You review Star Wars Episode III, and come up with lines like this
But Lucas doesn’t care about his script, under which gelid wodge of pork fat he immures the cast, especially Natalie Portman. They suffer like the damned frozen beneath Cocytus, mouthing clunking, mud-brick dialogue — “wooden” dialogue is several TLs above this stuff
I actually went to my local multiplex on the opening night to see a different film (Hitchhikers’ Guide to the Galaxy) which I really ought to have reviewed by now. I wondered why there were people dressed as Jar-Jar Binks wandering around.
What a perplexing culture we live in. It’s expected that self-styled critics should dress up their “it’s not my cup of tea” with all sorts of pompous waffle to prove their opinion is more valid than mine. Nobody bats an eyelid at the spectacle of the subjective being passed off as the objective, because it’s the done thing. We just ignore it and enjoy the film anyway – or not, according to taste. I’m not going to stop liking Marillion because somebody I’ve never met has read that they sound like Genesis, my taste in wines is unmoved by yours and my favourite foods are unaltered by my friend’s. Hell, I might even order something different in a restaurant if I’m feeling radical.
Yet the channels of the UK model railway world are dominated by those who will try and dismiss empirical facts as personal preference, who will go out of their way to pretend that the objective is merely subjective. Point out that something is the wrong shape, the wrong size or the wrong colour and they’re up in arms.
Bizarre how folk try to pass off the subjective as objective in one sphere and the objective as subjective in the other. If I didn’t know better I might think that some people are just plain argumentative
Ho Hum – I managed to enjoy both EpIII and Hitchhikers, but there ya go.
Steve: Ken Hite, whose review I quoted, is an RPG writer and all-round cool guy who I’ve me at couple of times at RPG conventions (by coincidence, I’ve met him exactly the same number of times as I’ve met you)
Although taking the piss out of Lucas’ dialogue is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel. Like discussing the shape of the Farish class 56….
Martyn: I haven’t seen EpIII yet. I disliked EpI enough not to bother with seeing EpII, much like I didn’t bother with the Genesis albums after ABACAB.
II was better than I, III is better than II. I now feel I want to watch the three as a whole, as I suspect lots of things that seemed pointless on I and II become clear on III…
II and III also suffered less from the ‘big-set-pieces-linked-by-tiny-bits-of-plot’ that plagued I.
Oddly, I don’t think they could have made III without IV already having been made…it’s only knowing the future that makes the current storyline bearable, while I loved the ending I don’t think I’ve ever seen a movie with a more depressing one.
Tim: Not sure why you’re telling me that. My comparison was between large groups of people, not individuals – I can’t see what difference it makes whether you know someone or not.
If it makes it easier for you to de-personalise, imagine it’s me commenting on a film/CD compared to me commenting on a 4mm loco. Despite the fact that my thoughts on a film are obviously personal opinions only, it wouldn’t raise comment. Yet if I point out a demonstrable fact such as Western Chav isn’t quite the right shape I’ll have to change my e-mail addy to dodge the hate mail.
Even mentioning a lot of us had problems with removing the screws from the Bach 66 generated a lot of flak, especially from retailers anxious not to have the faulty goods returned.
This bizarre contrast was the meat of my comment.