reduce
> her to that state---that's obviously who she is. Someday, I suspect,
> you will look back and understand precisely what I mean.
Aren't we perhaps getting just a little bit touchy over
an off-hand comment? It sounds as if you thought his
dismissal of "gives good mind" was directed directly
at your wonderful lady, when it read to me that he
just found the phrase itself "yucky." Now you're
fighting about girls vs. women, and it sounds (to me)
as if you're just trying to put Heather Donahue into
a slot as far away from your lady as possible. You
know, women, even very strong women, can go to pieces
sometimes, and my saying that has nothing to do with
your wife.
And besides, Heather (the character) is college aged.
She's not that far removed from being a stubborn
adolescent girl. She's at that in-between stage of
learning how to be a woman, while still occasionally
using the tactics that probably served her well when
she was an adolescent. By the end of the movie, everything
is stripped bare in her psyche. She's neither "girl"
nor "woman," she's one scared, freaked-out, fucked-up,
ageless (at that point she could have been 10 or 80)
human being.
> And you might think about getting a sense of humor along
>the way, while you're at it.
<giggle> Well, he writes for the completely brilliantly
funny _The Onion_ (so at least he hangs around funny folks
all the time), and you don't, and maybe you're the one
who over-reacted.
Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
>And I'll go even further out on a limb and say that anybody who
>doesn't grasp that doesn't know what a real woman, even a real young
>woman, is.
I've noticed a theme in your BWP posts. You like to make reference to some
important knowledge on your part - make reference to it over and over again, in
fact - and then refuse to in any way explain or share that powerful wisdom with
us. For example, you know how BWP could have been a much better movie, but you
can't reveal how, because you are some kind of professional movie idea giver
and it's against your code of honor to work pro bono.
Now, you know what it means to be a Real Woman, but you can't explain it
because, obviously, anyone who doesn't know what your definition of a Real
Woman is will just have to wait until they get older. Then they'll look back on
this thread and say, "Ah ha, *now* I know what ol' Nimrod was talking about
so many years ago. And perhaps I've saved up enough to purchase his ideas about
how to make the Blair Witch Project more creative..."
I think you could learn something from the pot culture. Don't bogart it, man.
>Well, I've got something of a comic pedigree of me own---and Scott was
>the one who took me dead seriously when I joked about the guys
>drowning Heather in the bathtub.
He didn't take you dead seriously. But a person's jokes also give an idea of
where they're coming from. When I get a little worked up talking about the
upcoming How the Grinch Stole Christmas movie and say I want to kick Ron Howard
in the balls, it makes me sound like an aggressive asshole, even though I don't
really plan on kicking him in the balls - just in the shin. Saying that you
want to drown a character makes you come off a certain way as well, and I can
understand why Scott would take that and the blowjob metaphor into account when
he chooses to be skeptical about your "strong woman" statements.
--Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
"I write rhymes so fresh I try to bite my own verses." --Tash
the disdamoned
Regina Alexandra Robbins wrote:
> On 9 Aug 1999, FilmNutBoy wrote:
>
> > You know, everyone keeps saying how Heather was so annoying and obnoxious.
> > Somehow that never occurred to me while watching the movie. I wonder why? At
> > the risk of sounding PC (and anyone who knows me knows that I am very un-PC),
> > is this a gender issue? Do some people dislike Heather because she's an
> > opinionated, in charge woman? She's very forward, and had those boys under her
> > thumb; generally, many don't like females to act that way, even other females.
>
> What????? Haven't you heard that women are barely discriminated against
> at all anymore? Sheesh.
>
i'm here to spread the word!
>
> > Now, I'm in no way suggesting that everyone who thinks Heather is irritating is
> > uncomfortable with strong, opinionated women. I realize that many of you
> > disliked her simply because you thought she was irritating, and nothing more.
> > I am simply asking if you think this may be PART of the reason why so many
> > found her unlikeable.
>
> What????? Don't you know that these issues are not complex? Either
> someone is irritating or they aren't, and no one's motives are ever
> confused. If you'd read this group long enough, you'd know that.
>
> > By the way, don't think I'm some kinda sensitive Alan Alda type. I hold out
> > the possibility that I ignored Heather's character flaws because I thought she
> > had a cute ass.
>
> A real, watermelon-juicy ass. (I am being sincere now.) God bless you.
>
> Yours in sarcasm and big-assedness,
> RAR.
> ___________________
brandon, meet regina.
Shawn Hill
:>He didn't miss the point. He just disagreed with it.
: Actually, even Scott acknowledged that he was off my point in his
: followup to this post; so you don't know what you're talking about...
He's a courteous poster. I commend him for that.
:>Different strokes. She seemed like a woman to me, and her performance was
:>compelling and even subtle at times.
: Well, you have a pretty low threshold for womanhood, then. And her
: performance was neither compelling or subtle---it was just acting
: workshop histrionics of the most mundane kind.
That's what YOU saw. Fine. I saw something else. Believe me, I've seen
acting workshop histrionics. I've seen almost every Sheryl Lee movie, for
one thing.
:>: Oh, and as far as my "gives great mind" comment---fuck you too and the
:>: horse you rode in on.
:>
:>One has to wonder how strong and independent the woman you describe is, if
:>your final reference to her involves such a blatant sexual metaphor.
: What does that have to do with anything? So strong, independent women
: aren't also sexual creatures?
It's not very nice to publically reduce them to that in your supposedly
positive portrait of them.
: Let me tell you something---the strongest, most independent women are
: often the most highly sexual creatures. And one of the best things
: they bring to sex is a sense of humor, not to mention a wealth of
: sexual metaphors.
Well, I'm glad I know that now. I'll still leave the sexual metaphors for
the privacy of an intimate relationship, and talk about my partner's
intellectual strengths and talents in public, if that's okay with you.
Shawn
* . * . * . * .
Q: "Am I still your woman?"
A: "You're the captain's woman...until he says you're not."
. * . * . *sh...@fas.harvard.edu
Shawn Hill
:>Heather definitely falls into that category as far as I'm concerned.
:>And I'll go even further out on a limb and say that anybody who
:>doesn't grasp that doesn't know what a real woman, even a real young
:>woman, is.
: Now, you know what it means to be a Real Woman, but you can't explain it
: because, obviously, anyone who doesn't know what your definition of a Real
: Woman is will just have to wait until they get older. Then they'll look back on
: this thread and say, "Ah ha, *now* I know what ol' Nimrod was talking about
: so many years ago. And perhaps I've saved up enough to purchase his ideas about
: how to make the Blair Witch Project more creative..."
Frankenseuss, you make me so happy sometimes. Thanks for saying things so
well.
:>Well, I've got something of a comic pedigree of me own---and Scott was
:>the one who took me dead seriously when I joked about the guys
:>drowning Heather in the bathtub.
: He didn't take you dead seriously. But a person's jokes also give an idea of
: where they're coming from. When I get a little worked up talking about the
: upcoming How the Grinch Stole Christmas movie and say I want to kick Ron Howard
: in the balls, it makes me sound like an aggressive asshole, even though I don't
: really plan on kicking him in the balls - just in the shin. Saying that you
: want to drown a character makes you come off a certain way as well, and I can
: understand why Scott would take that and the blowjob metaphor into account when
: he chooses to be skeptical about your "strong woman" statements.
Yeah, I dunno, joking about drowning a "girl" who "irritates" him, while
his real-life "woman" is smart enough to pass his tests and be sexy...hard
to make a case for being an enlightened male out of that.
Easy to make this case, though: seeing a woman be in charge of a project
that goes so awry is unnerving, especially when she refuses to yeild her
power as things get worse and worse. She also allows herself to be
vulnerable and mistaken. I thought the all three actors did a great job of
letting their characters interact and work out their tensions, taking
turns with the leadership role depending on their expertise. Until Josh
dissappeared, and everyone knew their number was up.
Regina Alexandra Robbins
> On 11 Aug 1999 14:23:48 GMT, Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> >Yeah, I dunno, joking about drowning a "girl" who "irritates" him, while
> >his real-life "woman" is smart enough to pass his tests and be sexy...hard
> >to make a case for being an enlightened male out of that.
Let's face it: a joke about a man killing a woman is not that funny
because it is a common occurrence. Not to say that Nimrod personally is
an abuser (I'm as sure of this as I can be considering I don't know him at
all). Maybe one day this joke won't have any unpleasant social
resonances. Unfortunately, it still does now.
> >Easy to make this case, though: seeing a woman be in charge of a project
> >that goes so awry is unnerving, especially when she refuses to yeild her
> >power as things get worse and worse.
>
> You really have this need to stay nailed to this cross of womanhood
> don't you? Get this straight---it had nothing to do with her being a
> woman or a girl. It had to do with her being grating and annoying.
> And I know plenty of young guys who are grating and annoying in
> movies, and I'd joke just as quickly about drowning them in the
> bathtub.
I think you believe that. But I have a hard time believing it's true.
Kicking their asses, maybe.
> Get over it...
Get over it? Oh my god! I never thought of that! If all the women in
the world just...got over it, our anxieties about sexism by subterfuge
would vanish! Thanks man.
I stayed away from this particular debate largely because it seemed that
other people had it well in hand, but seeing as I'm in it now, may I say
that I have a bit of a problem with the whole notion of defining
womanhood? Nimrod's woman is the woman for him. Heather Donohue and/or
her character/alter-ego is the woman for someone else. The whole argument
would have stayed a lot more civilized if it had phrased itself in
gender-neutral terms. The issue, after all, is maturity, right? Not
femininity. "Heather seems more/less like a child than an adult."
Mike D'Angelo
: Now why hadn't I noticed that I should just give away all my wit and
: wisdom pro bono on Usenet like you do for all to dissemble [sic] and
: masticate? What a glaring oversight on my part. I mean, I don't
: really need my ranchhouse or this writer's cottage or this acreage or
Etc. Okay, I'll bite: what exactly is your creative CV? I found a
handful of Nimrods listed in the IMDb, but none who had worked on more
than a single film, apart from the cinematographer of a bunch of Israeli
shorts. I, for one, will be a lot more impressed by your "sorry, I get
paid for that" remarks if you reveal who-all is forking over the dough.
Surely there's no way that divulging such information will compromise
future projects; nor will you seem immodest, since you've been asked.
Here, I'll go first: I make my entire meager living as a freelance writer
for the video section of _Entertainment Weekly_ and the film section of
_Time Out New York_. I don't have a ranchhouse or a cottage or even a
single acre, but I did pick up a copy of the new Cibo Matto CD yesterday.
Mike "your turn" D'Angelo
-The Man Who Viewed Too Much-
http://www.panix.com/~dangelo
Regina Alexandra Robbins
> I would agree with that, to a point. But, while this is the first
> time I've ever even referred in a post to the difference between a
> "girl" and a "woman"----if you check my posting history---I have
> expounded at length many, many times about the difference between a
> "boy" and a "man", especially when it comes to male actors in current
> films.
>
> Interesting that no one took offense to that...
There's no history, as far as I know, of women infantilizing men who are
their equals in age and station by calling them "that boy." However,
there is a tendency among men who were born around the turn of the century
(like, Generation X's grandpas) to call fully grown women "girls." I
recall reading THE GREAT GATSBY for the first time and not understanding
what I was reading for a moment because Nick describes Daisy and Jordan --
women in their 20s, one of whom has a kid -- as girls. It's like, when
the hell does a woman get to be grown up, menopause? It speaks to a
tendency -- rather recent in Western culture, actually -- to equate all
women of any age with children in their relationships to men. Instead of
the family being headed up by two adults who care for the children, it's
headed up by the father, and the mother is just sort of an older child
with whom daddy has sex.
