| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Catuli |
Posted - 02/09/2007 : 04:50:05
OK, here's what I mean by my rather clunky title. I wrote a review for the 1970 film "Elvis" and came up with a title that, save for the word Elvis, had no words in common with any of the other review titles. To my astonishment, the review was declined for "being similar to another review." Obviously, there are several movies dealing with Elvis, and I discovered that another Elvis movie does indeed have a review that is similar to mine. I suppose in the grand scheme of things my review should be discarded, but it seems unfair to be hit with a decline when you check out a movie title, see nothing remotely close to your idea, and enter the review in good faith. Any thoughts?
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/17/2007 : 01:58:15
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Make that a one-way conversation, I'd rather talk to the cat. 
That's fine by me. However, while you carried on making what I found to be invalid points, I was going to carry on saying so. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/17/2007 : 01:57:18
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Rocket surgery?
It's c/o Downtown. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/17/2007 : 01:56:06
quote:
Originally posted by george_kaplan
Because Salopian's attack on these two reviews by Whipper is part of an ongoing campaign of relentless, meanspirited pedantry (cf. the "'Til" episode and the back-and-forth on the latest FYCTH thread to which I am a party) I think it is not out of place for me (or someone else for that matter) to comment on Salopian's obnoxious behavior. Seriously, Salopian, you are stinking up the fourum. I don't think I'm the only one who is sick to death of you and your whingeing. And if you don't want me to point that out, confine your pedantry to PMs.
Don't tell me what to do. Whipper's two reviews represent an important issue with regards to what should and shouldn't be allowed. My points on the matter have also not been pedantry, since I have not been making fine distinctions of any kind. (If anyone has, it's Whipper.) I certainly would not dream of making such comments via P.M.s - that is what would be extremely rude. The function of this discussion was not to eliminate one of his reviews, but to investigate the subject of same-person identical reviews in general. I remain convinced that any valid pair should have to have explicitly different meanings, unlike these. (Also, Whipper himself raised these reviews as an example - did he do that only on the basis that people had to agree with him?!) |
| randall |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 23:16:29
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Rocket surgery?
Portmanteau of brain surgery and rocket science.
Yep, sure, right, I grok that immediately. But are we to understand this is some kind of new slang expression? For truth, we must consult Sally! |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 23:05:37
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by george_kaplan
Salopian, please stop boring us.
You don't have to read this two-way conversation. 
Make that a one-way conversation, I'd rather talk to the cat.
|
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 22:46:41
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Rocket surgery?
Portmanteau of brain surgery and rocket science.
|
| randall |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 19:12:41
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by george_kaplan
Salopian, please stop boring us.
You don't have to read this two-way conversation.
Quite. Unless I have unfairly sprung what I have said on you (i.e. George), then just, er, don't read it. It's not rocket surgery to avoid it.
Rocket surgery? |
| roger_thornhill |
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 22:29:48
Because Salopian's attack on these two reviews by Whipper is part of an ongoing campaign of relentless, meanspirited pedantry (cf. the "'Til" episode and the back-and-forth on the latest FYCTH thread to which I am a party) I think it is not out of place for me (or someone else for that matter) to comment on Salopian's obnoxious behavior. Seriously, Salopian, you are stinking up the fourum. I don't think I'm the only one who is sick to death of you and your whingeing. And if you don't want me to point that out, confine your pedantry to PMs. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 22:09:45
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by george_kaplan
Salopian, please stop boring us.
You don't have to read this two-way conversation.
Quite. Unless I have unfairly sprung what I have said on you (i.e. George), then just, er, don't read it. It's not rocket surgery to avoid it. |
| Sean |
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 21:15:31
quote:
Originally posted by george_kaplan
Salopian, please stop boring us.
You don't have to read this two-way conversation. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 20:44:24
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Meaning does not equate to information. Reviews need be no more limited to the conveyance of information than a poem is.
Actually, meaning does essentially equate to information. Sure, this does not have to be restricted to mundane concrete information, but any kind of transferred thought is information, so there's no point trying to make a distinction. At any rate, there's certainly not a distinction that's relevant here. A review is exactly like a poem, I agree. The poem is the thought being transferred by it - it isn't the indepenedent thing that is its subject matter. Thus aspects of its subject matter that are not referred to (even indirectly) are not somehow part of the poem as well. Yes, they are probably part of a person's experience when reading the poem (but might not be), but that is not the same thing. That part of the person's experience is essentially the same as when the subject matter is just neutrally named to them.
quote:
Further, the point of my reviews has never been to explain the film to other people. It's to make a comment, usually a witticism, about the film to other people.
Sure, but this is still the theoretical premise by which some of the boundaries of reviews here are drawn. And I don't really think that either of these reviews makes any kind of comment or witticism. They just give a simple fact about the films. You do not get to inherit the comments that the films make themselves, just by referring to the films.
quote:
The fact that you cannot see the irony is, ultimately, your problem as far as I am concerned. You are not the sole arbiter of reality. It's there for me and I hope that some other people can pick up on it.
