Hi everyone,
I really think Judith has "missed the mark" on her review of the documentary. I feel that "Content and Geometry Miss an Appointment" is first of all, one of the worst titles I have ever come across in years of reading, and her review is without substance.
Of course, everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, but I reacted very strongly to the docu with a positive reaction. So did the majority of Leonard Cohen fans. So, what's the deal with Judith? I'm not sure.
I got the impression that she decided not to like the depiction long before she even waxed sour on Lian Lunson's documentary. I disagree with everything she said.
Making a documentary is a creative effort, and it is easy to find fault with the manner a filmmaker sheds light on her subject. The performances were outstanding. Leonard's comments were insightful and evocative.
The footage of black and white childhood days, juxtaposed against the bright lights of the present was a perfect interpretation of what Leonard Cohen represents. He is noir balanced with the crack: "that's how the light gets in."
I LOVED "I'm Your Man." I was practically crying after it was over; I was so overwhelmed. Obviously Leonard endorsed this documentary, too. I think it's important to remember that.
Regarding how it was made, I am interested to learn what Judith would have done. So "if one suspends disbelief in the process" of how it was made, then would it be possible to like it, or perhaps even love it? Frankly, I am disappointed that we have been subjected to verbose diarrhea.
Anyway, I think that Judith has "missed the mark" in this artistic interpretation, but she's hit her review right in the toilet. I love Judith in all other ways, but I had to disagree with her, here.
Natalie
Judith's Review "I'm Your Man"
-
Young dr. Freud
- Posts: 667
- Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 2:41 am
-
thoughtcat
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 10:26 am
- Location: UK
- Contact:
YdF - Actually with all respect to Natalie (who I like alot, Natalie was very kind to me in NYC and was a pleasure to meet. One of my enduring memories from the NYC Event was finishing my second open mic, sitting down where I had been next to her and having her look at me and say "Thank you") I don't think she did "read" the entire review. Perhaps she was too angry and insulted by JF's difference of opinion to read the actual words. I'll let you (as a pseudo-mental health professional) decipher which type of transference or other situation that represents.
Natalie - You were obviously very angry after reading JF's review, there's no other way to explain your language here. One of the things I've found helpful in my life (not always followed by myself of course, but I try to remember) is that, if I'm going to respond angrily in an email or online post, I type it but then don't send it until I'm calmer. I usually find that my point is what I want to say but my words are inappropriate.
I mostly agree with JF's feelings about being disappointed in the film (although not being as intellectual as she is my disappointment was as much in some of the specific performances as in the filming technique), but when the forum was waxing poetic about it I chose to not comment at all rather than piss people off. JF is braver than me. You're braver than me. Lots of people are braver than me. Hell, I'll bet that the Teenaged Ticket Guy is braver than me, wherever he is now. He doesn't work at that movie theatre anymore.
I believe that intelligent people can disagree, but using terms such as "verbose diarrhea" and "she's hit her review right in the toilet" does not represent a critique, but rather is an angry, offended, and in my opinion inappropriate response.
Love,
John K.
Natalie - You were obviously very angry after reading JF's review, there's no other way to explain your language here. One of the things I've found helpful in my life (not always followed by myself of course, but I try to remember) is that, if I'm going to respond angrily in an email or online post, I type it but then don't send it until I'm calmer. I usually find that my point is what I want to say but my words are inappropriate.
I mostly agree with JF's feelings about being disappointed in the film (although not being as intellectual as she is my disappointment was as much in some of the specific performances as in the filming technique), but when the forum was waxing poetic about it I chose to not comment at all rather than piss people off. JF is braver than me. You're braver than me. Lots of people are braver than me. Hell, I'll bet that the Teenaged Ticket Guy is braver than me, wherever he is now. He doesn't work at that movie theatre anymore.
I believe that intelligent people can disagree, but using terms such as "verbose diarrhea" and "she's hit her review right in the toilet" does not represent a critique, but rather is an angry, offended, and in my opinion inappropriate response.
Love,
John K.
I love to speak with John
He's a pundit and a fraud
He's a lazy banker living in a suit
http://www.johnkloberdanz.com
He's a pundit and a fraud
He's a lazy banker living in a suit
http://www.johnkloberdanz.com
John K. astonished me with:
>if I'm going to respond angrily in an email or online post, I type it but then don't send it until I'm calmer. I usually find that my point is what I want to say but my words are inappropriate.
There is nothing wrong with a person showing emotion. We are allowed to express our feelings, you know. I would rather be hurt a hundred times by an honest impulsive remark than patronised by a single calculated response censored by a clock. Why pretend that we are always kind and calm and in control? Denial of expressing one's spontaneous opinions is also the road to mental imbalance. The more you bury what you really feel the more you hide the person you really are. You can always apologise later, if necessary.
