Tom,
I agree with you 100%. I posted my negative view on the film earlier (on the News /I’m Your Man DVD review - thread), and there were several other postings there by disappointed viewers.
As for Judith’s review, I’ve read it and enjoyed most of it. Yes, it is long, and the style is over-flowing, and probably not every kind of reader would appreciate it, but there is no good reason whatsoever to trash it using the kind of language exhibited on this thread. It smacks of ulterior motives, and that’s too bad.
Judith's Review "I'm Your Man"
I didn't take John's comment as suggesting that we're not allowed to express our feelings; but simply a comment on how his cirumspection and restraint works best for him... and for Natalie to take from that what she likes. It could easily be that he hasn't responded to the postings to him here that followed, as he's at his 399th posting and as we tend to do with milestones, is likely focusing, instead, on a more serious effort toward a song that he'd mentioned to me that he was composing for that purpose, and is simply not being deterred from his original intent. Understandable to me, as I recall bypassing postings I'd otherwise have responded to, when I was at the very edge of a milestone.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 didn't take Natalie's comments as having an ulterior motive, but rather that she was simply rather incensed by all she read in Judith's review. I never doubted that she'd read it all. She quoted from the near-ending of it, and I wouldn't begin to suspect that she would jump to the end to do that. I also don't believe she'd have become so incensed without reading all of it. Judith's review [which I, too, read every word of] focused, in a negative sense, almost wholly on the filmmaker aspects and, as I'm recalling, cut no slack in any regard, leaving the impression that there was nothing there of redeeming value. With the singers and their covers, she was exceedingly complimentary. For someone like me, who can appreciate films from an impressionistic vs. knowledgeable and analytical sense, the things she's cited are most relevant to those more familiar with filmmaking, such as Tom.
The techniques used weren't as bothersome to me. The performance which stands alone in my memory from the film was Antony's. [I'll edit here later to comment specifically on that.] For me, the omissions of Perla and Julie were glaring... and I can't fathom why. For me, the film ought to have included everyone. I also feel that the film catered to a younger audience [the 'MTV' group if you will] and, in that, was more of a cutaway version than a serious documentary would be. I tried to appreciate it from the perspective of how younger people, new to Leonard, would view it. I hate to bring in attention spans at this juncture, but it seems relevant that everything today has seemingly become a matter of sound bytes. For the older fans of Leonard's, this film will not be as satisfying as we want more substance and serious exploration of everything. This is more of a broad-brushed presentation of Leonard, that seems to hope to pique the interest of younger viewers, particularly given the specific selection of performers and the nature of their comments, which I would think would carry a lot of weight, "Oh, Wow! If that's what Bono thinks... if that's how The Edge feels... I need to check this guy out some more!" That kind of thing.
~ Lizzy
I enjoyed I'm Your Man, but I don't classify it as a movie. It's not a documentary, it's not a tribute, it's not anything anyone else has called it, and I, too, am at a loss for what to call it. I think montage may be the closest word. If you're looking for a continuous train of thought, you won't find it in I'm Your Man. If you want to see partial performances and partial interviews tossed together with some sticky tape made of "I love Leonard," you will find it in I'm Your Man.
Sure, Leonard Himself has endorsed this film (I've heard? read?). He's endorsed lots of stuff that was claimed to be done in his honor. I think he legitimately feels honored by these things, no matter their quality. But I am capable of deciding what I like and don't, and I am free of obligation when such things happen to/for Leonard, whereas I think he feels obliged. I would expect no less from a man who gives me the impression of being such a gracious individual.
I enjoyed I'm Your Man in spite of its frustrating editing and lack of coherence. I liked it because I got to see things I hadn't seen before and I got to learn a few things, which I always enjoy. But it's not a film I'm likely to purchase on disc, and it's not one I'm likely to view again without some purpose other than pure enjoyment. Now, if someone were to make a legitimate documentary about Leonard, I would probably buy that. Maybe there is an extant documentary whose path and mine have yet failed to cross. (I would credit this final plagiaristic paraphrase, but I can't recall the source, sorry.)
