This may seem like ancient history to all you Screen-Lers but allow me to set the record straight pertaining to a posting from May of this year. Mikel Koven warned this newsgroup off of my Internet Cannes coverage citing as proof of my incompetence an article published six years ago. He thoroughly misrepresented my words and, worse, ascribed to me an empty-headedness that perhaps only he could relate to. This is his posting as taken from the SCREEN-L archives, Wed. 17 May 1995: Warning: Denis Seguin is not exactly the most "reliable" source for information regarding Cannes. I know Seguin's work through the Toronto publication (now defunct) Metropolis, and as a film journalist he leaves much to be desired. Two cases in point: 1. In a full page review of Susan Seidelman's *She Devil*, Seguin admits to walking out of the film halfway through, in the first paragraph. He then goes on for more than three cols of type on a film which, by virtue of the fact that he left before the end, he is not qualified to adjudicate. 2. In an interview with director Denys Arcand (a man quite devoted to keeping Quebecois culture alive), Seguin opens his interview with: "I have a French name, but I don't speak French. That's pretty funny, eh?" Arcand replied that it was Seguin's loss that he could not speak French (presumably spoken in Arcand's perfect English). Apart from the insulting nature of Seguin's comment, much like saying to Spike Lee, "you are the first African-American I've met that didn't own a gun," he actually printed it, complete with Arcand's biting retort (which Seguin was seemingly unaware of its tone). I'm not trying to do a character assassination on Mr. Seguin (honestly, I've met him and he seems like a nice enough guy), but just warning an academic audience that Seguin's observations on Cannes are likely to be as informative as Rex Reed's. But, as they say, is only my opinion. Mikel Koven Where to begin? There is a delicious irony in Koven's reference to me as "not exactly the most *reliable* source" when it is he who is entirely unreliable and indeed irresponsible in relying solely upon his flawed memory to bolster his claim. The interview with Arcand was published in the 31 Aug. 1989 issue of Metropolis, a defunct (Koven got that much right) Toronto weekly. This is how it actually begins: "You must forgive me. I have a French name but I cannot speak French." "You are already forgiven," says Denys Arcand. A good start, since we are about to discuss his new film, Jesus of Montreal, soon to be a gala presentation at the Festival of Festivals. If Arcand is feeling a touch beatific, indulge him. It seems that Fate or God has destined his film to be... Regardless of the quality of the material it bears no resemblance in word or tone to Koven's version. Koven proceeds to double his folly -- extrapolating from his mistake to presume that Arcand was offended -- and then draws an absurd parallel between this fictional exchange and a hypothetical exchange with Spike Lee. I should point out that Koven's parallel (worthless because it has no basis in fact) stimulated a Screen-L exchange between Ulf Dalhquist in Sweden and Lee Parpart in Toronto on whether this fictional Arcand-Seguin exchange -- complete with "biting retort" -- was indicative of the relationship between Anglo-Canada and Quebec. When I begged Arcand's forgiveness for my insufficiencies in French I was aluding to the guilt I feel as a thoroughly Anglicized Seguin, a guilt shared by many Canadians of French descent who grew up outside of Quebec and are not fluent in French. Arcand's response -- "you are already forgiven" -- struck me as an appropriate starting point for an article about a film which takes as its basis the Passion of Christ. I also hasten to add that, in 1989, Arcand's English was not "perfect" as Koven supposes; although it is now much improved. As for my review of She-Devil, I wrote it on the basis of 60 minutes viewing -- time enough to get the lay of the land or, if you prefer, qualify to adjudicate. I did not mention my departure in the first paragraph as Koven says but did so only after boring (that was the intent) the reader with the inanities of the film's first hour. (I know that crappy film is a favourite amongst "fabulist" scholars but that's not my problem). Elsewhere in the newsgroup, Koven points to Toronto's John Harkness as an example of a good critic; he might be interested to know that Harkness is famous for both abandoning films and announcing the fact in his reviews. Indeed, you might say I learned the trick from Harkness. Koven rounds up his posting by explaining that "character assassination on Mr. Seguin" is not his intention when in fact his criticism is entirely ad hominem. That patronizing bit about Koven's having met me is particularly galling (note to Mike: I don't remember you -- honestly). The capper is his warning that my observations re: Cannes would for "an academic audience" be as informative as those of Rex Reed. This is pure hubris. Academic audiences have one thing in common: a stringent regard for the facts. Koven has no such regard. I do thank him, though, for reminding me of the Arcand interrview: it was my first-ever cover story and it's quite good. Pity Koven didn't read it. ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]