Comments on Zoophobia
The only reason you keep pumping ZOO is because of Charles.
And I suppose the only reason it got into Cannes is because of nepotism? And the glowing reviews in ArtForum, Newsweek, LA Times, the Village Voice, and the rest—just nepotism?
Come on.
Brian, this post is clearly labeled "conflict of interest," and we're not reviewing the film. Our readers are well aware that we're hopelessly conflicted. It's good that you acknowledged that Charles writes for The Stranger, so your readers can recognize the possible conflict too.
And don't forget the New York Times review--very positive. I made that happen, pulled lots of strings. Because whatever we want from the NYT, we get.
We're proud of Charles' achievement. Why wouldn't we be?
BTW, the DVD comes out September 18 (see Amazon link below).
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000Q66QFQ/thedigitalbit-20
There's a lot of pumping going on around here.
You're a bunch of hypocrites. I don't remember reading anything in the pages of The Stranger about writers and editors from the Seattle Weekly that got their films into Cannes. Why is that?
By my barometer of arrivedness - a writeup in The Week magazine, Zoo has, indeed, arrived. Congratulations to all concerned, and I'm really looking forward to seeing it. Of course, it's a well-known fact that the editorial boards of The Week and all the publications from whom they compile items are lackeys for the Stranger, so nevermind.
What about a man who likes to fuck female horses? Is he still gay?
No. That would be perfectly straight.
Oh gawd a-mitey--don't even tell me you're suggesting that all the New City or whatever-they're-called newspapers should use the same reviewer in all their papers!
It's bad enough that the Village Voice sucks so bad now anyway; do you really think they oughta export that crap all over the country?
I found it a little odd too Annie. The Weekly seems very keen on pulling reviews for everything they can. We have press screenings every week and we're told "we saw it". The reviews that appear usually are from the LA Weekly or Village Voice, but suddenly a film that we all know that the response would be "we saw it" and a local review?
I appreciate the need to be accountable to a local audience, I just wish the Weekly would extend that accountability to every film that opens in Seattle.
It doesn't sound like anyone at the Stranger is willing to take any criticism of "Zoo" - what did you expect, five stars, two thumbs up, a standing O? When you make a film, write a book, direct a play, etc., you have to be prepared to accept that some will like it, others will not. I've read on here several times that the Stranger frowns on being self-congratulatory (something to do with Dan Savage's catholic background was mentioned by one of your writers), but c'mon - you can't expect everyone to throw bouquets at you for everything you do, on the clock or off it. Grow up and take it like a man - a horse lovin' man fer christ's sake.
Hey, Ebert, Brian, and whomever. You can dislike a film or criticize it in a paper if you want. But you have to use concrete reasoning. Rush Limbaugh didn't like the film, either, but his angle was to confuse bestiality with any form of sexuality that isn't confined to straight hetero sex.
Professionalism.
Speaking of "concrete reasoning" (or lack thereof), Brian never said GAY... Annie did. She's doing exactly the thing that she's accusing Brian of: making a biased assumption. Except in Brian's case, he's interpreting a piece of art, one with plenty of room for interpretation. In Annie's, she's taking a statement excerpt and running with it in a way that would make Fox News proud.
Her point is kind of pointless, as is typically the case when The Stranger takes another tiresome, weak-sauce jab at the Weekly.
I was pleasantly surprised with Zoo, but only because it wasn't what I was expecting to see. I can't comment on whether I thought it was a good doc or not, because frankly, I really don't like documentaries. Reenactment documentaries are somewhat better, though.
Nevertheless I congratulate Charles. A lot of hard work goes into making a film, and it says something about someone who can pull it off without incredible financial help, whether it's good or bad.
Mr. Ebert, let's chat sometime. My aim is ihateRogerEbert. It has been since I was in the 6th grade. Love to catch up with you, especially since you never seem to write movie reviews anymore, would love to know what you think of your guest staff giving almost every movie that comes out 3+ stars. In an odd way, it almost makes me wish you were back. (In top form!)
Well done, he said she said.
I'm sure it's a fine movie, but I'm so sick and tired of the Stranger's RELENTLESS coverage! Honestly, if Charles worked anywhere else, this film would've been a meager calendar listing. And heaven forbid, if he worked at the Weekly, you'd be slagging it.
Are there any other local films worth mentioning? Apparently not. Don't ask Annie, she's too busy dissecting the Weekly film reviews.
