Wild and Woolly

johnrubio, well - shut my typing hand. I got a little carried away for someone who didn't read the whole article last week. Thank you for the information I so sorely needed. The truth is, I read l'enfant sauvage the Shepherd's notes on 'L'Enfant Sauvage' then lost track of the sole copy of the Reader I had. Guess I'd better head over to Reader headquaters and get my head straight on the matter. And I didn't mean to suggest that my comments don't bore too. Internet tappings are almost all dispensable. Even the Weblogs by real writers like David Mamet tend to bore me. Now that I'm no longer ignorant on that fact Shepherd does -or at least has once- took a look at this stuff, I feel silly myself now. And I feel very unenlightened that I waste my time reading this and getting worked up about things like the Michael Moore issue (of truth, journalistic integrity, manipulation of the audience, whatever). Who really cares? Either you go for what he represents, or ya whine about it. And I'm ashamed I get bored so easily, with all the interesting happenings in the world I could get involved in... Blank generationalist, no-hoper, till the end, I suppose. Why aren't we all be ashamed at this boredom that drives us Online to virually "discuss", rather than live with a communication of some consequence? Eric Hoffer: "When people are bored, it is primarily with their own selves that they are bored." James Branch Cabell: "Poetry is man's rebellion against being what he is." So let's all strive to live poétiquement (he sniveled)! And while I'm at it, here's my #1 bete noir with the current Reader website: you can no longer search for Duncan Shepherd capsule reviews by year, can you? Not, at least, in order -alphabetical or otherwise. I always liked that feature...to be able to search by decade: 1970's, by year: 1987, for example. Life belongs to the living, and he who lives must be prepared for changes. I'm dieing here, folks (rimshot, muffled crash). If my mental bumbershoot caused any kerfuffles lately, I appologize. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmCpOKtN8ME
— February 4, 2009 5:04 p.m.

Wild and Woolly

johnrubio, are you lumping my humble offerings with the "toilet paper" you speak of here? I was being half-serious, in fact, I think we may have met at one of those museums..hhmm? joshb - track back to: http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2008/dec/30/fa… I just found it, forgot that I challenged you about Moore. You said "Okay Alias...let me first ask you this. Have you not Googled the Michael Moore "lies"?". My answer: I don't know what you're refering to. Do you believe those are credible? I'll give you the benifit of not thinking you believe everything you read online...why waste my time with someone who states catagorically that " As if Cuba really has a better health care system than us.". ..per capita, obviously they have a fairer, better system for health care. Still have NO idea what you're refering to with this Shepherd-responded-to-us business. If it's not an ersatz-D.S., I think you need to give me better directions to find this: I have Never read a Duncan response online to single posters, and I highly doubt he'd do that. My initial and second take on you guys is you're full of bannana oil, are two sides of the same silly coin: the pretentious side, and the hoi polli side. Moreover, I doubt Duncan Shepherd even wastes time reading these Internet babblings. If I were he, I wouldn't (even the idol-worshippers bore).
— February 3, 2009 3:36 p.m.

Wild and Woolly

JoshB sez<..."not one unkind word for mr. shephard? he spent a lot of time regarding OUR debate, instead of reviewing a film with that space."> Out of morbid curiosity, can you tell me where one can find this "OUR debate" - at which part of the site "Shephard"'s "regard" of the "debate" can be found? In the spirit of free speakin', I support your rights (or rickeysays's) to dig your own grave(s) with words. Just don't come round my parts itchin' fur a fight. You gonna get your head handed back to you then. To johnrubio, hello, you sound like someone I must have bumped into at the MoCA or MoPA. Did we once share a fine fourme de Rochefort with a Chateau Lafite Rothschild Pauillac, 1957 ? Seriously, we turned on to Shepherd at about the same time, so we ought to know more about one another. Maybe have tea sometime ... perhaps go beret shopping?
— February 1, 2009 12:47 p.m.