Brandongraph'99
<Pine.GSO.4.10.990811...@bonjour.cc.columbia.edu>, Regina
Alexandra Robbins <ra...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Aug 1999, Nimrod`` wrote:
>
>> On 11 Aug 1999 14:23:48 GMT, Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >Yeah, I dunno, joking about drowning a "girl" who "irritates" him, while
>> >his real-life "woman" is smart enough to pass his tests and be sexy...hard
>> >to make a case for being an enlightened male out of that.
>
>Let's face it: a joke about a man killing a woman is not that funny
>because it is a common occurrence.
It depends on the joke. A good joke about a man killing a woman would be
funny. a bad joke would not be.
> Not to say that Nimrod personally is
>an abuser (I'm as sure of this as I can be considering I don't know him at
>all). Maybe one day this joke won't have any unpleasant social
>resonances. Unfortunately, it still does now.
For *some* people.
>> >Easy to make this case, though: seeing a woman be in charge of a project
>> >that goes so awry is unnerving, especially when she refuses to yeild her
>> >power as things get worse and worse.
>>
>> You really have this need to stay nailed to this cross of womanhood
>> don't you? Get this straight---it had nothing to do with her being a
>> woman or a girl. It had to do with her being grating and annoying.
>> And I know plenty of young guys who are grating and annoying in
>> movies, and I'd joke just as quickly about drowning them in the
>> bathtub.
>
>I think you believe that.
God forbid he knows himself better than you do.
>But I have a hard time believing it's true.
>Kicking their asses, maybe.
Well, just picture him "slapping the bitch" and we'll call it even.
>> Get over it...
>
>Get over it? Oh my god! I never thought of that! If all the women in
>the world just...got over it, our anxieties about sexism by subterfuge
>would vanish! Thanks man.
Yes and no. Some women are caught up in being a victim. OTOH, sexism does exist.
>I stayed away from this particular debate largely because it seemed that
>other people had it well in hand, but seeing as I'm in it now, may I say
>that I have a bit of a problem with the whole notion of defining
>womanhood? Nimrod's woman is the woman for him. Heather Donohue and/or
>her character/alter-ego is the woman for someone else. The whole argument
>would have stayed a lot more civilized if it had phrased itself in
>gender-neutral terms. The issue, after all, is maturity, right? Not
>femininity. "Heather seems more/less like a child than an adult."
eh.
--
-Brandon Blatcher
Mike D'Angelo
: I'm sure you would like that---but you see, I've got no need or
: obligation to impress you. Nor do I have the desire...
Of course not. That's why you continually allude to your status within
an unnamed industry, the luxury items said status has allowed you to
purchase, etc. -- because you just don't care what we all think of you.
Impressing us with your "acreage" is the last thing on your mind.
If you've done anything worth bragging about, by all means, brag about
it. If not, stop fending off legitimate questions by claiming that the
questioner can't afford your allegedly hefty consulting fee. A simple
"beats the hell outta me" will suffice.
Mike "I believe 'put up or shut up' is the usual locution" D'Angelo
Regina Alexandra Robbins
> On Wed, 11 Aug 1999 16:21:13 -0400, Regina Alexandra Robbins
> <ra...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> >
> >There's no history, as far as I know, of women infantilizing men who are
> >their equals in age and station by calling them "that boy." However,
> >there is a tendency among men who were born around the turn of the century
> >(like, Generation X's grandpas) to call fully grown women "girls." I
> >recall reading THE GREAT GATSBY for the first time and not understanding
> >what I was reading for a moment because Nick describes Daisy and Jordan --
> >women in their 20s, one of whom has a kid -- as girls. It's like, when
> >the hell does a woman get to be grown up, menopause? It speaks to a
> >tendency -- rather recent in Western culture, actually -- to equate all
> >women of any age with children in their relationships to men. Instead of
> >the family being headed up by two adults who care for the children, it's
> >headed up by the father, and the mother is just sort of an older child
> >with whom daddy has sex.
>
> I understand all of this very well. I've spent many years and many a
> heated argument being quite the vocal opponent of it, in fact, as
> abominable male behavior. But it doesn't change the fact that I use
> the terms quite specifically and do not refer to fully grown women as
> "girls"---except in the case where there are females who should be
> women in chronological age, but still act like little girls. The same
> goes for the plethora of males we have currently in society who still
> act like adolescent "boys" well into their 30's and beyond.
Now things are getting murky. I don't know whether you're referring to
the seeming tendency in my age group (again, tragically labeled "Gen-X")
to postpone marriage, career decisions, and becoming parents indefinitely
while still enthusiastically attending rock concerts and wearing t-shirts
with cartoon characters on, or whether you're referring to some less
obvious, more insidious thing. I personally think this extension of
adolescence is, considering the society we hace created, a good thing,
because there's nothing more appalling to me than a couple under thirty
with three kids staring at each other with hatred in their hearts across
the cart at the supermarket...thinking, "How did I get here?"
None of that, however, would seem to relate to BLAIR WITCH. If you mean
that you feel that men and women alike are just more *childish* than ever,
I'd have to disagree. I can't think of anything more childish than the
average middle-class couple of the 1950's.
Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
>movies, and I'd joke just as quickly about drowning them in the
>bathtub.
Okay, put your money where your mouth is, Nim. Who you gonna drown?
--Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
"I would like to thank all the rappers I influenced and helped out on their
albums by giving them the inspiration to use my concepts." --Kool Keith, Black
Elvis liner notes
Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
"let's get you a woman" post. But, even piled with seven tons of sarcasm, I
still don't buy it.
If you really do get paid for saying how to make The Blair Witch Project
better, again - don't bogart it. Give us a phone number. Help a brother out. We
all have criticisms, we could get something going here. If your "wit and
wisdom" are so valuable that it endangers your lifestyle to make specific
comments about movies in public, then why the hell do you post regularly in
movie newsgroups?
What premise are you working from here? That Myrick and Sanchez are going to
find your criticisms and work them into the sequel without paying you? One of
us is going to go out and make a new film based on your idea? What is it?
Now onto issue #2. If the definition of a Real Woman is undefinable, then why
were you so condescending to whoever it was who disagreed with your take on
Heather Donahue? Why didn't you just say, "I disagree, my friend, but perhaps
some day, working together, man will discover the truth about womanhood, and we
will be able to settle this Heather Donahue score once and for all. Until then,
we shall agree to disagree, and I won't even think of belittling you for having
a different definition than I. For alas, it is one of the great mysteries of
the universe, and until it is solved, there will be no agreement on Heather
Donahue. We can't let this tear us apart."
You know, something like that. You'd seem like a nicer guy. That's all I'm
saying.
the disdamoned
Regina Alexandra Robbins wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 1999, Nimrod`` wrote:
>
> > >I stayed away from this particular debate largely because it seemed that
> > >other people had it well in hand, but seeing as I'm in it now, may I say
> > >that I have a bit of a problem with the whole notion of defining
> > >womanhood? Nimrod's woman is the woman for him. Heather Donohue and/or
> > >her character/alter-ego is the woman for someone else. The whole argument
> > >would have stayed a lot more civilized if it had phrased itself in
> > >gender-neutral terms. The issue, after all, is maturity, right? Not
> > >femininity. "Heather seems more/less like a child than an adult."
> >
> > I would agree with that, to a point. But, while this is the first
> > time I've ever even referred in a post to the difference between a
> > "girl" and a "woman"----if you check my posting history---I have
> > expounded at length many, many times about the difference between a
> > "boy" and a "man", especially when it comes to male actors in current
> > films.
> >
> > Interesting that no one took offense to that...
>
> There's no history, as far as I know, of women infantilizing men who are
> their equals in age and station by calling them "that boy."
anecdotal histories don't count on this i suppose.
James Margaris
>On Wed, 11 Aug 1999, Nimrod`` wrote:
>
>Now things are getting murky. I don't know whether you're referring to
>the seeming tendency in my age group (again, tragically labeled "Gen-X")
>to postpone marriage, career decisions, and becoming parents indefinitely
>while still enthusiastically attending rock concerts and wearing t-shirts
>with cartoon characters on, or whether you're referring to some less
>obvious, more insidious thing. I personally think this extension of
>adolescence is, considering the society we hace created, a good thing,
>because there's nothing more appalling to me than a couple under thirty
>with three kids staring at each other with hatred in their hearts across
>the cart at the supermarket...thinking, "How did I get here?"
Attending rock concerts or wearing cartoon T-shirts is hardly childish
behavior. What IS childish is pretending that at some certain mystical age of
maturity things that were fun are now beneath us somehow. Some rock is crap,
and some rock is good, well made and thoughtful. Same goes for cartoons, comic
books, or anything else. Does the fact that something is animated, or that
pictures accompany the words, mean that it HAS to be juvenile? Juvenile is
pretending to be an adult. Real adults don't worry about whether they are
*acting* in the perscribed adult manner.
As far as the girl/woman thing goes, look, this is just a problem with
the English language. Girl, woman, chick, babe, broad, lady, etc, all have
their own problems. Lady sounds insincere (hello ladies, can I, uh, get you a
drink?), girl implies young, woman implies old. What do you call a 22 year
old? For guys "guy" can be used from high school to death. That is what people
usually fall back on if the person is in the 20-30 age range.
Heather is not a woman, just like a guy her age is not a man. Heather
is not a girl, just like a guy her age is not a boy. A guy her age is a guy, a
female her age is a ? We just don't have a good word, so take your pick, girl
or woman. Both are wrong, who cares which one you use? Both imply something
not quite the truth. Would you call Josh a boy or a man? Probably neither.
James M
(Gen-Y baby, the ignored, unimportant non-sterotyped bland generation with no
leaders, spokesmen, universal attributes or catchphrases. Wait, that's it, the
perfect catchphrase: " the ignored, unimportant non-sterotyped bland
generation with no leaders, spokesmen, universal attributes or catchphrases")
or more simply:
Gen-Y: the boring generation
Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
>>better, again -
>
It was probably one of the several times when you said that you couldn't tell
us how you'd make The Blair Witch Project better, because "I get paid for
that."
And that's what I don't buy - that you have these great ideas you can't tell
us about. It's like, "My dad has a rocket car, but I'm not allowed to show it
to anyone." And it's an unfair prejudice, but in my experience the people who
are constantly afraid of their ideas being stolen generally don't have many
good ideas.
>So tell me, Bryan, why are you always lecturing me on how to be
>universally loved? It's a lousy aspiration in life; a fool's game
>that only breeds mediocrity.
I'm not saying, "Please, be everyone's best friend." It's more along the
lines of, "Don't be an asshole." Your approach to debate is really frustrating
sometimes. I know I won't ever be the one to get through to you, but it always
feels like there's that chance.
Let me summarize/paraphrase what happened:
You said that Heather Donahue doesn't fit your definition of a real woman.
Someone asked you what you mean by a real woman.
You responded that if they don't know what a real woman is, they'll just have
to wait until they get older.
I pointed out that you like to refer to things that you allegedly know, and
then refuse to reveal them (i.e., what defines a real woman).
You made fun of me for asking you what your definition of a real woman is,
saying that it is undefinable - I guess not expecting me to remember that this
whole argument started when you declared that Heather Donahue does not fit your
definition of a real woman.
These are the kind of games of epic stubborness that I have seen you playing
in multiple Blair Witch threads (another favorite is the semantic runaround you
gave the five-year-old-with-crayons analogy a while back - more on this in a
moment).
Then, when this is pointed out to you, you either respond with sarcasm and
irrelevant platitudes (as above) or attack the argument based on a tiny error
of wording.
Paraphrased example:
Somebody: Isn't that like telling a 5 year old with crayons that he can never
be an artist because he has demonstrated no skills in oil painting?
