| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Beanmimo 
"August review site"
|
 Posted - 02/13/2007 : 13:33:26
|
First page fav
GHCool's
Clerks Casing Mail For Bags, U.S.P.O. (1903)
Silently going postal.
Christ if only rugby matches were 78 mins 30 seconds i'd be alot happier today. |
Edited by - Beanmimo on 02/13/2007 13:38:11 |
 |
|
|
Beanmimo
"August review site"
|
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 13:46:14
|
Page two
george's
Do Geese See God? (2004)
Ornitheology.
and
Alma's
Wizard of Oz
green-witch village. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 13:53:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
Do Geese See God? (2004)
Ornitheology.
Has anyone seen this? I get the impression that the film does not feature geese. (I could be wrong, though.) If so, it's only a play on the title, which isn't allowed.  |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 14:07:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
Do Geese See God? (2004)
Ornitheology.
Has anyone seen this? I get the impression that the film does not feature geese. (I could be wrong, though.) If so, it's only a play on the title, which isn't allowed.
Sal's right. Haven't seen it, but have read about it. It debuted on Amazon in 2004 as an interactive short dealing with the meaning of life. Both the title and main character - Dr Awkward - are palindromes. Apparently if you click on the film it keeps starting over ... unless you click on the roses. Apparently one of the quasi-religious messages was: stop and smell the roses.
I've tried searching amazon for it, but no luck.
I didn't realize we accepted web-films on our database. It's a great review, though, George!
I suspect Benj needs to make a ruling on this one.
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 14:22:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
Both the title and main character - Dr Awkward - are palindromes.
It apparently features various others too, such as "Dogma! I am God." B.T.W., I had already voted for it before posting, so I think it's good too, if it's allowed. |
|
|
|
alma 
"hooking berry to thread"
|
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 15:47:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ali
quote:
Originally posted by alma
Belated happy new year to all of you.
http://www.fwfr.com/user.asp?id=7400
And walk among long dappled grass,
And pluck till time and times are done:
The silver apples of the moon,
The golden apples of the sun.
alma - that's one of my favourite poems.
Hi Ali
Thanks for sharing my passion for dead Irish poets. Though I am old from wandering through hollow lands and hilly lands....
|
|
|
|
roger_thornhill 
"'scuse me while I disappear..."
|
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 17:21:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
Do Geese See God? (2004)
Ornitheology.
Has anyone seen this? I get the impression that the film does not feature geese. (I could be wrong, though.) If so, it's only a play on the title, which isn't allowed.
I know there aren't geese in the film, but I think that's a shockingly literal (i.e. pedantic and nitpicky) standard for fwfr acceptability. The movie is a (not so great) existential film (thus inevitably dealing with theological/metaphysical questions) and its title plays on a well-known palindrome involving birds. Hope that's justification enough!
Meanwhile, there are still half a dozen reviews for Night of the Living Dead about eating brains that have not been removed....
p.s. Thanks for the nod Beanmimo!
|
Edited by - roger_thornhill on 02/13/2007 17:22:35 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 17:59:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by george_kaplan
I know there aren't geese in the film, but I think that's a shockingly literal (i.e. pedantic and nitpicky) standard for fwfr acceptability. The movie is a (not so great) existential film (thus inevitably dealing with theological/metaphysical questions) and its title plays on a well-known palindrome involving birds.
I dunno, I think it's a bit much to call it nitpicky. Benj has been quite specific in the past that reviews have to be about films' content, not only their titles. You never know, though, he may have changed his mind. If one could do this, though, then any anagram with any mildly spiritual/religious meaning (there are loads involving God/Satan) would be just as valid as a review. (In fact, they'd be more valid because the film as well as the title features anagrams.)
Is anyone horny in it, by any chance?! Then you could have "'Orny, theology", which would play on ornithology virtually as closely (and perhaps more entertainingly), but within the rules. There are roses, aren't there? But I suppose "Thorny, theology" isn't close enough. (I think it's quite a good review, though - i.e. alluding to the thorniness of the issue of theology. Perhaps I'll submit it on that basis.) |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 02/13/2007 18:08:29 |
|
|
|
roger_thornhill
"'scuse me while I disappear..."
|
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 18:33:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by george_kaplan
I know there aren't geese in the film, but I think that's a shockingly literal (i.e. pedantic and nitpicky) standard for fwfr acceptability. The movie is a (not so great) existential film (thus inevitably dealing with theological/metaphysical questions) and its title plays on a well-known palindrome involving birds.
