On Fri, 21 Oct 1994, Shawn Levy wrote:
> To the list as a whole: I apologize for one final missive from me in
> this petulant flame war. I have e-mailed Murray in response to his
> e-mail to me earlier today, and I have no intention of carrying this
> any further than this final message, but I just don't feel like
> letting some of his points to the whole list go unchallenged. So this
> one message, then I let him 'win' with my silence. I appreciate your
> On Fri, 21 Oct 1994, Murray Pomerance wrote:
> > Truffaut, who didn't finish highschool in *Paris* in the 1950s was not in
> > the same position as someone, say, who doesn't finish highschool today in
> > New York City. He was, when he made Les Quatre cent coups, an alumnus of
> > several years' standing from Les Cahiers du Cinema, where he had studied
> > at the side of Bazin and in the company of Godard and Scherer. Give me
> > that to any highschool you can name. His competence in literacy is
> > undisputed (as you know, many of his films are testimonies to his own
> > studies in literacy of various kinds: see the bookburning in Fahrenheit
> > for just one example). And surely you do not put PF in the boat with 400B?
> Well, yes: I do. But that's my problem. See, I don't think that MY
> taste can be somehow VERIFIED with an appeal to an outside authority.
> How, for instance, would you differentiate being an "alumnus" of
> "Cahiers" from being a movie-obssessed video store clerk, Tarantino's
> most famous occupation? Don't you think the young Truffaut would've done
> the exact same work if he could've? I wrote what I did about
> Truffaut's schooling because earlier somebody had tried to point out that
> Welles, et. al., were somehow more qualified to be thought of as important
> because their backgrounds were "less narrow." Well, narrow is as narrow
> does, and my definition of narrow would include eliminating or including
> people from an aesthetic canon because of their exposure to some
> predetermined set of great works.
> > Michael Crichton was an MD--still is--as was--and is--Jonathan
> > Miller. There's a contrast! Crichton's WESTWORLD doesn't belong in the
> > festival with 400 Blows, sorry.
> Here's where we begin to get to the root of the problem. You seem not to
> be able to follow what you're reading. I said that Crichton was an
> example of an educated director who produced shit, trying to refute the
> argument that it was the well-rounded directors who produced the best work.
> Now you tell me Crichton's movies aren't as good as Truffaut's and
> apologize! It's obvious we don't share an aesthetic, but don't we share
> a language?
> > I don't mean to be affronting here.
> > But I really would like to hear
> > what you have to say about a film I know and care about (along with many
> > other people), like, for instance, Kane, before I commit to reading what
> > you have to say about Pulp Fiction.
> Ooooooh! Well, why didn't you say so to begin with! Let me get this
> straight: I'm allowed to talk about a subject of interest to me (and
> many other people) so long as I FIRST pass a kind of litmus test of your
> devising, namely speaking in terms you'd admire about "Kane"! Well,
> silly me. I thought it was SCREEN-L, not SCREEN-M!
> > This is *not* because I'm
> > ostracizing Pulp Fiction. Indeed, I'm reserving
> > judgment, a process made
> > exceptionally difficult by the kind of verbal meandering that's going on
> > on these screens.
> Frankly, I don't care what you think of "PF," but I'm not going to be
> bullied into silence by some censorious bunch of hogwash about what's
> GREAT, what's a LEGITIMATE SUBJECT, what films I have to talk
> 'intelligently' about, or any of the other arguments you seem to be
> As for verbal meandering (a nice way to follow up on your earlier comment
> about not "affronting" [sic], by the by), give me a long, slow, wet,
> passionate break. Originally, I wrote about the ending of "Pulp Fiction" in
> precise terms having to do with the content of the film and specific images,
> words and edits in specific response to an earlier post. You took this
> as an occasion to belittle my taste for not being as canonized as yours,
> offering nothing but what you thought was wit as your basis of argument.
> And speaking of meandering: Get enough sense to cut someone's .sig before you
> respond to their mail....
> |"I'm a multi-faceted, talented, wealthy,
> Shawn Levy | internationally famous genius. I have an
> [log in to unmask] | IQ of over 190. People don't like that."
> | -- Jerry Lewis
I honestly did not mean to affront. I'm sorry you took it that way. I
was making, at the beginning, what I thought was a honest comment on a
discussion I was reading. Sorry to have barged in.