Nimrod: No, because I didn't tell the filmmakers this. I only told you.
Me: Okay then, isn't it like telling us that that 5 year old with crayons over
there can never be an artist because he has demonstrated no skills in oil
painting?
Nimrod: No answer.
These games keep getting more and more ridiculous, and I keep falling for
them. Soon, through our adversity, perhaps we will bond like John Woo heroes.
But until then, I just gotta say... you're weird, dood.
Does anyone agree with me on this? Or am I misrepresenting Nimrod's approach?
Mike Rice
they just said she should be offed in
the motel.
Mike Rice
scott tobias <swto...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Nimrod`` wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 10 Aug 1999 00:50:15 -0700, scott tobias
>> <swto...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >Point taken, but your irritation with Heather still doesn't account for
>> >your belief in her inadequacy as a character or the inadequacies of
>> >Donahue as an actress. This was the crux of my entire post, which
>> >you've chosen not to address.
>>
>> Actually, yes I did, in my original post. I spelled out what I
>> disliked about her and her character (which was herself) in great
>> detail in my original post.
>Deja currently lists 268 posts on this thread in its various forms. I
>assume that when you point to your original post, you're not speaking of
>that embarrassingly literal "list the plot holes" crap, are you? All
>you have to say about Heather in that post is that the men should have
>drowned her back in the motel room. Where could I find a more detailed
>analysis of Heather to consider?
>> >> In truth, Heather is more a girl than she is a woman, and there's
>> >> nothing in the least astonishing about her performance; I've seen
>> >> countless like it---and countless better hysterics from other,
>> >> smarter, more textured actresses in acting workshops.
>> >
>> >Well, if you think Donahue turns in a lousy performance, we can do
>> >nothing but agree to disagree. But I'm interested: What makes her
>> >character a girl instead of a woman? I assume you're trying to say
>> >something about her maturity or integrity. If so, why was it necessary
>> >for Myrick/Sanchez to give you a "woman" (however you're ready to define
>> >the word) rather than the character as is, warts and all, in order for
>> >BWP to be a better movie?
>>
>> I never once said they had to give me a "woman". That is your fatuous
>> supposition. Again, you seem not to be paying attention. I was
>> commenting on Kevin's remark when he wondered, in his original post,
>> if the reason some folks didn't like Heather was because she was a
>> "strong, opinionated woman". And I said, "in truth, Heather is more a
>> girl than she is a woman". That was my observation and it meant
>> nothing more and nothing less...
>But your observation is clearly meant to reflect negatively on her
Mike Rice
You guys are very funny, that's why I read
this awful trash.
Mike Rice
frank...@aol.com (Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss) wrote:
>>Heather definitely falls into that category as far as I'm concerned.
>>And I'll go even further out on a limb and say that anybody who
>>doesn't grasp that doesn't know what a real woman, even a real young
>>woman, is.
> I've noticed a theme in your BWP posts. You like to make reference to some
>important knowledge on your part - make reference to it over and over again, in
>fact - and then refuse to in any way explain or share that powerful wisdom with
>us. For example, you know how BWP could have been a much better movie, but you
>can't reveal how, because you are some kind of professional movie idea giver
>and it's against your code of honor to work pro bono.
> Now, you know what it means to be a Real Woman, but you can't explain it
>because, obviously, anyone who doesn't know what your definition of a Real
>Woman is will just have to wait until they get older. Then they'll look back on
>this thread and say, "Ah ha, *now* I know what ol' Nimrod was talking about
>so many years ago. And perhaps I've saved up enough to purchase his ideas about
>how to make the Blair Witch Project more creative..."
> I think you could learn something from the pot culture. Don't bogart it, man.
>>Well, I've got something of a comic pedigree of me own---and Scott was
>>the one who took me dead seriously when I joked about the guys
>>drowning Heather in the bathtub.
> He didn't take you dead seriously. But a person's jokes also give an idea of
>where they're coming from. When I get a little worked up talking about the
>upcoming How the Grinch Stole Christmas movie and say I want to kick Ron Howard
>in the balls, it makes me sound like an aggressive asshole, even though I don't
>really plan on kicking him in the balls - just in the shin. Saying that you
>want to drown a character makes you come off a certain way as well, and I can
>understand why Scott would take that and the blowjob metaphor into account when
>he chooses to be skeptical about your "strong woman" statements.
>--Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
Mike Rice
Regina,
Your mother took your name from
one of Queen Victoria's unofficial titles. How
could Daisy have a laugh that sounded
like money if she was a grownup girl?
You aren't getting anymore respect from
men now than Zelda got from
Scott. The guys just view harder core
porn, embrace metal more willingly, and
drive WWF profits thru the roof in reaction
to this idiotic period in gender differences
that we are enduring. In the boardroom,
they are still pounding any female heads
down that attempt to push thru the glass
ceiling. At least Daisy was comfortable
enough to laugh and have fun. What do
you do for thrills, write political chaff like
this to be hurled at the wind?
Mike Rice
Regina Alexandra Robbins <ra...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Aug 1999, Nimrod`` wrote:
>> >I stayed away from this particular debate largely because it seemed that
>> >other people had it well in hand, but seeing as I'm in it now, may I say
>> >that I have a bit of a problem with the whole notion of defining
>> >womanhood? Nimrod's woman is the woman for him. Heather Donohue and/or
>> >her character/alter-ego is the woman for someone else. The whole argument
>> >would have stayed a lot more civilized if it had phrased itself in
>> >gender-neutral terms. The issue, after all, is maturity, right? Not
>> >femininity. "Heather seems more/less like a child than an adult."
>>
>> I would agree with that, to a point. But, while this is the first
>> time I've ever even referred in a post to the difference between a
>> "girl" and a "woman"----if you check my posting history---I have
>> expounded at length many, many times about the difference between a
>> "boy" and a "man", especially when it comes to male actors in current
>> films.
>>
>> Interesting that no one took offense to that...
>There's no history, as far as I know, of women infantilizing men who are
>their equals in age and station by calling them "that boy." However,
>there is a tendency among men who were born around the turn of the century
>(like, Generation X's grandpas) to call fully grown women "girls." I
>recall reading THE GREAT GATSBY for the first time and not understanding
>what I was reading for a moment because Nick describes Daisy and Jordan --
>women in their 20s, one of whom has a kid -- as girls. It's like, when
>the hell does a woman get to be grown up, menopause? It speaks to a
>tendency -- rather recent in Western culture, actually -- to equate all
>women of any age with children in their relationships to men. Instead of
>the family being headed up by two adults who care for the children, it's
>headed up by the father, and the mother is just sort of an older child
>with whom daddy has sex.
>RAR.
Ian McDowell
frank...@aol.com (Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss) wrote:
> Does anyone agree with me on this? Or am I misrepresenting Nimrod's approach?
No. I'd originally thought that Nimrod had voiced some of the most cogent
criticisms of Blair Witch Project on this newsgroup. I didn't agree with
them, or at least not all of them, but they were well-articulated and
seemed the responses of a mature adult.
Now, though, he's just sounding goofy, and every bit as fanboy obessive as
the people he's arguing with (not you, but those who feel the need to say
something in every Balir Witch thread).
And yes, the "secret knowledge" thing that you and Mike D'Angelo have
called him on does seem a bit much.
Nimrod, sorry to talk about you in the third person, but you might
consider your rhetorical stance; I'm not sure who, if anybody, you hope to
persuade, and judging from my own example I'd guess that you're doing the
opposite of persuading some formerly disinterested observers. I know how
easy it is to be sucked into these things, but in the end, it's a mug's
game.
Ian McDowell
Shawn Hill
: On 11 Aug 1999 14:23:48 GMT, Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
:>Yeah, I dunno, joking about drowning a "girl" who "irritates" him, while
:>his real-life "woman" is smart enough to pass his tests and be sexy...hard
:>to make a case for being an enlightened male out of that.
: That's utter bullshit. I would have said the same thing if it had
: been Mike's character who was irritating...
Mike wasn't annoying? He's the one who threw away the f****ing map!!! He's
the one who doubted Heather when she actually knew where they were.
:>Easy to make this case, though: seeing a woman be in charge of a project
:>that goes so awry is unnerving, especially when she refuses to yeild her
:>power as things get worse and worse.
: You really have this need to stay nailed to this cross of womanhood
: don't you? Get this straight---it had nothing to do with her being a
: woman or a girl. It had to do with her being grating and annoying.
: And I know plenty of young guys who are grating and annoying in
: movies, and I'd joke just as quickly about drowning them in the
: bathtub.
Except you didn't do that. You singled out Heather. What about Josh
getting high and vegging out while they were all trying to escape? What
about his veiled anger and passive agressive silent treatments? They were
ALL annoying, at different times, and they were likable and vulnerable at
others. But no comments about drowning the boys in the river, huh?
Shawn
Not nailed on any cross, just noticing what people say
Shawn Hill
: (Oops---or was "lay" a sexually charged metaphor I let slip?)
It is *now*.
: Hardly. And there are valid reasons for those anxieties---anxieties I
: vehemently defend on a regular basis. But neither do I owe anyone an
: apology or explanation because they choose to inject their own sexual
: victim's self-image upon my comments.
"Injecting ... upon" your comments? You just can't escape the sexual
metaphors, can you?
: I would agree with that, to a point. But, while this is the first
: time I've ever even referred in a post to the difference between a
: "girl" and a "woman"----if you check my posting history---I have
: expounded at length many, many times about the difference between a
: "boy" and a "man", especially when it comes to male actors in current
: films.
: Interesting that no one took offense to that...
You were talking to different people then. Now you're talking to Blair
Witch fans.
Shawn
~~***~~*~*~*~*~*~~~~*~~*~*~~~**~*~*~*~*~*~**~**~*
"I know what ya done
I saw ya in my crystal
I saw ya making love
I'm gonna get my pistol" --lene lovich
sh...@fas.harvard.edu*~*~**~~*~*~**~*~*~**~*~**~*
Shawn Hill
: "girls"---except in the case where there are females who should be
: women in chronological age, but still act like little girls. The same
: goes for the plethora of males we have currently in society who still
: act like adolescent "boys" well into their 30's and beyond.
I know exactly what you're talking about when you refer to "boys" in their
30s and beyond, as I've met many of them. I just think it's unfair to
accuse Heather of being a "girl" in a situation that would be
infantilizing to ANYONE (and was to the "boys" with her as well). They
were trapped in the woods with a compass that led them in circles, and a
supernatural force harrassing them. They all regressed.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: expiration; then I'd don a fresh set of black rubber gloves and we'd
: let the rest into the drowning chamber, single file: Andy Dick, Keanu
: Reeves, Pauly Shore, Matthew McConahooey, Leo DeCaprio, Val Kilmer,
: Quintin Tarantino---(we'll have to scrub the tub again after Quintin,
: no doubt)---then Will Smith, Macauley Culkin, Christian Slater, Brad
: Pitt....
If you let me sneak Keanu and Andy Dick out the back, I'll help you with
the rest.
I will not be cheated out of Matrix 2. and andy needs your love, not your
hate. He's got problems!
Hmmm, maybe they should lock him and Robert Downey Jr. up together.