Come on, I know what irony is. These reviews are not ironic. It's fine that they're not, but it's also true. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 16:04:37
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
In order to understand the difference in meaning between these reviews it is necessary to have seen, or at least to know about, the film "Goodfellas" and the films reviewed. The reviews should then be understood to resonate very different tones of irony, given that one film is a light-hearted pastiche on 1920s Chicago and the latter a shocking portrait of life and murder on the streets of Brazil today.
Reviews may be textually identical but because of the different contexts convey different meanings.
"Let him have it."
Your explanation helped me see better why you submitted the review for both films. In the context of where the discussion has gone to now - what was conveyed to me by Goodkiddies through the 'meaning' was the pastiche of the adult 'goodfellas' and this is why I voted for that one. Because 'goodfellas' is used in the North American gangster context I wasn't able to 'see' it for City of God. In response to Chocolate Lady's observation about generic, I would say it is more appropriate for Bugsy because it can be connected directly to the film and relates to the film Goodfellas.
However, I agree with you that it has different meanings for both films. I can't get my head around what 'generic' means sometimes either. If we go back to those Brat Out of Hell movies, which movie does that really fit with. Hellboy? None of them? There seems to be a very grey area here for generic.
[/quote]
If anyone has a perfect definition of generic I'd like to hear it, but I can't help but think it should include a review which can apply to at least 5 different films, unless one film fits noticeably better than the others.
I agree with you that Goodkiddies fits Bugsy Malone in a tighter way than City Of God, both being US based gang crime, but the latter highlights the real age differences between the gang crime in North and South America, and therefore the replacement of fellas with kiddies. For me the reality of this situation in Brazil makes it a much darker review.
Anyhow thanks for your vote, which is much appreciated. When you have a moment I've got another 3000 odd for your consideration. 
|
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 15:46:17
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
In order to understand the difference in meaning between these reviews it is necessary to have seen, or at least to know about, the film "Goodfellas" and the films reviewed. The reviews should then be understood to resonate very different tones of irony, given that one film is a light-hearted pastiche on 1920s Chicago and the latter a shocking portrait of life and murder on the streets of Brazil today.
One needs to be aware of GoodFellas, but one shouldn't in theory have needed to see the films themselves - that's sort of the point of reviews/summaries. I cannot see any irony in either review: they simply parallel the aforementioned title.
quote:
Reviews may be textually identical but because of the different contexts convey different meanings.
You're just repeating yourself, so I'm sorry to have to do the same. It is simply not the case that the differences between the films are conveyed by these two reviews. The only thing they convey is what is the same about the films. All they say is that there are children who are gangsters. They do not magically contain other information. You might as well claim that "People fight" would convey more details about these films than that people fight, other details about Raging Bull, other details about Saving Private Ryan, other details about Quadrophenia, other details about Kramer vs. Kramer etc. etc. This would be pure fantasy. In every case, the only information conveyed would be that people fight.
Meaning does not equate to information. Reviews need be no more limited to the conveyance of information than a poem is. It's bizarre to me that you do not understand this.
Further, the point of my reviews has never been to explain the film to other people. It's to make a comment, usually a witticism, about the film to other people.
The fact that you cannot see the irony is, ultimately, your problem as far as I am concerned. You are not the sole arbiter of reality. It's there for me and I hope that some other people can pick up on it.
It's clearly pointless to discuss this with you further.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 15:01:13
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
Because 'goodfellas' is used in the North American gangster context I wasn't able to 'see' it for City of God.
On the other hand, City of God and GoodFellas are both serious, whereas Bugsy Malone is not. So yes, they do fit the films differently, but this doesn't equate to different meanings. The films just fit the same meaning (to be fair, children who are similar to 1960s American gangsters, to expand on what I said before) with differing degrees of relevance. I really think reviews should be much more distinct than this to be submitted by the same person. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 14:54:10
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
In order to understand the difference in meaning between these reviews it is necessary to have seen, or at least to know about, the film "Goodfellas" and the films reviewed. The reviews should then be understood to resonate very different tones of irony, given that one film is a light-hearted pastiche on 1920s Chicago and the latter a shocking portrait of life and murder on the streets of Brazil today.
One needs to be aware of GoodFellas, but one shouldn't in theory have needed to see the films themselves - that's sort of the point of reviews/summaries. I cannot see any irony in either review: they simply parallel the aforementioned title.
quote:
Reviews may be textually identical but because of the different contexts convey different meanings.
You're just repeating yourself, so I'm sorry to have to do the same. It is simply not the case that the differences between the films are conveyed by these two reviews. The only thing they convey is what is the same about the films. All they say is that there are children who are gangsters. They do not magically contain other information. You might as well claim that "People fight" would convey more details about these films than that people fight, other details about Raging Bull, other details about Saving Private Ryan, other details about Quadrophenia, other details about Kramer vs. Kramer etc. etc. This would be pure fantasy. In every case, the only information conveyed would be that people fight. |
|
|
