Films/DVD Asylum

• No condescension intended. - Audiophilander 12:08:21 12/13/06 (6)
  In Reply to: Thank you. But your condescension is once again duly noted. posted by clarkjohnsen on December 13, 2006 at 07:47:12:

  My point about taking "a chance on this one" wasn't meant to minimalize the value of your review. To the contrary, I was only pointing out that your review may have swayed my decision toward seeing this film after all, as other folks I know have came away with either mixed or negative impressions (mostly due to the apparent level of gore, some folks calling it "torture porn").

  Also, I don't want to leave the impression that your published reviews aren't appreciated. By now I think that most folks around here are well aware that you are a professional, often paid for your reviews and columns; FTR, I have complimented your published work before. We may differ strongly on some things, but I respect excellence when I perceive it as such.

  My general dismissal of "grey poupon" films is based on the fact that folks like Victor and patrick routinely push the foreign fare they like while ridiculing what other people like because they have a prejudice against the popularity, genre or scripting of a given film or series of films. Often they make their condescending assessments without even having seen the film or films in question, which is little more than trolling for reactions in my estimation.

  All I ask of folks who choose to criticize a film is that they've at least seen the film prior to assessing it and commenting or linking other reviewer's opinions that correspond to what they believe to be the case. I rarely "excoriate" art house films that I've seen unless I dislike the content based on first hand impressions. However, I have no problem defining an entire genre of European art-house films as "grey poupon" when those who wax poetic on the subject turn around and trash films that other's enjoy, especially when they rarely bother to see the films in question.

  I hope that this places things in a little better perspective, and in spite of the occasionally heated rhetoric, it isn't personal. I'd rather not be forced into the position of directing condescending comments toward those who appreciate certain types of films or generalize about the value of those films, but when they target popular films that I appreciate, usually with the intent of provoking negative responses, then turnabout is fair play. Other's mileage will vary, of course.

  AuPh
  
  

  ---

  • "All I ask of folks who choose to criticize a film is that they've at least seen the film." That is of course a truism. - clarkjohnsen 08:18:11 12/14/06 (5)
    In Reply to: No condescension intended. posted by Audiophilander on December 13, 2006 at 12:08:21:

    But down to the nitty gritty:

    -- Who are you to do this asking?

    -- Inasmuch as I post pointers to reviews that are laudatory as well as critical, are you suggesting that only the latter be removed from this forum?

    -- Have you ever considered simply not reading the offending texts?

    Also note, I was a huge and early fan of such as Pirates of the Caribbean, and a detractor of LOTR II, which I did bother to see in the director's cut on the big screen. I am far from averse to what I call "matinee movies".

    clark
    
    

    ---

    • "Who are you to do this asking?" - Just a film aficianado desiring accurate, first-hand information ... - Audiophilander 02:22:58 12/15/06 (4)
      In Reply to: "All I ask of folks who choose to criticize a film is that they've at least seen the film." That is of course a truism. posted by clarkjohnsen on December 14, 2006 at 08:18:11:

      ...before making a determination to see a film; just like most folks. Unfortunately, reading selective published reviewers doesn't provide the kind of accurate first hand information that allows one to discuss the film further and with any knowledgeable authority. Such exchanges can make the difference between staying home and watching a DLP projected film or going out to catch an iffy film at one of our local cinemas. Anybody can read a published review and post it as if it should be the last word on the subject (especially if the review becomes the primary topic of discussion and is taken to literally by folks who haven't seen the film in question).

      No condescension intended, but is that clear enough for you, Clark?

      > > > "Inasmuch as I post pointers to reviews that are laudatory as well as critical, are you suggesting that only the latter be removed from this forum?" < < <

      I'm not suggesting that anything be removed! If I've done anything it has been to apply common sense consistently and, using poker vernacular, "calling the bluff" of those posting second-hand opinions in order to "keep 'em honest." If you prefer to post cut 'n paste reviews that are critical of films you haven't seen, that's your business, but I won't be the only one proffering challenges to it.

      With cut'n pasted reviews of current films there's the very real liklihood of disuading folks who have seen a film from sharing their informed opinions rather than disagree or try to debate with the jaded perspective of a professional newspaper critic who isn't going to provide feedback.

      Now if YOU have seen the film too, that's a whole new ball game, because it's entirely reasonable to bolster your own opinion with that of a reviewer you agree with. The rationale there is that you can debate the qualities and/or inperfections of a film intelligently by sharing your own experiences and recommend or discourage a filmgoer based on first hand knowledge.

      > > > "Have you ever considered simply not reading the offending texts?" < < <

      That isn't the point. If one is trying to find out about a film from fellow filmgoers who've seen it the so-called "offending remarks" (assuming them to be from a second or third hand source) only serves to cloud the issue.