>I mostly agree with JF's feelings about being disappointed in the film (although not being as intellectual as she is my disappointment was as much in some of the specific performances as in the filming technique)
I do not know this JF and haven't read the review that is mentioned. But I have read others that have criticised everything from the sound and camera-work to the material and people. I note with some humour the fastidiousness of the complainers; the way they have been spoilt by modern technology and entertainment. We have come along way from the early romantic poets, haven't we? Just imagine the pleasure women would have got from hearing an old cassette tape of Byron reading 'Childe Harold', or of Shelley on a low signal radio station strumming 'Love's Philosophy' on his guitar - what joy an elderly Fanny Brawne would have had from an old scratched recording of Keats' 'Endymion'! Now anything less than a 100% dynamic action film with Dolby surround hi-fi stereo from a 42-inch digital plasma flat screen is inferior. The camera angle is awful, the sound is faulty, the people are misplaced the music is wrong, etc., et., etc. This is what happens when people are given too much, when they are treated too well. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the 'I'm Your Man' DVD. It's a wonderful little film - and we are so fortunate to have it.
>if I'm going to respond angrily in an email or online post, I type it but then don't send it until I'm calmer. I usually find that my point is what I want to say but my words are inappropriate.
There is nothing wrong with a person showing emotion. We are allowed to express our feelings, you know. I would rather be hurt a hundred times by an honest impulsive remark than patronised by a single calculated response censored by a clock. Why pretend that we are always kind and calm and in control? Denial of expressing one's spontaneous opinions is also the road to mental imbalance. The more you bury what you really feel the more you hide the person you really are. You can always apologise later, if necessary.
>I mostly agree with JF's feelings about being disappointed in the film (although not being as intellectual as she is my disappointment was as much in some of the specific performances as in the filming technique)
I do not know this JF and haven't read the review that is mentioned. But I have read others that have criticised everything from the sound and camera-work to the material and people. I note with some humour the fastidiousness of the complainers; the way they have been spoilt by modern technology and entertainment. We have come along way from the early romantic poets, haven't we? Just imagine the pleasure women would have got from hearing an old cassette tape of Byron reading 'Childe Harold', or of Shelley on a low signal radio station strumming 'Love's Philosophy' on his guitar - what joy an elderly Fanny Brawne would have had from an old scratched recording of Keats' 'Endymion'! Now anything less than a 100% dynamic action film with Dolby surround hi-fi stereo from a 42-inch digital plasma flat screen is inferior. The camera angle is awful, the sound is faulty, the people are misplaced the music is wrong, etc., et., etc. This is what happens when people are given too much, when they are treated too well. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the 'I'm Your Man' DVD. It's a wonderful little film - and we are so fortunate to have it.
Judith's Review "I'm Your Man"
Hi everyone,
I did read the entire review. As far as the emotional response goes, yes, I feel I am entitled to that.
Everbody I've spoken to regarding the film loved it, including my husband, Dan. We were blown away by it.
I feel that all expressions of art are subject to scrutiny, praise and negativity. That's the nature of art. You are going to love it or hate it. I think that if you don't get one or the other, you have definitely missed the mark. Someone who creates something should get a passionate reaction; all of the energy put into a project should inspire commentary.
I respect Judith's opinion. I just wanted to express that it is the polar opposite of mine. I was eager to vehemently disagree with her. I love her reviews, most of the time, and I am a fan of her poetry and other writing, but I HAD TO comment.
I love the Forum for this reason. It's great getting everyone's POV, and I encourage people to agree or disagree with me.
I found "I'm Your Man" to be a very inspiring film. It wasn't because it had Leonard in it. I liked how it was made, the selection of musicians, and Leonard's words peppered throughout. I thought it was marvelous.
Anyway, that's all for now.
Bye,
Natalie
I did read the entire review. As far as the emotional response goes, yes, I feel I am entitled to that.
Everbody I've spoken to regarding the film loved it, including my husband, Dan. We were blown away by it.
I feel that all expressions of art are subject to scrutiny, praise and negativity. That's the nature of art. You are going to love it or hate it. I think that if you don't get one or the other, you have definitely missed the mark. Someone who creates something should get a passionate reaction; all of the energy put into a project should inspire commentary.
I respect Judith's opinion. I just wanted to express that it is the polar opposite of mine. I was eager to vehemently disagree with her. I love her reviews, most of the time, and I am a fan of her poetry and other writing, but I HAD TO comment.
I love the Forum for this reason. It's great getting everyone's POV, and I encourage people to agree or disagree with me.
I found "I'm Your Man" to be a very inspiring film. It wasn't because it had Leonard in it. I liked how it was made, the selection of musicians, and Leonard's words peppered throughout. I thought it was marvelous.
