I got blasted with some righteous hate mail on my column about film violence, which actually made me sit back and go, "Wow." I would have been content with a simple "Smokin' Aces ruled, asshole" or "You're a moron, moron" but this guy really went all out...so I guess I'm going to respond.
When I read this column today, I was enflamed with the particular rage one feels when one encounters unrelenting stupidity. Mr. Gordan, you have demonstrated that you clearly have no conceptual grasp of film criticism or film theory. In this commentator's opinion, your argument is either non-existent or so vaguely defined that it becomes apparent that you lack any sort of intellectual aptitude.
This guy has a pretty great grasp on hyperbole. I'd be impressed if I wasn't supposed to be offended.
For instance, you say that "when "The Departed" won best picture, maybe serious filmmakers subconsciously realized that over-the-top violence had gone as far it could go" and that "they would have to get smaller and more serious". This claim lacks any sort of logical coherence; it is unbecoming that you choose to represent Northwestern University in this way. For starters, when a film wins best picture at the Oscars, or if it receives any sort of critical and/or commercial success, 99 times out of 100 it will then be emulated by other filmmakers. I could list numerous examples, but I am sure someone such as yourself, so well enlightened in the study of film history, needs no such citation.
The problem with your point is that you bring up film history, citing that "when a film wins best picture at the Oscars...it will then be emulated by other filmmakers," when a) I did not point to a general trend of best picture winners not influencing subsequent films and b) I never indicated The Departed was an influential movie. It's a remake of a few other movies that is also a remake of other Scorsese movies - I'm sorry, but I don't see what world you're living in that The Departed will be a massively influential film, considering that it didn't break any new ground and could be argued as a reiteration/hodge-podge of several films that had come before. So that's the problem with your argument on that. I am not doubting that critically acclaimed movies influence other filmmakers. In fact, I directly brought up one that did: Pulp Fiction. So your attack is both baseless (you're insulting me for something I never said) and to me, incorrect (since I don't think The Departed will have any lasting influence - it was merely the most acceptable film in a weak year).
Furthermore, I could elaborate on the fact that your claim that a particular genre or niche "had gone as far it could go" is incessantly problematic in that anyone with an understanding of film history, or of the history of storytelling itself, knows that such patterns in narrative and style never reach some define destination point. Rather, they are constantly altered and adjusted to tell the same stories in different ways. One could merely look to the recently released "Cloverfield" to know what I am talking about. I could elaborate more, but I am sure a film connoisseur such as yourself knows precisely what I have in mind.
I suppose I could have a "at this point in time" to the end of the quote you pulled out there. Yes, I realize that media is largely cyclical. Westerns used to be big, then people stopped liking them, then people started liking them again. I would think up more examples, but I am a film idiot, like you imply - it is better for you to assume that I don't know anything. However, consider that a) I was talking about 2007 and b) I did not predict the future. Had I said something like, "Exploitative violence has gone as far as it can go forever, until the end of time" then you would be right in calling me an idiot. But come on, point out a 2007 film that was shock value and over-the-top and tell me it didn't suck. It is very probable that we will see a revival on the sensationalist films I talk about in the future...which is fine with me, because it hasn't happened yet.
Moving on to, perhaps, even more troubling areas of your elevated prose, one must evaluate each of your examples. In critiquing the cinema of "mindless violence", you cite a film that is nearly 10 years old, an obscure film that faded from public consciousness a month after it was released, and a highly acclaimed film/set of films by one of the most heralded directors of the last two decades. By doing so, you select a sample of three films from the last 10 years that, I assume, is intended to prove your point (whatever that may be). Disregarding the fact that this was a highly arbitrary system of choosing your sample, may I ask if these were the best three examples you could come up with? You choose not to talk about films such as the "Saw", "Hostel", and "The Hills Have Eyes" series. Citing these blood-drenched spectacles (so-called 'torture-porn') would have actually credited your column with a sliver of validity. What a shame.
