|
| Author | Message / Information |
|
bollywood501
Quote | Reply | This message was updated on 7/31/2003 11:52:29 PM by bollywood501 |
ugly american
replied on: 7/31/2003 11:42:25 PM One thing that Richard Corliss does in this article that really is a total pet peeve of mine is to compare Hollywood to Bollywood. I can not tell you how this really bugs me to no end. It bothers me when someone compares one kind of cinema to another in a critical discussion. Coriss does this in reference to the dancing. I mean what is the point of compareing Gene Kelly or Busby Berkely to Bollywood dance? It's stupid. What I mean to say is if anyone out there is thinking about writing about Bollywood, or in fact just thinking about Bollywood in general, please leave your Hollywood bias and thought patterns behind. Leave your thoughts about Hollywood for when you are watching a Hollywood movie. When you are watching Bollywood, think Bollywood. For example why not compare Bollywood to Japanese movies of the 50s, or French cinema instead? That would be just as stupid. It's like literature. When one is talking about a book, say the magical realism of "100 Years of Solitude" by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, do you all of a sudden bring in the realistic writing style of Hemmingway? NO YOU DON'T. Because if you did you would bring in these strange questions that are illrelevant. For example one would start talking about that wacky guy Marquez who has characters all named the same and they have butterflies bursting out of their stomach at innapropriate times. You would be trying to understand the writing of Marquez by using Hemmingway as a reference and it just won't work. And this is what really bugs me about the majority of Bollywood magazine aritcles and writing in the West. They all come from the reference point of Hollywood and Westen perspective. ARRRGH!!! It won't work, Bollywood is about as close to Hollywood as Hemmingway is to Gabriel Garcia Marquez, or Elvis to Radio Head. Maybe I should have used that as a comparison instead. Rant rant rant... . |
|
bollywood501
Quote | Reply | |
light skin
replied on: 7/31/2003 11:46:51 PM bollywhat wrote: quote: In Japan it has been this way for 100s of years. Light skin meant a certain status of the rich and aristocratic class that did not have to work and be out in the sun. In this sense 'shadeism' is a class issue. |
|
MeenaKumari
Quote | Reply | This message was updated on 8/1/2003 2:50:24 AM by MeenaKumari |
BollyWHAT mentioned :-)
replied on: 8/1/2003 2:06:23 AM jfung, After reading your post that begins with this paragraph: "Meena (and others), thanks for the long, detailed, informative posts. I respect where you are coming from, and I hope he reads your email." and ends with this paragraph "Also, I don't understand Christina's objection to Corliss's invitation for reader participation in coming up with lists. Why should columns be purely one-way?" I think that I need to clarify a few things. All my comments are going to relate to this one post of yours--I'm clarifying this in the hopes of avoiding confusion. Also, I wish to clarify that I am not attacking you or your ideas, just responding to things that you have said. There is no anger in my thoughts. Actually, my predominant thought is that of confusion, which I'll try to point out when appropriate. -------------------------------------------- (I am using dashed lines in order to clearly define the subsections in this post. More on this later.) Meena (and others), thanks for the long, detailed, informative posts. I respect where you are coming from, and I hope he reads your email. You are welcome.  I have decided not to send Mr. Corliss an e-mail. I most likely won't send an e-mail to www.time.com either. ------------------------------------------- I want to disagree with some comments that you made against Corliss which picked up on other posts people had made, however, and were not based on your own reading. Hmmmm...I'm a little bit confused here because I'm not sure exactly which comments of mine you are referring to. If I had to guess, and I am guessing here, I think that you are referring to my post where I picked on the seven sentences that Christina posted, seven sentences that come from a different article than the one that Holden gave us the link to (Holden's post is the one that started this whole discussion.) Am I correct? If so, there is one thing that I need to point out: no one has made any posts that refer to those seven sentences as far as I can see. I have re-read all the posts made subsequent to Christina's post and my post where I picked apart those seven sentences, and as far as I can see, everyone