Skip to main content

Exeunt Peter Jackson, chased by our inner Anthony Lane

perm_contribanthonylanephoto_p233_crop peter-jackson-20050824-652051

Exeunt Peter Jackson, chased by our inner Anthony Lane

The more we talk "longish orcish life [. . .] hinted at during the closing of TTT, when Shagrat and Gorbag are . . ." the further confident the Andrew O'Hehir in most of us will be in its inclination to have little to nothing to do with this film, for rather the longish while. Our decade-end sum: For a moment, we kept fellowship with the geeks -- and it speaks well of our humanity for doing so -- but, alas, they are very clearly a breed apart: fiddling with their forever toys, are these lot of unredeemable, squalor boys.

One wonders if in fact this article wasn't bait to coat the film-memory well enough in sludge, so that it could be left behind for good, so much more the cleanly. When you want to dump someone, you are inclined to focus on the bad, and conclude that's more of what it was really about than we -- in the moment -- could realize. So it was a kind of joyous, silly play we allowed ourselves, but since it is now obvious that those who stick with it amount to the small-towners who never had it in them to last even a week in the big city, it is now time to draw back, become more nuanced, and engage with an unaccountably intertwined and complex world. This will require the help of a different sort of film.

Of course it will prove a classic. Too much love and innovation in it for it not to. But let's never allow its beautiful fellowship to seem all that irrelevant to our current needs. Boy I liked Viggo's smile -- it can carry you on through as assuredly well as can the latest "New Yorker." We know this; let's not forget it.

Link: “Dude, where’s my LOTR?” (Andrew O’Hehir, Salon)

photo of Anthony Lane -- New Yorker

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump...
3 comments
Read more

The Conjuring

The Conjuring 
I don't know if contemporary filmmakers are aware of it, but if they decide to set their films in the '70s, some of the affordments of that time are going to make them have to work harder to simply get a good scare from us. Who would you expect to have a more tenacious hold on that house, for example? The ghosts from Salem, or us from 2013, who've just been shown a New England home just a notch or two downscaled from being a Jeffersonian estate, that a single-income truck driver with some savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit that the father — Roger Perron—would get his family out of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs, we'd be more apt to still be wagering our losses—one dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares to our kids—against what we might yet have full claim to. The losses will get their nursing—even the heavy traumas, maybe—if out of this we've still got a house—really,...
2 comments
Read more