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]