else is referring to the article that Holden gave us the link to (the first article). I don't think that anyone has posted anything in referrence to those seven sentences from the truncated excerpt that Christina posted, except Christina and me. I stated up front that I didn't read all of that second article, and I stated my reasons for not doing so. I knew that by not reading the entire article, I'd be reading these seven sentences out of context and that I'd probably be missing out on other things vital to understanding his comments, something that you point out in your comments to me. ("The other poster did not include some of Corliss's surrounding sentences, which I feel are critical in setting the context." ) Again, I'm sort of confused. Do you mean Christina when you say "the other poster?" Based on what you say next, I think so, but I'm not 99 44/100 percent sure. (When we have four pages of posts in one thread, I find it helpful to be as specific as possible when referring to previous posts... )I agree that we should read the entire second article--and any article, actually-- before commenting on it, but rightly or wrongly, I chose not to do so, and chose to only focus on those seven sentences. Thank you for pointing out some things that we needed to know in order to understand his comments better; it is important to know that In Corliss's comparison with Hong Kong movies, he was bashing the sexism of mainstream American culture. -------------------------------------------- While you may be right Meena that some trend-setting comes from the LGBT community, I feel it is definitely true that mainstream American culture is macho and sexist, so I agree with Corliss's assessment unfortuantely. I was only using the examples of trendsetting that come from the LGBTTQQ community to set up my argument regarding his statement "to young American trend-setters, Bollywood brown is the new white ... bread." I was also trying to segue into my quote of Mr. Shapiro's critique of The Best of Bollywood CD. He mentions young American trend-setters, and I was trying to point out that sometimes the gay community realizes what's going to be a mainstream trend before mainstream America does. I was also trying to get Mr. Corliss' goat by showing that some Americans, and more specifically, some queer Americans, undertand what he cannot. At no time did I ever link together occassional trend-setting done by the LGBT community with mainstream American culture. Neither does Mr. Corliss in sentences six and seven. So, I am utterly confused by this statement "While you may be right Meena that some trend-setting comes from the LGBT community, I feel it is definitely true that mainstream American culture is macho and sexist, so I agree with Corliss's assessment unfortuantely." What Corliss statement are you referring to? I was referring to sentences six and seven: "And because, in Bollywood movies, people sing and dance like they mean it; and nothing can turn off a young male like a sentiment put to music. To young American trend-setters, Bollywood brown is the new white ... bread. " (Corliss) I was in no way trying to dispute the fact that mainstream American culture is macho and sexist. By the way, mainstream American culture is also heterosexist and sometimes misogynistic and racist and prejudiced, and the list goes on, does it not? Edited to say that I think that I'd better repost that part of my post, because I am totally confused about where the confusion arose. All of the following is part of one idea. All of this: quote: was in referrence to Sentences Six and Seven. I guess I wasn't clear enough. I think that what I'll do is subdivide this post up with visible markers so that it is clear what is referring to what, because in many places I do use several paragraphs to explain one particular item. The visible markers that I will use are the dashed lines ----. --------------------------------------------- Rather than paste those sentences here, I urge everyone to actually read the article (not just the Bollywood FAQs, but also another one he links to), because I feel there is a lot of bashing going on here based on out-of-context quotes. (I'm not saying that all criticism of Corliss's article is "bashing" ) I disagree; I don't think that the bashing that's going on is based on out-of-context quotes. I think that all the bashing that's been done, or tearing apart, or whatever it is you want to call what we are doing is based on our reading of the actual article that Holden wanted us to read. From what people are saying, I do think that everyone is taking the time to cut and paste the URL that Holden gave us and is reading that article before they make their comments. Some posters have stated quite clearly that they are making some initial comments and that they will make additional comments after reading the whole article again, etc. Maybe it is true that they are only using the quotes made here to make their statements, I don't know. But the only one that I can think off hand that did that was Christina, because she was shocked at the SRK/Stallone comparison, and she clearly stated that she was going to read the article in its entirety before making any other statements. And I don't blame her for doing so; when Rani is attacked, sometimes I write my instinctive gut reaction without taking the time to think things through...  