Critic, are you a magician? Do you keep all of your thoughts in a magic stone bowl, where you can pluck and pick from your memories like strands of cotton candy? Critic, I do not attend Hogwarts, and when looking for examples, I tossed out three that immediately came to me because I wasn't grasping for straws - those are THREE films among many that fit the point. I brought up Kill Bill, the Boondock Saints, and Smokin' Aces. Smokin' Aces sucked. We can accept that. As for obscure, do you forget that it played at NU last year in Norris Center? Or maybe you don't go to Northwestern, I don't know. But it played here, (possibly) sold out (since it was free), and a lot of people I know saw it. It was an example a chunk of the NU student body would be familiar with. The Boondock Saints sucked too, but it fits my point - it was a rehash of Tarantino-style filmmaking, and it has not faded from public consciousness. One of my friends' roommates had a poster of it in his room. My roommate has a poster of it in our room. We quabble about this sometimes. As for Kill Bill...come on, even a film wizard like you could see that a) all of the violence is mainly for shock (the Crazy 88 gorefest being the most prominent example) and b) it is a straight rip-off of a ton of other movies (which discredits it as offering anything more than mindless action). It rips off Lady Snowbird (or whatever the name of the film the fight with Lucy Liu cops from), A Fistful of Dollars, basically whatever Tarantino wanted to rip off. Did you think I chose Kill Bill because it offended me with its blood? Please, if you can argue that as an original/intellectually worthwhile movie, then I salute you. But I've strayed from my point.
I could have brought up Shoot 'Em Up (I can't believe I didn't). I could have brought up Equilibrium (actually, that movie was kind of badass. Never mind). I could have brought up Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever. Why didn't I? Well, because either they didn't come to mind at the time, or I didn't want to fill up the column by namedropping films. Do you know how bad multiple quotation marks look in a newspaper column? They look bad. I don't need to come up with a billion examples to support an argument that is fundamentally sound in my mind.
Lastly, one must examine your arguments against Tim Burton's "Sweeney Todd" picture. You say that, if the film were to win Best Picture, it would be a "step backward" (I've already said how such linear thinking is of a sophomoric quality). The violence is "exploitative", you say. A snuff film, one of your intellect, might claim. Such claims would be incalcuably idiotic and have no bearing in reality.
Aha! Now it is you who is the idiot! I never said that Sweeney Todd would be a step backward - in fact, I said it would be a step forward towards the exploitative violence that has been pervasive in film since Pulp Fiction. It is you who are interpreting my words the wrong way.
Consider the evidence: "Todd" contains, at most, three to four minutes of bloodshed. That's out of a running time of about two hours - a sizably small percentage (you don't have to calculate it; I know you're a journalism major - or a journalist, if someone of your renown would prefer). Secondly, much of the violence is presented in a realistic manner - just look at Todd's initial murder of Sacha Baron Cohen's character, the killing of the homeless woman, and Todd's own death. For the stylized deaths, they reflect the bizarre psychology of the main lead - witness the climactic killing of the corrupt judge, in which Todd, and the blood itself, seem to relish in the unholy beauty of the scene. Contrast this with the death of the seemingly insignificant woman who is, in actuality, someone of extreme importance - that death is presented in a coldly nonchalant (you would say that it "came out of nowhere") manner. The violence and blood, therefore, actually have a significant stake in the telling of the narrative. I know it may take a little while for your brain to comprehend such creative thinking, so I will stop there.
Oh puh-lease. Todd's death is realistic? A little kid perfectly slashes his throat and Todd falls into a perfect pose, bleeding from the neck over his dead wife. Killing of the homeless woman? Again, Todd perfectly slices her neck, bright red blood perfectly seeps down in an even flow, and she falls down. That is about as realistic as you making an argument that doesn't assume a bunch of crap. I suppose I should have specified that I was talking about that ridiculous montage in which Todd kills a dozen or so people in the same manner while singing (or something, I forget since I was trying not to vomit) - endless shots of people getting stabbed in the neck, people shooting blood out of their neck, people falling down, over and over again! That is a ridiculous scene. It is over-the-top and stupid. I will never agree with you that four minutes of people getting killed in the same manner is either important or meaningful.