Shawn
~~***~~*~*~*~*~*~~~~*~~*~*~~~**~*~*~*~*~*~**~**~*
"this is no time to wrestle,
you're going to burst a blood vessel"
---kristin hersh
sh...@fas.harvard.edu*~*~**~~*~*~**~*~*~**~*~**~*
Shawn Hill
: on my part. I mean, I don't really need my ranchhouse or this
: writer's cottage or this acreage or my car or my computer or my nipple
: ring collection, any more than I need to worry about feeding my
: slobbery hound dog or my Maine Coon kitty, as long as I can fulfill
: the whims and intellectual cravings of Usenet's denizens, the true
: final arbiters of taste and artistic excellence.
arrogant
: If you don't know what makes a woman a woman, there ain't no man can
: tell you. But you'll know it when you see it, son.
cocky
: earnings. Of course, you'll have to talk to my pro bono agent first,
: Jilly "Flatnose" Orenstein. You can visit with him in the Death House
: on Saturdays between 12 and 2---but I'm sure he'll cut you a swell
: deal for my services.
bastard,
: Except that some of the strongest, most intelligent women you will
: ever meet enjoy bawdy humor and sexual metaphors.
: Anyway, I'm glad we've had this little chat. Really, I am. I owe you
: an awful lot. I've got to go shave my head now and give all this
: filthy lucre away to Jerry's Kids.
: But give us a kiss before you go...
but at least he's kinky.
Shawn
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"I found a way to use my head/
I go over and over every word he said"
--j. hatfield,
"lost and saved"
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
sh...@husc.harvard.edu Shawn Hill
Shawn Hill
: If you've done anything worth bragging about, by all means, brag about
: it. If not, stop fending off legitimate questions by claiming that the
: questioner can't afford your allegedly hefty consulting fee. A simple
: "beats the hell outta me" will suffice.
Exactly. If we wanted to pay for anything, we wouldn't be reading USENET.
: Mike "I believe 'put up or shut up' is the usual locution" D'Angelo
Thank you.
Shawn
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"He sees a couple of things in me/
like how I'm not very hard to please"
--j. hatfield,
"forever baby"
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
sh...@husc.harvard.edu Shawn Hill
Shawn Hill
: If you prefer to be a sexual prig in public while others do not, then
: so be it....
Ooohh, name calling's so mature. I'm glad you're a man and not a boy.
Shawn
Regina Alexandra Robbins
> On Wed, 11 Aug 1999 23:29:24 -0400, Regina Alexandra Robbins
> <ra...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
> >Now things are getting murky. I don't know whether you're referring to
> >the seeming tendency in my age group (again, tragically labeled "Gen-X")
> >to postpone marriage, career decisions, and becoming parents indefinitely
> >while still enthusiastically attending rock concerts and wearing t-shirts
> >with cartoon characters on, or whether you're referring to some less
> >obvious, more insidious thing. I personally think this extension of
> >adolescence is, considering the society we hace created, a good thing,
>
> "Considering the society we 'hace' created". That's the operative
> thing. That's the pitiful part of your quote. I don't mean your
> misspelling. I mean: "considering the society we have created".
Please be so good as to consider "hace" a typo. And I'm afraid I don't
know what is pitiful to you. Several choices spring to mind.
> >because there's nothing more appalling to me than a couple under thirty
> >with three kids staring at each other with hatred in their hearts across
> >the cart at the supermarket...thinking, "How did I get here?"
>
> It's really sad if you reduce everything to only those two options in
> life....
I don't suppose you've ever heard of exaggerating to make a point...
> >None of that, however, would seem to relate to BLAIR WITCH. If you mean
> >that you feel that men and women alike are just more *childish* than ever,
> >I'd have to disagree. I can't think of anything more childish than the
> >average middle-class couple of the 1950's.
>
> So you now speak for the average middle-class couple of the 1950's?
> You presume to be more mature than they. And how old did you say your
> were? I was not a middle-class individual in the 1950's, but should I
> presume to speak for your life experience? Hmmmm?
It's not their fault they were childish. It was a childish, naive time.
Try talking to someone who was alive then. They don't deny it.
RAR.
_________________________________________________
"As Chubsy Ubsy of OUR GANG used to say, What ho!
Bring on the dancing girls!" -- Michael Atkinson
Regina Alexandra Robbins
> Regina,
>
> Your mother took your name from
> one of Queen Victoria's unofficial titles. How
> could Daisy have a laugh that sounded
> like money if she was a grownup girl?
> You aren't getting anymore respect from
> men now than Zelda got from
> Scott. The guys just view harder core
> porn, embrace metal more willingly, and
> drive WWF profits thru the roof in reaction
> to this idiotic period in gender differences
> that we are enduring. In the boardroom,
> they are still pounding any female heads
> down that attempt to push thru the glass
> ceiling. At least Daisy was comfortable
> enough to laugh and have fun. What do
> you do for thrills, write political chaff like
> this to be hurled at the wind?
My mother got my name from a baby name book.
Who are you, and what do you want? And when you get it, will you take a
long, long, long nap?
Michael Whittier
frank...@aol.com (Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss) wrote:
- Does anyone agree with me on this? Or am I misrepresenting Nimrod's
approach?
-
- --Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
I just keep wondering why it is that those who eventually vanquish Sandra
Mendoza (SANDRAMEND) eventually become Sandra Mendoza.
So, yes.
Michael Whittier
mwit...@minn.net
Shawn Hill
: On Wed, 11 Aug 1999 23:29:24 -0400, Regina Alexandra Robbins
: So you now speak for the average middle-class couple of the 1950's?
: You presume to be more mature than they. And how old did you say your
: were? I was not a middle-class individual in the 1950's, but should I
: presume to speak for your life experience? Hmmmm?
She's drawing conclusions based on her observations. That's no more
presumptious than your own much-enjoyed freedom to do so.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 11:19:18 -0400, Regina Alexandra Robbins
: <ra...@columbia.edu> wrote:
: relationships; their marriages certainly don't work out any more
: frequently, nor do they seem any more at peace or less stressed than
: generations past---quite the opposite. There are things that are
Less marital stability might in itself be a good thing. More freedom to
choose who you spend time with, and why.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: Does anyone agree with me on this? Or am I misrepresenting Nimrod's approach?
He's weird, dood. And, he seems to be having fun.
101 Brandons
<sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>Nimrod`` <nim...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>: On 11 Aug 1999 14:23:48 GMT, Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>
>:>Yeah, I dunno, joking about drowning a "girl" who "irritates" him, while
>:>his real-life "woman" is smart enough to pass his tests and be sexy...hard
>:>to make a case for being an enlightened male out of that.
>
>: That's utter bullshit. I would have said the same thing if it had
>: been Mike's character who was irritating...
>
>Mike wasn't annoying? He's the one who threw away the f****ing map!!! He's
>the one who doubted Heather when she actually knew where they were.
Mike wasn't continually annoying. Heather was.
>:>Easy to make this case, though: seeing a woman be in charge of a project
>:>that goes so awry is unnerving, especially when she refuses to yeild her
>:>power as things get worse and worse.
>
>: You really have this need to stay nailed to this cross of womanhood
>: don't you? Get this straight---it had nothing to do with her being a
>: woman or a girl. It had to do with her being grating and annoying.
>: And I know plenty of young guys who are grating and annoying in
>: movies, and I'd joke just as quickly about drowning them in the
>: bathtub.
>
>Except you didn't do that. You singled out Heather.
She was the most obviously annoying.
>What about Josh
>getting high and vegging out while they were all trying to escape? What
>about his veiled anger and passive agressive silent treatments? They were
>ALL annoying, at different times, and they were likable and vulnerable at
>others. But no comments about drowning the boys in the river, huh?
What Heather was doing was different. Her voice was shrill at times and
quite irritating. The others were less obviously so. Thus Heather gets a
lot of this attention.
--
-Brandon Blatcher
Helen & Bob
Nimrod`` wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 11:19:18 -0400, Regina Alexandra Robbins
> <ra...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> So you now speak for the average middle-class couple of the 1950's?
> >> You presume to be more mature than they. And how old did you say your
> >> were? I was not a middle-class individual in the 1950's, but should I
> >> presume to speak for your life experience? Hmmmm?
> >
> >It's not their fault they were childish. It was a childish, naive time.
> >Try talking to someone who was alive then.
> >
>
> I have. I do. All the time. I was born in the 1950's. And I can
> tell you authoritatively that they were both more naive and more
> mature than most folks today. Actually, most "adults" today are just
> as naive as grownups of the 1950's, if not more---only in different
> ways. And they are decidedly less mature than adults of the 1950's.
>
> Maturity and naivete are not mutually exclusive. And you can lack
> naivete, possessing lots of knowledge technically, but be thoroughly
> immature.
>
> >They don't deny it.
>
> I think most would deny your choice of the word "childish". Most
> would probably admit to great naivete about lots of matters,
> particularly when it came to sexuality and male/female relationships.
> But I don't know many who would call their generation "childish".
> They were not childish as a whole. They were troubled in many very
> fundamental ways---but that's a different issue. Lot's of mature
> adults have complex, deep-rooted troubles about their identities,
> sexual or otherwise. Nobody gets out of life alive.
>
> You probably won't like this, but truth be known, we have more
> "childish" folk today in their 30's and 40's---and I mean "childish"
> in an immature, bad way---than we've ever had in contemporary society.
> Not all, mind you. Not by a long shot. But too many spoiled,
> immature "adults" with shallow value systems, and little appreciation
> for the rights they take for granted---because they've never had to
> struggle or give back anything to society in exchange for those
> precious rights. The idea of giving up anything of consequence---like
> a couple of years of their life---to fortify, strengthen, and sustain
> their country is anathema to too many of them. (And I'm not just
> talking about military service.)
>
> For all their "knowledge", I certainly don't see people, particularly
> younger people, any happier today in their romantic and interpersonal
> relationships; their marriages certainly don't work out any more
> frequently, nor do they seem any more at peace or less stressed than
> generations past---quite the opposite. There are things that are
> better about society today, but there are also countless things that
> are worse---Columbine and a few hundred other examples prove that.
>
> Please remember that being "naive" just means that someone is unaware
> and not acting with full knowledge of something. Humankind has always
> been naive, to varying degrees. Even today there are unfathomable
> numbers of things we don't know, have forgotten, or never bothered to
> learn, even though our predecessors knew them. You might consider a
> Neanderthal caveman inferior to you because he would be too naive to
> operate a computer or express his feelings in a romantic
> relationship---but he would consider most folks today naive because
> they couldn't build a fire without matches or hunt their own dinner
> and feed themselves.
>
> But "childishness" and "maturity" are different matters altogether.
> Maturity is defined by your sense of responsibility, and how you deal
> with the things you do know.
>
> N.
Maybe I can speak with a little more authority than Nimrod in this matter, as
I was born in 1936, and I WAS an adult in the '50's. Nimrod is correct in
what he says. Responsibility was assumed earlier in life. I had a part time
job when I was 16, while still in High School. Worked my way through
college, with my parents helping all they could. I worked Scrap Steel
salvage, Iron Foundry, sales, gas station, you name it. Not that I was any
sort of a hero, that just the way things were. You did what you had to do,
with no complaints (sure, some, but that didn't mean you quit). I could go
on, but Nimrod covered it very well.
Bob
Hey Nimrod, howcome when I do spell check, the suggestion for your name is
NORDY???
Regina Alexandra Robbins
> What Heather was doing was different. Her voice was shrill at times and
> quite irritating. The others were less obviously so. Thus Heather gets a
> lot of this attention.
So, women screaming in fear of their lives are doomed to be more
irritating than men merely because their voices are higher? Talk about
holding someone's biology against them.
101 Brandons
Regina Alexandra Robbins <ra...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, 101 Brandons wrote:
>
>> What Heather was doing was different. Her voice was shrill at times and
>> quite irritating. The others were less obviously so. Thus Heather gets a
>> lot of this attention.
>
>So, women screaming in fear of their lives are doomed to be more
>irritating than men merely because their voices are higher? Talk about
>holding someone's biology against them.
I'd*like* to hold her biology.
It's like this HEATHER's voice when she was screaming was almost
unbearable at times. Heather the individual. Heather the person.
I never said anything about *women*. I simply mentioned Heather.
