RE : Paul Ramaeker, discussion of Film ratios and film NBKILLERS
    I must say, from your patient and thoughtful responses concerning film
technology [which I agree with], and your accurate, yet distasteful,
opinion of Stones "Killers" as MTV for kids, I would guess that  your a
person with a few years behind him, and loads of perspective.
 
    To move away from film resoluton to film-making, I was really
intrigued by "Killers" because it seemed to violate every intuitive rule
one would employ in story-telling.  Perhaps that is part of the point,
and not just a cheap trick.  Slo mo bullets with cartoon snd fx killing
off innocent people ?  Dangerfields brutal parody of *I love Lucy* as
as a sexually abusive father ?  Twisted stuff, yeah.
 I came away with the same response {it's a 2 hr MTV feature} with a
different conclusion.  Generation NEXT will process information
differently.  Maybe they WILL be able to plug in more directly to the brain
and use a whole different set of symbols than we do. [isn't that already
happening ?] It will be esoteric, existential --- and very lonely.
 
This film by-passes the"normal" cinematic syntax that we are used to
because there is something that is quicker [ if not "Better"] than
discursive reasoning.
 
Why do Micki and Mallory do what they do ? Because they do what they do,
and for no other reason.  Who could figure out who they would kill or not
kill ?  There was no "why", there was only "what".  There is no knowing.
If you have to ask, then you don't know.  There is no truth to
communicate, there is only the life that you live, and I think Tim Leary
could shed some light on what Stones world looks like, [along with Frued
and Rod Serling.] How do  you communicate that world ?  Not by reason.
 
  I think there is something new afoot here.  It's an indicator, a
breakthrough
... or a breakdown ! The film to me was a morbid spectacle, like a gruesome
car accident that everyone has to slow down and look at, and I was
wondering if that was stones point [ HE had one, I assume] : Life has
become an out of control spectacle, with nothing but images, sounds and
senseless actions that have deadened our response even to brutal death.
The bit I liked the least were the inclusions at the end, of the OJ trial,
and I forget what else, I think Tanya, or Bobbitt or something : "If you
didn't get what I was saying, HERE IT IS !!!", was how I took it.
 
   Joseph Cotten once remarked that he thought CITIZEN KANE was "sort of
a trick film", and that the MAGNIFICENT AMBERCROMIES was a better STORY.
Maybe KILLERS is a trick film in that same sense : Long on "Technique"
[ if you'll excuse the way I employ it here] and short on story. ]. But
we'll  see these moves more and more now that someone did it "first."
 
If Stones movie is accepted in the long run, I think we'll also see a major
difference in the way movies are *concieved*, for better or worse.
Certainly, it [NBK] will be nominated for Oscars, as KANE was, and we may
be on the brink of a wave of REALLY existential films. [Didn't Copppla try
that with KOYANNISQUATSI ?}
I apologize that this is so long. I had no idea I'd do this. I've been
silent about this film since I've seen it. I'd like to know what others
think.    --     pb, Seattle, WA.