| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Catuli |
Posted - 12/09/2006 : 22:53:09
Although I appreciate being given specific reasons for why my reviews are declined, the reason that sometimes rankles me is "factually inaccurate review of a movie," at least when that reason itself is inaccurate. For "Fast Times At Ridgmont High" I wrote "Phoebe Carrot-catures Monica Lewinsky" and received that decline reason. In the movie, using a carrot as a prop, Phoebe Cates demonstrated how to perform the sexual act so associated with Monica Lewinsky. Thus I don't understand why my review is not deemed valid. Hey, if it were declined just for not passing muster, but at least make the reason for the decline jibe with the plot.
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Catuli |
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 16:59:44
Your "banana" reference is very ap-peeling. Actually I used Monica Lewinksy rather than fellatio or blow job to put a face on the act, and god knows that act needs a face 
|
| Sludge |
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 16:32:41
quote:
Originally posted by Catuli
...A trial can be described as a "caricature of justice" but that does not mean that the judge, jury, lawyers or any other participants in the trial are intentionally trying to effect a caricature...
If you're referring to that monkey trial, I'd say it should definitely be a banana, then. |
| Catuli |
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 15:37:19
Hey, I've gotten more mileage out of this declined review than any of my accepted ones. I love silly polemics and proudly admit that much of the silliness is on my part. However, having also read several dictionaries listings of "caricature," I'm certain that intent is not a required element. As for my friends not knowing who fucked Bill Clinton, well they can be forgiven. If you recall, even Bill was a little fuzzy about the issue, claiming "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky." I suspected though, if asked "Who fucked Bill Clinton?," my friends would answer "Hillary Rodham Clinton" and cite Chelsea as Exhibit A. My friends are quite educated and well versed on both "Fast Times" and the Lewinsky scandal. I do agree with you that we've exhausted the topic and no longer need pursue it.
|
| Yukon |
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 14:28:42
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I think your second example is also metaphorical, but since it refers to a person it is indeed closer. However, a caricature ridicules the original, rather than just being a poor version of it. (Your legal example also misses in this manner.)
No, I definitely don't think Monica Lewinsky is essentially synonymous with fellatio in that way, especially not internationally. If you used her to represent the cigar thing (with specifically a cigar), that would be a different matter. There is just no way that its being demonstrated can be considered to be a caricature of a later specific instance of it. Anyway, why don't you just make it "Phoebe carrot-catures blow job"? The review doesn't rely for its effect on Lewinsky at all. I don't suppose Phoebe is actually lampooning a blow job as such, but the object is a sufficiently comical place-holder for a penis that it would count.
I think this must be a cultural thing, North America vs. Britain, because I think Lewinsky and blow job are synonymous.
For months, late night talk show hosts were ramming Lewinsky blow job jokes down our throats (pun intended), and it's still talked about today. Maybe in Britain you missed out on the constant barrage of dick jokes, but you couldn't avoid it here.
In North America, Monica Lewinsky = blow job, which is why the review works for me.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 13:51:25
It's metaphorical in that it's as if the man were doing a caricature of Travolta, in the same way as a shabby court case is as if it were a lampoon. I realise that this pivots on my interpretation of 'caricature', but that definition is from the dictionary, not from the ether. It just is important what the intent is. The core of (literal) caricature is to ridicule someone else by exaggeration, not just to happen to be more extreme and ridiculous than someone else by one's own being.
The 'getting it' test does not prove accuracy. If you asked your friends "Who did Bill Clinton fuck?", they might very well say Monica Lewinsky, even though (supposedly) this never happened.
Anyway, I still feel quite sure, but I cannot really be bothered to pursue this any more. If you still genuinely think this review is accurate (and that there is any point in it over my suggested revision), I suggest you take it up with Benj. |
| Catuli |
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 13:29:53
I'm puzzled over why you think the second example is metaphorical. I'm sure that clown was trying to replicate the dashing Travolta or a prototype, and he failed miserably. In effect, the guy was Danny Devito (sp?) dressed up as Travolta. So if Devito did that in a movie it would be caricature, when the guy I saw does it on the street it's a poor version? Hmmmm, I'd say the shadings are often blurringly overlapped. The standard requirements of caricature--gross distortion, exaggeration--certainly segue into the realm of poor version.