Her normal voice was fine.
--
-Brandon Blatcher
VM
In article <7oukv1$sb8$2...@news.fas.harvard.edu>, Shawn Hill
<sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>Mike wasn't annoying? He's the one who threw away the f****ing map!!!
Everybody keeps bringing up the map as if
Mike wanted to throw it away. I never got
that. I always put it in the same category
as the weirded out compass, the the Witch
was doing some witchy things to Mike to
get him to throw away the map. Sure, there's
nothing overt in the film that would suggest
that the witch had a hand in it, but there
wasn't anything overt concerning the compass
either. My mind tells me that Mike would have
been the last person to throw away an item
they so desperately needed, and my imagination
tells me that there was Something Else going
on at that point too. I just don't believe
that he did it on purpose.
Vickie
Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
>all future BWP discussions because I can no longer abide these kinds
>of misrepresentations of what I said---all to slant your point, stack
>the deck:
>
>>Paraphrased example:
>
>>Somebody: Isn't that like telling a 5 year old with crayons
>>that he can never be an artist because he has
>>demonstrated no skills in oil painting?
>
>>Nimrod: No, because I didn't tell the filmmakers this. I only told you.
>
>
>>Me: Okay then, isn't it like telling us that that 5 year old
>>with crayons over there can never be an artist because
>>he has demonstrated no skills in oil painting?
>
>>Nimrod: No answer.
>
>
>absolute, utter falsehood. Please read the following carefully.
>Here's the actual exchange with my response on July 29---it's a little
>long but try to stick with it:
>
>
>Bryan: You're just getting into petty semantics, and you know it.
>Let me reword Jason's analogy for him then: "I think what you're
>saying is equivalent to seeing a crayon drawing by a five year old who
>wants to be an artist and telling your buddy that there's no chance of
>the kid becoming an artist because there's no evidence he can render a
>landscape in oil."
>
>Me: No, it's not petty semantics when you inject that phrase "there's
>no chance of the kid becoming an artist". I never said anything
>remotely like that. I never said "there's no chance of these two guys
>becoming great directors because I've seen no evidence thus far of
>real screenwriting, photographic, or directing skills". That's an
>asinine statement and I would never presume to make that statement,
>nor would I have anything to base it upon. I simply said that "I've
>seen no evidence thus far". Nothing more, nothing less. I even said,
>elsewhere in these threads, that "these guys may turn out to be
>wunderkinds in the making". I have to wonder, Bryan, why you and
>others feel the need to extrapolate more into what I said than what I
>actually said and meant.
>
>Brian: No answer.
Thank you. I was too lazy to dig up the actual quotes, but now everyone can
see what I'm talking about. Jason points out a legitimate weakness in your
argument. You ignore the point he's making, but pick apart his wording. So I
reword it for him in an attempt to get you to respond to the actual point -
again, you go into musical semantics: "I never said there's *no* chance." (Your
honor, let the record show that the emphasis is mine.)
Okay, we understand that you didn't say THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE. But you
repeatedly made your "there's no evidence" statement and we, reasonably I
think, felt that you were saying they didn't show much talent.
But you're right, if we're going to look literally at the exact wording and
not connect the different statements contextually, you never made any kind of
argument. You just made a random statement, disconnected from the other points.
The same statement many times, with obvious implications, but nevertheless,
random and without argumentative purpose. I guess.
It was a great game. It was a hell of a time. Please, won't you please come
back? Nobody does it like you.
>It seems your "paraphrases" are real killers. You're not the only one
>that does it, but you have made a habit of it. I honestly don't know
>how much of it is malicious and how much is a lack of comprehension on
>your part and others, but it's much too tedious to continue to set you
>straight.
Here we go again on the reading comprehension. This, in my opinion, is an
almost Crouvierian posting trademark. I love it.
>So I'll sign off now, and let you go rewrite somebody else's words to
>suit your fancy...
>
>
>
>N.
Let me know when you finish that Blair Witch screenplay. I could do a polish
on it, pro bono.
James Margaris
>On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, 101 Brandons wrote:
>
>> What Heather was doing was different. Her voice was shrill at times and
>> quite irritating. The others were less obviously so. Thus Heather gets a
>> lot of this attention.
>
>So, women screaming in fear of their lives are doomed to be more
>irritating than men merely because their voices are higher? Talk about
>holding someone's biology against them.
So, people with a natural range of hearing and natural interpretation
of sound waves are doomed to be considered "holding someone's biology against
them [someone else]" simply because of their own biology? Talk about holding
someone's biology against them!
We *always* hold people's biology against them, because that is *our*
biology. We would consider Cindy Crawford more attractive than a 500lb woman
with no arms or legs. That is *our* biological response.
You can have a high voice without being shrill, by the way.
James M
Stephen Wellington
> My mind tells me that Mike would have
> been the last person to throw away an item
> they so desperately needed, and my imagination
> tells me that there was Something Else going
> on at that point too. I just don't believe
> that he did it on purpose.
Maybe _you_ don't believe he did it on purpose, but far more
importantly: what does Andrew Sarris believe?
Got anything else that "(your) mind tells (you)" that you'd like to
share?
Regards,
Steve
Feeling unaccountably pissy
Regina Alexandra Robbins
> Will you climb down off that cross?
Will you find another metaphor to describe what you consider an
unnecessary amount of concern about gender inequality?
Regina Alexandra Robbins
Whatta ya mean we, white man? (NOTE: THIS IS AN ACTUAL QUOTATION, NOT
SOMETHING I JUST MADE UP TO TAUNT JAMES.)
Just find it funny I did not find Heather at all "shrill." That term never
even crossed my mind. I'm sure everyone's tired of my ball-busting,
lesbian separatist ways by now, so I'm not going to go into how "shrill"
is a word only ever applied by men to women, never by women to women,
never by men to men. Nope, not gonna go there. Just gonna sit at home,
keeping my man-hating, self-crucifying opinions to myself. Yep, just
gonna sit here all night listening to Tori and Polly Jean. Not a peep.
Regina Alexandra Robbins
> Precisely. Shrill has more to do with attitude and personality than
> vocal timbre. I might also point out that the actress in question was
> shrill even when she wasn't screaming for her life. And Jerry Lewis
> has been incredibly shrill in the past. Tom Cruise is shrill in BORN
> ON THE FOURTH OF JULY.
Well, you do deserve credit for taking the word out of its normal gendered
use.
> Also, as far as biology goes, I notice that lots of women---and
> girls---like to watch beautiful female movie stars who owe much of
> their success to genetics. Otherwise we'd have more movie stars who
> looked like Anna Magnani.
Ignore previous post about keeping my thoughts to myself...
So now it's women's fault that women in movies are anorexic? Please, god,
tell me he meant that women, in addition to men, cause this problem. Not
that women are keeping men hostage to the sight of Uma Thurman. Please,
god, please. It's too cruel otherwise.
Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
In a recent post, I attempted to paraphrase a previous argument between Nimrod,
myself, and Jason. At the end of my paraphrase, I used the words "no response"
to describe Nimrod's stance.
"No response" implies that he did not respond to the post. This is not correct.
I felt that Nimrod had not responded to the points Jason and I had brought up.
We wanted to know why Nimrod kept saying that Myrick and Sanchez of The Blair
Witch Project had "demonstrated no skills" if he, as he asserted, did not mean
this as an implication that Myrick and Sanchez didn't have said skills. Nimrod
then pointed out that he had never said that there was "no chance" of the
filmmakers making a good film, because it would be asinine to say such a thing.
This was true, but still didn't explain why he kept bringing up the lack of
demonstrated skills, so I felt that he was dodging the question. He had,
however, responded.
I would like to apologize to Nimrod for my inaccurate wording, and to the
newsgroup as a whole for any boredom that may have been caused by my arguing.
Stephen Thompson
>> Okay, we understand that you didn't say THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE. But
>>you repeatedly made your "there's no evidence" statement and we, reasonably
>>I think, felt that you were saying they didn't show much talent.
>...you say I should permit you to tell me what I really think instead of
>letting my own words say what I think.
It isn't unreasonable to read between the lines. When you repeatedly focus on
what you consider a lack of evidence of their talent, it's natural to suspect
that it's more than a neutral comment.
It's the sort of thing politicians say. They want to trash their opponent
without being too obvious about it, so they say things in roundabout ways. It
sounded like you were saying that Myrick and Sanchez had no talent, without
coming right out and saying it. Now, maybe you didn't mean that at all, but it
wasn't a foolish interpretation. It seemed to fit with your stated belief that
the two are not "highly intellectual filmmakers with great cinematic vision."
When I read that, it sounded like a sarcastic understatement indicating your
opinion that they have no cinematic vision at all. Perhaps an incorrect
interpretation, but not an unreasonable one.
We're not dealing with contract law here. In colloquial conversation, people
often mean things beyond the literal words they choose. It sounded like you
did. If you didn't, okay, but I don't see any reason to get all insulting
about peoples' reading comprehension over it.
===========================================================================
1999 so far, in order, now available for your derision and scorn...
1. Rushmore 2. Go 3. A Simple Plan 4. Mystery Men 5. Austin Powers: The Spy
Who Shagged Me 6. Eyes Wide Shut 7. The Matrix 8. Star Wars: The Phantom
Menace 9. The Blair Witch Project 10. South Park 11. Summer of Sam 12. 8MM
13. Payback 14. Deep Blue Sea 15. The Mummy 16. Tarzan 17. The Mod Squad
18. The General's Daughter 19. A Civil Action 20. True Crime 21. Entrapment
22. The Rage: Carrie 2
101 Brandons
<Pine.GSO.4.10.990812...@konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu>,
Regina Alexandra Robbins <ra...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, James Margaris wrote:
>
>> In article
<Pine.GSO.4.10.99081...@ciao.cc.columbia.edu>, Regina
Alexandra Robbins <ra...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >So, women screaming in fear of their lives are doomed to be more
>> >irritating than men merely because their voices are higher? Talk about
>> >holding someone's biology against them.
>>
>> So, people with a natural range of hearing and natural
interpretation
>> of sound waves are doomed to be considered "holding someone's biology
against
>> them [someone else]" simply because of their own biology? Talk about holding
>> someone's biology against them!
>>
>> We *always* hold people's biology against them, because that is
*our*
>> biology. We would consider Cindy Crawford more attractive than a 500lb woman
>> with no arms or legs. That is *our* biological response.
>
>Whatta ya mean we, white man? (NOTE: THIS IS AN ACTUAL QUOTATION, NOT
>SOMETHING I JUST MADE UP TO TAUNT JAMES.)
Heh. Sometimes you DO say the perfect thing.
>Just find it funny I did not find Heather at all "shrill." That term never
>even crossed my mind.
And yet it crossed others. Big deal. I understand your point about the
language and words used by men to define women and I can agree that
sometimes it's negative. But you're out there on this one.
>I'm sure everyone's tired of my ball-busting,
>lesbian separatist ways by now,
I still love you!!!
As long as you follow the restraining order.
> so I'm not going to go into how "shrill"
>is a word only ever applied by men to women, never by women to women,
>never by men to men.
Nope. I've heard it used in by women to women and here on campus there's a
certain male teacher that has been called shrill by male and female alike.
>Nope, not gonna go there. Just gonna sit at home,
>keeping my man-hating, self-crucifying opinions to myself. Yep, just
>gonna sit here all night listening to Tori and Polly Jean. Not a peep.
Tori got too wacky for me. Polly, I worship.
You should throw some Ani and the Murmurs in there.
--
-Brandon Blatcher
the disdamoned
Nimrod`` wrote:
> Well, Bry, you are about to get your wish and I'm about to bow out of
> all future BWP discussions because I can no longer abide these kinds
> of misrepresentations of what I said---all to slant your point, stack
> the deck:
>
oh, you poor hurt and beleaguered asshole.