Can you give specific examples of what you feel to be out-of-context quotes please, jfung? Edited to say that when quickly re-reading the posts on page 3 and 4 again, I do notice that we are quoting freely and loosely from one another, but we are doing this with one another's comments, not with Corliss' comments. --------------------------------------------- Corliss does actually condemn that in American movies, the lighter-skinned actors are favored as well. He by no means trains his ire in that regard only on Bollywood. I don't think that anyone ever said that he's trained his ire only on Bollywood, but then again, I'd need to read everyone's posts again, looking specifically for some poster that said that. --------------------------------------------- Also, I don't understand Christina's objection to Corliss's invitation for reader participation in coming up with lists. Why should columns be purely one-way? Invitation or a means of getting other people to do his research? Also, I thought that Christina already explained her objection--it seems like a homework assignment for us. I guess this is something for Christina to respond to... |
|
JKMerengue
Quote | Reply | This message was updated on 8/1/2003 2:26:29 AM by JKMerengue |
BollyWHAT mentioned :-)
replied on: 8/1/2003 2:22:46 AM Wow! Go away for a day or two...this must be the "hottest" thread on record! However I must add my two cents because the responses here have surprised me a bit. When I found Mr. Corliss' earlier articles on Bollywood a week or so ago, I was really excited. Especially his SIX page one:[http://www.time.com/time/sampler/printout/0,8816,459899,00.html] I was mainly thrilled by the sense of recogniton, of someone who's experiences seemed similar to mine. Meeting another Non-Indian, at least in print, who fell head over heels into the Bollywood Euphoria without knowing where the push came from or how hard it would hit us, was a thrill and a relief. He, like I did, jumped in with both feet, splashing around, exploring, wanting to see more and know more. I may be firmly in the camp of Aamir and Akshaye and he seems to be a die-hard SRK/Devdas fan, but I feel a kinship with him, and sense a really sincere response in his writings, and a desire to "get the word out" to a heretofore unresponsive Hollywood-biased public. What surprised me is that so few others here seem to feel the same. I do see, now that they are pointed out to me, many of the factual errors that the some of us are objecting to, and they should be corrected. But I get an overall sense of a perceived "malice of intent" or mockery of BW and it's many fans, on Mr. Corliss' part that I completely missed, if it is there at all. I think his love affair with BW is self-evident and that his only errors are those which any recent convert makes, jumping in and expressing his/her own enthusiasms before time and experience has a chance to catch up. But that's okay, right? We do it here all the time and no one trounces us. How many of us have had, and expressed, opinions prematurely that they cringe at reading years or even months later? Tastes change, viewpoints mature and develop...and Bollywood spawns both violent loves and hates in all of it's devotees. He hasn't set himself up as an authority on this genre of films, he's even asked for input and answers. We may not all agree at the forum, but up to this point I have never seen the members ream out someone so thoroughly, just because he writes for publication that has a nationwide readership...I sort of expected more. |
|
jfung79
Quote | Reply | This message was updated on 8/1/2003 5:00:07 AM by jfung79 |
ugly american
