Questions and Answers
          

         Your question: Whatever happened to Robert Powell? (Forgive me, but I lost the email with the person’s name/info who asked this question. 4-15-05)

          My answer: Amazing, isn’t it, how most actors who play Christ either eventually become epitomized for playing villains (Max von Sydow, William Defoe, Ralph Fiennes) or slink away into obscurity (Brian Deacon, Robert Powell, Jeffrey Hunter). Or go onto play Batman (Christian Bale). I wish the most recent Christs, Jim Caviezel (The Passion of the Christ) and Henry Ian Cusick (The Gospel of John), luck with their careers, because history suggests that they’ll need it.

          Regarding Powell, he’s continued to steadily work, mainly on British television, even though he’s never again played a part that was as eye-turning as his career-defining roll in Jesus of Nazareth. Post-Christ roles include Victor Frankenstein and Romeo. Of his role as Christ, he said, “I hope Jesus Christ will be the last in my line of sensitive young men for quite a while.”

***

          Your question: Is there any way to find out the lyrics for "Life is Brief" from Ikiru? (anonymous @ aol. 4-10-05)

          My answer: According to the Criterion Collection DVD:

          “Life is brief.
          Fall in love, maidens,
          before the crimson bloom fades from your lips,
          before the tides of passion cool within you,
          for those of you who know no tomorrow.

          “Life is brief.
          Fall in love, maidens,
          before your raven tresses begin to fade,
          before the flames in your hearts flicker and die,
          for those to whom today will never return.”

Another translation, far less poetic, reads,

          “Life is so short
          Fall in love, dear maiden
          While your lips are still red
          And before you are cold,
          For there will be no tomorrow.”

***

          Your question: Many years ago I saw Golgotha on TV, and would like to get a copy in video or DVD format. Is this film available today, and do you know where it might be found? (Edward @ Comcast, 3-28-05)

          My answer: See the question below from Jeff @wi.rr.com, dated 9-1-04. That information is still current.

***

         Your question: Ever heard of "Tintin" with Snowy the dog and a few other characters - used to be a comic book, etc (http://www.tintin.com/)? My boss’s son stopped in today and was wondering if I could find some movies based on the books. Let me know what you find and I'll pass the info along! (Donna @ UAS Tech Center, 3-22-05)

          My answer: In fact, there are no movies about Tintin. In 1988, Steven Spielberg was in talks to cast Christopher Lambert in the role, but the film dissolved when Spielberg got the chance to direct Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Can’t say I blame him, though a young Lambert would have been an inspired choice for the role. Unfortunately, there has never been, to my knowledge, any other successful attempt at making a film about Tintin. However, there was a successful animated series in France (where Tintin was created) that is available for purchase over at Amazon.com.

***

          Your question: Disculpa esta pregunta, pero donde puedo conseguir la película, de La Noche de los Muertos Vivientes, ya que no la puedo conseguir por ningún lado, ya que yo vivo en el distrito federal. Podrias informarme donde, la puedo adquirir. (Pablo @ Mexico, 2-21-05)

          My answer: No estoy cierto acerca de la distribución por La Noche de los Muertos Vivientes en México e Iberoamérica. Es posible que usted pueda comprar una Región 1 DVD del Amazon.com, que trabajará para usted si usted tiene un DVD player todo-regional. Buena suerte.

***

          Your question: I am a newspaper reporter looking for information on Mary Fuller, who starred as Elizabeth in the Edison Frankenstein in 1910. She apparently left the film business without public explanation and moved in with her mother in a house in Washington, DC. A movie magazine launched a search for her years later and found her with her mother in the D.C. house. She told the reporter that she was exhausted from making so many films but, because of her success, well off. So, she decided to live off her earnings. She was, she told the reporter, thinking of reviving her film career. Then she dropped out of sight once more. In fact, she'd been committed to St. Elizabeth's Hospital in D.C. because of a psychotic breakdown over, so the story goes, a broken love affair. She was at St. Elizabeth's when she died in 1973. Do you have any info on her or do you have a suggestion on where I might find something? (Charles @ Verizon. 2-11-05)

          My answer: Most of my research provided the same information; actually, I found less info than you did, so you’ve clearly done your homework. I see that her bio at the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) also notes that she began her career in a theatrical troupe from the American south, and that she was the star of the first movie serial, Whatever Happened to Mary, in 1912. Her credit list at the IMDb is also pretty insightful—appearing in two hundred and twenty films in a ten year span would exhaust anyone, so her retirement is certainly justified.