--
Where is the political outcry over the stock market causing
violent shootings?
the disdamoned
Nimrod`` wrote:
> I have. I do. All the time. I was born in the 1950's. And I can
> tell you authoritatively that they were both more naive and more
> mature than most folks today.
because as baby he could tell!
> You probably won't like this, but truth be known, we have more
> "childish" folk today in their 30's and 40's---and I mean "childish"
> in an immature, bad way---than we've ever had in contemporary society.
because we don't dress up and we use curse words!
yes, it's true, as nimrod so complained in another thread.
the disdamoned
Nimrod`` wrote:
>
>
> First you lie and say I gave no response to your rewording of Jason's
> statement---a lie I notice you never address, by the way---then you
> say I should permit you to tell me what I really think instead of
> letting my own words say what I think.
>
> Yes, you're quite the honorable guy, Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss.
>
he's merely stooping to your level.
bryan, this guy is an idiot.
he cannot conduct a cohesive argument, and squirrels
away from any criticism by blaming the criticizer.
just so you know.
the disdamoned
Regina Alexandra Robbins wrote:
> ....
>
> Just find it funny I did not find Heather at all "shrill." That term never
> even crossed my mind. I'm sure everyone's tired of my ball-busting,
> lesbian separatist ways by now, so I'm not going to go into how "shrill"
> is a word only ever applied by men to women, never by women to women,
> never by men to men. Nope, not gonna go there. Just gonna sit at home,
> keeping my man-hating, self-crucifying opinions to myself. Yep, just
> gonna sit here all night listening to Tori and Polly Jean. Not a peep.
praise be!
god, maybe it's because MEN HAVE DEEPER VOICES???????
besides, gilbert gottfried is shrill.
heather is shrill.
mike is an asshole, or a dick,
and josh is a big wuss.
all three were incessant whiners, and none of them displayed any
desirable human characterisitics at any time in the movie
except heather, who for perhaprs a total of 2 minutes looked
in charge and competent.
the disdamoned
Regina Alexandra Robbins wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Nimrod`` wrote:
>
> > Precisely. Shrill has more to do with attitude and personality than
> > vocal timbre. I might also point out that the actress in question was
> > shrill even when she wasn't screaming for her life. And Jerry Lewis
> > has been incredibly shrill in the past. Tom Cruise is shrill in BORN
> > ON THE FOURTH OF JULY.
>
> Well, you do deserve credit for taking the word out of its normal gendered
> use.
>
> > Also, as far as biology goes, I notice that lots of women---and
> > girls---like to watch beautiful female movie stars who owe much of
> > their success to genetics. Otherwise we'd have more movie stars who
> > looked like Anna Magnani.
>
> Ignore previous post about keeping my thoughts to myself...
>
> So now it's women's fault that women in movies are anorexic?
it's the woman who are anorexic's fault, yes.
> Please, god,
> tell me he meant that women, in addition to men, cause this problem. Not
> that women are keeping men hostage to the sight of Uma Thurman. Please,
> god, please. It's too cruel otherwise.
>
poor beleaguered child.
James Margaris
>On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, James Margaris wrote:
>
>> In article <Pine.GSO.4.10.99081...@ciao.cc.columbia.edu>,
> Regina Alexandra Robbins <ra...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >So, women screaming in fear of their lives are doomed to be more
>> >irritating than men merely because their voices are higher? Talk about
>> >holding someone's biology against them.
>>
>> So, people with a natural range of hearing and natural interpretation
>
>> of sound waves are doomed to be considered "holding someone's biology against
>
>> them [someone else]" simply because of their own biology? Talk about holding
>> someone's biology against them!
>>
>> We *always* hold people's biology against them, because that is *our*
>
>> biology. We would consider Cindy Crawford more attractive than a 500lb woman
>> with no arms or legs. That is *our* biological response.
>
>Whatta ya mean we, white man? (NOTE: THIS IS AN ACTUAL QUOTATION, NOT
>SOMETHING I JUST MADE UP TO TAUNT JAMES.)
Huh? An actual quote of who? Anyway, by "we" I mean "members of what
is commonly refered to as the human race." Yes, I think that even other women
would consider Cindy Crawford more attractive than a 500lb quadruple amputee,
regardless of race. Of that isn't severe enough I can add horrible scarring
and gigantism or anything else until you are forced to concede.
>
>Just find it funny I did not find Heather at all "shrill." That term never
>even crossed my mind. I'm sure everyone's tired of my ball-busting,
>lesbian separatist ways by now, so I'm not going to go into how "shrill"
>is a word only ever applied by men to women, never by women to women,
>never by men to men. Nope, not gonna go there. Just gonna sit at home,
>keeping my man-hating, self-crucifying opinions to myself. Yep, just
>gonna sit here all night listening to Tori and Polly Jean. Not a peep.
Just because shrill is only applied by men to women doesn't make it
sexist. For one thing, since females overall have higher voices than men it
makes sense that men would be more likely to notice or be irritated by a
"shrill" voice, since it very different from their own. To be "shrill" we
assume you have to have a decently high voice, which rules out most men, so
the only "shrill" people are chicks for the most part.
Here is a similar situation: Broads tend to notice a lot more when a
guy has been sweating, and in a much more negative way than another guy. Once
again this is because the sweating is more foriegn to girls than it is to
another guy. At least, that is what I think. To be honest "shrill studies" is
not my primary interest.
That being said, I defy anyone to claim that Geddy Lee or Mark
Slaughter or Axl Rose is not shrill.
Polly Jean...is that your parrot?
James M
Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
>
>You should throw some Ani and the Murmurs in there.
I feel it is necessary to point out that Me'Shell is where it's at. Get with
the program, pal.
James Margaris
>>Tori got too wacky for me. Polly, I worship.
>>
>>You should throw some Ani and the Murmurs in there.
>
> I feel it is necessary to point out that Me'Shell is where it's at. Get with
>the program, pal.
Dude, who are these people? Doesn't anybody listen to good old Iron
Maiden anymore?
James M
101 Brandons
(James Margaris) wrote:
>In article <19990813032830...@ng-ba1.aol.com>,
frank...@aol.com (Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss) wrote:
>>>Tori got too wacky for me. Polly, I worship.
>>>
>>>You should throw some Ani and the Murmurs in there.
>>
>> I feel it is necessary to point out that Me'Shell is where it's at. Get with
>>the program, pal.
Laura Love is more fun.
> Dude, who are these people? Doesn't anybody listen to good old Iron
>Maiden anymore?
Who?
--
-Brandon Blatcher
Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
>with
>>>the program, pal.
>
>Laura Love is more fun.
Maybe. But Me'Shell is more funk, which is, in my opinion, important.
Stephen Thompson
>>>Tori got too wacky for me. Polly, I worship.
>>>
>>>You should throw some Ani and the Murmurs in there.
>> I feel it is necessary to point out that Me'Shell is where it's at. Get
>>with the program, pal.
> Dude, who are these people? Doesn't anybody listen to good old Iron
>Maiden anymore?
No. Everyone who once listened to Iron Maiden has either committed suicide or
gone on a killing spree by Satan's exalted but subliminal command.
This thread reminds me of a great Dan Bern song, "Chick Singers", which pays
tribute to at least three of the above. (And Iron Maiden ain't one of 'em.)
Great line: "Every now and then while listening to them I feel like when we
were kids I pulled their hair or stole their bike."
James Margaris
>js...@cornell.edu (James Margaris) wrote:
>>frank...@aol.com (Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss) wrote:
>>>nom...@worldnet.att.net (101 Brandons) wrote:
>
>>>>Tori got too wacky for me. Polly, I worship.
>>>>
>>>>You should throw some Ani and the Murmurs in there.
>
>>> I feel it is necessary to point out that Me'Shell is where it's at. Get
>>>with the program, pal.
>
>> Dude, who are these people? Doesn't anybody listen to good old Iron
>>Maiden anymore?
>
>No. Everyone who once listened to Iron Maiden has either committed suicide or
>gone on a killing spree by Satan's exalted but subliminal command.
What? You are obviously confusing them with Judas Priest...that
Ozzy-what a wacky guy!
James M
The History of Western Brandon
frank...@aol.com (Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss) wrote:
>>>> I feel it is necessary to point out that Me'Shell is where it's at. Get
>>with
>>>>the program, pal.
>>
>>Laura Love is more fun.
>
> Maybe. But Me'Shell is more funk, which is, in my opinion, important.
Love is funky fun, which is all that's important.
--
-Brandon Blatcher
Terence P Higgins
> is commonly refered to as the human race." Yes, I think that even other women
would consider Cindy Crawford more attractive than a 500lb quadruple amputee,
regardless of race. Of that isn't severe enough I can add horrible scarring
and gigantism or anything else until you are forced to concede.
oooh, oooh <raises hand> Can we add elephantitis (sp?)? Please?
--
it's such a sad old feeling
the fields are soft and green
it's memories that i'm stealing
but you're innocent when you dream
Regina Alexandra Robbins
> >Whatta ya mean we, white man? (NOTE: THIS IS AN ACTUAL QUOTATION, NOT
> >SOMETHING I JUST MADE UP TO TAUNT JAMES.)
>
> Huh? An actual quote of who?
Tonto.
Anyway, by "we" I mean "members of what
> is commonly refered to as the human race." Yes, I think that even other women
> would consider Cindy Crawford more attractive than a 500lb quadruple amputee,
> regardless of race. Of that isn't severe enough I can add horrible scarring
> and gigantism or anything else until you are forced to concede.
I don't know why we're talking about appearance at all, since the original
topic was vocal timbre. Moving on... You're actually killing your point
in this case by comparing two things which ought not to be compared -- a
normal person and a freakish one. To weigh 500 pounds, I'm sure you'll
agree, is not merely to be "heavy," but to be seriously ill. No one gets
that fat just by not exercising. I don't need to explain why limblessness
is odd.
So of course people are more attracted to Cindy Crawford than to a fat
amputee. The question is: are they more attracted to her than to, say,
Janeane Garofalo, who is perfectly normal looking? And really my point
is that I was trying to get you to admit that you were making what is, in
my opinion, a chiefly male aversion to a woman's loud voice into a "human"
one. In the case of BLAIR WITCH, it's barely even relevant. "Shrill"
isn't the right word to apply to SCREAMS OF TERROR. What was she supposed
to do, sing opera?
The History of Western Brandon
<Pine.GSO.4.10.990813...@bonjour.cc.columbia.edu>, Regina
Alexandra Robbins <ra...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>And really my point
>is that I was trying to get you to admit that you were making what is, in
>my opinion, a chiefly male aversion to a woman's loud voice into a "human"
>one.
It's times like this that you people shoot yourself in the foot. Rather
than dealing with important issues, you're trying to turn a minor subject
into a case of male stereotypes against women.
It's times like this I wish you people would shoot yourself in the head.
>In the case of BLAIR WITCH, it's barely even relevant.
Yet when the directors were doing early test screenings, the audience
repeatedly told them that Heather's screams were too annoying in terms of
sound quality.
> "Shrill"
>isn't the right word to apply to SCREAMS OF TERROR.
Yes, it is. Shrill=high pitched, annoying sound. Her screaming was shrill.
>What was she supposed
>to do, sing opera?
depends, which opera?
--
-Brandon Blatcher
Regina Alexandra Robbins
> It's times like this that you people shoot yourself in the foot. Rather
> than dealing with important issues, you're trying to turn a minor subject
> into a case of male stereotypes against women.
Again the question must be asked: which is more painful, one broken arm or
five million pinpricks? Small things are reinforcement of the big
problem.