As for the themes behind it, I concede that your point could be right, but the violence of Sweeney Todd is not why I hated the movie. That is an argument for another day.
In laying out these arguments against you, I hope you have learned something. While I don't have a stake in your personal enlightment, I sincerely hope you do not punish the readers of this publication with your unadulterated word vomit any longer. The line "we will see if violence can be violent again" is incredibly negligent in light of a higher education.
If anything, please return to writing of how you spent your winter break at Taco Bell. That, at least, was unoffensive drivel.
At this point, that is the very best you can aspire to.
The only thing I've learned is that I can't make any generalizations without some wacko making a bunch of assumptions and generally coming across as a jackass. Hopefully I'll see you at Taco Bell in the future, but don't think you'll be getting any change from me, you crazy ranting homeless man you.
Minor note: On a different level, it is impossible to take someone who insists on being a violent ass seriously at all. If my column was really that offensive to you, then I am amazed - offensive things to me are finding out the Westboro Baptist Church plans on picketing Heath Ledger's funeral, or finding an turd in the communal shower. If you're willing to make judgments about my life so quickly, then I'm going to make the same stretch and assume that you don't have much going on in your life if this is the sort of stuff that pisses you off. I would have been more contemplative had you not revealed yourself to be a zealot, so unfortunately all I can do is offer a rebuttal and dismiss you as irrelevant.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
This guy has a pretty great grasp on hyperbole. I'd be impressed if I wasn't supposed to be offended.
Why thank you. What can I say, your column sparked a heaping amount of indignation on my part.
I'm sorry, but I don't see what world you're living in that The Departed will be a massively influential film, considering that it didn't break any new ground and could be argued as a reiteration/hodge-podge of several films that had come before.
I never once said anything of that nature. You, my sanctimonious friend, are doing what you accused me of. I am not talking about the particular impact of "The Departed". Again, I'm responding to your particular claim that "serious filmmakers...would have to get smaller and more serious" and would, to paraphrase, move in a different direction than "The Departed". If I recall correctly, that film was a significantly successful film, both commercially (in relative terms) and critically. Why would "serious filmmakers" want to avoid such success? Do you not see the severe flaw in logic your whole argument is based on? That's not to mention the fact that you consistently have been lackadaisically comparing films like "The Departed" with "Kill Bill" and others. I'm truly sorry if you don't realize this, but you cannot compare these films on their content. You can compare how strong they are in certain areas, how strongly they achieve their purpose, how effectively they carry out their message...but doing what you are doing is like comparing Paradise Lost to the children's book "Where The Wild Things Are". Do you not see how such comparisons are troublesome and, ultimately, quite useless?
Had I said something like, "Exploitative violence has gone as far as it can go forever, until the end of time" then you would be right in calling me an idiot. But come on, point out a 2007 film that was shock value and over-the-top and tell me it didn't suck.
Well, for one thing thing, I would certainly say that "Sweeney Todd" definitely didn't "suck", but I also wouldn't consider it "shock value". I have actually watched many R rated films that have contained blood, violence, gore, language, and maybe even some sexuality! But I understand if such things offend you.
As far as being "over the top", well, as a matter of principle, all films are. Cinema is an elevated illustration of reality. I mean, you could film you and your pals hanging around your dorm, put it on youtube, and claim, "Look! This is Real!" But it would not be cinema. So this part of your argument really doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Critic, are you a magician? Do you keep all of your thoughts in a magic stone bowl, where you can pluck and pick from your memories like strands of cotton candy? Critic, I do not attend Hogwarts, and when looking for examples, I tossed out three that immediately came to me because I wasn't grasping for straws - those are THREE films among many that fit the point. I brought up Kill Bill, the Boondock Saints, and Smokin' Aces. Smokin' Aces sucked. We can accept that
Well, I don't really know what you're going on about here. I can see how you would use "Kill Bill" as an example. But that is a good film (and I'm not going to entertain you with my analysis. Please. It wouldn't even be fair.) "Boondock Saints" doesn't contain excessive amounts of blood or gore. And I personally never saw "Smokin' Aces," but your argument doesn't hold much weight regardless.