Sure, Leonard Himself has endorsed this film (I've heard? read?). He's endorsed lots of stuff that was claimed to be done in his honor. I think he legitimately feels honored by these things, no matter their quality. But I am capable of deciding what I like and don't, and I am free of obligation when such things happen to/for Leonard, whereas I think he feels obliged. I would expect no less from a man who gives me the impression of being such a gracious individual.
I enjoyed I'm Your Man in spite of its frustrating editing and lack of coherence. I liked it because I got to see things I hadn't seen before and I got to learn a few things, which I always enjoy. But it's not a film I'm likely to purchase on disc, and it's not one I'm likely to view again without some purpose other than pure enjoyment. Now, if someone were to make a legitimate documentary about Leonard, I would probably buy that. Maybe there is an extant documentary whose path and mine have yet failed to cross. (I would credit this final plagiaristic paraphrase, but I can't recall the source, sorry.)
Montage is a good word, Manna. I think you've found the correct one. It's a montage of Leonard and his songs, as the camera cuts away from them. If it were billed as such it might not receive so much criticism. I, too, feel that how Leonard reacts to something does not make everyone else beholden to that same reaction. He's in a privileged position with the things that, in one fashion or another, are created to honour him.
~ Lizzy
~ Lizzy
personal attack? jaysus. wont be buying any book by any body who attacks a critic personally. low blow.Natalie wrote:I really think Judith has "missed the mark"
personal attack? jaysus. you R just upset she refuses to pay attention to a worm, willie. sour grapes.partisour wrote:Natalie, that is one of the constants of the universe. You should take comfort in it.
up a rope, lamer.partisour wrote:p.
-
Young dr. Freud
- Posts: 667
- Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 2:41 am
Dear, dear YdF,
Don't let Mr. 13 get your dander up. His soul purpose so far in this forum is to freely insult others. I don't know, maybe he's touched; maybe he has Tourette's or something. It's ironic that he has accused others of personal attacks, then before so much as swallowing, he told one person to "p. ... up a rope," called that person a "lamer" and has called another a "liar." Charmed, I'm sure, Angel.
Don't let Mr. 13 get your dander up. His soul purpose so far in this forum is to freely insult others. I don't know, maybe he's touched; maybe he has Tourette's or something. It's ironic that he has accused others of personal attacks, then before so much as swallowing, he told one person to "p. ... up a rope," called that person a "lamer" and has called another a "liar." Charmed, I'm sure, Angel.
You do Fart,Young dr. Freud wrote:Who is attacking the reviewer's personhood? The writing stinks.wont be buying any book by any body who attacks a critic personally. low blow.
YdF
ppostfu. ad. write a better piece. prove you can do it. that might be interesting. tap...tap...tap.
who forced natalie to be subjected to reading it? or you? here in the netherlands we are still free not to read something we dont want to read.
too bad it made you horse. i think judith would rather you had jum;ped out a window. i think thats what she was hoping. thats why she wrote it the way she did. so you would put us all out of your misery.
tap...tap...tap!!!
pkb. baloney. i am not writing a review. i am expressing my opinion. i am allowed. you insult others. why cant i? you hold grudges. thats sad. i feel sorry for your kids. i feel sorrier for you.Manna wrote:Dear, dear YdF,
Don't let Mr. 13 get your dander up. His soul purpose so far in this forum is to freely insult others. I don't know, maybe he's touched; maybe he has Tourette's or something. It's ironic that he has accused others of personal attacks, then before so much as swallowing, he told one person to "p. ... up a rope," called that person a "lamer" and has called another a "liar." Charmed, I'm sure, Angel.
haha!!! pkb. last time i checked i was a he and i will always be a he. nice try. u r not a he. thats true. projection? u r laurieak and u are so desperat u wish yr self happy birthday. i miss yr poetry. its so much better then every body elses. too bad u left. how come u keep coming back? tink told u to watch out for the door on yr bum. that makes u a liar liar panties on fire. can i see yr badge? yr proof? yr panties?Alan Alda wrote:harry13 is definately not a he.
Her writing/posting style (if it can be called that) is too ingrained to be hidden with annoying punctuations and stilted remarks.
bwahahahahaha!!!