Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
David Elliott's Final Column
Regarding the media machinery and what it means in terms of sequels and hits: I just hate to see "Star Wars" and "Jaws" constantly getting clobbered as if they are to blame for the way movie culture developed. This seems extremely myopic, as if there was not a whole world of forces affecting things outside of filmdom. At the same time those movies became big, suburbanization was finally coming into full bloom in America. Large malls were being built. Fast-food was turning from a treat into a habit. The full power of math, science and engineering were being applied to all levels of business and marketing, so products could be streamlined and delivered to consumers with max efficiency. Demographically the U.S. was hitting a critical mass, where millions of Boomer children were now having their own children, and that meant an exponential increase in profitability of products aimed at the young. You must know all this, but still, you highlight "Star Wars" and it comes across as though if George Lucas had instead chosen to make ensemble chamber dramas, then today the local mall might be showing Ingmar Bergman retrospectives instead of "Battleship." Regarding digital film, if we (or "we," the Royal) are losing something cherished, I don't know what exactly "it" is, and I think you could have defined "it" better. "Something cherished" is a passive-voice term: "Well, I know it's something, and I cherish it." I wonder if, in your laments, you (or anyone) can fully distinguish between an objective cultural loss and a more personal loss based on one's age and its attendant nostalgia. I also feel your comments lack perspective: Yes, young people might miss out on the thrill of discovering a grainy cinematic dreamworld in a single-screen theater somewhere, but young people today are missing out on a great many other things, such as the possibility of getting good jobs, or of knowing whether the world they and their own children mature into is going to be able to sustain human life. I think the less-magic, cheap-facsimile cinematic experiences they'll be having are the least of their concerns. And can anybody really say that pre-digital analog/film art hasn't been thoroughly played out? Isn't it time for a sea change? Resisting change is what makes old people act like old people. Instead of embracing new visual approaches and types of storytelling, old people line up to see the millionth rendition of "As You Like It" or some Neil Simon play in Balboa Park, only edging toward the movie theater when Judi Dench turns up in a cute flick about a hotel in India. But don't mess with their frames-per-second count! They'll cane your ass.— June 18, 2012 4:59 a.m.
David Elliott's Final Column
Thank you for the gracious response, and, I guess, the enema as well. A few quick comments: I don't think expecting a professional reviewer not to reveal plot twists makes a person a "baby." (I can see if the reviewer is doing an analysis that would not be possible otherwise, but to just belt out a detail that is intended as a surprise element is not good form, in my opinion.) I don't blame you for wanting to get in a dig at me, though, so "baby" I am. Waaaah. Regarding political opinions, I agree it is not a film reviewer's duty to preach political opinions, but I think you're creating a false dichotomy here. What I really meant is that I felt like you were holding back from revealing any political viewpoint whatsoever. My guess was that writing for the Union-Tribune, a neo-conservative newspaper at its highest levels, had something to do with that. I am not singling you out here; I get that feeling from most U-T writers, as if they fear for their jobs if they dare to speak their minds (I wonder where I might have gotten that idea?), especially on subjects for which the newspaper's owners' views are clear. It does strike me as very, very sad that professional writers would have to hold back opinions about issues as obviously humanist and crucially important as torture, war, and pollution, and yet that is the state of the media landscape today. You're reviewing an art form that reflects reality, but even when giving an opinion of the art, you have to withhold your opinion of reality? That's.....odd. Regarding my "spitballs" about particular films, those are a few that came to mind. I am not holding grudges, they just served as examples of the ways in which your views seemed unsupported or disconnected. Hey, I don't agree with a lot of Pauline Kael's opinions either (or Roger Ebert, or Manohla Dargis, or whoever) -- but usually I get a sense of where and why our opinions diverged. I didn't get that much from you, and even though I am very late to the party, it's not as if I would have been a welcome guest at the earlier party, let alone taken seriously as a mingler.— June 18, 2012 4:58 a.m.
David Elliott's Final Column
The man who preaches "proper manners" and "proper conversation" also feels free saying "you need to grow up." Hilarious.— June 16, 2012 10:12 a.m.
David Elliott's Final Column
Sorry but I guess the discussion is forced to end before it even got started. You're being booted from The Reader and now we're left with a guy who foolishly and emptily calls Audrey Hepburn a "coat hanger," Orson Welles a "red baiter." In spite of my disagreement with your approach, you had the brains and the writing chops to offer a distinct voice to the San Diego critical landscape. With your departure there is very little left.— June 15, 2012 10:42 p.m.