***

          Your question: What is you favorite Ken Russell film? And what do you think of his other films in general (Tommy, Altered States, The Devils)? (Library User @ ? 1-10-05)

          My answer: Altered States is probably my favorite of his films, as I think it was the perfect story for his bizarre, surreal and plot-need-not-apply style of filmmaking. I also thought that Gothic was very interesting. Otherwise I’ve always thought that Russell was hit and miss. When Russell hits, his films are almost brilliant in their chaos (the aforementioned films, also Tommy), but when he misses, that same chaos is the death of him (The Devils, Lair of the White Worm). It cannot be said, however, that any Russell film will rob you of a completely unique time at the movies, and that counts for a lot in my book.

***

          Your question: I was looking around on the internet, and noticed your site. The review in question is Fight Club, and like many that saw the movie, in my opinion you missed out on the point of the book. The point of the book was to show people the inhumanity of mass consumption and mass media, not to show the brutality of man. It shows both the oppressive nature of the society we have and the way they decide to strike out against it. Fighting is an art form in itself as well, and they work with fighting to get people in a state of mind ready to accept the theories Durden presents and thus adding his cause of freedom from the mass society. I suppose being a movie critic and not a novel expert, you may have missed that. I’m not saying you are of less intelligence than I, but that this is merely my opinion and that people do miss things. No, matter, the true point of the book was buried deeply in the movie and was not apparent, so, if you would like a good reading and maybe see why people so enthralled with the book (I’m not including the movie goers, well because they usually do go for entertainment.) I suggest you pick it up. (Kyle @ hotmail. 12-6-04)

          My answer: When I’m not watching movies, I’m generally reading. Not to mention that my degree is in literary criticism and I try to apply such methods in my approach to films. I am thus confident in the assertion that I know a thing or two about books. However, books and film are not the same medium: The success of converting the ideas/themes that a book details into film is dependent upon the success of its screenwriters and director.

          I haven’t read the book Fight Club, so I cannot say whether it is a success or not. However, you are one of many people who have commented on my zero-star review of Fight Club (kudos to you for being coherent, by the way) and recommended the book. I might read it out of curiosity, sparked by the failure that I thought the film was.

          However, even if I think the book is a success, I am not likely to be swayed into the camp that supports the movie. A film should be able to stand alone without having to lean on its source literature to fill in its gaps and holes. If it cannot, then it is probably a poor adaptation. Fight Club, the book, might be about depravity and Fight Club, the movie, might have been trying to replicate that success, but I believe that the latter fails and instead becomes the depravity that perhaps its predecessor tried to warn its readers about. My opinion of the book can’t possibly change that.

***

         Your question: Can I buy The Trap with Dutch subtitles on DVD? What is the number from this DVD? (Herman @ chello. 11-18-04)

          My answer: I’ve done a great deal of searching for this title myself (sans the subtitles), and I can’t find any information of a DVD existing for The Trap in any country, in any language. There are plenty of used VHS copies that you can locate online (try amazon.com), though none are specified as having Dutch subtitles. Sorry I can’t help more, but if The Trap existed on DVD, I would certainly own it.

***

          Your question: How do you see film as art? (Shauna @ aol. 11-17-04)

          My answer: Read my reviews. If I’m doing my job well, a site called “Film as Art” should regularly feature articles that successfully answer this question.

