I was fortunate for a time to have a a film critic as a friend and was therefore
able to get into some pre-opening night screenings in New York.  These were
really interesting for the most part because they let you approach the film with
virtually no preconceptions.  Obviously there was "buzz" to contend with, but at
least you didn't go in with the plot memorized and with a mental crib sheet
firmly in place as to what the major reviewers thought.  Also, these events gave
you an unvarnished look at how the attendees also reacted.  I saw Heaven's Gate
this way, the pre-pre-restored long version, and I must say that the
intermission, at which the champagne flowed freely, was fascinating: all these
semi-bigwigs walking around not knowing whether to trust the "buzz" or their own
instincts  (as the old saying goes "who are you gonna believe, me or your own
eyes?").   I myself loved the Deer Hunter (if I'm not mistaken Tony Williams and
I corresponded on this in the sixties newsgroup?) and I had the same ambivalent
reaction myself--"hmmm, Christopher Walken wearing a ton of makeup in the old
West, maybe this is somehow significant?"
 
Anyway, just for the record, I saw 1941 this way, too, at a pre-opening night
screening.  And my reaction was much the same.  Initial excitement, anxiety and
confusion as the film unfolded and a final determination by the end that it was
indeed a disaster.
 
At the time I chalked it up to a feeling that comedy is simply ill-served by a
big budget approach.  While I still think there's some truth to that, it strikes
me now that it was more the case that Spielberg himself just has a limited
comdedic sense.
 
BTW, I wonder if anyone has thoughts on the process of seeing a movie without
preconceptions or, vice versa, the extent to which buzz and criticism have
created their own realities.
 
Jeff Apfel
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]