| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Catuli 
"Loves Film and Fun"
|
 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.
|
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 12/09/2006 : 23:25:08
|
| Could it be that the movie so pre-dates Monica? Just asking. |
 |
|
|
Pope George Ringo 
"the Pope on stage"
|
Posted - 12/09/2006 : 23:31:59
|
gotta go with Randall ...carrot-catures Linda Lovelace maybe, but not Lewinsky
|
|
|
|
Gentleman Ghost
"Brevity: soul of wit."
|
Posted - 12/10/2006 : 00:18:12
|
I agree with the consensus here.
You could substitute the phrase "blow job" or something similar to bring it in line.
|
|
|
|
Yukon 
"Co-editor of FWFR book"
|
Posted - 12/10/2006 : 00:58:18
|
I'm with Catuli 100 per cent.
That is a lame reason for a decline -- that it pre-dates Monica Lewinsky (if that is the reason).
I thought that it's clever and it made me laugh. Good one Cat! |
|
|
|
lemmycaution
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 12/10/2006 : 04:49:36
|
As Chief Dan George said "sometimes the magic works and sometimes it doesn't".
er.... I think this means I'm with Randall on this one. |
Edited by - lemmycaution on 12/10/2006 04:50:44 |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 12/10/2006 : 05:38:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Could it be that the movie so pre-dates Monica? Just asking.
That shouldn't matter. |
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 12/10/2006 : 14:25:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Could it be that the movie so pre-dates Monica? Just asking.
That shouldn't matter.
Well, if a charicature is supposed to be someone intentionally aping someone else, then it does matter, because the character wouldn't know of Monica Lewinski yet in order to try and charicature her.
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. |
|
|
|
redPen
"Because I said so!"
|
Posted - 12/10/2006 : 14:32:00
|
| The only thing I would find "factually inaccurate" is that, whether or not it predates Monica L., the fact is that Phoebe Cates wasn't doing a specific impression of her. I would think since you punnilly implied it was Monica that you would have gotten away with the wording, but maybe that's the reason. Do you think that could be it? |
|
|
|
Catuli
"Loves Film and Fun"
|
Posted - 12/10/2006 : 20:27:52
|
Thanks for the feedback everyone, and Yukon, I'm flattered that a wordsmith such as you would be amused by what I wrote. However, my complaint isn't over the quality of the review, but whether the review was faithful to the movie and its reason. The review was faithful and its reason for being declined--as being factually inacurrate--is wrong.
"Caricature" doesn't hinge on whether the target is consciously or intentionally being attacked. If the target is exaggerated by grave distortion, it is being caricatured, and that happened in the movie. Believe me, the Phoebe Cates seen in "Fast Times...." is one of my favorites. I'd say it was 14-carrot gold, but hey, I'm too worked up over this and get afford lame puns at the moment. I also don't see why replacing "Monica Lewinsky" with "Linda Lovelace" would be an improvement. Both women are symbols of the "BJ" act--one by merit of being a performance artist, and one by becoming embroiled in a scandal. As taglines for oralcopulation, they're interchangeable--somewhat like Samson and Hercules as symbols of strength.
Again, it's fine and dandy to decline a movie review because it was deemed bland, insipid, dull, lackluster et al., but it's wrong to decline a moview for being factually inaccurate when it was factually accurate. Unlike Phoebe in the scene, I find the decline difficult to swallow.  
|
|
|
|
Catuli
"Loves Film and Fun"
|
Posted - 12/10/2006 : 20:31:50
|
I should also state that I'm so worked up over this issue that my grammar was even more slipshod that usual. Please excuse the constructions in the previous post and--as they once said about Chicago's first Mayor Daley--focus on what I meant and not on what I wrote. 
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 12/10/2006 : 21:28:37
|
| Gesundheit, I think you should read benj's note on this page. I feel your pain, for I lost one which I thought was rather clever as well. |
|
|
|
Catuli
"Loves Film and Fun"
|
Posted - 12/10/2006 : 21:43:50
|
Achoo!!!! Randal, thanks for the reference. I never realized that "facts" could be malleable. Perhaps they are. Then again, if someone, by his or her actions, does caricature something, where is the inaccuracy?
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 12/10/2006 : 21:57:18
|
Catchoo, I think the issue must be the time-travely notion that a viewer trapped in the confines of this movie alone can mysteriously know details about something that happens many years later [or in the case of MARIE, c.f. my thread referenced above, not even that long -- but not within the confines of the movie]. I think that's what benj is trying to get to. As someone else suggested, simply change "Monica" to a generic "fellatio" [which practice existed both before and, thankyoujesus, after the movie in question], and you get to keep your clever riff on the word "carrot." That's not the issue. "Monica" is.
As I mentioned in the other thread, I do not cry foul that my review was zapped, and if you'll look back, you'll see I sussed out the real reason immediately. Rather, my beef is that there are lots of other wags who are playing off Marie's lopped head. Therefore, theirs should be dismissed with extreme prejudice as well. |
Edited by - randall on 12/10/2006 22:00:07 |
|
|
|
lemmycaution
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 12/10/2006 : 22:09:04
|
| When this thread finishes I will breathe a Versailles of relief. |
|
|
|
Sludge 
"Charlie Don't Serf!"
|
Posted - 12/10/2006 : 23:08:12
|
I agree with the reason for decline.
But I do want to chime in a note of irony. The All American Burger where Brad worked (and where Spiccoli and friends attempted to dine with shirts off) was in Brentwood on Barrington & San Vicente (now a Coffee Bean, I think) and just a few short blocks from where Monica Lewinsky (later) lived. This is also the neighborhood where Ron Goldman dated OJ's wife and both paid dearly for it.
Carrot-cature is a good pun, but I'd say use it elsewhere.
How about "Film noir carrot-cature" for Roger Rabbit? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Factually Inaccurate Decline Of A Review