> It's times like this I wish you people would shoot yourself in the head.
Watch out with the "you people," it's reminiscent of Ross Perot.
> Yet when the directors were doing early test screenings, the audience
> repeatedly told them that Heather's screams were too annoying in terms of
> sound quality.
Perhaps this is the same audience which was annoyed that they didn't get
to see three corpses dripping blood and a monster with big claws.
Stephen Thompson
>>It's times like this that you people shoot yourself in the foot. Rather
>>than dealing with important issues, you're trying to turn a minor subject
>>into a case of male stereotypes against women.
>Again the question must be asked: which is more painful, one broken arm or
>five million pinpricks? Small things are reinforcement of the big problem.
But why do you even consider this a pinprick? All that's really been said is:
1. In the movie, Heather engages in extremely high-pitched screaming.
2. Many consider extremely high-pitched screaming a very unpleasant sound.
3. The correct word for a loud, unpleasant, high-pitched noise is "shrill".
Do you really disagree with any of these statements? Do you dispute that
Heather's screaming was loud and very high-pitched? Do you consider it
unreasonable to find extremely high-pitched screaming unpleasant? If it's just
the word "shrill" that bothers you, which word would you use to describe
extremely high-pitched screaming, and why is it less offensive than "shrill"?
Although this started specific to Heather in the movie, somewhere along the
way it became general, and you said: "So, women screaming in fear of their
lives are doomed to be more irritating than men merely because their voices
are higher?"
Although irritation is an unlikely reaction to a woman *really* screaming for
her life, I'd have to answer yes. But so what? It's not like there's some
great societal judgment on how people sound when they're screaming for their
lives. Men aren't walking around feeling all superior about it, doing high
fives and saying, "Hey, we sound *so* much better than women when we're
screaming for our lives, don't we? Woohoo!"
And it's not like any of this is planned, either. Women are doomed/blessed to
give birth. Some men are doomed to lose their hair early in life. Some people
are short and some tall. Women have higher voices. The human ear is often
bothered by loud, high-pitched sounds. These aren't things that anybody
decided, they just are. It isn't some sexist plot hatched by men to oppress
women. It isn't a value judgment. It has nothing to do with the reason a woman
may be screaming. It's just how we're built.
I try to be a good guy and all, but I honestly don't get how this becomes a
feminist issue. I really can't see how coming down on people for finding
certain sounds unpleasant -- and that's really all that's happened -- is going
to do anything positive for women at all.
The History of Western Brandon
<Pine.GSO.4.10.99081...@sawasdee.cc.columbia.edu>, Regina
Alexandra Robbins <ra...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, The History of Western Brandon wrote:
>
>> It's times like this that you people shoot yourself in the foot. Rather
>> than dealing with important issues, you're trying to turn a minor subject
>> into a case of male stereotypes against women.
>
>Again the question must be asked: which is more painful, one broken arm or
>five million pinpricks? Small things are reinforcement of the big
>problem.
I can agree with that. It's just that for this case, it makes sense.
Many people found Heather's screams annoying because of its sound quality
i.e. high pitched.
They complained. What this has to do with women in general is beyond
common sense, but thankfully you're out there to stitch it all together
for us.
>> It's times like this I wish you people would shoot yourself in the head.
>
>Watch out with the "you people," it's reminiscent of Ross Perot.
Thanks! That's who I was going for.
>> Yet when the directors were doing early test screenings, the audience
>> repeatedly told them that Heather's screams were too annoying in terms of
>> sound quality.
>
>Perhaps this is the same audience which was annoyed that they didn't get
>to see three corpses dripping blood and a monster with big claws.
Considering that *I* found her screams annoying as hell and I like the
film 'cause it had none of those things-No.
--
-Brandon Blatcher
Regina Alexandra Robbins
> Regina Alexandra Robbins <ra...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
> But why do you even consider this a pinprick? All that's really been said is:
>
> 1. In the movie, Heather engages in extremely high-pitched screaming.
> 2. Many consider extremely high-pitched screaming a very unpleasant sound.
> 3. The correct word for a loud, unpleasant, high-pitched noise is "shrill".
>
> Do you really disagree with any of these statements? Do you dispute that
> Heather's screaming was loud and very high-pitched? Do you consider it
> unreasonable to find extremely high-pitched screaming unpleasant? If it's just
> the word "shrill" that bothers you, which word would you use to describe
> extremely high-pitched screaming, and why is it less offensive than "shrill"?
>
> Although this started specific to Heather in the movie, somewhere along the
> way it became general, and you said: "So, women screaming in fear of their
> lives are doomed to be more irritating than men merely because their voices
> are higher?"
>
> Although irritation is an unlikely reaction to a woman *really* screaming for
> her life, I'd have to answer yes. But so what? It's not like there's some
> great societal judgment on how people sound when they're screaming for their
> lives. Men aren't walking around feeling all superior about it, doing high
> fives and saying, "Hey, we sound *so* much better than women when we're
> screaming for our lives, don't we? Woohoo!"
Not literally. But this whole issue of Heather's screaming must be taken
in context of a) the discussion of BLAIR WITCH as a whole and b) the long
history of male-female relations in the universe.
There has been a lot of discussion of Heather as a character and as an
actor which seems to me to have misogynist undertones. Many descriptions
of the character and/or actor might theoretically be accurate to her as a
particular character/woman, but unfortunately also fall under the category
of same old shit that always gets said about women that many men just
can't understand is *their* particular point of view, as men, rather than
a universal truth. Examples:
"She can't read a map." Falls into stereotype of how women can't read
maps in real life. Apparently it's true that women have more trouble
reading maps that *men* design. But when directed by other women, usually
through a landmark system, they have no more trouble getting anywhere than
a man does. As far as Heather goes, it seems to me obvious, in light of
later events (ie the magically wrong compass), that she was having no
trouble reading the map -- at least, no trouble not exacerbated by voodoo
interference.
"She was too shrill." Too shrill for whom? I haven't really noticed any
women coming out and saying this, but there are only about 10 of us on
this group anyway. Still, to me, Heather sounds like...me. The scenes in
the film that got to me most viscerally were just the ones that have been
complained about -- because when a woman screams, her voice goes above
the specifics of her own speaking voice, and becomes just woman screaming
sound. Combine that with the fact that she is often holding the camera or
not being looked at with the camera, and suddenly, it is myself screaming,
running through the woods. I suppose if men, as you say, are predisposed
to cringe when a woman screams, this moment of recognition wouldn't exist
for them. Of course, the accusation of shrillness probably has more to do
with Heather's normal speaking voice -- directing her crew, trying to keep
them from panicking, defending herself against accusations of incompetence
-- than with these Fay Wray moments (no calls her shrill). To which I can
only reply that whether they know it or not, many men don't want to hear
women talking as much, as loud, or with as much authority as men do. A
man who gives orders is a man; a woman who gives orders is a ball-buster,
a pain in the ass, etc. And a woman who talks "too much" or "too loudly"
is suddenly a hen clucking or...shrill. Not that I want you just to
shut up, honey, it's just that your voice is genetically programmed to be
annoying to me. See, I'm not a sexist, I'm just naturally sensitive to
noise. So could you be quiet?
The History of Western Brandon
<Pine.GSO.4.10.99081...@konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu>, Regina
Alexandra Robbins <ra...@columbia.edu> wrote:
No, it does NOT have to be taken in the context of "the long history of
male-female relations in the universe."
It can be viewed as a separate discussion that has nothing to do with the above.
>There has been a lot of discussion of Heather as a character and as an
>actor which seems to me to have misogynist undertones.
Examples, please.
>Many descriptions
>of the character and/or actor might theoretically be accurate to her as a
>particular character/woman, but unfortunately also fall under the category
>of same old shit that always gets said about women that many men just
>can't understand is *their* particular point of view, as men, rather than
>a universal truth.
That's weird. You say the descriptions might be accurate, but imply that
it doesn't matter 'cause it might fit a stereotype. Then you start going
on about men not being able to understand it's just their view about the
screaming, which is silly. Of course most people understand it's just
their view. *I* thought she was shrill. You didn't. Fine. No one is
claiming a universal truth.
Examples:
>
>"She can't read a map." Falls into stereotype of how women can't read
>maps in real life. Apparently it's true that women have more trouble
>reading maps that *men* design. But when directed by other women, usually
>through a landmark system, they have no more trouble getting anywhere than
>a man does.
And you got this info from where?
> As far as Heather goes, it seems to me obvious, in light of
>later events (ie the magically wrong compass), that she was having no
>trouble reading the map -- at least, no trouble not exacerbated by voodoo
>interference.
She WAS having trouble reading the map, but it wasn't major trouble. They
weren't making their destinations when she thought they would, but they
were making them.
>"She was too shrill." Too shrill for whom?
Obviously for the people who thought she was shrill. Why do you have a
problem with this?
> I haven't really noticed any
>women coming out and saying this, but there are only about 10 of us on
>this group anyway. Still, to me, Heather sounds like...me. The scenes in
>the film that got to me most viscerally were just the ones that have been
>complained about -- because when a woman screams, her voice goes above
>the specifics of her own speaking voice, and becomes just woman screaming
>sound. Combine that with the fact that she is often holding the camera or
>not being looked at with the camera, and suddenly, it is myself screaming,
>running through the woods.
There's this commerical, the one about the pizza delivery boy getting into
some top secret base. The commander of the base orders a squad of troops
to an employee's office, since he's eating pizza and must know where and
how the delivery boy got in. The squad storms the office, jacks the man up
against the wall and demand to know where the delivery boy is. He screams
"It's not delivery, it's Degorno (or whatever the brand name is). His
voice is annoying, his voice is shrill. I hate the commerical and hate
having to hear that voice.
> I suppose if men, as you say, are predisposed
>to cringe when a woman screams, this moment of recognition wouldn't exist
>for them. Of course, the accusation of shrillness probably has more to do
>with Heather's normal speaking voice -- directing her crew, trying to keep
>them from panicking, defending herself against accusations of incompetence
>-- than with these Fay Wray moments (no calls her shrill). To which I can
>only reply that whether they know it or not,
This is your problem. You insist that people don't know themselves, but
you seem to know them, never mind that they're total strangers.
> many men don't want to hear
>women talking as much, as loud, or with as much authority as men do. A
>man who gives orders is a man; a woman who gives orders is a ball-buster,
>a pain in the ass, etc. And a woman who talks "too much" or "too loudly"
>is suddenly a hen clucking or...shrill. Not that I want you just to
>shut up, honey, it's just that your voice is genetically programmed to be
>annoying to me. See, I'm not a sexist, I'm just naturally sensitive to
>noise.
Yeah, this attitude exists among some, but it isn't universal.
>So could you be quiet?
Like you'd listen.
--
-Brandon Blatcher
James Margaris
>On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, James Margaris wrote:
[clip]
> Anyway, by "we" I mean "members of what
>> is commonly refered to as the human race." Yes, I think that even other women
>
>> would consider Cindy Crawford more attractive than a 500lb quadruple amputee,
>
>> regardless of race. Of that isn't severe enough I can add horrible scarring
>> and gigantism or anything else until you are forced to concede.
>
>I don't know why we're talking about appearance at all, since the original
>topic was vocal timbre.
The original point was *NOT* about timbre, it was about "holding
biology against someone." Appearance is biology, as is voice or anything else.
I was just pointing out that we respond to biology all the time, as that is
our biology.
Moving on... You're actually killing your point
>in this case by comparing two things which ought not to be compared -- a
>normal person and a freakish one. To weigh 500 pounds, I'm sure you'll
>agree, is not merely to be "heavy," but to be seriously ill. No one gets
>that fat just by not exercising. I don't need to explain why limblessness
>is odd.
