JUST DONT GET ALL LOVEY-DOVEY ON US Just Dont ...
The Rev v. the MUG
Russ Smith's column "Don't Doubt Bush" (MUGGER, 11/5) was so ripe with melodramatic faux-patriotism and purple references to the Almighty that you'd half expect Kate Smith to come breezing back in to lead the chorus of "God Bless America."
Anyone observing the chaos in Iraq, whether from the safety of America or the peril of an Army helicopter buzzing over Baghdad, must acknowledge that the U.S. military command has absolutely no control over the situation. How can they, when their mission was always bogus? The war was a politically and intellectually fraudulent adventure that has not only failed to achieve any of its alleged goals but did the impossible by taking the fragile stability of the Middle East and shattering it further. Smith's assertion that the Iraqi invasion was a "morally correct war" is outrageous and dishonest.
Rev. Phil Hall, Manhattan
Dropping a Download
It's illegal and ethically unsound to download licensed anime for free ("On the D/L," 10/29). The reason they are so freely available online is because downloading and distributing fan-subtitled anime that are not licensed allows companies to see what is popular enough to import over. This abuse hurts both American and Japanese companies. Thought you should know. Thank you for your article.
Richard Frostick, Griffith, IN
Ripley: Believe it, Hot
In Matt Zoller Seitz's look at the revised Alien ("Film," 10/29) and, in particular, Ash's attack on Ripley, Seitz says, "Note the method by which Ash attempts to silence the inquisitive Ripley: in an oral rape/strangulation by rolled-up porn magazine..."
I wonder if this method derives less from, as Seitz cites, Ash's jealously of Ripley's humanity than envy of the recreational sex (which he, as a machine, is presumably unable to perform) that Ripley enjoyed with Dallas in an earlier draft of the film's screenplay?
Bob Gutowski, Jackson Heights, Queens
You Actually Say That?
Thank you New York Press and Matt Taibbi for the fine article on Khodorkovsky ("Cage Match," 11/5). Taibbi, as they say down here, always puts the grass down where the goats can get it!
Wes Baker, Anniston, AL
Armond Takes a Time-Out
Armond White's typically self-righteous screed about the New York Film Critics Circle ("Their Souls for a Freebie," 10/29) misrepresents the viewpoint of those members, myself included, who oppose the MPAA's decision (since partially reversed) to ban the distribution of home-video "screeners" for awards consideration.
According to White, we "boosters" were infected by "the silly hope [that we] could save independent film production simply by demanding freebies." In fact, nobody at the meeting made any such demand. Perhaps White has confused his own organization with the Los Angeles group, which cancelled its awards for 2003 on the dubious grounds that its members can't do their jobs without the help of screeners?a misguided measure that the NYFCC swiftly rejected.
I couldn't care less whether I ever receive another screener. Nor do I give a damn which movies win Oscars. I care deeply, however, about the economic viability of the small, ambitious films that owe their existence, at least in part, to the prospect of Oscar glory, however silly and meaningless that prospect may be in terms of lasting film culture. White's belief that critics shouldn't concern themselves with the question of which films get made and which do not is dangerously short-sighted.
Movies are not novels, and cannot be created by a single person armed only with a notebook and a dream. Even with the new digital technology, they cost money, and any action that threatens to make it much harder for "difficult" or otherwise noncommercial movies to be financed is one that critics ought to be opposing as forcefully as we can. How White can interpret this principled stance as complicity is beyond my comprehension. That he cynically assumes those who oppose the ban are just angling for swag is insulting. But then, I would expect no less from a man who regularly accuses everyone who disagrees with him?even about something as trivial as whether Amistad was 1997's best movie?of congenital idiocy.
One final note. "Throughout its 60-plus-year history," White intones, "the Circle honorably made its awards without benefit of screeners?which is to say, without industry consent." I frequently see White at advance press screenings, to which he is invited by publicists in the employ of studios and distributors. How does this entail less "industry consent" than a DVD, pray?
Mike D'Angelo, Film Critic, Time Out New York
Maybe
If more columnists had the guts of Michelangelo Signorile to write about the Bush administration's muzzling of the media re: the Iraq invasion ("The Gist," 11/5), maybe the American people would wake up and see how truly manipulative this whole invasion and occupation has been.
Bruce Bishop, Toronto
Plus Punctuality and Penmanship
I was astounded to read that Russ Smith thinks "civility" is one of the things worth dying for in Iraq ("MUGGER," 11/5).
Scott Ferguson, Queens
Comparing Columnists
What a brilliant piece "Oligarchs R Us" is ("Cage Match," 11/5). Thanks to Matt Taibbi for calling a spade a spade. He is as good as Michelangelo Signorile, or so this woman thinks!