Take this example - I personally love really good mystery films. Yet, a good one hasn't been made in years, in my estimation. Does this mean that the genre as a whole is worthless? No. There are good and bad mysteries, good and bad violent action flicks, good and bad romantic comedies...there are even good and bad "serious" movies that you seem to have such a strong fetish for.
As for obscure, do you forget that it played at NU last year in Norris Center? Or maybe you don't go to Northwestern, I don't know. But it played here, (possibly) sold out (since it was free), and a lot of people I know saw it. It was an example a chunk of the NU student body would be familiar with.
I go to Northwestern. Please stop trying to belittle me, you are only making yourself look bad. Also, do you know that A&O (that's an entertainment organization here on campus, stat) is playing "La Vie en Rose" on Sunday, February 3? I'm sure a lot of NU kidss will attend, as it's free. That definitely speaks to its popularity in the public eye.
The Boondock Saints sucked too, but it fits my point - it was a rehash of Tarantino-style filmmaking, and it has not faded from public consciousness. One of my friends' roommates had a poster of it in his room. My roommate has a poster of it in our room. We quabble about this sometimes.
I never said "The Boondocks Saints" had faded in its popularity. While I do think it is a tad overrated, I don't believe it "sucked too" - my, what an expansive and articulate vocabulary you have! Anyway, the point isn't how good the film is - the point is whether or not it fits this "excessive violence level" - which is debatable - and, if yes, does that detract from the film as a whole. Again, critique the execution, not the form.
As for Kill Bill...come on, even a film wizard like you could see that a) all of the violence is mainly for shock (the Crazy 88 gorefest being the most prominent example) and b) it is a straight rip-off of a ton of other movies (which discredits it as a good movie, in my eyes). It rips off Lady Snowbird (or whatever the name of the film the fight with Lucy Liu cops from), A Fistful of Dollars, basically whatever Tarantino wanted to rip off. Did you think I chose Kill Bill because it offended me with its blood? Please, if you can argue that as an original/good movie, then I salute you. But I've strayed from my point.
A film wizard? Someone obviously has Dumbledore on the brain. So the violence is "mainly for shock"? What does that even mean? You could easily apply this to any action sequence in any film. I happen to think that when a film elicits a strong reaction in the audience, then that is a positive mark, not a negative one.
But regardless, I don't understand why you have put so much stock in "originality". Stories have been told for centuries - pretty much every story conceivable has already been, well, conceived. And filmmakers have been harkening to other films for as long as the art has existed. How do you, almighty columnist, still not understand this?
Did you know that both of your "serious" films, "No Country for Old Men" and "There Will Be Blood", are both based on novels? "OMG, how unoriginal!!!!1!!1!"
Aha! Now it is you who is the idiot! I never said that Sweeney Todd would be a step backward - in fact, I said it would be a step forward towards the exploitative violence that has been pervasive in film since Pulp Fiction. It is you who are interpreting my words the wrong way.
Okay, I misread this. But nevertheless, my point is still the same, even if you are caught up in this. I was interpreting a "Sweeney Todd" win, for you, as being backwards, because it showed a regression in quality. Backwards/bad, forwards/good...I'm sure you get the idea. But please, celebrate your victory of semantics if you so wish.
Oh puh-lease. Todd's death is realistic? A little kid perfectly slashes his throat and Todd falls into a perfect pose, bleeding from the neck over his dead wife. Killing of the homeless woman? Again, Todd perfectly slices her neck, bright red blood perfectly seeps down in an even flow, and she falls down. That is about as realistic as you making an argument that doesn't assume a bunch of crap.
Whether it is realistic in terms of our reality is insignificant. As far as our film vernacular goes, those deaths were very "realistic". And if you're going to complain about everything that isn't realistic in film, then I'm guessing there probably aren't too many films that you are going to enjoy. Science fiction, fantasy, horror...you truly are missing out.
As for the themes behind it, I concede that your point could be right, but the violence of Sweeney Todd is not why I hated the movie. That is an argument for another day.