      > > > 'Also note, I was a huge and early fan of such as Pirates of the Caribbean, and a detractor of LOTR II, which I did bother to see in the director's cut on the big screen. I am far from averse to what I call "matinee movies".' < < <

      And I'm not criticizing your sharing of opinions on either film even though I enthusiastically concur with the former opinion and strongly disaggree with the latter.

      FTR, and allow me to reiterate my comment from the earlier post: I do respect your informed opinions and appreciate the quality of your prose.

      AuPh
      
      

      ---

      • "No condescension intended, but is that clear enough for you, Clark?" Condescension alert! - clarkjohnsen 08:50:56 12/15/06 (3)
        In Reply to: "Who are you to do this asking?" - Just a film aficianado desiring accurate, first-hand information ... posted by Audiophilander on December 15, 2006 at 02:22:58:

        You have set up a straw-man argument, pretending that I discuss things about films I haven't seen; I do not, I simply post pointers, for both good and bad. Geez Luiz! You're so full of yourself.

        clark

        
        
        

        ---

        • How can one supply "pointers" for films admittedly unseen? - Audiophilander 10:12:08 12/15/06 (2)
          In Reply to: "No condescension intended, but is that clear enough for you, Clark?" Condescension alert! posted by clarkjohnsen on December 15, 2006 at 08:50:56:

          > > > "You have set up a straw-man argument, pretending that I discuss things about films I haven't seen; I do not, I simply post pointers, for both good and bad." < < <

          Actually, what I've set up is more akin to a "great Oz" argument since you're apparently a humbug. You would like folks to believe that you're a very good man and I would not contest that, but you've proven time and again that you're a very bad Wizard.

          Again, I don't believe that anyone has questioned your critiquing films you HAVE seen; that has NEVER been an issue, AFAIC. This is about linking second-hand opinions of those films which you apparently have NOT seen.

          You claim that posting a critic's comments provides a sound basis for discussion, but I beg to differ. Posting "pointers" without first-hand knowledge provides no basis for discussing a film's merits, good or bad, and idle speculation makes for a rather flaccid argument.

          > > > "You're so full of yourself." < < <

          Another example of an uninformed opinion, since you don't actually know me. ;^)

          AuPh
          
          

          ---

          • "You're apparently a humbug." Thanks, teach, that's good to know. - clarkjohnsen 12:17:56 12/15/06 (1)
            In Reply to: How can one supply "pointers" for films admittedly unseen? posted by Audiophilander on December 15, 2006 at 10:12:08:

            I mean, that condescension is still your middle name.

            As for "full of yourself" I've found some remarks about a certain auctioneer who certainly seems to be!

            It's a pity someone has to be so high-handedly dismissive of his betters' attempts to create discussion. Over on Music it's quite common (for those who are ladies and gentlemen) to discuss the posted views of a critic who speaks up on, for instance, performance practice. But you're not having any of that , eh?

            clark
            
            

            ---

            • Well, if you're not full of yourself, then lets take a look at your half-empty glass: - Audiophilander 09:51:54 12/17/06 (0)
              In Reply to: "You're apparently a humbug." Thanks, teach, that's good to know. posted by clarkjohnsen on December 15, 2006 at 12:17:56:

              > > > "I mean, that condescension is still your middle name." < < <

              There is no use trying to be polite or appreciative because you'll always interpret complimentary remarks as condescending. Okay, I give up; if you want to be a jerk then far be it from me to stand in your way.

              > > > "As for "full of yourself" I've found some remarks about a certain auctioneer who certainly seems to be!" < < <

              You probably had to look no farther than your own postings, but some folks might find such self-serving rhetoric suspiciously biased.

              > > > " It's a pity someone has to be so high-handedly dismissive of his betters' attempts to create discussion. Over on Music it's quite common (for those who are ladies and gentlemen) to discuss the posted views of a critic who speaks up on, for instance, performance practice. But you're not having any of that, eh?" < < <

              "Betters" huh? Okay, I yield to your superior ego. ;^)

              As for comparing discussions of music criticism to film criticism, m'thinks it's an apples and oranges analogy due to the inherent nature of marketing of both products. The narrow window of opportunity to see films in a theater provides a much different dynamic for discussion and criticsm. Of course you already knew that because we've covered this turf before at greater length. Unfortunately, you seem disinclined to acknowledge those discussions or perhaps you're just claiming memory loss.

              In regard to the "for those who are ladies and gentlemen" insertion, I'd rather ignor that bit of egotistical smarmery and drop it in the rhetorical dust bin along with other misdirected slap-down attempts coming from professor Johnsen's word-wrestling arena. "Betters" indeed! ;^D

              Never let it be said that your posts aren't entertaining, Clark!

              Kindest regards,
              AuPh

              
              
              
              

              ---

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Herbie's Audio Lab

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---