Currently listening to: Destroyer
I love that moment in the Simpsons, when Bart takes Milhouse and Nelson to an R-rated film using a fake ID. The three walk out of the cinema, with 'Naked Lunch' in lights above them, and Nelson goes, out loud, in his usual gruff voice, "I can think of at least two things wrong with that title."
So, on the plane in, I saw the new Cronenberg film, 'A History of Violence'.
It was great. I love ultra-violence [However, I abhor rape and am undecided on Beethoven]. You know the world is generally a good place when you can see the dramatisation on screen of a man gagging on his blood even after having been shot in the head.
I like the title, because I read it as a title, and, like Nelson, I was confused. Later, I understand the title as being a phrase, and not an indicator of content.
Why did I expect a history of violence in the film?
Check it out, when it is released. Maybe I'll come with.
posted by Martin at 22:50
3 comments
3 Comments:
I don't have the insight, nor the knowledge of the director to have written this review, but I believe my 174 word effort above touches upon some of the same themes [if only ever so slightly]. It was fun to read this and compare with my own ideas.
I, however, dislike the last third of the piece [thankfully, smh.com.au broke up this article into three pages, so you can read the first two parts and ignore the last. If you're reading the article in the paper, stop reading when David Lynch is mentioned]. The first two-thirds is interesting in that it leads to the analysis of the film through a history of Cronenberg’s other films with respect to the nature of being alive [paraphrased from the newspaper subtitle]. The last third is a bland retelling of the story. And the conclusion offers nothing inspiring.
And that was my review of a review [well, it was a feature article about a film, but what is a review, anyway?].
I shall not read anymore about this film until I see it. Hm.
You know, you're right, Steve.
I've seen this film. As I was trawling through all the written material concerning the film, after having seen it, I had the ability to relate back to what I saw and think about it.
That's a difficulty I find when I read some reviews. Some reviewers will be too easily tempted to talk about what they've seen/heard/read/experienced without really describing it for those of us who have not seen/heard/read/experienced it. Granted, spoilers are never fun.
Nevertheless, I will readily give up on an article when, just past halfway through the piece, the author lists adjectives followed by italicised titles, or lyric snippets illustrating the adjectives. SMH CD reviewers are notorious for this crime of laziness [eg. Bernard Zuel's Augie March review in today's paper].
In fact [I'd just now read the review, albeit very quickly], the problem with the titles and lyrics is that I can't relate. I can't relate to lyrics [as has been previously addressed in another post], and a simple title doesn't tell me that that song is as described by the descriptive words. You really need to listen to the album to appreciate what is being written, which kinda defeats the purpose of writing/reading the article [since you're reading it, usually, to tell you whether you should buy the album or not].
My goal: A review as an entity within itself. Yes, it is referential, but one shouldn't be required to be well versed in the subject to appreciate the review.
Short version: Yes, I agree with you, Steve.
Post a Comment