Skip to main content

Obligatory statement of purpose

 I love movies. I collect dvds and watch movies almost daily. The object of the game is to see both as many movies and as many types of them as I can before I die. 


Roger Ebert once said the movies are a machine for generating empathy. I agree with that. I watch movies to see other people's perspectives and experience. I go into movies wanting to be entertained, to be told a story, and hopefully a story told from a different point of view than mine. 


Every movie I see gets full benefit of the doubt, suspension of disbelief, and sympathy for its characters until it ends. I do not watch movies with a checklist of my sociopolitical values in hand, keeping a running tally of all the ways it pushed my buttons by failing to conform to my values. Movies exist for my entertainment and enjoyment, but they are not about me. My values and I are not more important than the movie while I'm watching it. 


I like Hollywood movies. Mainstream, middlebrow, middle class entertainments. I see plenty of art films, indie films, foreign films, any kind of film that interests me or that I hear might interest me. Still, I grew up on mainstream Hollywood multiplex fare in the '70s and '80s and '90s and onward and those films are my sweet spot. 


I do not write about film to debate film. I don't write about it to air grievances with other genders, races, or cultures. I do not write about Hollywood product to back up my pet thesis about why someone or other has offended everyone else and needs to be destroyed. If people want to write about these things through the lens of film I think they should. That's not what's happening here. 


I'm eager to engage with folks over why a screenplay contradicted itself all over the place, how characters felt inauthentic or a music cue seemed to stop the picture dead in its tracks. I want to talk to people about the movies and the stories they tell and how effective - or not - they are at doing it. 


I will not engage with comments such as, "You like this movie because you're a middle aged cis-het white male and you want to enslave...." I will not engage with those who refuse to suspend disbelief and extend sympathy until the picture ends. I will not engage with individuals who say, "I don't need to see this movie to know it's offensive." If a person hasn't seen the movie, no comment s/he makes has an ounce of validity here. Contempt prior to investigation will be met with contemptuous silence. 


Again, I'm not saying those approaches to movies are wrong. It's not for me to say, because I don't do that. They won't and don't fit here, however. I ask only for a fair hearing and the bare minimum of courtesy and respect for my right to my opinion, even if my opinion, itself, doesn't merit a reader's respect. 


With that out of the way, let's love us some movies. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

No Return:Stanley Kramer's IT'S A MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD WORLD

 IT'S A MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD WORLD. Spencer Tracy, Ethel Merman, Milton Berle, Mickey Rooney, Sid Caesar. Dir. Stanley Kramer, MGM, 1963 I do not generally write about films I stop watching halfway. What's the point? I either have nothing positive to say about it or was in the wrong mood. In both cases I'm ignorant of its full length to perhaps do it justice. In the case of Stanley Kramer's 1963 comedy smash, however, I feel compelled to make an exception.  My problem with the movie is not my mood, nor disappointment because it's not the movie I once heard. In fact, my biggest problem is that I haven't heard it described in glowing terms, or any, since I was about 9. See, IAMMMMW used to air anually on one or another of the networks, often in December. My parents didn't care for it and never watched it, but my friends watched anytime it aired and talked about it in rapturous terms. Until about 9-10 years old, when it seemed to drop out of conversation, or conv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Junkie-fatigue: Taylor Hackford's Ray

 Jamie Foxx, Kerry Washington, Terence Howard, Warwick Davis, Curtis Armstrong. Dir. Taylor Hackford, Bristol Bay/Universal, 2004 Jamie Foxx, nominated for both Supporting Actor and Best Actor at the 2004 Academy Awards, won Best Actor for Ray and, watching Ray tonight for the first time in about 15 years, I'm glad it went down that way. Tom Cruise gave a career-best performance in Collateral, for which Foxx received his Supporting Actor nod. It's a great performance, too, but no moreso than Cruise, ignored by the Academy, so it feels right to me that Foxx got his statuette for the movie where he didn't share the spotlight with a star of Cruise's magnitude. Not that it would make much difference if Foxx had some high-voltage costar in Ray, because the movie simply doesn't exist without Foxx and his essay of Ray Charles. Not unlike Coal Miner's Daughter, the other music biopic whose star picked up a Best Actor, Ray occurs from Ray's point of view, so ther...
Post a Comment
Read more

Obligatory TL;DR Statement of Purpose

 A not-so-brief explanatory note as to how this blog works: I can't recall a time when movies weren't my passion, my compulsion, my addiction. Ever since my parents took me to see Disney's Bedknobs&Broomsticks, I've been hopeless. Born in 1967, I grew up with free range parents. They took my brother and me to all kinds of movies, often using Hollywood as a babysitter. We saw movies about which many parents today would cluck their tongues (though nothing R-rated until I was 12. My first R-rated movie was MONTY PYTHON'S LIFE OF BRIAN.) Though my parents were professionals and we grew up affluent, our home saw its share of dysfunction. Dad was in the house, but not often present. Mom, stressed and disappointed at discovering her marriage wasn't an equal partnership, took out her frustrations on me.  Without getting too far into the weeds, let me just say my adult life has been far from typical middle class stability. I've never had a career. Never finished ...
3 comments
Read more