Was it the strong performances? The wonderful art direction and cinematography? The stunning music and story? The fact that it may have been Tim Burton's best work in years? Please, do tell.
The only thing I've learned is that I can't make any generalizations without some wacko making a bunch of assumptions and generally coming across as a jackass. Hopefully I'll see you at Taco Bell in the future, but don't think you'll be getting any change from me, you crazy ranting homeless man you.
I only attacked your intelligence...admittedly much of it was unfair. The only thing I know of you is this column, and I reacted accordingly to the level of intelligence I found behind its thesis (or lack thereof). I am not homeless, and I think it is insensitive for someone who goes to one of the richest universities in the country to speak in such a way. Ah, such attacks are common if one does not have the critical vigor to support one's own arguments.
Alright, call me lazy, but I don't care enough anymore to respond to you point-by-point. That being said:
- Why wouldn't filmmakers want to emulate the success of The Departed? To be original. I don't think serious filmmakers want to rip off their peers in order to get acclaim of their own. That type of filmmaking is the type of crap I'm speaking out against.
- There is a plain difference between adapting a novel and lifting entire scenes from other movies. You know it, and the attempt to undermine my point using poor logic is silly.
- I am writing primarily for Northwestern students. I was using an example that Northwestern students would understand. I am not saying Smokin' Aces did anything for the film genre - merely that it was the latest in a line of stylized, "cool" movies to rip off Quentin Tarantino. That fact that a movie like that even got made speaks to the popularity of the style I am talking about.
- Please, continue to be a pretentious ass and tell me that your analysis would destroy me. I withheld my analysis of Sweeney Todd because my personal opinions on a film are one of many, and ultimately, you would disagree. You're withholding your analysis because you're afraid that I could have a proper retort.
- Nice one pulling the insensitivity card. I would say that's when I stopped taking to seriously, but it happened long before that.
- For everything I didn't respond to, don't assume you're right. Rather, I really don't care enough to waste my time arguing with someone who a) doesn't want to have a balanced argument and b) is on the Internet. Later days.
Alright, call me lazy, but I don't care enough anymore to respond to you point-by-point.
Well, obviously you at least care a little bit to respond to one insignificant commentator at 4 in the morning.
Why wouldn't filmmakers want to emulate the success of The Departed? To be original. I don't think serious filmmakers want to rip off their peers in order to get acclaim of their own. That type of filmmaking is the type of crap I'm speaking out against.
I have continued to elaborate on how the dichotomy between originality and unoriginality has absolutely nothing to do with the difference between a good and a bad film. And yet, you continue to avoid the issue.
There is a plain difference between adapting a novel and lifting entire scenes from other movies. You know it, and the attempt to undermine my point using poor logic is silly.
Your point doesn't need undermining. Trust me, any sensible person could see that well enough on their own. As to poor logic...well I suppose I am speaking with someone who is a master of that field.
I am writing primarily for Northwestern students. I was using an example that Northwestern students would understand. I am not saying Smokin' Aces did anything for the film genre - merely that it was the latest in a line of stylized, "cool" movies to rip off Quentin Tarantino. That fact that a movie like that even got made speaks to the popularity of the style I am talking about.
So your whole argument was about "stylized, "cool" movies"? Interesting. Here I thought it was about excessive violence and blood. Or perhaps about unoriginality. Or maybe Taco Bell. Who knows.
Please, continue to be a pretentious ass and tell me that your analysis would destroy me. I withheld my analysis of Sweeney Todd because my personal opinions on a film are one of many, and ultimately, you would disagree. You're withholding your analysis because you're afraid that I could have a proper retort.
There's a difference between a baseless opinion and an informed opinion. Yours, if your comments thus far are any indication, would most likely be of the former variety. And actually, among the fears that I possess, receiving a "proper retort" from from an uninformed, misguided student columnist is not one of them.
Nice one pulling the insensitivity card. I would say that's when I stopped taking to seriously, but it happened long before that.
