NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/arts/movies/36467

Text File | 1993-01-03 | 7.1 KB | 158 lines

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnewse!gmark
From: [e-mail] (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: Why X Isn't Making Money
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 16:28:00 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 147

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tim Mohler) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tim Mohler) writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew Melmon) writes:
>>>>I think, however, that the failure of X to perfrom well is
>>>>a surprise to a lot of people (myself included, actually).
>>>
>>>Not to me. About half of the people I've talked to about X said
>>>they didn't want to watch "three hours of being told how evil
>>>white men are."
>>>
>>>I think that is insensitive, and downright stupid myself, but
>
>>Certainly "insensitive" and "stupid" sound very "correct" when dealing
[...]
>
>Good lord, we can stop frothing now.
>
>I called the attitudes that I saw stupid and insenstitve. They are
>stupid, because they were based on no knowledge of either the movie
>or the man the movie is about.

And I disagreed with your conclusion and your approach.  Sorry if
that wasn't clear to you.
>
>They are insensitive to racial issues as well. I feel a mutual
>understanding of racial issues is important to this country's
>well-being. I think that more white people trying to understand why
>Malcolm X was an important figure is a step in the right direction.
>Dismissing Malcolm as merely a hate-monger is insensitive.

You might spend a few minutes rereading my post before posting
a followup.  You might then realize that your current approach of
not wanting to understand what motivates people to avoid unpleasantness
is itself exactly an example of what annoys you about those people.
When folks spend their time complaining and whining about others
disagreeing with them and little time understanding others'
point of view, it doesn't provide much of a constructive basis for
communication.  Merely dismissing them as "insensitive" to your
point of view is little more than whining.
>
>>It's an effective PC cop-out to call anyone that disagrees with you
>>"insensitive", but it is just a cop-out, and may very be an example of
>>what folks that give Lee problems over budget have reacted to.  And
>>that knee-jerk action and reaction does little good in the long run.
>
>Oh, shut up about PC already. I didn't use the word. I didn't call
>anyone racist. I didn't even tell people to go see the movie.

You are probably already aware that it is very "chic" nowadays to
use the "insensitive" term.  "Racist" is less polite and has lost
some of its "PC"-ness in some circles because of its extremeness
and because it has been bandied about so casually when folks have
lost all powers of rational debate.  The more a word is used in-
appropriately, the less useful it is for others for legitimate
applications.  "Insensitive," I'm sorry to say, is one of those words.
>
>>>I don't doubt that these attitudes have a fairly strong hold
>>>on a large portion of the movie-going audience.
>>
>>Not wanting to be criticized?  Yes, that would be true of most people.
>>Rather insensitive not to realize that.
>
>What is wrong with being criticized pray tell? Can't you take it?

By asking me if I can "take it," you've admitted that it can be
unpleasant.  Prior to posting again, you might reread your articles
and trim out these flaws.

>Ya gonna yell "PC!" at anyone who criticizes you?

I wasn't aware your previous post that I responded to was criticizing
me.  Maybe I should be more paranoid or something, I don't know.
Anyway, I don't think you yourself constitute "anyone", so you
might also scan your posts for overgeneralizations.

And, keep in mind that we were discussing Spike Lee and how he or
others (me, for one) might explain "Malcolm X" not doing as well at
the boxoffice as hoped, and its possible future.  Having your
explanation discussed and critiqued seems a pretty reasonable result
of your having posted it to the net, so try to be less defensive
and sit back and enjoy.
>
>>You have discretionary income and choose to use it to see a movie
>>that you have more information about, and judge to be a "better
>>bet" for a nice evening?  Incredibly presumptuous, I think, to
>>tell people what movie to see, and call them stupid if they
>>disagree.  After all, liking a movie is somewhat subjective.
>
>What the hell are you babbling about? I never said "better bet."

No, I said "better bet", and I meant it to be taken as a kind of
catch phrase.  I didn't mean to attribute it to you.  Sorry for
the misunderstanding.  Don't know what's so negative about it for
you to get so steamed up, though, especially after that "frothing"
remark, which seemed to me to indicate that you didn't want to
take all of this so seriously.
>
>I never told anyone to see the movie.

Why not?  It's a great movie.  Let me state for the record that if there
are white people out there reading this that are not so thrilled at
the idea of sitting through a couple of hours being told how evil
you are, I can certainly understand that.  And this movie is not it.
It's entertaining and very interesting.  As I've said previously,
I sat through the last half of it looking at my watch repeatedly
not because it was too long (even though it could have had the last
20 minutes or so trimmed), but because I knew how long it was and
wanted to make sure there was more to see.  I even liked the
last 20 minutes.

>>>Not to bring in a conspiracy or anything, but when I went to
>>>see X, it had been out for only two weeks, but had already been
>>>moved to the smallest screen in the theater. I wondered if
>>>perhaps the theater-owners had pegged the movie as a
>>>"minority" film. If this is true, perhaps there are some theater
>>>owners who decided not to show X, thinking it would not have
>>>a wide appeal.
>>
>>It's possible.  But it's also possible that theater owners would like
>>to maximize their income, and that X only required a small screen
>>due to its draw at that particular theater.
>
>Goddam. As if that wasn't what I was saying.

Don't really know, at this point.  If that's your opinion, why not
say, "Yeah.  What I meant to say."

Anyway, what you typed above was that the owners had the movie pegged
prior to any evidence, and what you appear to have meant (judging from
your agreement with what I posted) is that X only required a small
screen because it was indeed less popular, and supported the theater-
owners' expectation.  Okay, so next time be more careful about your
communication, and I'll try to understand what you might have meant
to say.  But be sensitive to the fact that it may be difficult for
others to guess your real meaning.
>
>Really, engage your brain before your mouth next time.

Sounds like you've come up with a good motto.  Good luck, pal!
>
>Tim

Hope this helps.

GMS