From: blp
Category: Films
Date: 18 April 2005
And no, sorry, I'm not quite done. Perhaps my response above should simply have read 'See my original post' since you make so many points I had already gone to some pains to rebutt the first time round. Strange perhaps that the original should also be the response to the response, but not that surprising. Evidence anyway that people are a lot odder than they're generally shown to be on film. But why pretend? I'm not chuckling philosophically over this. It makes me mad. Debate simply doesn't work if you do it like this. It makes everything - everything - seem utterly pointless. What annoys me the most is this not a masterpiece, not a masterpiece ending. What are you implying? Where did I ever say that I thought it should be a masterpiece? Am I some kind of overbearing bully against this poor little well meaning film because I invoked the names of some of the great filmmakers of the past? Unfair. This film is not embattled. As I made clear, this kind of filmmaking is dominant now. It's in the majority. And what seems to me to be embattled is the understanding of the limits and potentials of film- making shown by those older directors. Furthermore, I felt that this film was a good test case in discussing that situation because it appears, in many ways, to be impervious to criticism. Both you and the friend I went with suggest in your different ways that the subject matter alone is of such value that it somehow absolves the filmmaker from any further responsibility. But this is a bit like saying that if a vase is beautiful enough it can just be placed on any old surface, regardless of its steadiness. Or that if the threat of terrorism is scary enough, the principles of law no longer matter. No. Delicate matters require care. And frankly, it's all delicate matters.
[_shared_elements/comment_on_this_review.htm]