Obviouslt the example is extreme, but the point is that holding
someone's biology against them happens all the time. If you prefer blonds to
brunettes, well, there you go. If you prefer Cindy Crawford to Garofalo (on
the basis of looks), well, there you go. If you prefer Garofalo to Crawford,
well, ditto for that.
When we critisize people on anything related to biology (that person
needs a shave) we are holding it against them. It's just natural. If it is a
problem we can try to suppress it, but we still do it all the time.
James M
James Margaris
>On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, The History of Western Brandon wrote:
>> Yet when the directors were doing early test screenings, the audience
>> repeatedly told them that Heather's screams were too annoying in terms of
>> sound quality.
>
>Perhaps this is the same audience which was annoyed that they didn't get
>to see three corpses dripping blood and a monster with big claws.
Or perhaps they were just annoyed. If you are in the mindset to find
fault with everything you will, but a bit more balanced approach may be
advisable. Her voice is high and tight souding. I call that "shrill."
Obviously when you hear shrill you think of someone denegrating someone else
as being some sort of shrew-woman or something, but you have to allow the fact
that the person just meant high and annoying. I can certainly imagine a case
where some guy would call a woman shrill as part of an overall negativity to
women sort of attitude, but I can imagine a case where he just means shrill in
the literal sense and nothing else.
To be fair, when I hear a high male voice I usually refer to it as
"annoying," "helium like," or burst into the Wizrd of Oz song "we represent
the lollypop guild." I don't think those are any more flattering than shrill
though.
People see what they want. You can't lose enough perspective so that
you can't admit that *maybe* the person was not being anti-woman but just used
a damn word that meant the dictionary meaning.
It's like if someone is really down on frat guys, and they see a bunch
of frat guys going to a party. THey think the frat guys will get drunk, puke
all over the place, act stupid, date rape a few women, and generally degrade
our society. While that may happen, and it sometimes does happen, the more
balanced view is that it may or may not happen, and that some of the guys will
drink in moderation and come home without incident. It doesn't mean you can't
critisize frat guys, it just means you can't jump on all of them for anything.
Once you start deciding to interpret everything in the worst light and lump
everyone together without the benefit of doubt you aren't doing any better
than any other close minded person.
James M
James Margaris
[clip]
>>
>> Although irritation is an unlikely reaction to a woman *really* screaming for
>> her life, I'd have to answer yes. But so what? It's not like there's some
>> great societal judgment on how people sound when they're screaming for their
>> lives. Men aren't walking around feeling all superior about it, doing high
>> fives and saying, "Hey, we sound *so* much better than women when we're
>> screaming for our lives, don't we? Woohoo!"
>
>Not literally. But this whole issue of Heather's screaming must be taken
>in context of a) the discussion of BLAIR WITCH as a whole and b) the long
>history of male-female relations in the universe.
The long history has to be shown to be relevant in oder to be
relevant. One person saying something about "shrill" does not tie directly to
any other person or event. Just like my great-grandparents didn't own slaves,
the person who may have found Heather "shrill" may operate mostly
independently from male-female relations. (Not entirely of course)
>There has been a lot of discussion of Heather as a character and as an
>actor which seems to me to have misogynist undertones. Many descriptions
>of the character and/or actor might theoretically be accurate to her as a
>particular character/woman, but unfortunately also fall under the category
>of same old shit that always gets said about women that many men just
>can't understand is *their* particular point of view, as men, rather than
>a universal truth.
But is the discussion all from the same person. We men (if I may speak
for all men) are not a conglomerate or mass mind. If one guy says one thing
and another says another and a third said something else it's not like they
all were thinking the summation of those statements. Attack the individuals if
you want, but you can't speak in general.
Examples:
>
>"She can't read a map." Falls into stereotype of how women can't read
>maps in real life. Apparently it's true that women have more trouble
>reading maps that *men* design. But when directed by other women, usually
>through a landmark system, they have no more trouble getting anywhere than
>a man does.
I don't understand...if she had trouble reading the map she had
trouble. It doesn't mean her character is stupid, but then again maybe her
character IS stupid. Maybe she could read another kind of map just great.
People can only respond to what they saw in the movie. Say that Heather acted
like a total bitch, yelling and cursing and getting on everyone's back for no
reason. WOuld it be sexist for someone to say, "hey, what a bitch."
If she can't read a map then it was the choice of the actor or
director. If you think she *can* read a map but that the compass was screwed
up you are attacking people's interpretation of the movie, but you have to
show that they maliciously came up with their opinion.
Look, none of the characters were super-geniuses. Heather is the
leader so she will get the most blame. That just makes sense.
>"She was too shrill." Too shrill for whom? I haven't really noticed any
>women coming out and saying this, but there are only about 10 of us on
>this group anyway. Still, to me, Heather sounds like...me.
Like I said in a previous post, men might be more sensitive because
their voices are naturally lower. Perhaps ALL men find high pitched women
shrill. That is unfortunate but what would you have us do about it? Should we
just lie? Is that better? Being shrill when screaming is hardly a large fault.
I know you can take this and say "well, what if all men find women
[blank]", where blank is "weak, inferior, ugly, stupid, whatever you want." To
that I would say well what if they do? Is it our fault? But, really there is a
huge difference between these. Voice pitch is a very quantifiable thing.
Intelligence or worth is not. What if some women don't like facial
hair? (Imagine that!) Are they sexist? After all, they wouldn't often say that
a woman needs a shave to be attractive...in fact, I find all the time
that women find me or my friends in need of a shave and we are all thinking
"what the fuck, I barely even have stubble." None of the men seem to notice.
There isn't anything wrong with these types of things. It's just who
we are, and probably biology. You can't equate them with more substantial
issues. Men are more likely to notice certain things about women than other
women, and vice-versa.
How about this: How often do men use "melodious" or "sing song" or
even "warm" to describe the voice of another man? Not very often. The male and
female voice are fundamentally different sounding and we have different words
for them. We probably won't call a woman gruff or raspy. Would you have a
problem if someone said that Heather's voice is "melodious." Isn't that
holding her biology *for* her?
[clip]
I suppose if men, as you say, are predisposed
>to cringe when a woman screams, this moment of recognition wouldn't exist
>for them. Of course, the accusation of shrillness probably has more to do
>with Heather's normal speaking voice -- directing her crew, trying to keep
>them from panicking, defending herself against accusations of incompetence
>-- than with these Fay Wray moments (no calls her shrill).
We can't stop you from beleiving what you want. Perhaps some men did
think she was shrill from these other things. Then again some clearly did not.
Even so, a woman can defend herself, direct a crew, etc, without being shrill.
Here is a question: Would men find Ripley from Aliens shrill? She has
to direct the crew, argue with them, defend herself, etc. But I doubt if
ANYONE thought she was shrill. THey might have thought she was a bossy
femi-nazi, but not shrill.
You are trying to say that men calling Heather "shrill" stems from
their resentment of her athority (god can I spell or what?), but I contend it
just comes from her voice. If she had not been the leader she still would have
been shrill, assuming she still had a decent amount of dialogue.
Once again, why isn't Sigourney Weaver shrill, in Aliens, or Alien 1
or 3 for that matter? She is clearly the leader. Shouldn't we also resent her,
as the woman hating troglodytes that we (men) all are? Were Thelma and Luise
shrill? (Actually I never saw it, so I wouldn't know)
THe *HORRIBLE* conclusion is that being "shrill" stems from vocal
quality, not from trying to be an agressive take-charge type of woman. How
depressing.
To which I can
>only reply that whether they know it or not, many men don't want to hear
>women talking as much, as loud, or with as much authority as men do.
Once again, I would point to Ripley in Aliens. Everybody I know loves
Aliens, and she is a large part of why. THe part where she tapes the flame
thrower to the other rifle and really goes crazy is the role almost always
reserved for the man, yet audiences were fine with it.
I don't mind hearing women talking loudly or as much as men, as long
as they aren't stupid and annoying. Then again, I don't want to hear a stupid
annoying man talk either.
A
>man who gives orders is a man; a woman who gives orders is a ball-buster,
>a pain in the ass, etc. And a woman who talks "too much" or "too loudly"
>is suddenly a hen clucking or...shrill. Not that I want you just to
>shut up, honey, it's just that your voice is genetically programmed to be
>annoying to me. See, I'm not a sexist, I'm just naturally sensitive to
>noise. So could you be quiet?
Gah! YOU should be a man, because you know more about it than any of
us. Can I take lessons? We can begin with denigration of women, then move on
to machismo followed by some crotch scratching...please, tell me more about
how men behave.
Do you see the inherent problem in villifying all men? Hmm...
Can you just admit that perhaps some people who use shrill just meant
high and annoying? Is there any chance at all? "your voice is genetically
programmed to annoy me..." Come on! Nobody is saying that. You have certainly
reduced this to the absurd. The WORST anyone is saying is that certain women,
when screaming, have a certain negative effect on the ears, which is a
situation of real violence no-one would care about or even notice. Is that
really so bad?
James M
James Margaris
>In article <Pine.GSO.4.10.99081...@konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu>,
> Regina Alexandra Robbins <ra...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>[clip]
Yes, I am replying to my own post, but only because I though about
something and the original post is gone, and I knew it was quoted here.
Anyway...
[clip]
> A
>>man who gives orders is a man; a woman who gives orders is a ball-buster,
>>a pain in the ass, etc.
I was thinking about this statement while making dinner. I won't deny
that it's true in large part. But, let me offer a reasonable explanation:
Say you have 2 friends, Joe and Tom. Joe is sort of cynical and
negative, Tom is nice and always supports you. You try out for a part in a
local play and flub some lines. Joe says "that wasn't so hot." Tom says "that
wasn't so hot." Which one is going to bother you more?
Perhaps when women give orders they are acting in a way less
characteristic than when a man gives orders. When a man gives orders he can be
seen as playing his normal role; when a woman gives orders she might be seen
as being somehow agitated, enraged, upset, etc, because normally she wouldn't
do that.
In a way the standard is different, but it is consitent. When people
act differently than we expect we assume it is because something is up.
Imagine a friend tells you that they were at a party and made eye
contact with a girl, but he didn't go over and talk to her because he was
nervous. You might think that he was gutless, weak or indecisive. You probably
wouldn't think the same about the girl. (Even if she was the one telling the
story) Butm their behavior was *identical.* The difference is that she acted
as expected; in fact if she had made a move she might have been seen as
aggressive.
My point in all this is to point out that some inequality does not
always mean that the perpetrators are evil pigs. Certainly some are, just like
when some men refer to someone as "shrill" what they really mean is "boy is
this woman annoying. I hate women. Die, bitch!" (Or something like that...)
But some things that can be construed as sexism or whatever-ism can also be
explained by less devious motivations. That doesn't make it all good, but it
means you can't point the finger quite as easily.
Motivations are as different as people. Some are sexist, some aren't.
You can't take the worst examples of behavior and assume that all men share
them by virtue of their man-ness alone.
James M
the disdamoned
Regina Alexandra Robbins wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, James Margaris wrote:
>
> ....
>
> So of course people are more attracted to Cindy Crawford than to a fat
> amputee. The question is: are they more attracted to her than to, say,
> Janeane Garofalo, who is perfectly normal looking?
but cindy is more average looking.
> And really my point
> is that I was trying to get you to admit that you were making what is, in
> my opinion, a chiefly male aversion to a woman's loud voice into a "human"
> one. In the case of BLAIR WITCH, it's barely even relevant. "Shrill"
> isn't the right word to apply to SCREAMS OF TERROR.
her voice was shrill when she was whining for 50 minutes of the
movie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
the screams of terror i had no problem with, i thought they were realistic.