***

          Your question: What do you make of the claim found at the Internet Movie Database, “The purported social commentary on racism some have received from this film was never intended (an African American man holing up in a house with a Caucasian woman, a posse of Caucasians shooting an African American in the head without first checking to see if he was a zombie). According to the filmmakers, Duane Jones was simply the best actor for the part of Ben.”? It seems to contradict your claims that the film is a strong statement against racism. (Jess @ gci.net, 11-1-04)

          My answer: The film is a strong statement against racism, whether Romero and his crew intended it or not. I believe that once a film is released into the public, it is at the mercy of the public. It no long belongs just to the filmmakers, and it is open to scrutiny and to interpretation. On the note, the anti-racism undertones cannot help but be read into the film, especially considering when it was made and its content. I believe that this eventually occurred to the filmmakers as well, either during shooting or immediately afterwards.

          I’ve listened to Romero’s audio commentary that is provided on the Millennium Edition DVD of the film, and I’m convinced that Jones’ race eventually figured into the themes of the film, even though it wasn't the initial reason for casting the actor. The commentary reveals that Romero and company realized the significance of the casting, particularly after they had heard that Martin Luther King has been assassinated during filming. Producer John Russo also states that he saw the film in a theater that consisted of a predominantly black audience, and he barely made it out alive! The effect of a black hero was so powerful in Night of the Living Dead that Romero would go on to cast an African American actor as the chief protagonist in all of his subsequent Dead films. With that in mind, I’m afraid that the argument that the film is not a commentary on racism doesn’t hold water. Whatever the intentions of the filmmakers were, history has revealed that the race-themes must be considered and are an essential ingrediant to this great film.

***

          Your question: Just wandering what your choice in films was for Halloween night. (Andy @ hotmail, 11-1-04)

          My answer: It was just like a fine restaurant: A touch of cheese, a touch of class, a touch of history. I got together with a few friends and started the evening off with the b-grade Bigfoot flick The Creature from Black Lake. It was followed by the classy British horror film The Legend of Hell House. The evening ended with two silent classics: F.W. Murnau’s Nosferatu, the original Dracula film, and Thomas Edison’s Frankenstein. All in all, a good night of horror. That my wife dressed up as a fat, pink bunny-rabbit for the evening, of course, also added to the disturbing tone of the evening.

***

          Your question: I've been reading your web site for quite some time, and I must admit that even if I have a special appreciation for a movie, I can still agree with you on several (negative) points. And even if I should keep a similar train of thought (than being fair and balanced) I enjoy your positive reviews, too.

          I was wondering if you've seen the movie Janis and John with Marie Trintignant and Christopher Lambert. Apparently the movie might get released in my country and I've read several positive reviews. I just wanted to know if you agreed with those. (Diego @ hotmail, 10-28-04)

          My answer: Thank you for the kind words. I would like to think that my reviews are insightful enough that even if someone doesn't agree with them, they still enjoy reading them. I must be on the right track, as I have yet to receive any death threats (despite my scathing review of Fight Club, which many have emailed me about, expressing their strong support for the film).

          Regarding Janis et John, the film has yet to find distribution in the United States, so I haven't yet had the pleasure of viewing it. Like you, though, I have read nothing but positve reviews. Last March, it won the Original Film Award at the Malaga Film Festival in Spain, which certainly adds to its potential prestige. Expect a review as soon as it is released in the States.

***

          Your question: Where was the Great Escape made? (Paul @ aol, 10-28-04)

          My answer: According to the Internet Movie Database, it was filmed in in three different places in Bavaria, Germany: Most of the filming took place in Munich, while the underground tunnel sequences were filmed in an indoor studio in Geiselgasteig. Steve McQueen's fantastic motorcycle chase was shot in Füssen.

***

          Your question: A completely random, off-the-wall question: Listened to any good music lately? (Cindy @ gmail, 10-14-04)

          My completely random, off-the-wall answer: Most certainly. I am mainly a world-music kind of guy, though it takes me forever to play an album so that I’m sick of it before I’ll go out and buy a new one. I just purchased Peter Gabriel’s most recent album, Up, and that contains some fantastic pieces. I am also hooked on a collaborate effort between Kevin Max (who has been hailed, incidentally, as “the next Peter Gabriel”) and Adrian Belew called Raven Songs 101. It’s a spoken-word album in which Max reads his very lyrical poetry to Belew’s catchy music. I have also recently enjoyed Classic Yo-Yo by, who else, Yo-Yo Ma, The Guide (Wommat) by Youssou N'Dour, and Peter Gabriel’s Passion, which is the soundtrack to The Last Temptation of Christ. All of these are highly recommended if you like very sophisticated rock/new age music.

