2004-03-31
[in reaction to this item in Salon today]
Is anything more telling about the reputedly lousy state of contemporary filmmaking than Chucky Taylor's breathless adulation of a semi-forgettable mid-90's skinfest?
Rather than muse on pending titles (I admit it, I am looking forward to seing Ron Perlman as "Hellboy," and Hugh Jackman as "Van Helsing"), we are instead admonished for giving collective short intellectual shrift to "Showgirls," because none of us liked it as much or found it as Important as CT did.
I'm a fan of Paul Verhoven's body of work, and honestly find the far-reaching thematic elements that some film critics seem honor-bound to imbue every celluloid emission with to be the sort of tedious intellectual wanking that gives rise to the low-brow backlash being railed against.
If nobody understands your message, the problem might not be that they're all ignorant; you may be incomprehensible.
Is anything more telling about the reputedly lousy state of contemporary filmmaking than Chucky Taylor's breathless adulation of a semi-forgettable mid-90's skinfest?
Rather than muse on pending titles (I admit it, I am looking forward to seing Ron Perlman as "Hellboy," and Hugh Jackman as "Van Helsing"), we are instead admonished for giving collective short intellectual shrift to "Showgirls," because none of us liked it as much or found it as Important as CT did.
I'm a fan of Paul Verhoven's body of work, and honestly find the far-reaching thematic elements that some film critics seem honor-bound to imbue every celluloid emission with to be the sort of tedious intellectual wanking that gives rise to the low-brow backlash being railed against.
If nobody understands your message, the problem might not be that they're all ignorant; you may be incomprehensible.