replied on: 8/1/2003 2:53:45 AM quote:Hmmm ... Interesting. My thoughts in response ... First, I think it's natural to compare something you didn't know about before to something you are more familiar with ... Second, Garcia Marquez is compared to Faulkner a lot, so your analogy of comparing to Hemingway only seems weird not because Hemingway is American, but because Hemingway had a different writing style entirely ... I am no literary expert but that seems to be what you are saying ... So I guess you are also saying that Bollywood is entirely different and separate from Hollywood ... However, from my newbie/novice perspective I wouldn't say that's really the case ... I've read that some plots are admittedly taken from Hollywood and "Indianized" ... Furthermore calling Hindi cinema "Bollywood" invites a comparison to Hollywood. Having said all that, I can see why you would be annoyed if Bollywood is *always* talked about only in comparison with Hollywood, and I would agree that that shouldn't be done. |
|
jfung79
Quote | Reply | This message was updated on 8/1/2003 3:28:42 AM by jfung79 |
BollyWHAT mentioned :-)
replied on: 8/1/2003 3:24:56 AM Meena, rather than respond to the points in your latest post, which I am admittedly also a little confused by (sorry!)... I think I'll paste more of what Corliss wrote after all, in that bit about Hong Kong movies, and see if the additional context helps. Hopefully that will clear up our mutual confusion. From the Corliss column: "Rahman's "Bombay Dreams," which I'll discuss in detail next week (or the week after), has a libretto by Meera Syal. She's the author and actress who, after her Brit-com "Goodness Gracious Me" became a cross-cultural hit, uttered the notorious dictum, "Brown is the new black" — meaning that, in pop culture, all things Anglo-Indian were suddenly as hip as all things African-American had been. That set me wondering (and, please, pardon the metaphorical crudity): In American cult culture, could brown be the new yellow? Specifically, could Bollywood films win over the trend-setters in video stores and on the Internet who for years had championed Hong Kong films? The two national cinemas have so much in common. They developed in regions long administered by the British but with their unique national twists. They are extreme forms of popular movies; they stretch, to the limit and beyond, narrative strategies developed in Hollywood. Like Hollywood films, they rely on a star system. Again as in Hollywood, these are commercial products, financed not by the state but by investors who expect a return on investment. Often, in both cinemas, those capitalists are gangsters. And often, the movies they finance are terrific. Now here's why Bollywood will not be the new Hong Kong. Because the average Indian film is nearly twice as long as the average Hong Kong film. Because Bollywood films imitate an unfashionable genre (the romantic melodrama) while Hong Kong movies imitate and apotheosize the American action film. Because Bollywood films are usually about reconciling family tensions — their deepest connections are domestically vertical rather than horizontal — whereas Hong Kong and contemporary Hollywood movies are about friends, enemies and lovers; the heroes in these might as well be orphans. Because Bollywood is essentially a feminine genre, while Hong Kong is macho; and guys rule! And because, in Bollywood movies, people sing and dance like they mean it; and nothing can turn off a young male like a sentiment put to music. To young American trend-setters, Bollywood brown is the new white ... bread. But, as we'll discuss further next week, that's a cramped, myopic view of a faaaaaaaabulous cinema — one that deserves an intelligent viewer's loyalty, fealty. Fever." |
|
MeenaKumari
Quote | Reply | This message was updated on 8/1/2003 4:05:15 AM by MeenaKumari |
BollyWHAT mentioned :-)
replied on: 8/1/2003 3:40:30 AM JK, It's good to hear your perspective, because you are coming from a place completely different than I am. This is not the first time I've read an article about Bollywood filled with mistakes, both factual and cultural, and I know it won't be the last. This is also not the first time that I've ripped into a critic. It's not the first time that people on the forum have critiqued a movie reviewer's review on Bollywood movies. Did you read my letter to Bay Times movie critic who critiqued KKHH in such a way that I felt the need to enlighten her? Wait a sec...did all that come up during the voyforum forum days? Yup, it did! Oh, boy. So you missed all that. Okay, here's what happened in a nutshell: the movie critic wrote a review of KKHH. In that review, she made a comment that was quite confusing, and I asked voyforum members if they could make heads or tails out of what she was trying to say. Many people offered their opinions, but nobody could figure out exactly what she was trying to say. Someone suggested that I write to her, asking her what she meant. I followed that person's suggestion, and