I totally understand. When I am getting frustrated when I'm on the losing side of an argument, I always make disparaging comments about those who are less fortunate than I am.
For everything I didn't respond to, don't assume you're right. Rather, I really don't care enough to waste my time arguing with someone who a) doesn't want to have a balanced argument and b) is on the Internet. Later days.
Well, from all indications, I know I am right, I'm not assuming. As far as having a balanced argument, I have addressed all of your points with consideration, which you definitely have not done. And what does it mean for one to be on the internet? I would make the same points I have made in a live conversation, in a letter, or in an internet message.
My sad friend, it appears that you, for what I'm sure is not the first time, have no idea what you are talking about.
You haven't left your real name in a comment at all. How can I have a heightened argument with someone I don't even know?
But that is beside the point. The point is critic, is that if we're going to be personal (which you've been), is that I think you're a moron. I understand you think I am an idiot - that's fine. However, I thought I was talking to an actual film buff, someone who could hand my ass to me on a plate - and then I found out you were a Tim Burton fan! That you were championing Quentin Tarantino for some reason! To be frank, given your arguments and your taste, it's like a Nickelback fan calling me an idiot for saying Radiohead was the best band of the last 10 years (which they aren't, but that's not my point).
Critic, the Internet is a great place for faceless arguments, which I'm sure is why you're acting like an antagonistic ass. However, and I cannot stress this enough, your comments literally do not bother me at all. I have no doubt that I am right and you are wrong, in fact, the only reason I am replying is because it bothers me to see my words being misconstrued by a moron. It's how Obama must feel when he sees the e-mails calling him a radical Muslim looking to kill America. It probably doesn't bother him that he is being accused of being a Muslim, because he is solid in his Christian faith - but I bet it irks him that there are idiots out there who believe so. That's how I feel about you, critic.
If you want my argument on Sweeney Todd, then I will give you one because I wrote two pages on why I thought it sucked when a friend of mine asked me why. If you're too afraid to give your school e-mail, then set up another e-mail account and I would be more than glad to send it to you - I just don't feel like unloading 1,000 word essays on this blog. By the way, you still haven't told me why Kill Bill is such a brilliant movie, so I'm gonna make an accusation like you and assume your argument is full of shit. For shame.
And FINALLY, I was up at 4 in the morning because I was doing homework, and couldn't believe that I had wasted any time responding to such idiotic claims. I can't believe I'm typing this now. I can't believe I have to deal with a pretentious Tim Burton fan who hasn't demonstrated that he knows anything about what he's talking about, only that he thinks I'm wrong. I can't believe that I'm actually typing out this much to defend myself again, but apparently some people can't take a hint.
You haven't left your real name in a comment at all. How can I have a heightened argument with someone I don't even know?
What does the name of one of the parties of an argument have to do with the discussion's worth? Absolutely nothing. I already told you that I am a Northwestern Student. And now I posted under a name. Does this suddenly legitimize our argument?
But that is beside the point. The point is critic, is that if we're going to be personal (which you've been), is that I think you're a moron.
Really? Why thank you then. You know, I find each of your continuing posts increasingly hilarious. Nowhere in your latest comment did you address any of the points I raised. Clearly, such critical thinking is beyond your feeble mind.
I understand you think I am an idiot - that's fine. However, I thought I was talking to an actual film buff, someone who could hand my ass to me on a plate - and then I found out you were a Tim Burton fan! That you were championing Quentin Tarantino for some reason! To be frank, given your arguments and your taste, it's like a Nickelback fan calling me an idiot for saying Radiohead was the best band of the last 10 years (which they aren't, but that's not my point).
To be frank, this is my favorite thing you have said yet. You decry two of the most famous and critically successful directors of contemporary times (who are also loved by many of your so-called "film buffs") and then try to swing it so that it looks like I am the one with bad taste. Truly, I am wiping away the tears of laughter here.