***

          Your question: Your review of Jesus of Nazareth - two things:

          1 - The man Jesus raised was 'Lazarus', not 'Lazareth'. I believe that comes from a confusion with Nazareth and somehow sticks in people's minds.

          2 - As for the wit of Jesus in Robert Powell's portrayal, there was one moment I just adore: When he calls Thomas to follow him, and asks Thomas 'do you have doubts about following me?' to which Thomas cheekily replies 'No ... I don't believe I have.' The expression on Jesus' face is priceless! As if to say 'uh-oh, we got a live one.' It was the equivalent of a groan to the really bad but nonetheless clever wordplay.

......... I have seen it a few times, then, haven't I!!! (well I DO own it.) (From Kim @victoria.tc.ca, 10-14-04)

          My answer: 1) Thanks for the correction. I'm reminded of an old joke I once heard: A reporter at the site of Lazarus' resurrection asks him how he felt being raised from the dead after four days. Lazarus replies, "It was four days? Time flies when you're dead!" 2) I recently rewatched Jesus of Nazareth, and I caught a few delightful moments in Powell's performance that I missed initially. Another fine moment is when Christ is at the temple, telling the Pharisees what he really thinks. The fury in his eyes breathe with both passion and the true Wrath of God. I still think Powell's overall performance was problematic and unnatural, but these moments reveal a talented, subtle actor. Perhaps he intentionally inserted these clever moments when director Franco Zeffirelli, who was trying to make a traditional, reverent film, wasn't looking.

***

         Your question: Just watched The Target on Encore and was puzzled by the credits which listed way down, Paul Newman as Paul Newman. I may have stepped out of the room and missed him, but was he actually in this movie? (From Mike @ yahoo, 9-17-04)

           My answer: How curious. I also missed Newman if he was in the film. I believe, but don't quote me, that Dennis Hopper, the star of The Target, is a friend of Newman. Perhaps it is an inside joke between them, or perhaps a film of Newman's is playing on a screen somewhere in the movie. In any case, I'm stumped. Does anyone out there have any extra information that could be provided?

***

          Your Question: At one point in your review of The Passover Plot, you mention that it has "a bizarre soundtrack (including the frequent use of Chinese bongs)." I think that you meant "gongs" not "bongs". You do know what a bong is, don't you? Anyways, a form of gong was actually in use in the Temple in Jerusalem during the time of Christ, and I had always thought that was what was implied. Wouldn't you agree that Pier Paolo Pasolini's 1964 film Il Vangelo Secondo Matteo (The Gospel According To Matthew) has a truly bizarre soundtrack?

          In your review of Golgotha, you say that it "is the only Christ film that I have viewed that directly deals with some of these lost books of the Bible, and it is interesting to see a serious cinematic approach to these missing perspectives." Re-watch A Child Called Jesus (mid to late 80's) and the 1999 Jesus Epic Miniseries starring Jeremy Sisto. Those two readily spring to mind as including such material.

          In regards to The Jesus Film, the Good News Bible was not the only English translation employed for the script. Also, Richard Kiley was not the narrator (although he was in The Visual Bible's Matthew) - it was Alexander Scourby.

          In regards to The Greatest Story Ever Told, I think that you're being a bit harsh. You should rent the DVD that has the documentaries on it as bonus features, and get some insight in George Steven's motivation and the perceptions of those involved in the movie's production. Also, the book Hollywood Holyland: The Filming And Scoring Of The Greatest Story Ever Told by Ken Darby is a valuable resource as well. (From "seaslugg" @ yahoo, 9-6-04)

          My Answer: Thank you for the additional information and resources.

          Re: The Passover Plot. Woops! I indeed meant to use the word "gong," though the film was bizarre enough that I have no doubt that the word I inadvertenly used pretty much sums up the experience of viewing it. I did not know that gongs were used in the Temple of Jerusalem; perhaps the film should have shown this so that the Asian association with the instrument wasn't so distracting. In any case, I still admired the film.