Wild and Woolly

Far better than Bertolucci’s 'The Dreamers' would be to steer film lovers to the recent movie that Louis Garrel's father (Philippe) made about Paris '68: 'Les Amants réguliers' (Regular Lovers) --available on decent DVD (a real rarity for the video-loathing Garrel). That's the kind of comparison that seperates the adults from the kiddies.... I think Sally "Hawkins’s excessive display of emotion at the Golden Globe podium" was a drop in the bucket compared to Kate Winslet's...now- how do you explain that experienced actress wailing away at winning her two awards? Was she so grateful about her roles in those films? I really don't know.
— January 28, 2009 5:32 p.m.

Favorite Few

<"To Josh B....and some of Michael Moore's lies would be..." mike1>> <<joshb replied: "Are you joking? Google and find them yourself...I've debated this topic too many times and it bores me. ">> Yeah, well, here's a second person who would like to know what "lies" you're talkin' about! For such a prolific poster, surely you can give us newbees the gist of your presumed insight. And I mean more than a small subjective police harassing/or/helping argument. I wasn't there, though it's certainly wrong to call him a "liar" based on that (!), at least not until you know from his perspective where he's coming from. I've wasted many minutes with people who whine about "Michael Moore's lies", and have come to the conclusion they all have one thing in common: they have all made their decision -Moore is a "liar" and that's all there is to it. Argument not begun. Mind closed. I too am bored with this kind of talk -- but would like to think I'm not so careless in my speech and writing as to groundlessly proclaim an individual a liar (without the evidence to back up such a claim, one sounds like a witless bore indeed). I'm not a knee-jerk Party Member in any way, so it's not as though I agree with Moore all of the time. Yet, a Reasonable Man must conclude that the general swing of Moore's rhetoric is truth, not personal invention.
— January 18, 2009 4:12 p.m.

The Comeback Clint

It's probably wisest if I wait till I see them, before I comment on this weeks new S.D. releases..even though it's almost impossible for me to restrain my impulse to say it -- 'Gran Torino' is a movie that I have been waiting for longer than any other this past year, and I had a distinct sense a few months ago, that it would be better than the doomed-sounding 'Changeling'. It should be noted that both are written by inexperienced first-time screenwriters, whose careers are so far dominated by TV hackwork...even so. Even so, I felt pretty darn sure that this would be the interesting work, 'Changeling' the lumbering Prestige work. Gosh I hope you're right about this new Eastwood being a good'n, Duncan Shepherd; and Scott Marks is wrong (he who had the audacity to pan 'Gran Torino' based on the Screener that came in his mail). The world needs more critics of true integrity like Mr. Shepherd, and not only about the filmic (about every thing under the d--ned sun). And the world certainly needs more people like Shepherd's lamented mentor too, who understood that criticism was not a tearing-down of the creative world, but in fact an act of love upon it. At least when done properly! Alright, my kissup session to two of the last real film critics, it's over and out. One more thing: I'm still trying to find out if the Landmark "Midnight Madness" films are all on 35mm, and almost as important - if Walter Hill's great 'The Warriors' will be shown in it's original breezy cut, or the "fixed" version that impairs the editing rhythm with extraneous cartoon-transistion title cards, and curtails the ending shot.
— January 7, 2009 5:05 p.m.

Favorite Few

Very happy with this list, almost could not be better. Except for the little matter of my thinking 'Roman de Gare' was superior to Mike Leigh's latest triumph. Both Lelough and Leigh ought to be jointly commended for never having made a bad movie. Something you can say of only a couple other directors. And Clint's "bounce-back" 'Gran Torino' -I'd love to know just how high he bounces back after the lethargic 'Changeling'!? As high as Poppy can bounce? Unfortunately, I can only tell with the rest of the San Diego mob when it opens Friday. The Reader promo last week didn't e-mail me back with free ticket information for the tuesday sceening.
— January 2, 2009 4:27 p.m.