I'll conclude by observing that my review passes what I call the "application test." When I run it by friends who have seen the movie and know of Monica Lewinsky (though probably not biblically) they readily "get it"--with no qualms about tertiary connotations of "caricature" or Monica's place in the zeitgeist.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 12:39:41
I think your second example is also metaphorical, but since it refers to a person it is indeed closer. However, a caricature ridicules the original, rather than just being a poor version of it. (Your legal example also misses in this manner.)
No, I definitely don't think Monica Lewinsky is essentially synonymous with fellatio in that way, especially not internationally. If you used her to represent the cigar thing (with specifically a cigar), that would be a different matter. There is just no way that its being demonstrated can be considered to be a caricature of a later specific instance of it. Anyway, why don't you just make it "Phoebe carrot-catures blow job"? The review doesn't rely for its effect on Lewinsky at all. I don't suppose Phoebe is actually lampooning a blow job as such, but the object is a sufficiently comical place-holder for a penis that it would count. |
| Catuli |
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 12:29:42
Metaphorical use of caricature or not, my example establishes that "intent" is not a prerequisite for caricature. Other, "non-metaphorical" examples could be advanced. I remember once seeing a rather short, dumpy guy in 1970's disco outfit replete with bellbottoms and medalion around his neck--he could be described as a caricature of John Travolta in "Saturday Night Fever." I doubt that that was his intent. I'm well aware that Monica didn't invent fellatio (though rumors persist that according to Bill she perfected it), but she's become a symbol of the the act--a TV show in the states actually used the phrase "giving a Lewinsky"--so I think it's fair to reference her for the basic act.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 09:38:18
quote:
Originally posted by Catuli
While a caricature can, and often does, stem from intent, intent is clearly not a requirement. A trial can be described as a "caricature of justice" but that does not mean that the judge, jury, lawyers or any other participants in the trial are intentionally trying to effect a caricature. Rather, the caricature stems naturally from their actions, independently of their intent.
That's a metaphorical use of 'caricature', though. When one is talking of a caricature of an individual, it cannot really be metaphorical. Another thing about a caricature (and especially if you want to prove that it could be valid in advance) is that is has to be entirely or very specific to the individual concerned. Monica Lewinsky did not exactly invent fellatio. Thus, when that event became known, people did not say "Wow, that is so similar to what happened in that film!" |
| Downtown |
Posted - 12/11/2006 : 20:46:33
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
I guess it's a question of whether you're describing the character in the context of the film (as seems to be the case here) or the scene in the context of the history of mankind.
If I may, it seems more like it's a question of whether or not the latter is allowed here. If so, then what the reviewer meant becomes irrelavent. |
| Catuli |
Posted - 12/11/2006 : 17:34:06
While a caricature can, and often does, stem from intent, intent is clearly not a requirement. A trial can be described as a "caricature of justice" but that does not mean that the judge, jury, lawyers or any other participants in the trial are intentionally trying to effect a caricature. Rather, the caricature stems naturally from their actions, independently of their intent.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 12/11/2006 : 16:35:11
quote:
Originally posted by Catuli
The act itself rather than the performer's intent (or lack of prescience) is what determines a caricature.
No, I don't think so. A caricature definitely relies on its intent. |
| Catuli |
Posted - 12/11/2006 : 16:15:03
Hmmm, would "Phoebe's carrot-cature presages Lewinsky" resolve the H.G. Wells time issue and satisfy everyone? A caricature can apply to events that happened after it was performed. The act itself rather than the performer's intent (or lack of prescience) is what determines a caricature. Take anyone who knows abut Monica Lewinsky and has seen "Fast Times" and run the review by them. I'll wager anything that they'll get it.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 12/11/2006 : 09:42:48
I agree that one definitely cannot caricature something that has not happened yet. |
| silly |
Posted - 12/11/2006 : 01:52:14
All of this is great, I think in the book it was a banana. So perhaps the young Ms. Cates wasn't as talented as she could have been 
Oh, wait, that should be  , don't wanna be inaccurate.. |
|
|