          Re: The Gospel According to St. Matthew's musical score. The soundtrack was indeed bizarre, but in the best way possible. Pasolini's choice to utilize music from all over the world and from several different eras created a truly timeless effect, making Christ's story and teachings relatable to any and all generations. The old Gospel chorus "Sometimes I Feel Like A Motherless Child" was a particularly nice choice.

          Re: Golgotha. I haven't seen A Child Called Jesus, but you're quite right about the Jesus miniseries, which I had forgotten about. That series featured Christ, as a child, making doves out of mud - an act recorded only in the apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Perhaps I should have said that Golgotha was the first film to utilize the lost gospels.

          Re: The Jesus Film. The Internet Movie Database lists Richard Kiley as the narrator. I am aware that he also did the made-for-video Visual Matthew series. The Database depends on outside submissions and might certainly be wrong; I'll have to obtain a copy of the film and re-watch it to verify. The copy that I watched also noted the the film used exclusively the Good News Translation.

          Re: The Greatest Story Ever Told. If I am being harsh on the film, I'm only doing my job. I have actually read interviews with the great George Stevens regarding the film. He was a wonderful director (see Gunga Din), but there is no doubt that he overshot with his Christ film and self-indulged with the ridiculously star-studded cast and overdone "epic" shots. I do not doubt his good intentions, but if we could rate the value of a film by good intentions alone, The Judas Project would be the greatest film ever made!

***

         Your question: I enjoyed your review of Golgotha. However, I can't locate a source for obtaining a copy. I'm hoping you can be of help. My Mother saw this film when she was in grade school (1930s) and had remarked how much the The Passion of the Christ was similar. (From Jeff @wi.rr.com, 9-1-04).

        My answer: I obtained a copy of Golgotha from Facets Multimedia which, along with Movies Unlimited, is probably the best film catalogue that you're likely to find. They only have the English-dubbed version available, but it's certainly better than nothing. Incidently, if anyone knows of a way to locate the original French-language version with English subtitles, please email me!

***

        Your question: I agree with just about all your impressions of the various Jesus movies.  I love it that your sensibility can embrace various and sometimes contradictory representations of Christ.  For instance, you speak wisely and positively about both The Passion of the Christ and The Last Temptation of Christ, as well as Dogma.   I loved all three of these films, and usually find that admirers of one of the three invariably condemn at least one of the others. Kudos to you!

          My answer: Thank you for your feedback. I admire The Passion of the Christ and The Last Temptation of Christ because they are both very remarkable films that gave me a fresh appreciation for the central figure in Christian faith. It is easy to view a figure like Christ as the cardboard cut-out of the earlier Hollywood films (King of Kings, for example), or as the haloed icon of Sunday School, but these are two films that presented Christ as more attainable and lifelike, and they inspired me to consider Christ and his mission more than probably any other visual medium. I'm not sure that they contradict one another either; they simply cover different topics: The nature of Christ's mission (Passion) and the nature of his divinity (Last Temptation). In any case, they are films that any mature person searching for spiritual truths should view, and I hope that they will both be able to live past the rage of pointless and unfair controversy that they have faced.

         Curiously (and I realize that this is a rant), I find it interesting that the Christ movies that generated so much controversy were the ones made by Christians, while the ones more generally accepted by the religious community were made by non-Christans. Mel Gibson and Martin Scorsese are both believers, and they made their films as personal explorations of their faith. Both were scorned by many in the religious community. On the other hand, Christians embraced The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, a film made by Pasolini, an athiest and marxist whose motivation was to recreate what he considered a splendid myth! In the words of Mr. Ebert in his review of Last Temptation: Gibson and Scorsese have "offended those whose ideas about God and man [they do not] not reflect. But then, so did Jesus."

         As for Mary, Mother of Jesus, I agree that both Christian Bale and Pernilla August gave fine performances. I just wish that the limitations of the bare-bones script had gotten out of the way and let them flesh out their roles.

