You know how to read, Light Wizard. Read it!!!
Well, Mr. Teacherman, if you think that you communicate clearly with a cognitive mindset, look again. Instead of your cockeyed one-liners, why not try to actually say what is on your mind. You're close to being perceived as one of those constricted conservative minds who can see the forest for the trees. Too bad A2K doesn't have an ignore button.
Of course, the left wing has always taken that stance--Free Speech. Let all the ideas come out. The marketplace of ideas!!!
Except when they encounter something they can't handle.
Then the oh so liberal left wing reverts to the tactics of the totalitarian-----
suppression of speech.
Handle it or admit you can't!!!!
Nobody is suppressing your speech. Paranoia is curable by psychiatric treatment.
Lightwizard
I have long been a fan of Vidal, particularly his novel, Burr, and the one about Lincoln.
His collected essays "United States" is enthralling and thought provoking. "Burr" and "Lincoln" are two of his greatest novels but, of course, he burst things wide open with "The City and the Pillar." Let's see if anyone is brave enough to make that film and not botch it up like "Myra Breckinridge."
Haven't read The City and the Pillar yet.
The City and the Pillar??
That was written in 1948 and it showed a pathetic man called Jim Willard who never got over a school boy crush on one of his boyfriends.
I am sure that if Gore wrote it again, he would utilize new knowledge about pharmaceuticals and then have the character cured of his fantasy, which as I recall( yes I read the book many years ago) ends up in a rape and a murder.
Now that Psychoanalysis has been all but abandoned, writers like Gore know that brain chemistry can be affected easily by appropriate pharmaceuticals.
The movie which showed us that even rabid killers can be changed is, of course, A Clockwork Orange.
Jim Willard would have been so much happier had he submitted himself to the same kind of treatment.
The "Clockwork Orange" written by another gay author? You seem to have a fixation.
Only those who know NOTHING about LIterature worry about the sexual orientation of the writers.
Would you like to try the same thing in Art?
Are you older than 26? You don't seem to know very much about Literature and how great books are selected.
Let me tell you something that you probably do not know--Gore Vidal is not in the Canon.
You do know what that is, don't you?
One of the nation's best and most highly esteemed critics, Harold Bloom, has written "The Western Canon". In it, he writes:
"The historical novel seems to have been permanently devalued. Gore Vidal once said to me, with bitter eloquence, that his outspoken sexual orientation had denied him canonical status. WHAT SEEMS LIKELIER IS THAT VIDAL'S BEST FICTIONS(except for the sublimely outrageous Myra Breckenridge) ARE DISTINGUISHED HISTORICAL NOVELS--LINCOLN, BURR AND SEVERAL MORE--
AND THIS SUBGENRE IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE FOR CANONIZATION>'
You really should do more reading on the subject, Light Wizard!!!
Hey, mele - you may find that if you tread a wee bit lighter, you wouldn't be accumulating as many people who think you're an arrogant ass. After all, you swing a lot of haymakers for someone who's only been here a couple weeks.
Agree, Snood. I am a firm believer in "checking out the lay of the land", before barrelling in!
I scroll past his posts now.
Lightwizard: I know how you feel about Tom Cruise and his deserved Razzies; what do you think of his performance in "Born on The Fourth of July"? My husband and I felt he deserved an Oscar for that performance. I forgot who won Best Actor that year, but I thought his was superlative.
One of his really find performances but my favorite, despite his recent off-screen antics, was in "Magnolia" as the scummy self-help sex guru who turned out to have a heart.
Daniel Day-Lewis won for "My Left Foot." Understandable.
The Academy's behavior this year has put a big dent my cynacism toward that organization. They rewarded artistic accomplishment and integrity rather than commercial success. Way to go, Academy.
I confess that I havn't seen Brokeback or Walk the Line, but I saw Crash and think it WAS a great movie.
The one big reason why "Brokeback" has become a commercial success (actually "Crash" hasn't done badly considering it cost $9M to make -- the stars reduced their salaries to make the movie drastically) was the impressive string of awards, critical acclaim and word-of-mouth. I like "Crash" despite some script problems. Like "Ray" last year, "Walk the Line" should have been one of the five nominated pictures. However, it would be difficult to figure out which movie would get bumped. The really great movies often do not do the best box office -- the movies that are made to sell well are not usually built on high artistic integrity other than special effects. The script's the thing, just like the play's the thing. I think it was Bud Schulberg who said screenwriters were, "Schmucks with Underwoods."
I think, all in all, win or lose, we can say that it was an impressive year for the Oscars. Alot of us watched this year who haven't watched it in decades, myself included.
Same with me, Eoe. I rarely watch the entire Oscar show; only the last part. but this time I did--because of John Steward and because of the nominated films. But I've heard that the show's ratings were down. Is that so?