sent an e-mail addressed to that person. I didn't receive any response but, much to my surprise, my e-mail to the critic and the critic's response was published in the paper's Letter to the Editor section. While I appreciated her response, I was very upset that my e-mail to the critic became a "Letter to the Editor" without my knowledge and I was upset by the fact that the paper did not follow their published policy regarding how "Letters to the Editor" are accepted and published. (There's a little more to this than what I am saying here, but I'd prefer to keep this in the closet, so to speak.) This set off a series of e-mails directly with the editor of the newspaper, and we eventually resolved the issue. I reported everything that happened to the forum--well, I can't remember if I reported every single detail, but I did type up my "Letter to the Editor" and the movie critic's responses to the questions that I/we posed to her. I don't remember exactly what I wrote to the critic, but I think that I did point out some of her factual and cultural mistakes in a gentle, non-threatening way. I think that after I posted her response on voyforum, we talked about her response, talking positively about what she wrote and also pointing out the errors in her logic, just as we are pointing out the parts of Mr. Corliss' articles that we do and don't like here. I think it would be fair to say that we are being nastier to Mr. Corliss than we were to that woman, but I can't remember what we said anymore, so I don't know if we "trounced" her or not. I don't think so, because it was clear from what she wrote initially and what she wrote in her response to me that her heart was in the right place, and that her errors were due to her total(?) lack of exposure to Indian culture prior to seeing KKHH. What is shocking to me about Mr. Corliss' FAQs is the fact that although Mr. Corliss has seen so many Bollywood films, both new and old, he hasn't picked up basic facts about Indian culture. I could understand his gaffes if he were seeing his very first Indian film, or if he'd only two or three Indian films, but in the 9 paged article that I picked apart, he gives the title to some 36 different Indian films, and writes about them in such a way that it seems that he has seen all of them from begining to end. (There was that theatre critic who wrote a glowing review to a play that was cancelled...) I am not critiquing him because he writes for a publication that has national readership. I am criticizing him because he is like so many other non-enlightened movie critics that write about a Bollywood/Indian movie in such a way that it is clear that they have very little understanding of India and Indian culture. Unlike you, I have not read all of Mr. Corliss' articles on Bollywood. (By the way, how many articles on Bollywood *has* he written? It sounds like quite a few, and he *still* does not know the answers to the questions that he has posed in his FAQ article??) I have only read and printed out the article that Holden gave us the URL for, and the excerpt that Christina posted. I did not read the entire article that Christina gave the URL for and I did not follow Mr. Corliss' links to his other articles because I didn't care to read anything more from him at that time. I don't know that I will end up reading his articles on Bollywood on time.com because I have read his comments in Time magazine for so long now that based on what I've read previously, I don't see someone who is asking these questions genuinely, with his heart in the right place. From what I've read of Mr. Corliss' work, I don't see a man who senses the need to enlighten himself about the culture that he's critiquing through that culture's films. |
|
MeenaKumari
Quote | Reply | This message was updated on 8/1/2003 4:17:53 AM by MeenaKumari |
BollyWHAT mentioned :-)
replied on: 8/1/2003 4:15:49 AM jfung, I read what you wrote and at this point my brain is not functioning well enough to make heads or tails out of our confusion. (For the last two nights in a row, I pulled all nighters, and right now it is 1:13 A.M.) So, let me get a good night's sleep and try to figure all this out later. Or, maybe we can agree that we are both confused and live with that and move on? (In other words, let my post to you on page 4-- and perhaps even our last series of confused posts to each other--die a noble death... ::bowing my head respectfully towards you, and showing respect to our mutual confusion:: ) |
|
jfung79
Quote | Reply | |
BollyWHAT mentioned :-)