By the way, I wouldn't normally say so-and-so critic agrees with me here (that would be a logical fallacy called an "appeal to authority" - I really hope you're paying attention here, because it seems like the thousands of dollars your parents are paying for your education really aren't paying off). But have you ever heard of RottenTomatoes.com? Check and see the critical responses for the films we have talked about (Sweeney Todd, Kill Bill, etc.) And then come back and tell me that I am the one with poor critical taste.
For shame! (I thought I'd try your line out. What I did was say it out loud, but a few octaves higher than my regular speaking voice, to mimic yours).
Critic, the Internet is a great place for faceless arguments, which I'm sure is why you're acting like an antagonistic ass. However, and I cannot stress this enough, your comments literally do not bother me at all. I have no doubt that I am right and you are wrong, in fact, the only reason I am replying is because it bothers me to see my words being misconstrued by a moron. It's how Obama must feel when he sees the e-mails calling him a radical Muslim looking to kill America. It probably doesn't bother him that he is being accused of being a Muslim, because he is solid in his Christian faith - but I bet it irks him that there are idiots out there who believe so. That's how I feel about you, critic.
I don't even know where to begin here. First off, how many times have you called me an ass now (including all variations, asshole, jackass, etc.) I surely have lost count. I think it is unbecoming of a "soldier of journalism" to use such vulgar language.
Also, I'm glad to see that you have compared yourself to presidential candidate Obama. It clearly shows how modest and unassuming you are. You clearly are a better man than, well, I'm sure somebody.
If you want my argument on Sweeney Todd, then I will give you one because I wrote two pages on why I thought it sucked when a friend of mine asked me why. If you're too afraid to give your school e-mail, then set up another e-mail account and I would be more than glad to send it to you - I just don't feel like unloading 1,000 word essays on this blog.
I definitely would not indulge your obsessive self-fetishism by reading your treatise. But perhaps you could give me a summarized version with your main points?
Oh, I forgot. You have consistently and unflinchingly refused to engage me in any critical discussion. I am no longer surprised by this cowardly tactic of yours.
By the way, you still haven't told me why Kill Bill is such a brilliant movie, so I'm gonna make an accusation like you and assume your argument is full of shit. For shame.
Kill Bill is a virtuoso production. The way Tarantino establishes the world that the characters inhabit, the non-linear storytelling tools he uses, the unmatched choreography of the films' endlessly kinetic and inventive sequences...well, I'll stop there. There is clearly only so much I can do for your wayward soul.
And FINALLY, I was up at 4 in the morning because I was doing homework, and couldn't believe that I had wasted any time responding to such idiotic claims. I can't believe I'm typing this now. I can't believe I have to deal with a pretentious Tim Burton fan who hasn't demonstrated that he knows anything about what he's talking about, only that he thinks I'm wrong. I can't believe that I'm actually typing out this much to defend myself again, but apparently some people can't take a hint.
I find it interesting that you have labelled me as a "pretentious Tim Burton fan". He is a great filmmaker, but I definitely wouldn't label him as my favorite. But if you want to bestow me with such a label, I am fine with that. I will, from now on, label you as a sanctimonious, elitist snob who has his head so far up his ass he wouldn't know a good film if it came and repeatedly beat him upside over the head.
This labelling thing sure is fun!
Because I refuse to believe you would be a condescending prick if we were having this conversation in person.
Whelp, I guess that's the end of my participation in this argument. I don't feel making an ugly Internet fight even uglier. It's too bad we couldn't come to some agreement, but I suppose that's to be expected when the other party starts off being so aggressive. Have a fun time doing whatever it is you do when you're not getting unnecessarily upset over a movie column.
I accept the conditions of your surrender.
Hahaha, wooooooow. There's a big difference between surrendering and not wanting to waste time on a meaningless battle, but I'll assume you're just trying to get under my skin and leave it at that. You are quite the master of Internet douchebaggery. I suppose it's the same in real life.
I'm "trying" to get under your skin? Ha. Clearly, by returning to this debate again and again despite your myriad number of promises claiming that you are done with this conversation, you have proven that I already am under your skin.
And I am flattered that you think I am such a master. I can only assume that you are the master of crying to your mother and calling someone names when you know they are smarter than you are in real life too.
Post a Comment