Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site tekig1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekig1!briand
From: briand@tekig1.UUCP (Brian Diehm)
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Movie Snobs
Message-ID: <1702@tekig1.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 3-Jul-84 19:06:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: tekig1.1702
Posted: Tue Jul  3 19:06:37 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Jul-84 00:18:28 EDT
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 63

{}

     Well, Mr. Whitney rails against snob-class films, and since my flame
triggered him I guess I have to reply.  The trouble is that he complained
originally against my intolerance, and then appears to desire to replace it
with his own brand of intolerance.  Some real backlash here, I think.

     Mr. Whitney feels that movies can be entertainment, and can be enjoyed
as such.  Fine.  Neat.  I, too, enjoyed the "original" Star Wars, even though
there was nothing original about it - it was a clean, well executed return to
escapist moviemaking that was refreshing - in 1980.

     Where the problem in Mr. Whitney's views comes in is that he thinks this
is the ONLY valid purpose for movies, and I sharply disagree.

>    When movies start to preach social issues, or if a society becomes so
>    simple-minded that a two-hour flick can change entire society's views
>    on some big subject, then that is when movies get out of hand and their
>    focus of purpose entirely lost.

C'mon, now.  Movies are a form of literature.  There is vapid literature (e.g.
Harold Robbins) and great literature.  Literature can be effective as a cat-
ylist in forming societal opinions, and it doesn't have to be pretentious to
do so.  For example, "1984" is a simple book, simplisticly told.  It also had
untold effect upon an entire generation.  It is literature.

     When Mr. Whitney eliminates that pinnacle of literate achievement, he
limits the medium of movies (I don't know HOW he feels about books) to the
puerile level.  There's more than that to it, and it is insulting to an art
form to imply it can't rise above the trivial.  It is even insulting to imply
that the puerile level is the PURPOSE of that art form.

     Yes, my original flame showed intolerance (perhaps the intolerance of an
ET doll in heat? :-) ), but this is totally unacceptable.

     Perhaps the problem Mr. Whitney is having is in distinguishing pap from
content.  For example, he holds up "Terms of Endearment" as a "snob-class" and
"pretentious" film, and cites as his references the "critics" and the Academy.

     Well.

     I, and many others, found this film to be nothing but a soap opera, and
one peopled by unattractive and morally weak characters.  Further, it was a
very sexist film.  As literature, it didn't rise much above the level of pure
entertainment, and as entertainment it was boring.  Now this is my opinion,
but if I am to be chided for pushing "snob-class" and "pretentious" films, then
I should at least be allowed to select the films for which I am being criti-
cized.  I found "Terms" to be pretentious, and very successful at putting one
over on the critics, but I hardly found it "snob-class", if by "snob-class"
Mr. Whitney means "beyond entertainment" and "attainment in literature."

     My original flame was about endless net.movies comment on trivial films.
It was an attempt (though snide, I admit) at consciousness raising.  Perhaps
my best argument for the necessity of this effort is the rather bigoted, and
ill informed, opinions expressed by Mr. Whitney.  The very fact that he is
unable to differentiate between good and trivial literature of movies is
symptomatic of a societal morass.

     Here's to literature, both for entertainment AND for involvement,
learning, caring, sharing, growing, and building.

-Brian Diehm
Tektronix, Inc.