replied on: 8/1/2003 5:19:29 AM Meena, I hope you're getting some rest! I'm fine with either continuing or letting the confused exchange die a "noble death". Guess I'll see what you decide tomorrow when you do or don't respond.Regardless, your posts have been quite enlightening as to how Corliss's column has been culturally insensitive/under-informed/mis-informed. quote: |
|
BrianBkyn
Quote | Reply | |
BollyWHAT mentioned :-)
replied on: 8/1/2003 6:16:10 AM "When I found Mr. Corliss' earlier articles on Bollywood a week or so ago, I was really excited" I am with you on this one - I think people here are missing the forest for the trees. So there are some factual errors, so some of his opinions are bothersome - I look at the article and think will readers who are not familiar with Bollywood be more likely to want to see one now or not - and I come out heavily on the side of people wanting to see them. The important thing that he brings to his article is an enthusiasm for the films that is in neon lights and no matter what people here think of Corliss (I happen to love his writing style) he is a very respected and well-known film critic and he is listened to by many - and how many famous film critics have even noted that Bollywood exists - so lets get some perspective on this. Thems my thoughts anyway! |
|
*kat
Quote | Reply | This message was updated on 8/1/2003 10:25:24 AM by *kat |
BollyWHAT mentioned :-)
replied on: 8/1/2003 10:15:47 AM quote: Thankyou, and to Christina also for appreciating my wording! I think everyone has made some excellent points, and I'm not going to start repeating here. I just want to defend us a bit as we seem to have made JKMerengue and Brian Bkyn think we are all small minded pedants! The thing is, and I'm sure everyone has noticed that with few exceptions everyone on Bollywhat is very polite and supportive of newcomers will little knowledge of BW. We do not rip people to pieces for misunderstanding etc!! In this case it is rather different as the person in question is different. Quite aside from the implicit bigotry, sexism, heterosexism et al (see my last post) his innacuracies cannot be excused as quote: This is because he is a film critic and a journalist! Journalists the world over have to write on subjects they initially know nothing about every day! They just have to research thoroughly and accurately. Therefore Corliss, with his errors, mispellings, and misrepresentations, is not only inaccurate but unprofessional! The difference is, newcomers to Bollywhat are coming because they want to discuss, learn, and understand. Corliss in contrast paints himself as a self-made 'authority' enlightening BW 'novices'. This is why we feel able to criticise him. He also seems fairly robust in his opinions so I doubt we are going to hurt his feelings! It's also a case of defending what you love, we love BW, and want to see a more sympathetic and less patronising and pompous portrayal of it to the world. And please know I am not attacking you guys, just explaining why I and I think the rest of us (not really wanting to put words in people's mouths here so weigh in if you agree with me) have felt the need to vent about this. I don't want you thinking I am small minded and pedantic!
|
|
JKMerengue
Quote | Reply | |
BollyWHAT mentioned :-)
replied on: 8/1/2003 12:25:47 PM quote: Oh, of course I don't think that, Kat... I have found this forum and all its members very thought-provoking and tolerant of all kinds of diverse opinions. That's why I was so unsettled when I read the compiled 4 pages of posts last night (at 1 am! maybe that was coloring my reaction). I was completely floored at the wave of negative opinion engulfing his article, when I had read it completely the opposite way. You have obviously read many more of his articles than I have, and formed your opinion on a wider number of exposures. I've read some, but am not a regular reader. I won't contradict or even try to change your opinion of his intent, and I do find that this "Top 10" column was a bit more "flip" in tone than the earlier article that had so caught me up and impressed me. I just wanted it to be seen that there WAS another way the articles could be perceived, so that this forum remains as "equal opportunity" as it always has. I'm sure we'll be getting a lot more new readers!!! PS. Meena, your posts are always thourough and well thought out. I always enjoy reading them. They always teach me a lot. Keep them coming! I wouldn't want you to think they go unappreciated even when we see things in a different way. :-) |
|
rahel
Quote | Reply | |
BollyWHAT mentioned :-) - Shadeism