I dunno, I think it's a bit much to call it nitpicky. Benj has been quite specific in the past that reviews have to be about films' content, not only their titles. You never know, though, he may have changed his mind. If one could do this, though, then any anagram with any mildly spiritual/religious meaning (there are loads involving God/Satan) would be just as valid as a review. (In fact, they'd be more valid because the film as well as the title features anagrams.)
Um, whatever. |
Edited by - roger_thornhill on 02/13/2007 18:34:17 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 19:14:23
|
| Well, I haven't got any more to say about it. If Benj leaves it standing, then we'll find out that he's changed his policy. |
|
|
|
roger_thornhill
"'scuse me while I disappear..."
|
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 19:18:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Well, I haven't got any more to say about it. If Benj leaves it standing, then we'll find out that he's changed his policy.
Salopian, you haven't even made your case (as far as I am concerned) that this review has nothing to do with the film other than its title. 'Til [sic] you do that, your claim that letting my review stand would make Benj guilty of inconsistency is fallacious.
However to show there are no hard feelings, I'm currently voting on some of your old reviews. |
Edited by - roger_thornhill on 02/13/2007 19:20:14 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 19:24:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by george_kaplan
Salopian, you haven't even made your case (as far as I am concerned) that this review has nothing to do with the film other than its title. 'Til [sic] you do that, your claim that letting my review stand would make Benj guilty of inconsistency is fallacious.
Um, I thought I had. Do you mean that because the film is existential nonsense it is O.K. to mention anything (e.g. birds) even if they don't explicitly appear in the film? If so, while on balance I would say that were a stretch, you've got an arguable point. If you don't mean that, then you've lost me. |
|
|
|
roger_thornhill
"'scuse me while I disappear..."
|
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 19:41:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by george_kaplan
Salopian, you haven't even made your case (as far as I am concerned) that this review has nothing to do with the film other than its title. 'Til [sic] you do that, your claim that letting my review stand would make Benj guilty of inconsistency is fallacious.
Um, I thought I had. Do you mean that because the film is existential nonsense it is O.K. to mention anything (e.g. birds) even if they don't explicitly appear in the film? If so, while on balance I would say that were a stretch, you've got an arguable point. If you don't mean that, then you've lost me.
Either you are arguing in bad faith or you really don't notice that the title of the film alludes to birds (and not to, e.g. "roses" and "horny people" and the other absurd suggestions you raised about a film you admit you have not seen). Are YOU saying that because a review is illegitimate if it only alludes to the title and not the substance of a film that it is ALSO illegitimate if in addition to referencing the film's substance it ALSO alludes to the presence of birds in the title? If so, then you are an idiot or a disingenuous pest or both. |
Edited by - roger_thornhill on 02/13/2007 19:44:59 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 19:50:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by george_kaplan
Are YOU saying that because a review is illegitimate if it only alludes to the title and not the substance of a film that it is ALSO illegitimate if in addition to referencing the film's substance it ALSO alludes to the reference to birds in the title?
Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, I do mean that, but I'm not an idiot. You think that because you mention theology then it does not matter if you also mention things that are not in the film (i.e. are just in the title)? That's not how it works. There's no rule that says so long as a review is half accurate, it does not matter if the other half is inaccurate. That would be insane (and inane). From a theoretical standpoint, the content of the title is no less inaccurate in this sense than anything else not in the film. Further to this, the accurate part of your review is way too 'generic', so the bird part of it is not some kind of bonus (even if inaccurate extra parts of reviews were allowed) - it is what it relies on to be specific enough, or rather what it would rely on if such a method were allowed. |
|
|
|
roger_thornhill
"'scuse me while I disappear..."
|
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 19:52:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by george_kaplan
Are YOU saying that because a review is illegitimate if it only alludes to the title and not the substance of a film that it is ALSO illegitimate if in addition to referencing the film's substance it ALSO alludes to the reference to birds in the title?
Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, I do mean that, but I'm not an idiot.
Disingenuous pest, then. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Sean's FYCTH # 274
