1. I finally saw LEAVING LAS VEGAS and found it to be notably unimpressive--aesthetically, intellectually, and emotionally. Is it the film's "bankruptcy" on these registers that's supposed to make it valuable? If that's the assumption, I'll stick with CASINO anyday. It's not the raving acclaim being heaped heaped on LLV from the industry/press that has me confused, since I'm not at all surprised that a film like this would commission such a response. Rather, it's the enthusiastic response of many of MY FRIENDS that has me baffled! Can anyone shed some light on this? 2. Speaking of CASINO, I think that Gloria Monti's question--Why is Sharon Stone an "actress," whereas Joan Allen is a "supporting actress?"--is much more important than it may initially seem. Perhaps this answer is already implied in her question, but I'll articulate it anyway: because Joan Allen's performance, while technically unimpeachable, is based on a REAL HISTORICAL FIGURE. In other words, Allen had a clearly defined "direction" in attacking the role--documents to go to, etc. Thus, Stone's work, which is far from "technical," is taken as being somehow more creative in its "perceptiveness." I also think it's significant that the Queen of Technical Perfection--The Lady Streep--was also nominated for best actress this year, and for playing a "fictitious" character to boot. Of course, this logic is questionable. But, by some standards, it's also very, very solid. And personally, I'm quite happy with the outcome in this case. I immensely enjoyed watching Stone kick up some dust. ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]