replied on: 8/1/2003 12:34:28 PM Meredith - I agree with the theory in general (re: fairer skin being associated with less work etc.) but I think you should layer on to that analysis the whole issue of caste which is related but goes deeper. Lighter skinned people are on first blush thought to be higher caste. I've heard this expressed many times, very bluntly by Indians. Although probably based on an inaccurate translation there is the perception out there that varna=colour as in skin colour... I know that James Nigh went to some length to explain why this is inaccurate - but perception counts for a great deal. Also wanted to note that while not derived from colonialism, I think the colonial period did not help and probably exacerbated the Shadeism that already existed (not to mention the caste-ism) |
|
MeenaKumari
Quote | Reply | |
further comments
replied on: 8/1/2003 1:04:17 PM There are additional reasons why I am criticizing Robert Corliss' FAQ article. (I am making a new post instead of editing the old post because the other post is rather long.) I am not criticizing Mr. Corliss because he writes for a nationally seen publication but because he is an established film critic/journalist who has not done his homework. Brian says, "he is a very respected and well-known film critic and he is listened to by many." Correct. And as such, I shouldn't have found so many things to criticize. I have criticized other articles about Bollywood and Indian movies before, both here and with friends, but never have I found *one* article with so many problems. Generally speaking, if I find a fault with what a movie critic has written about Bollywood, Indian cinema, or India in general in their article, usually there aren't very many things to criticize. Usually, I might find one or two things to pick on, things that might be factual errors or the general overall tone of the article or whatever. The fact that I found over 20 things to criticize in Mr. Corliss' FAQs is astounding. I didn't set out to find a set number of things to criticize. I just started at the top of FAQ article and worked my way to the end, making my observations as I went along. I didn't expect to find so many things to write about. I wasn't trying to hammer him on every point. But why was I able to find so many things to criticize? This shouldn't be the case with a movie critic with his credentials and CV. Oh, some of these article that I have read are as long or longer than Mr. Corliss' FAQs; just thought that I'd better mention that, in case someone thinks that the length of his article might be a reason/excuse for having so many errors. Earlier, I said that I wasn't going to send him an e-mail. Well, there *is* one thing in his article that bugs me enough to e-mail him a correction--I want him to know that jism in Hindi means body, not semen. I really resent the tone of his "gotcha!" comment about Jism at the end of his FAQ article, especially considering the fact that he's got the wrong definition of jism and the fact that he is spreading this wrong definition to countless of other people. Let me extend that by saying that all his errors are compounded by the fact that these errors are being accepted and internalized by countless readers, readers who may not realize that he doesn't take the time to get to know the cultures that he critiques in his movie reviews. Remember, I have read Mr. Corliss' work for almost 20 years, so I'm thinking of several different cultures when I make that criticism of his journalistic style (the criticism that he doesn't take the time to get to know cultures other than his own). Mr. Corliss *is* an established and credentialed film critic and journalist. As such, one should not be surprised if people take issue with his (error filled) FAQs article. |
|
MeenaKumari
Quote | Reply | |
BollyWHAT mentioned :-)
replied on: 8/1/2003 1:45:23 PM Hmmm. I wrote my previous post before jk's second post went up and before rahel's post went up. (The last post that I saw when I started writing my post was kat's.) Considering what JK writes in her second post, maybe I should tone down what I said? I'll think about that and consider how I can change that post... Yeah, JK, I agree-what we've written here can be overwhelming, especially if all four pages are read in one sitting. Also, your point that his tone in other articles is different is helpful. For example, the article that jfung posts that compares Hong Kong cinema with Bollywood cinema has a significantly different tone that his FAQs article, in my opinion. |
|
LinkBot
|
Gamers Wanted is looking for people to write game reviews and post news, |
|
|
| Tired of seeing ads? Click here to upgrade to Elite Membership! |
ChatArea.com Help & News Forums | Terms of Use | Contact ChatArea.com | Advertising
Powered By ChatArea.com - Get your free Society today! © Copyright 2003 Wewp!