Helga Fremlin, Melbourne
Kissing Cousins
Congratulations to Matt Taibbi for his brilliant piece on Russia ("Cage Match," 11/5). It is absolutely hands-down one of the best, short, sharp pieces of reporting on Russia I've ever seen. He's a fantastic reporter. Congratulations to you for employing him. And no, I don' t know Taibbi and I'm not related to him.
Kate Gilbert, Cambridge, MA
Seitz is the One
I read the review of The Matrix Revolutions ("Film," 10/5) and the last part is a killer. Too good.
Having spent many good hours discussing the trilogy, I feel that this is the rarest movie experience ever. People who call it "pop-philosophy" and such names should understand what movies are about in the first place: creativity. Nothing more, nothing less. And that is something that no critic can take away from The Matrix. Good work by Matt Seitz. This was a very honest review. I'm going to visit your site more often now.
Venkataraghavan Raman, Raleigh, NC
Michelangelo's Great Work
Signorile is dead-on, balls-accurate when he says that President Bush is scrambling to gain favor with the American people as he begins his pompous strut down the campaign trail ("The Gist," 11/5).
I think a few photos of our less-than-illustrious president should be taken with some of this country's brave soldiers who will never be whole again, who gave their all for the likes of him and have not asked for anything more in return than what is due them.
I am not a soldier, nor do I have any immediate family serving in the armed forces at this time, but I have long thought that President Bush has become a cold-hearted dictator who is only out for his own satisfaction. I wonder how quickly he would have infiltrated Iraq if he needed to fight, on his own, up close and personal, face to face with Saddam in a good ol'-fashioned ass-kickin' contest.
Gail Bentley, Manchester, NH
Not Jack, Sergio
Does Armond White owe Jack Valenti money ("Their Souls for a Freebie," 10/29)? It boggles my mind that White places Jack Valenti on the opposing side of corruption and greed. What are the "best interests of his industry" then? Artistic integrity? The MPAA is nothing more than a lobby for the studios. (I'm assuming White is aware that that the MPAA comprises the seven largest studios in Hollywood.) Does Valenti honestly give a damn about any filmmaker working outside of the big seven?
As for critics, were they not being "watchdogs" when they sounded the cry against the censorship of Eyes Wide Shut? What were Valenti's proposals anyway? Had the film been released with the stigmatic NC-17 (a Valenti creation), thousands of theaters would have refused to show it. Is not the role of the critic being adversely affected when they are asked to review something that has been sanitized for their protection? What do you think your mentors Sarris and Kael would say to such proposals? It is the critics, not the studios or the MPAA, that are fighting for artist's rights. Warner could have stood up to the MPAA, but the thought of losing one dollar was too much for them to bear. Fortunately, there are brave companies like Artisan who chose to release Requiem for a Dream without a rating.
Curious, too, that the only critic mentioned by name in the article is Lisa Schwarzbaum. Come on?working for an AOL-TimeWarner-owned publication, it's hardly surprising that she thinks the Oscars matter!
Andrew Grant, Brooklyn
Seitz: Re-stroked
Matt Zoller Seitz: Thanks so much for laying the issue of criticism fashion out on the table, and for bucking it ("Film," 11/5). I wonder how much good film, art and music has been buried by reviewers trying to keep up with and mimic the taste-making trend du jour. Keep up the good work.
Thomas W. Clark, Somerville, MA
He Shills for Us
Armond White's piece on the New York Film Critics Circle ("Their Souls for a Freebie," 10/29) is so shrill, lopsided and uninformed one wonders exactly who he is shilling for. Which of course raises the question of who in the world would want him on their side. Comically attacking a position that is now, in fact, supported by Jack Valenti, his point is not only moot but stinks of hypocrisy. Does he not also work for a newspaper that accepts advertising? Has he never viewed a tape of a film rather than seen it in a theater?
Fact: Film critics are employed by newspapers and magazines that are owned by media companies. And the pope lives in Rome. Glad White cleared that up for all of us.
Fact: The only "fact" that White has provided to support his assertion that these critics are in any way influenced by these corporations is his bizarre assertion that, by wanting access to tapes and DVDs of films they need to see, they have somehow become puppets of the "Entertainment Industry Complex."
Fact: Robert Warshow, Gilbert Seldes and James Agee, cited by White as his influences, would spin in their graves if they read this piece of hack writing. He is to them what Schwarzenegger is to Olivier. In addition, Andrew Sarris and Pauline Kael, as well as White, all worked for commercial enterprises. I would like to hear White's opinion on how they managed not to become Entertainment Industry Complex robots.
White's most glaring piece of stupidity is his attack on Lisa Schwarzbaum. Why is she the focus of his attack? Well, because she works for a magazine that is owned by Time Warner, and she had the audacity to speak up. Why does White think this is significant? Because he is apparently unable to grasp that an individual and their employer are not one and the same, and that individual can actually express an independent opinion and still stay employed.
