MohadGlub -> RE: Empire - kings of the back track (28/4/2007 2:03:51 PM)
My thread was blocked because it was insulting?? when Ian Nathan in actual print insulted everyone who enjoyed the film by calling them fountainheads and making derisive comments....
If you are going to censor my opinion because it makes Empire staff feel uncomfortable, rather than actually standing up to debate, then I'm very dissapointed in the representatives of a magazine which I enjoy a lot. Surely the mature thing to do would be to reply in a manner which showed me some small manner of respect.
Yes, I insulted Ian Nathan, but he was very insulting in his review, and so I believe I'm justified. And whether I'm justified or not, I think its quite cowardly to ignore the bulk of my criticism which was quite civil, and which took me serious consideration. The fact of the matter is, the reviewer in question has been spared from a justified attack on his somewhat petulant methods because offence was taken to mine (which weren't petulant). Offence can be generated from a great many posts on this forum, and if a grown man is going to feel mollified by being called a moron by one of the readers of his review, I would consider it a greater question of his insecurities (or the insecurities of whoever stepped in to represent him) than of my insult.
My comments (posted below) were a mature and dignified responce which still demands some form of reply, and not petty censorship.
With all due respect,
(From my earlier blocked thread)
This thread is an attack on Ian Nathan, who reviewed The Fountain, for its DVD release in this month's magazine (June)- giving it 1 star and a damnably childish, cynical pout that frankly shames any man that's ever constructed a decent argument/review.
I won't post up the article; because the um… ahem... hard fruit of your labour is not something worth getting into any legal issues over (I don't really know the situation with posting up articles or fragments of). I shall, however, quote you and hope this doesnt tread on your pompous toes.
I believe that a good critic will possess two basic qualities: a sharp wit and an interesting aptitude of language as well as an objective eye. Sadly you are not particularly acquainted with either as your review of The Fountain clearly shows. You debase yourself into constructing immature, desperately bitter comments disguised as superior cynicism. There is no actual criticism in the review; merely invalid analogies one after the other with no purpose other than to make unsubstantiated mockery of a perfectly respectable picture.
It's amusing that you have taken something designed to be deep and thought-provoking, and (regardless of whether you think it is or not) produced a mundane, patronising denial that favours arrogant dismissal over actual critical judgement. Surely if this piece of "pretend art” has failed so spectacularly, the very least you could do would be to explain why in a manner which suggests that you are indeed a "free-thinker” from "the land of reason” rather than from the land of frantic small-mindedness.
"Imagine enduring a 98-minute poetry recital from a manic-depressive art student who sprung a mega-zit on the morning of a date with a girl like the one from Constantine.”
I'm not sure what you're trying to do here, because it looks to me like you're using the review as an excuse to single-handedly criticise poetic films, depressive films, art students and anything of a certain genre of the artistic spectrum. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you wouldn't stoop to such small-mindedness, and take it that you completely missed the entire perspective of the film. The Fountain is by no means "manic depressive”; in fact it is wholly the opposite, it is a very uplifting journey of discovery and fulfilment that encourages us to live our lives fully; go roll in the snow, spend each moment to the full...
"Its thoughts are cranky and juvenile, its execution languid bordering on mopey, its cinematography the colour of sea water.”
I don't know what part of the coast you have had experience of, but by god I want to go there…. If sea water is saturated in rich golds and bright ethereal white, if sea water is as vividly visually stimulating as the joys of The Fountain's moving spectacle, then I must be living in a very dull, disappointing fantasy and witnessing reality upon entering The Fountain's theatre. Your venerable perspective of reality is greatly received. Perhaps next time I see something beautiful I shall tell myself fervently, 'its just sea water… its just sea water'.
Cranky and juvenile are words which are so completely invalid when forced into a review of The Fountain that it makes me wonder if they are there by mistake. The Fountain, however you believe its execution is managed, is heavy, meaningful stuff- it tackles powerful themes on life, love and death- it draws in a whole pile of eastern spirituality and presents it in a glorious package of philosophy and thought-provocation. Juvenile is not at all the word to describe such a film, and your error in vocabulary is disturbing, especially considering the manner in which you are giving your impression upon keen movie-goers looking for fair analysis.
Said movie-goers will be dissapointed to follow any word you might have on the matter, though you would hardly care from your "clear-minded” position as a "free-thinker”- calling any fans of the film "Fountainheads" and taking their understanding of the film as proof of 'air headedness' and offering further proof of critical immaturity both through this approach, which lacks ALL objectivity and through your use of words which would be better suited for a trashy, simple-minded tabloid rather than a self respecting specialty magazine.
Another, very desperate method you use to attempt to influence people to your way of thinking is by referencing the film's box office and budget- two factors which are, as I'm sure you're very much aware, in no way related to the film's artistic and cinematic worth. In full knowledge of this fact, you have to admit that the jibe was nothing more than a spiteful and banal comment to throw in amongst all the others you've conjured unduly.
Throughout the review you try so hard to convince readers that your one star rating has been awarded on a superior analysis, that cuts through the 'fountainheaded' nonsense and delivers your 'freely thought' judgement from whatever grand podium you have placed yourself upon. The fact of the matter is, all your unfounded cynicism, all your childish comments betray a frightening misinterpretation of the film's message, a message which has clearly gone well over your head (quite a feat considering how inflated it is off the ground)