***

         Your question: You have clearly established yourself as an admirer of Roger Ebert. What do you make of the following statement, made my him: "Too many moviegoers are stuck in the present and recent past. When people tell me that Ferris Bueller's Day Off or Total Recall are their favorite films, I wonder: Have they tasted the joys of Welles, Bunuel, Ford, Murnau, Keaton, Hitchcock, Wilder or Kurosawa? If they like Ferris Bueller, what would they think of Jacques Tati's Mr. Hulot's Holiday, also about a strange day of misadventures? If they like Total Recall, have they seen Fritz Lang's Metropolis, also about an artificial city ruled by fear?"? This opinion strikes me as somewhat arrogant. Is Mr. Ebert suggesting that moviegoers are wrong for preferring newer movies to older movies? Don't newer films have as much validity as older films? (Carolyn in Manchester, TN, 5-25-04)

          My answer: I don't think he's saying that at all. He's simply saying that with a broad canvas of films to view from across the decades, it is unfortunate that moviewatchers often limit themselves to films made in their own generation. How many people have I encountered who refuse to watch older films because they "don't like black and white," or "the special effects aren't very good"? What a sad, limited perspective! Films are like books; the styles might change, but the themes are universal and poignant if told well. If you like Total Recall, why not expand your cinematic experience and give Metropolis a try?

           On the other hand, I recognize the importance of embracing films from your own generation. Certainly they are films that you identify with, because they are movies that were made in your lifetime. They connect you to your own life experiences. Therefore, I think that there is a distinct difference between a film that is your "personal favorite" and a film that is the "best." For example, Highlander and Dark City are two genre films that are on my list of favorite movies. Certainly they are both superb examples of their genres (fantasy and sci-fi, respectively), but they are really on my list because they are films that helped shaped my love for cinema and my desire to pursue film criticism as a career. I will freely admit that The Hidden Fortress and Metropolis are better, more important films, but it was Highlander and Dark City which opened the door for me to discover and enjoy those older, better films. For this, I am very grateful. Films that were made in our generations are important for such enlightenment, but they should serve as a door opened to other great, older masterpieces of cinema. No true patron of cinema should be content with a boxed-in film experience.

          In fact, I have a general rule of thumb that when I ask someone for a list of their favorite films and all of the films that they give me have been made only in the past few years: I A) recommend older films of similar style/content, and B) never take their opinions on film very seriously. Not because I'm snobbish or arrogant; I simply recognize that they have not had a very expansive cinematic experience, and I want to help them improve on that before I talk movies with them. In that sense, I am in full agreement with Ebert's statement.

***

          Your question:  What do you consider bad acting and overacting? Do you consider an actor good if they always act in similar roles? (Seth in Lebanon, OH, 5-25-04)

          My answer: Two very good questions—some that most actors in the profession famously bicker over, let alone film critics! I am reminded of the story about the filming of Marathon Man, in which Dustin Hoffman (a method actor) came to set looking slugging and exhausted. His co-star Laurence Olivier (a Shakespearean actor) asked him why he was so tired, and Hoffman explained that he had stayed up all night, in order to better channel his character, who had also stayed up all night in the scene that they were filming that day. Olivier, never much impressed with method actors, flicked his eyebrows and said, “Try acting. It’s much easier.”

          In any case, I have a very simple method when considering performances in films: I try to leave all expectations of actors’ previous roles out of my viewings and simply focus on how well he/she convinces me in the film that I am watching. Some great actors have similar characteristics in different performances—consider Jack Nicholson, who certainly has his trademark grin and devilish sense of humor in most of his films, no matter the part. It is foolish, however, to knit-pick his performance in As Good As It Gets with observations like, “Oops…He moved his head and smiled just like that in One Flew Over a Cuckoo’s Nest.” Frankly, life is too short to get that exact over a single performance. The question should not be are the parts similar. The question should be whether or not an actor is convincing in the particular role that you happen to be watching at the time.

          That’s not even mentioning iconic actors like John Wayne or Clint Eastwood (or, for that matter, Nicholson) whose strength is playing themselves in all of their films. This is more or less their legacy, and who would want it any other way? When you go into a movie to watch the Duke, wouldn’t you be disappointed if you ended up with anything less? I certainly would be.

