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

Mediocre be thy name: John Gulager's Zombie Night

 Anthony Michael Hall, Daryl Hannah, Alan Ruck, Shirley Jones. Dir. John Gulager, The Asylum, 2013 For those unaware, The Asylum is a film production company specializing in cheapo horror and action titles, most subgeneric ripoffs of whatever horror/scifi/action titles are popular that year. Referred to as "mockbusters," these low budget achievers look like their big-money brethren, often featuring solid B-list casts, as Zombie Night does. Though The Asylum has attracted a following, the more serious, hardcore fans of el cheapo horror (et al) tend to turn up their noses at most Asylum product. Marc Edward Heuck, Our Man in the Valley, summed it up thusly: "I don't watch much Asylum fare, because frankly they're not awful enough, they're just mediocre. Like, they're not content to just have the monster or the topless girl and the requisite scenes therein and otherwise leave talent alone to be unique like Roger Corman was, they micro-manage all the pe...
Post a Comment
Read more

I love Twinkies: Tommy Lee Wallace's IT

 Harry Anderson, Richard Thomas, Dennis Christopher, Tim Reid, Annette O'Toole, Tim Curry. Dir. Tommy Lee Wallace, Warner Bros., 1990 I had one problem with the 1990 TV movie (run over two nights back in '90, NBC called it a miniseries, but as a dvd-feature it runs three hours and six minutes, a little longer than Avengers:End Game) and it's a big one. I loved all the stuff with the cast as kids, in the first part. Only Seth Green among them went on to be household-name actors and their anonymity at this remove gave their performances a spontanaeity and freshness that helped me buy them as screen versions of the novel's characters. The adult versions, essayed by an ensemble of B-listers and small screen stars, however, didn't do much for me.  I'm willing to lay that off on a poor screenplay to some extent, but IT proves definitively that Harry Anderson, despite two hit sitcoms, cannot act. At all. It goes on to prove that Richard Thomas, Dennis Christopher, An...
1 comment
Read more

Cuck Fiction: Charles Vidor's GILDA

 Rita Hayworth, Glenn Ford, George MacReady, Steven Geray. Dir. Charles Vidor, Columbia, 1946 My favorite erotic fiction deals with cuckolding. The stories fascinate me. As people, cuckolds don't seem to think they're worth nice things. Or happiness. On the other hand, the cuckolding partners and their multiple lovers don't come over as the clear victors, either. Part of the fascination - maybe most of it - lies in trying to decide which party comes out the MOST degraded.  Is it the submissive, sensitive husband and his unsatisfactory size/staying power? Is it the "slutwife" who finds satiety in being transformed into a fuckdoll to humilate her husband? Or is it the lover - often black - who gets to degrade the sexy white lady but who doesn't otherwise matter? As in bdsm scenes, if the cuck is most degraded, that means he also "wins," as his desires to see his wife turned into a promiscuous slut while he gets to be bi without shame are most fulfi...
Post a Comment
Read more