Questions and Answers

          Your question: In your review of Radio Moscow, you write, “I couldn’t imagine why you’d go through the trouble of finding this [film].” Which sort of begs the question: Why did you? (Brian @ hotmail, 9/23/07)

          My answer: I was asked to review Radio Moscow by an acquaintance to whom I owed a favor, and he was happy to provide me with a copy. And in case you’re wondering—no, I don’t usually do requests, even for favors. This was rare exception, on a day that I was in a good mood. I certainly was no longer in a good mood by the time I was done watching Radio Moscow.

***

          Your question: My wife and I just came from a screening of Cocteau’s marvelous Beauty and the Beast.  The restored version is a visual delight and truly evoked to us the artistic rigor and imagination with which this production was put together. As we exited from the auditorium I remarked to my wife that such special art was put together so close to the just ended German occupation; then we both came up with almost the same thought: this might have been an allegory--given Mr. Cocteau's history as an artist and poet. We did not get into Freudian symbolism (too easy); instead, we thought this might have been the director's love poem to the strength and triumph over evil by the freedom-loving French.  We thought Belle to be La Belle France, showing courage, fortitude, and sacrifice in working to overcome the fear represented by the Beast, whom we thought may have been symbolic of the Nazis. (Murray @ Verizon, 8/17/07)

          My answer: This is an intriguing interpretation that I don’t think I’ve heard before, so I thought I would share it with my readers. Thanks for writing; the, erm, beauty of Cacteau’s Beauty and the Beast are the details found its utter simplicity, which sort of turn it into a blank canvas that can be endlessly reinterpreted. The Freudian reading is too easy, and in my opinion a little too obvious. I certainly prefer yours.

***

          Your question: Re: your review of !Hero: The Rock Opera. How does skimming Christian music differ from skimming secular music in variety of topics? One could say most secular music is about sex, and drugs.  Your statement that music is focusing too much on the subject of “Jesus! Save us!” was quite bothering to me because if you listen to Timerland, The Fray, most up-and-coming artists secular-wise, you'll most likely hear songs that depict "love"...

         In truth not every Christian Artist sings about "Jesus Saves", but sings the lyrics that they feel called to sing by Christ. In some cases that does mean singing the "typical", but not always. One should realize that basing an opinion on a few artists is fairly biased and off-balance chart-wise... it takes a full range to provide a full chart.
       
          I've considerately read your opinion, and I do not wish to force mine upon yours. Perhaps my opinion will shed some light on the world of Christian music. To be honest, I am also tired of shabby productions, but if it means reaching one more for Christ, then I'll support it... Perhaps a better work-ethic and realization that this work is for Christ would drive these productions to the next level. (Olivia @ msn, 7/31/07)

          My answer: In your last paragraph, you admit that some Christian artists are content with creating “shabby productions,” but then you surrender with the admission that such art is okay if it means more people are converted to Christianity. As a film critic without any sort of religious agenda, I cannot judge the religious intentions of a film like Hero: The Rock Opera.  But I do wonder how Christians or anyone possibly think they can sell their product if their methods are, as you say, “shabby.” You go on to suggest that God, if He indeed exists as traditional Christianity defines Him, deserves better representation than mediocre music and a lousy script. Sounds logical to me; meanwhile, Hero preaches to the choir and leaves everyone else scratching their heads and wondering what the big deal is.

            True, most of the junk on the radio all does sound the same, and the lyrics are generic. But if a religion claims to be guided by a Divine, Infallible being, shouldn’t its music be interesting and invigorating instead of merely replicating the mass majority of what is offered on your local radio station?
           
          From what I have researched on Jesus, “Love one another” was the pinnacle message of his teachings. Perhaps his message ulimately has more in common with Timerland or The Fray. I will admit that I haven’t listened to Christian music in a long time, unless you count Gregorian chant and classical concertos (as my brother says: “All my Christian music is in Latin.”). Perhaps invigorating, challenging, interesting contemporary Christian music exists, but I have encountered very little. I have enjoyed the poetry/lyrics of “Christian” artists like Bob Dylan, Joseph Arthur, Kevin Max, and Rich Mullins, but these are not the lyrics that I hear when I browse Christian stations available to me in my car’s radio. I hear lyrics like, “Jesus! Save us!”
           
          In the meantime, why should Christians settle for typical mediocrity like Hero when great Christian-themed films like Chariots of Fire and The Gospel of John are readily available? If they want to spread their message, here are universal, uplifting films that could get the job done and perhaps make those of us on the outside looking in give pause and consider our personal responses this enigmatic, great man named Jesus.

***

          Your question: What is the difference between City of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead? Is City of the Living Dead more related to horror than Dawn of the Dead? (Graziella @ onvol, 7/9/07)

          My answer: I’m not sure what you’re getting at with this question. City of the Living Dead (1980) is the first film in Lucio Fulci’s “Gates of Hell” trilogy, with also included The Beyond (1981) and House by the Cemetery (1981), both of which I liked better. These films are really just a succession of horrific, apocalyptic images without clear narratives, and they work very well on that level. I recommend them all as effective meditations on metaphysical, surreal incoherence. Dawn of the Dead (1978) is the second of George A. Romero’s continuing Dead series, which also includes Night of the Living Dead (1969), Day of the Dead (1985), Land of the Dead (2005), and Diary of the Dead (2007). These are sharper, cleverer films that mix campy gore with witty social commentary. I have seen the first four (the fifth just premiered at TIFF), and they are all great films, though Dawn is the best. Both series are in the horror genre, though the only connecting ideas between them are their extreme violence and walking dead. Hope this helps.