Anyway, that's all for now.
Bye,
Natalie
The film/dvd was discussed here on the forum ages ago. Some liked it. Some didn't. It was a 'normal' discourse. Seemed like a done deal...
I was one of the folks who thinks it is quite awful in both content and performances (save a few).
Some of us posted reviews at amazon.com regarding the dvd and the resulting cd.
Then, there is a pedigree posting, post copyrighting(!!), gawd-just-get-to-the-point-writing person who was given a frontpage platform.
Take that for what it's really worth. Just another person's opinion. No more valid then the next or the next. Don't let that stuff get to you.
Like YDF, I can't believe anyone actually read the whole thing.
I was one of the folks who thinks it is quite awful in both content and performances (save a few).
Some of us posted reviews at amazon.com regarding the dvd and the resulting cd.
Then, there is a pedigree posting, post copyrighting(!!), gawd-just-get-to-the-point-writing person who was given a frontpage platform.
Take that for what it's really worth. Just another person's opinion. No more valid then the next or the next. Don't let that stuff get to you.
Like YDF, I can't believe anyone actually read the whole thing.
Natalie~
I understand you are a writer.
It does seem a disservice to have a very bad review standing alone on the Frontpage about the film.
Maybe you could propose to Jarkko writing a review in your own words why you thought it was wonderful. Not something that is a response to Judith's piece, just something expressing your opinion on why you loved it.
I think that would be a nice balance (IMHO).
I understand you are a writer.
It does seem a disservice to have a very bad review standing alone on the Frontpage about the film.
Maybe you could propose to Jarkko writing a review in your own words why you thought it was wonderful. Not something that is a response to Judith's piece, just something expressing your opinion on why you loved it.
I think that would be a nice balance (IMHO).
post deleted
Last edited by John K. on Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
I love to speak with John
He's a pundit and a fraud
He's a lazy banker living in a suit
http://www.johnkloberdanz.com
He's a pundit and a fraud
He's a lazy banker living in a suit
http://www.johnkloberdanz.com
John K. gave the sarcastic quip:
>I hope the view from the mountaintops of Tibet is pleasant.
You seem to have a build-up of what we in the trade call 'passive aggression', John. Dangerous stuff.
"It is not the mountain we conquer, but ourselves!"
[Sir Edmund, after looking at the view from Everest]
>I hope the view from the mountaintops of Tibet is pleasant.
You seem to have a build-up of what we in the trade call 'passive aggression', John. Dangerous stuff.
"It is not the mountain we conquer, but ourselves!"
[Sir Edmund, after looking at the view from Everest]
-
Young dr. Freud
- Posts: 667
- Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 2:41 am
Of all films ever made about Leonard, this one is keeping the lowest position. I can't even hardly recall any moment from it, except Leonard mumbling in quite distorted digital shots (let's call that pseudo-religious style), and boring covers.
Nathalie, when you said "Everbody I've spoken to regarding the film loved it" did you forget all the negative reviews posted here on board (I can't hardly recall any reviewer *really* liking it except hard-die fans.) Quite contrary, ny feeling was that some kind of this Forum's conclusion was It's OK but not definitive. There's no Leonard's performances in it, as the first thing.
People should watch Rasky's The Song of Leonard Cohen to see what means "to direct the film" in the first place. Then to see what means to have Leonard's songs in it. Then to see what means to ask LC the actual questions. Then to see the interaction between him and the director. Amazing movie in every word.
I didn't even cry of dissapointment on the end of Leonard Cohen I'm Your Man- I was simply bored. Only Leonard's parts were good, but far fro enough. 30-minutes NRK TV's interview with Leonard about Book iof Longing in his kitchen was filled with more interest, insights and impressions.
Nathalie, when you said "Everbody I've spoken to regarding the film loved it" did you forget all the negative reviews posted here on board (I can't hardly recall any reviewer *really* liking it except hard-die fans.) Quite contrary, ny feeling was that some kind of this Forum's conclusion was It's OK but not definitive. There's no Leonard's performances in it, as the first thing.
People should watch Rasky's The Song of Leonard Cohen to see what means "to direct the film" in the first place. Then to see what means to have Leonard's songs in it. Then to see what means to ask LC the actual questions. Then to see the interaction between him and the director. Amazing movie in every word.
I didn't even cry of dissapointment on the end of Leonard Cohen I'm Your Man- I was simply bored. Only Leonard's parts were good, but far fro enough. 30-minutes NRK TV's interview with Leonard about Book iof Longing in his kitchen was filled with more interest, insights and impressions.
Leonard Cohen Newswire / bookoflonging.com (retired) / leonardcohencroatia.com (retired)
-
Young dr. Freud
- Posts: 667
- Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 2:41 am