          As far as overacting or bad acting, I think that just about every actor has their niche. Even actors who are famously considered wooden or incompetent have at least one role that suits them (Kevin Costner in the A Perfect World is the first example that comes to mind, though I for one admire Costner beyond the bad rap he usually gets). There are also some wonderful actors who have been famously miscast over the years—Marlon Brando in Christopher Columbus: The Discovery and Christopher Lambert in The Sicilian are two good examples. The trick is to get the right actor for the role, and then to find the right note for their performance. There are, then, bad performances, but I hesitate to label anyone in the business as a bad actor. They simply need to find roles that better suit their acting styles.

***

          Your question: What do you think about movies such as Blade? That is, what is your opinion of the lone-hero-with-a-dark-past-against-the-forces-of-evil type of film? (Andrew in the Real World, 5-10-04)

          My answer: I think that any topic or theme can be done well as long as enough creative force is behind it. The lone-hero is certainly a popular archetype which has been represented both respectfully and poorly in film. I admire the Blade films for what they are: Action-spectacle fluff pieces with engaging characters. Other films of this nature, such as Graham Baker's Beowulf, are disappointing, though that has more to do with the filmmaking than the lone-hero theme.

          The lone-hero, I believe, is something of a western invention, probably inspired by coybow lore. Even Kurosawa's lone-samurai films, such as Yojimbo, borrowed their heroes from American influences. Earlier literature/films from other eras and cultures almost always feature a hero with friends and allies, a la Robin Hood and his Merry Men. On that note, my favorite of the lone-hero genre are probably the old spaghetti westerns starring Clint Eastwood, namely The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. The subsequent lone-hero that became Eastwood's trademark, films such as Pale Rider and The Outlaw Josey Wales, are also a whole lot of fun.

***

          Your question: What do you believe about the relationship between the film critic and the filmmaker? Enemies or friends? (John in Gresham, Oregon, 4-26-04)

          My answer: Depends on the film critic and the filmmaker. Hee hee. No, in all seriousness, if both are doing their jobs well, the film critic and the filmmaker should be friends. I remember talking to a person up here in Juneau who was thinking about going into filmmaking, and I said, jokingly, "Look out. I'm a film critic!" His response was interesting: "Good! I need you to point me in the right direction, and you need me to have a job!" His response was insightful and true: The relationship between them is quite symbiotic. A fair film critic will offer insight to a filmmaker on how to improve their skills. Good movies keep film critics happy and working. It's a pity that they are often pitted against each other, because I think that they have more simularities than differences. Both love film. Both want to communicate their love for film to the public. They help each other improve, and they also offer their services to moviegoers. See? We can all just get along.

***

         Your question: Any movies coming out this summer that particularly catch your eye? (From Ashley in Indiana, 4-26-04)

          My answer: Hard to say. They all look so big and Hollywood, and I usually keep studio-made films at an arm's length. That said, as a massive fan of Gothic literature, Van Helsing looks like it could be fun. I just hope that they keep Dracula, Frankenstein, etc. closer to the books than to the Hollywood clichés, but the trailers don't indicate that. Troy, of course, looks very promising. Spielberg's The Terminal and the latest Harry Potter sequel both look engaging and imaginative. I was only marginally fond of Spider-Man, and Spider-Man 2 looks like more of the same. I, Robot, King Arthur, and Kingdom in Twilight, more adaptations of classic stories/legends, could be hit-or-miss. All three have fantasitc legacies to live up to, and I wish them the best. If any film this summer trips my trigger, I will review it. But of course, you knew that.