Of all the people White could have chosen to attack, the fact that he chose to rail against Lisa Schwarzbaum shows the extent of his cluelessness. There is no one, and I do know of what I speak, that would ever accuse Schwarzbaum of being the mouthpiece for or cozying up to the Entertainment Industry Complex?be it the publicists, the studios, the directors or the actors. If anything, she goes out of her way to avoid such associations. If White had bothered to ask a few questions before he shot, he could have figured this out on his own.
Nevertheless, I do agree with White on one point: the association between film critics and the movie industry is a good topic for a serious article. Perhaps some day someone will write one.
Edward J. Gaudino, Manhattan
Living In Armond's World
I like Armond White, but I must take issue with his judgment of In This World ("Film," 11/5 and his idea of exactly what the film is and how it was made. First of all, the characters are from Afghanistan, not Iran, and they're traveling from a refugee camp in Peshawar, Pakistan, through Iran, on their way to London. Actually, the fact that they're not Iranian and don't speak Farsi is a key plot point?it's the reason they're kicked off an Iranian bus.
Which brings me to a more important point?which is that the movie does in fact have a plot. I'm not sure what Armond thought he saw, but In This World is not some a semi-documentary made on the backs of a couple of real-life refugees as they trekked across the Middle East and Europe?the camera wasn't "smuggled" on a truck with real stowaways, and Winterbottom certainly did make sure that his cast got "food and lodging." They were asked to participate in a fiction as actors, which they did, and they were paid well for it. Jamal, the younger of the two leads, is now seeking asylum in England, after a second trip. In fact, there was a very good, informative interview on the making of the film, which Armond does not appear to have read, in the 9/23 edition of your dreaded rival paper.
Finally, I will say that I liked In This World?does that make me "insecure"? I didn't find the manner in which the movie rendered the experience of its characters "visually incomprehensible"?far from it. How could I have been so unattuned to the "visual"? Far from a betrayal of "Bazin's Neorealism," I, for one, thought that it had next to nothing to do with that long-gone moment (and it was an historical moment, not an esthetic)?just because a movie is made with non-professional actors, does that mean it's trying to be "neo-realistic"?
Why does Armond have to keep condemning anyone who likes the movies that he doesn't like?
Kent Jones, Manhattan
Smith Fans Strike Back
J.R. Taylor's recent article that spoke of Elliott Smith jokes over and over again ("B-Listers," 10/29), was tasteless and rude. Shame on you!
Celisa Stratton, Glover, VT
Smith and Wesson
Can I say how deeply offensive the recent article in New York Press J.R. Taylor recent was? No one expects uncritical worship of an artist just because of the tragic nature of his or her death. But this was just puerile and cheap journalism at its worst. The guy had family and friends. This isn't provocative journalism. It's just cheap.
Mike McCusker, Manchester, England
Sort of, Yes
I don't know what the rest of you think, but I find J.R. Taylor's article extremely upsetting and offensive. Does the editorial board condone making jokes about a guy who killed himself a week ago and has a lot of loyal fans that are still trying to get over it? It really doesn't do your publication any good, unless you were looking for negative publicity in the first place.
Michael Cohen, Osaka, Japan
When Elliott Smith Fans Attack
J.R. Taylor's "B-Listers" article was a fucking disgrace (10/29). I can't be bothered to waste my time explaining the many reasons it was offensive, but please don't make jokes about a person (Elliott Smith) who has recently died, and made more difference to people's lives than a wanker like you could in 10 lifetimes.
Rowan Dawes, Brighton, England
That's Our Boy
I received the following message from J.R. Taylor regarding the piece he wrote on Elliott Smith. I originally emailed my distaste for what I believed to be an unnecessarily disrespectful article. It wasn't entertaining in the least, even if I weren't a fan. It also had no point whatsoever and wasn't relevant to the story. He seemed to only add it to be insulting.
Re: Elliott Smith
Hey, it's a letter-writing campaign! Too bad you morons never bothered to direct one at Elliott Smith. You could have all explained that you weren't interested in enabling Elliott in rushing to an early death...but then, there wouldn't be a new martyr that allowed you all to dwell on your own wonderful sensitivity. And that's what really matters to you whiny fuckheads, isn't it?
I didn't resort to namecalling or assholery, as Taylor's reply did. I felt I addressed the issue in an intelligent manner. But I felt, as did many of Elliott Smith's fans that received the same form email reply from Taylor, that his response was very hateful and uncalled for.
Is this how you, the editors, allow your reporters to address your readers? I think that Taylor was way out of line, and I think that a retraction would be in order. Or at the very least an apology for the reply to us. (Several fans got this email from him).
Anjy Hall, Columbia, MD
J.R. Taylor replies: I was looking forward to once again goofing on a bunch of whining fuckheads. However, none of them suggests that Smith's suicide was a work of art. They haven't confused a suicidal dope fiend with the innocent victims of terrorists, either. So, compared to last issue's letter from Mark Ames, these Elliott Smith fans all seem fairly intelligent.