November 1997 feed hollywood by Brian Thomas |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Who the Hell Do You Think You Are?!
Hi. My name's Brian Thomas and I'm writing the "feed
hollywood" column now. Those of you who are whining and crying right
now like a bunch of little girls, and wondering "B-but where's Mike??"
can just get a grip. Not that I give a rat's ass, but here's the information
I have: apparently Mr. Stiles is expecting to have a child soon, and he
couldn't bear the shame of having to someday tell his child that he writes
this column. Guess he's too proud to do what a father should do: lie
about it.
So you're stuck with me, but that leads to another question:
"Why you? On what authority are some of us designated as critics and
the rest are not? When they fight, do we not cheer? When they emote, do
we not cry? When they fart, do we not laugh? What makes your opinion worth
more than the average Tom, Dick or Rex? Did you have some kind of special
training? Were there some kind of special questions on the SAT that nobody
else knew about? Just how many movies have you made, wise guy?"
Well, actually that was a whole lot of questions, but that brings up a valid
point. All right, a lot of valid points.
One reason I'm the critic here and you're not is that I've
seen more movies than you have. And I always will. Some of you may think
this is an idle boast, but it's not. You may think you see a lot of movies,
but not as many as me. Nyah! Some of you, like me, may have attended marathons
where one can see 17 or 18 features in a 24-hour period. But not many of
you will watch a movie when you get home.
That is, unless you're another critic. A lot of people think
that the fact that they see so many films tends to invalidate their opinions,
that the sheer number of reels we're subjected to makes us a jaded audience.
This may be true, up to a point - we are less tolerant of stale old material,
and go a bit overboard in praising something really unusual - like Jim Carrey
in a dramatic scene. But we're also people that (for the most part) really
really love motion pictures, and we do what we do because we can't get enough
of 'em.
Does just being a compulsive film watcher really qualify
someone to be a critic? Shouldn't one know the process and business of cinema
from front to back?
Not really. True, I've studied filmmaking in college and
spent a part of my career animating commercials and shorts - and I've kissed a lot af ass in the movie business - and I've read hundreds and hundreds
of books and magazines on the subject. But that doesn't necessarily mean
my opinion is any better than yours. As Winston Churchill once said: "I
don't have to be able to make a turd to know that it stinks."
The plain fact is that my opinion really isn't worth
any more than yours. What's more, your opinion isn't worth any more
than yours either. Watching a film is literally a unique experience, not
only subjective to each person viewing it, but affected also by the environment
in which it is seen. You may have hated seeing Showgirls in a theater
(and may have even asked for a refund), but you really loved seeing it on
television 2 months later, all alone in your hotel room. You may have thought
The Lion King was one of the most beautiful animated features you've
ever seen, but it loses some of it's majesty the 500th time your kid runs
it through the VCR.
This subjectivity becomes incredibly obvious when it comes
to those star ratings. Ask Leonard Maltin some time why his Movie &
Video Guide says Inherit the Wind is on the same level as Back
to the Future Part III.
So what's my real secret - the real reason why I'm writing
about movies and you're just reading about them? It's simple really: I was
born for it.
You see, it isn't easy for a young couple with a toddler
experiencing the Terrible Twos to enjoy a night out at the movies. It's
just as expensive and difficult now as it was in the late '50s. Unless you
go to the drive-in. Which is why my parents were parked at the Starlight
that fateful night, with my sister sleeping peacefully in the front seat.
The triple feature shown is a matter of some controversy , as no one in
the car was paying proper attention. Mom swears that Pillow Talk
was playing with Operation Petticoat and Hole in the Head.
Pop claims it was a combination of Born Reckless, Naked Youth and
Daddy-o. Sis tried to be cute by suggesting It Started with a Kiss,
followed by The Mating Game and The Rabbit Trap. I can only trust to my
own pre-natal memories, and all I can see is The Atomic Submarine,
Attack of the Giant Leeches and A Bucket of Blood.
Some of you may be disappointed
that I didn't really review a movie in this column. Get used to it - a monthly
column can't possibly bring you reviews in a timely fashion. For reviews
of individual films, I invite you to visit my Movie Madness! site, which
is currently located here, but will soon take up residence
here.
The short version (at press time). Go see: Boogie Nights,
The Edge, Kiss the Girls, Critical Care, and Gattica. Try
to avoid: The House of Yes, Two Girls and a Guy, A Thousand Acres,
Telling Lies in America, Switchback, and Love Always.
Next month, Leslie made me promise to actually review a movie, so please come back!
in the junk drawer:
October 1997
|
|
·feature·
·net worth·
·bumping uglies·
·smoking jacket·
·ear candy·
·feed hollywood·
·target audience·
·three dollar bill·
·compulsion·
·posedown·
·the biswick files·
·mystery date·
·and such and such·
·blab·
·kissing booth·
·contents·
·freakshow·
·fan club·
·junk drawer·
copyright © 1996, 1997 fearless media