***

         Your question: Your dissertation on Highlander was very impressive. Nice to see some cult-classics getting a little love, and I think your comparisons between it and Blade Runner are well considered. What do you think of Highlander's sequels? (From Kevin in Fernandina Beach, Florida, 4-7-04)

          My answer: What sequels? ;)

***

          Your question: What do think of Rob Reiner's The Sure Thing? I have always held that this film is a textbook example of what Aristotle illustrated in his Poetics. What say you? (From Gary in Juneau, 4-6-04)

          My answer: Wow! I think that Aristotle spoke so much on poetry and its heroes that endless amounts of films could fit into his definition. Though considering Reiner's The Sure Thing, and considering the journey that the protagonist takes, and considering Professor Taub's line, "Life is the ultimate experience, and you have to live it to write about it," I think that your perspective is certainly good. The Sure Thing does ring in a particular harmony with Aristotle's Poetics. That's quite a connection! You might have an untapped gift for film criticism.

***

           Your question: I found your Jesus series very insightful. I was particularly interested in the fact that you granted many of the films four-star ratings. In retrospect, which of the films was your personal favorite? (From Seth in Lebanon, Ohio, 4-6-04)

          My answer: I was particularly moved by Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ, as I felt that it presented a very honest, thought-provoking look at what it might have been like to be both fully God and fully human. Rossellini's The Messiah is also a personal favorite, depicting a quiet, working-class Christ that certainly struck a chord. Pasolini's The Gospel According to St. Matthew was probably the best of the versions I watched, though I personally responded more to the films listed above. Just for the record, my wife's favorite was Godspell, so I can't answer this question without putting in a plug for that version.

***

          Your question: Since you seem to be a firm believer of Romero and his zombie films, what did you think of the new remake of Dawn of the Dead? (From Lori in Juneau, 4-6-04)

          My answer: Ah-Ha! I knew that someone would eventually get around to asking this question. Truth be told, I have not yet seen the new Dawn of the Dead, and I don't really want to. I am a strong supporter of George Romero's work as social commentary, and from what I have heard, this new version plays up the action and gore and diminishes the commentary that Romero created in his films. I didn't mind the gore in Romero's Dawn because he used it as a metaphor for society's growing depravity. From what I have read and been told, the new Dawn is more about cheap thrills than provocative insight. This might be someone's cup of tea, but I'll let Hollywood ruin classic films on their own time, not mine.

          Furthermore, Roger Ebert has a philosophy that I embrace: Filmmakers should remake smaller, lesser-known films, not the great films. While Romero's movies have been categorized as B-grade time-passers by the simple-minded moviegoers, I consider them to be among the classic American films. Would you want to see a remake of Taxi Driver or Casablanca? Even if they were effective updates, how could they ever have the impact of the original versions? Hollywood should stick to creating original movies, not remaking great films. Frankly, Romero created a film in his Dawn of the Dead to which I feel there is nothing more to add. The remake seems like overkill, but again, I have not seen it, so I cannot give it a final judgement.

***

          Your question: I recently found out that a father went to go see the new remake of "Dawn of Dead," which is rated "R" for graphic violence, language and sexuality. That is bad enough in itself, but the guy took his 4 small children, aged 2, 7, 9 & 12! Is that even legal? What are your perspectives? (From Donna J. in Juneau, 4-5-04)

          My answer: Because Dawn of the Dead is rated R, such a parental decision is, sadly, quite legal. The R rating means that no one under seventeen is admitted without a parent or legal adult over twenty one with them. That said, if a parent wants to take their child to go see such a film, they legally can, no matter their age.

          In case you believe that this event is isolated, let me assure you that it happens quite often. How many R-rated movies have I attended in which children under ten were with their parents? Even recently, in both of my viewings of The Passion of the Christ, parents took their young children to watch scenes of such gruesome brutality that I could not recommend the film to some adults!

          As it stands, parents need to take the R-rating very seriously. I would argue that any such parent who would take their two-year-old and seven-year-old children to see a horror film featuring flesh eating zombies and tons of gruesome violence is absolutely guilty of child-abuse. This is bad parenting, because the children cannot understand what they are watching or its context, so how could it do anything but leave a negative effect on a child? Even as a strong supporter of George Romero's original Dead saga, I definitely think that these are films by adults for adults that childen have no business seeing. If a parent cannot find a baby-sitter, they should take their young children to something else if they really care about what filters through their kids' minds. Though it's technically legal, what you witnessed is against a good parent's common sense and moral judgement.

Email me your Questions!