***

T.S. llioYour question: In your Duck Soup review you quote Groucho as saying, “What significance? We were just four Jews trying to get a laugh," and I can't help but disagree with your assessment. Don't you think Groucho -- who wrote to T.S. Elliot, and was clearly a genius -- knew the significance of the film? I mean, it sounds like a sarcastic comment to me. (Nachshon @ aol.com, 1/25/07)

          My answer: I've always been on the fence about this one. In my write-up, of course, I argue that even if the Marxes didn't intend any deeper significance, one still exists that its longevity has created. And of course, it's impossible to tell when Groucho is being sarcastic and when he isn't. But that he communicated with T.S. Eliot, Antonin Artaud, Dali, etc., all who praised the Brothers' work, means that he was at least aware of the various readings of the film, and he engaged them on some level.

          I suspect that his outspoken opinion of Duck Soup simply changed over time. While the Brothers were still active, they were infamously embarrassed by the Paramount films—hard to believe it, but there was a time when the Thalberg collaborations were actually considered better. Perhaps the “four Jews trying to get a laugh” comment was a dismissive one he made towards that era in general. Towards the end of his lifetime, critics reexamined the Paramounts and embraced them, and perhaps this gave Groucho incentive to finally admit that the film indeed was an intentional, biting satire. But who knows? Part of the charm of the Brothers Marx is that it’s impossible to know where they’re channeling.

***

          Your question: You are among my favorite online critics. What other online critics do you enjoy reading? (rich @ hotmail.com, 11/12/06)

          My answer: Basically I look for writers who provide me with an interesting reading of a film that provokes or challenges my own interpretation. Among my favorites: James Berardinelli of ReelViews, Nathan Shumate of Cold Fusion Video, Jabootu of Bad Movie Dimension, Brian J. Wright of the Cavalcade of Schlock (the best website title on the internet!), Matt Cales over at Ruthless Reviews, and the staff of Slant Magazine. I guess Ebert doesn’t count since he technically writes for a newspaper, even though all his stuff is online (which reminds me - get better soon, Roger). The above list includes those who are among the very best at consistently forming interesting thoughts on cinema, and I wholeheartedly recommend them—after me, of course.

         
***

          Your question: I am in the process of creating a script for a superhero movie. Since you are very familiar with the genre I wanted to ask you for some pointers. Basically my question for you is, In your opinion if someone were to make superhero on a low budget, what should be the essence of the movie?  How does one make a feel-good action movie without getting campy (like 60's Batman)? (Epsen @ gmail, 11/9/06)

          My answer: There are so many clichés associated with the superhero movie that if you stick with them and tell your story with an interesting set-up and genuinely likable characters, you’re basically guaranteed success. If you’re a little more daring, you could try something totally unique that might be less obvious. As a good example, I recommend you take a look at the short film Tomorrow's Memoir, which was an inventive little short about an elderly Superman. It has a very nostalgic quality to it, both with its imagery and it's framing, which plays very much like a storyboard (or...a COMIC BOOK!!). I think that film could give you good pointers on how to do a lot with a little.

***

          Your question: I just read your review for Wendigo, and you wrote that we should watch The Cat People for a good example in subtly. I rented the movie based on your recommendation. Are you crazy? That movie was INSANE. Sex, nudity, violence, and, to boot, cat people!! A total mind trip next to Wendigo. What are you on? (Emily @ hotmail.com, 11/5/06)

          My answer: Hee. I think you watched the wrong Cat People. Sounds like you rented the 1982 remake. Try the 1942 original.

***

        Your question: Hi, I just discovered your website. Looking over your archives, I see that the majority of your film reviews are overwhelmingly positive. Most ratings are in the 3-to-5 star range, with only a few falling below that. Any method there, or are you just the kind of guy who loves all movies? (Michael @ yahoo.com; 9/25/06)

***

          My answer: I was just observing my knack for high ratings myself, so your question is very timely. The short answer is that no, I don’t love all movies; I just love most of the ones I review. I’m generally not required to do write ups on any particular films; I’m pretty much left alone to write reviews based on my own whims, themes, and mood. So naturally, I’d rather write up on films that I advocate than films that I didn’t care for. Certainly, I’ll do a negative review if I feel so compelled, but if I’m going to take the time to write a lengthy essay, I’d rather it be about a picture that I want to recommend to my readers. It’s the bad movies, after all, that probably don’t deserve that much attention.

***

         Your question: Where the hell have you been?!?! (from about a hundred different people, in emails from the past ten months of non-activity on Film as Art; 9/22/06)

          My answer: I am actually flattered that so many people would email me and inquire on my absence. It lets me know that I actually have readers who enjoy visiting my site. I apologize most profusely for my last several months of silence from Film as Art; my departure came for a variety of reasons, including the finishing of my degree, moving into a new house, writing a novel, writing/pitching a screenplay around town (my fingers are still crossed), and, most notably, a block on my user account that prohibiting me from making any additions to my site. The latter block was basically because of the 250-megabite limit put on University of Alaska Southeast employees; it took me and the humanities department forever to get this block removed, but the UAS account gods have finally listened to our appeals. For a while, I had decided to switch to my own, independently-run website, but I was convinced to stay on here at this UAS-based site because the powers that be would rather have me remain associated with them than working on an autonomous site. I’m pleased enough with their decision to unblock my account to be swayed. Thanks, boys.

          In any case, I’m happy to be back in business now; I’m sorry to have been out of commission for such a ridiculously long period of time, but I hope to make up for it in the remaining months of 2006 by continuing to deliver reviews and essays that provoke, enlighten, and allow my readers to consider the art of cinema in new and challenging ways. It’s nice to be back.

Click here to read older questions and answers, 2004-05.

Email me your Questions!