David Elliott's Final Column
Your review of "Prometheus" consists of a laundry list of references to other works from with the film may draw ("Forbidden Planet" is one of many stretches), followed by the laundry list of characters/actors, complete with spoilers (Theron's relation to the old man is not revealed till the end of the film; why do you need to reveal this in order to evaluate the film's merit?). You'd think a seasoned reviewer would be able to grasp basics about what not to reveal, but you come across like a neophyte. Then, in place of a real opinion, you write the nonsensical "This movie could be its own Comic-Con in hell." What does that even mean? Answer: It means nothing. This is shoddy reviewing, David. As for the cesarian scene, what makes you think it has to be either pro- or anti-abortion at all? There is no value in a review such as this -- it's almost the opposite of everything that defines a substantial critique.— June 15, 2012 10:40 p.m.
David Elliott's Final Column
There was a conventionalism to your approach but I rarely felt like you were sharing the way the inner gears of your mind fit together. Even now, as you hail Oscar magnets like "The Artist" and "The King's Speech," disposable fare such as "The Lincoln Lawyer," and the meandering "Ghost Writer" with its tacked-on, defeatist punt of an ending, one is left wondering how well-honed movies such as "The Social Network," "Tree of Life," "Submarine," "Greenberg," and "Drive" escaped your appreciation. Your sentimentalism hints at a fear of the future, a distrust of the daring. Also: Do you hate documentaries? Have your years at the Union-Tribune left you loathe to reveal a political viewpoint?— June 15, 2012 10:40 p.m.
David Elliott's Final Column
The first final straw for me, David, was your review of "The Haunting" in the early 2000s. It was a bloated misfire with embarrassingly obvious performances, yet you adored it, giving it four stars -- the highest rating. I don't expect a reviewer to agree with my opinion, but I do expect to understand where that opinion comes from, and you gave readers little to work with. So too with your takedown of "Fellowship of the Ring," which you ridiculed as if the worthlessness of any fantasy genre piece was a foregone conclusion. For Steven Spielberg's "Munich" you were dismissive to the point of avoiding the movie's central themes, quibbling over the "tastefulness" of a sex scene cross-cut with a scene of terrorism as if you didn't realize the scene was culmination of the entire film's point (it was).— June 15, 2012 10:40 p.m.
David Elliott's Final Column
Your tenure at the Union-Tribune was lengthy and accomplished, but I sensed too that you might have been stymied by the conservative environment, emphasizing self-stylization and verbal panache in place of sustained depth or focus. Sorry but that is how I felt, though you did come out ahead in comparison to the bitter, story-hating Duncan Shepard (the man was averse to a sincere discussion of story, theme, and meaning, and his fetishization of Alain Resnais and Clint Eastwood suggested he mistook his public writing post for a personal diary).— June 15, 2012 10:39 p.m.
David Elliott's Final Column
Strange too for a movie critic to decry digital filmmaking as the end of cinema, when on so many levels it is obviously the beginning. Digital filmmaking further expands the possibilities for expression among the minimally budgeted, for one thing, and its visual potential (which you slam as "cold") is in its infancy. The crux of your argument is that digital is inherently bad because it's built from numbers -- the very definition of circular reasoning. You come across as old and tired, not a lover of the medium. You can turn a phrase ("Money talks, but it also screams"), but an article consisting of a series of well-turned phrases is inferior to one that expands a reader's perspective on an artform.— June 15, 2012 10:39 p.m.
David Elliott's Final Column
I see some limitations in your discussion of "the numbers." You hit some tired cliches about how "Jaws" and "Star Wars" tainted the filmgoing experience. Those were good movies and they are not to blame for the downside of their success and influence. You can blame myopic studio heads for chasing financial survival, but the fact is that filmmakers still took risks and still made artful films for decades afterward. Emphasis on "the numbers" didn't begin in 1977, either. Sequelitis dates back to "The Thin Man," "Abbott & Costello," "Planet of the Apes," and "Dr. Mabuse." Myopic or money-chasing productions were always the norm in Hollywood; it's just that we only remember the classics and not the barrage of junk.— June 15, 2012 10:39 p.m.