HATE
MAIL AND LOVE LETTERS
Barry
Meyer: A very interesting topic of discussion you have
going, with the Fake Geek Girl video rant. Yes, clearly Brittany-Jade
is making sweeping generalizations, and then making knee-jerk
arguments to defend her opinions... opinions which are loose
and unfocused. What she needs to do, really, is to take a moment
to shake off the cliched battle-of-the-sexes rhetoric, and form
some solid thoughts on the subject. Frankly, I think the article's
author, as well, needed to pose a more well rounded discussion.
I don't think that denying there's gender bias going on in the
horror industry -- or any industry -- is a valid argument. There
is plenty of bias, and even oppression. There is simply no denying
it. The argument needs to start there, by, at least, acknowledging
that point. Then, continue on.
Regardless, the idea of responding to Brittany-Jade's video
rant seems pointless. She had no valid arguments. No point of
view. Nothing she said wasn't anything we hadn't heard a million
times before. As you said, she was looking for attention.. or
more so, I think, she just wanted to be heard. Nothing wrong
with wanting to be heard. It's just that she needed to find
a voice first, and say something other than the same old same
old.
And since she didn't have any clear argument, your response
to her came off as self indulgent. Why pick on someone's unformed
opinion about a topic -- a topic that is very relevant in the
community, these days -- when you could have entered into a
discussion with people who have formed and valid opinions on
the matter. It would make for a more interesting column.
•••
Kash
Yusaf: I enjoyed reading your article.
I want to point out that this report was formed by Ipsos Mori,
a company that specialises in market research, as in gathering
information about markets or customers. Does this sound like
the kind of company that is qualified to form a report like
this?
As for the report, I don't think the size of the sample pool
is the stumbling block, but that we have no information about
the participants. Are they single or married? Do they have kids?
What are their beliefs or value systems? What movies do they
like? If they saw this title on the shelf of HMV, would they
be tempted to pick it up? Are they black, white or Pakistani?
Rich or poor? What are their political views? Is one of them
a cult movie fan? We have no idea who these people represent
in our society. If most of these people were middle class conservatives
then how does this affect the results?
The only thing that's clear to me is that this is based on very
little fact and more about manipulating the feelings of participants
and that we're probably facing another Video Nasty era.
BTW, I think both Human Centipedes are shit,
A Serbian Film hilarious and Sex and
Zen 3D boring. I did think The Killer Inside
Me was fantastic though.
/rant
•••
Tracy
Hodson: I found your review of Kate Bush’s 50
Words for Snow to be very strange, indeed, not because
you don’t like it—I love it, myself, for all its
oddities and differences from her earlier work—but I’d
never quarrel with you or anyone else simply for disliking something
I find interesting and worthy. But your criticism itself included
all sorts of oddities, most notably the personal attack on Stephen
Fry. You seemed to be under the impression that he muscled his
way into Kate’s studio, presented her with a list of words
for snow, and then, I don’t know, held Bertie hostage
unless she put him “center stage for no good reason”?
She’s stated clearly in interviews that the 50 words are
hers, not his, and that she invited her long-time friend to
read them because she loves his speaking voice and felt it would
communicate a professorial authority. And what does his life
on Twitter, or how many followers he has, have to do with anything?
Your personal annoyance with him for unspecified reasons appears
to have really got in the way of your review, and your indulgence
in this attack undermined the rest of it.
Speaking of which, I am always confused when critics call artists
“self-indulgent,” as though the making of art isn’t,
by definition, self-indulgent. We who are artists make art because
we can’t help it, and are usually chasing down our muses
in a very specific way that has little to do with anyone else.
But the charge of “self-indulgent” is too often
brought out when “pop” artists don’t make
music that is easily accessible, or familiar, or has satisfied
a particular critic or fan. The other charge leveled is when
the opposite has occurred and the artist is now deemed to have
“sold out” (authors also get these two adjectives
attached to their work—really any artist whose public
is a paying one, rather than a gallery or museum one, faces
this problem). One has to wonder who, if not herself, she was
meant to “indulge”? It’s not as though she’s
had a career of pandering to the public and has suddenly taken
a mad left turn—not one song she’s ever written
was pitched to the public’s taste. Who, there in the middle
of punk rock, could have predicted Wuthering Heights
would be heard, let alone a chart-topper? And how many fans
did she lose with The Dreaming? I don’t
think she cares much about what any of us thinks, and I love
that about her.
Quietus.com has compared this album to Eno and Michael Nyman,
and in a way it does make me think of Bowie’s Low
and other side-tracks taken by such artists as David
Byrne (the Bush of Ghosts album). I think it’s
an interesting meditation on Winter, snow, and is aurally quite
beautiful. I, too, could do without Elton John, though I’m
getting used to his overly muscular singing. And Aerial
is gorgeous, in my opinion, and after the immersion in the natural
world she “indulged in” there, this new step doesn’t
really surprise me. I liked a couple of tracks on Director’s
Cut and didn’t buy the album, but quickly discovered
that I was one of a few who weren’t angry and frustrated
with her for having made it (and talk about being called “self-indulgent”—if
she’d been paid for every time that word appeared in print
or online, she wouldn’t have needed royalties from the
album itself).
I am enjoying 50 Words and find it a relief
that a woman my age is making music that is mature, thoughtful,
unusual, and who isn’t trying to pretend that she’s
still 25. She’s the anti-Madonna, and I’m grateful
for that.
•••
Dick
Tuinder: Thank
you very much for being tempted to watch Winterland
and write such an empathic review of its contents.
It's
normally hard for critics to look behind the images they already
have in their head. But you, sir, are clearly not one of those
critics.
So
thank you. You have brightened up at least a part of a certain
day.
•••
David
McGillivray: Thank you for inviting me to like it.
I'm not sure I want to like it while it's so sexist. Your galleries/contents
contain only glamour girls, scream queens and female strippers
and adult movie stars. Where are the cult heroes, male porn
gods and trash movie makers? Please look into this. Lots of
love, McG
•••
Ian
Brock: Call me old fashioned, but... I'd be interested
to hear on what level(s) you consider the opportunity to view
uncensored "allegorical" simulated baby rape onscreen
beneficial to contemporary film making in any way whatsoever?
I realise it gives saddo lock-in bloggers something to write
about for a few weeks but, ultimately, the only influence such
subject matter is ever likely to exert is degrading & negative
- for film maker & viewer alike. I'd have been impressed
if, for once, you'd stuck your neck out & said you thought
it was a bad mov(i)e, or that you at least had serious doubts
about it's intentions. But, of course, you haven't...
Check out Youtube out to see what sort of socially retarded
idiots are lapping the uncensored version of A
Serbian Film up
(though only by watching certain "key" scenes on repeat,
of course).
