Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (34314)	8/8/1999 10:06:00 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71178

Dear Neo, Boy, you really have trouble letting go of a topic, don't you? I have no idea what your view of humanity is--I was referring to Kubrick's. I did not find the movie life-affirming or uplifting. You did. If I offended you, I apologize. You twisted what I said, which is the only reason I am responding after saying I thought we had agreed to disagree and enough had been said! It may be that I was trying to say two things and did it poorly and you combined them. The first thought I had was about the masses and entertainment in general. I was not making a value judgment on junk vs "meaningful" entertainment; I was merely stating that people for the most part don't want to be depressed- they wanted to laugh and feel better about life, or be taken out of their everyday experience of life. That's all. I did not say that a theatre production of "Don't Drink the Water" was better theatre than "Hamlet", merely that it sold better to the dinner theatre crowd. Which is why for the most part dinner theatres, which I played for several years, present musicals and light comedy. Not that this is always "bad" theatre; it was often well-directed and -acted. Most of the owners tried to throw in some "good" theatre every few productions- "Lion in Winter" and Behan's "The Hostage" come to mind from one season- but those didn't drag people into the ugliness for long slow hours (as I feel EWS did, and which was the reason I think the box office receipts may have dropped off). The difference is not one of light, life affirming fare versus heavy, gruesome stuff, the difference is one of shallowness, easy digestibility, and sensationalism versus challenging, subtle, and deep treatment of themes. This was the second thing I was trying to say or maybe ask. I'm not sure people want shallow, but do they want decadence, a view of the world that is so horrible that a decision to appreciate spouse, family, etc is unique?? I have a great deal of faith in humanity and I don't agree with Kubrick's view of the world. This does not mean that I want easy digestibility- but I reserve my right to dislike something I found not uplifting, that dragged me down, that turned life in general into a pitiful, sick sewer, with not much redemptive value and that overall was boring. I feel the same way about Sally and the Star. I thought the supporting acting was excellent, much stronger than Kidman's. I thought the sets and lighting incredible, the score a wonderful composite. There is much to be said positive about the movie as a work of technical art. But you and I have some different opinions of the success of the movie. (I guess that's true of most art.) For me, his challenging, subtle, and deep treatment of themes didn't "work". If I missed the point, then so have many others. The reviews are very mixed, and some are quite negative. And if many are missing the point, then was he successful in his goal? And if he bored people, surely this is the worst sin for a director-much worse than disgusting them! By the way, the Christmas tree gimmick reminded me of the old sight gag we used to use in corny comedies when a plant was replaced with a larger one in every scene until it was huge by the end. SO-- now can we move on to another movie perhaps?