Path: news.nzbot.com!spool1.sonic-news.com!pullnews.sonic-news.com!not-for-mail
From: JimB0ss (no@spam.org)
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.dvd.criterion
Subject: Re: Eric Rohmer ______ Rest In Peace ___
X-Newsreader: NewsLeecher v3.9 Beta 2 (http://www.newsleecher.com)
References: <Fredfarstonee-31D0A1.15511116012010@newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com>
Date: 17 Jan 2010 05:26:55 GMT
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <0196e304$0$7598$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 17de2464.news.astraweb.com
X-Trace: DXC=XM^\>?]`Q>af3Y_QHDVbKhL?0kYOcDh@j41>hRIa\<>dCYcEag;X:?`RDVk6i=dQgiS4a]8U443RaY`JdSad8Ang
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.binaries.dvd.criterion:3379
>Actually I am not troll and just because I think the majority of
>Rohmer's work is boring.
My point was that proclaiming something as 'boring' says something about you, but
nothing about the person/work you're referring to. It contains no information. It's the
lowest form of criticism -- like saying that something 'sucks' or 'crap'.
Is Rohmer's work important? Yes. Was his work influential or pioneering? Yes. Why? The
NYT article, for example, clearly explains that. You can argue about his movies' merits
and level of importance, lasting impressions and techniques -- that's all fair game.
But -- at the very least -- the man created his own distinctive style of moviemaking,
and that puts him way ahead of 99% of films ever made.
And personally, I'm not a huge fan of Rohmer either, but I do understand why his works
deserve praise and recognition.
J
--
--------------------------------- --- -- -
Posted with NewsLeecher v3.9 Beta 2
Web @ http://www.newsleecher.com/?usenet
------------------- ----- ---- -- -
|
|