I read that article. Annie is justified. Anyone can see that Brian Miller was judging the film on the basis that the writers did not condemn their subjects. Thus, in his article, none of the particulars, the cinematography, the acting, the lighting, the story-line, none of it matters, because Charles Mudede decided to investigate the matter, rather than pre-judging it.
What would be the film if Mudede and Devor had done what Miller wanted? They wouldn't even have filmed it where they did. They would have filmed it in Seattle where Mudede lived and thought. They would have had to film Mudede's judgemental thoughts as they floated, cloud-like, out of his remarkable head. Or something like that.
Oh, for the good old days when Annie was giving the Weekly shit for not writing their own film reviews.
mr. poe @16: roger ebert hasn't been writing very many film reviews because he's recovering from complications of thyroid cancer. he did, however, attend at his annual film festival this month despite his inability to speak and far from telegenic appearance. [suntimes]
@21
I'm well aware, but thanks.
he said she said @15:
Um, it looks like you're the one who took an excerpt and ran with it. Did you actually read Brian Miller's review? The closing paragraph goes like this:
"Not that he would ever sleep with those men. Because he wasn't gay, no!, nor were they, nor is that word ever uttered in Zoo. A film that's all about tolerance turns out to be a sterling example of the art of denial."
If you're still confused, let me translate: horse fuckers are fags in denial.
19
I think Annie is giving the weekly shit for not writing their own reviews.
"Scott Foundas of the LA Weekly on one movie. Ella Taylor, also of the LA Weekly, on two movies. Jessica Grose, a (New-York based?) VVM freelancer, on one movie. J. Hoberman, of the Village Voice, on two movies. Nathan Lee, of the Village Voice, on two movies."
It's just that she also giving them shit for the film that they decided to write their own review for. It was a little bit of a surprise don't you think?
Brendan @2, Not all of the reviews are positively glowing. But of course "Seattle's Only Newspaper" would never reveal that. So could you turn down that nepotism a bit?
Hype Machine@25:
Au contraire: Here's what we actually printed in the newspaper.
I can't believe you suckers actually thought I was Roger Ebert. You think a guy like him even knows this spitoon of a site even exists? Hardly; no one here but us lowbrows. Hey at least I admit it.
I stand by what I said before though. And brace yourself; I see some two-star reviews in your future.
Very clever, I'll give you a blue star on the forehead for that one. Funny how your quote is " How the hell are we supposed to write about this movie?!", yet you seem to get around that problem week after week here on the slog.
I know, it's not the paper, so anything mentioned here about Zoo doesn't count. So convenient.
Not to belabor the point to death, but what I meant in that context was "how are we supposed to write an objective review of this film?" Clearly, Slog posts about, for example, Zoo getting into Cannes (in which, by the way, I called Manohla Dargis's review in the New York Times a "thrashing"--albeit a respectful one) are news, not a review. We do the same thing when Erica C. Barnett gets awards from the Muni League. And honestly, we would do the same thing for any local film that got into Cannes. I believe we've labeled every Slog post on this subject "conflict of interest." If this isn't the case, feel free to let me know and I'll edit it.
@27
I don't think anybody actually thought it was Roger Ebert.
I also doubt anybody believes Brian Miller was here. (First comment? Yeah right. Not unless he spends the bulk of his day refreshing SLOG to see if his name is ever mentioned...oh)
ldfqkatn hcldrbuw kfsvn txby ktpgewunc zqolhxn ykqov
ldfqkatn hcldrbuw kfsvn txby ktpgewunc zqolhxn ykqov
The first stage of a £150m investment in regional museums is praised for boosting visitor numbers...
Veteran game show host Bob Barker is stepping down from hosting The Price is Right after 35 years...
Veteran game show host Bob Barker is stepping down from hosting The Price is Right after 35 years...
Veteran game show host Bob Barker is stepping down from hosting The Price is Right after 35 years...
Pop trio Atomic Kitten will reform to play a concert in support of jailed Liverpool football fan Michael Shields.
Pop trio Atomic Kitten will reform to play a concert in support of jailed Liverpool football fan Michael Shields.
Pop trio Atomic Kitten will reform to play a concert in support of jailed Liverpool football fan Michael Shields.
The first stage of a £150m investment in regional museums is praised for boosting visitor numbers.
The first stage of a £150m investment in regional museums is praised for boosting visitor numbers.
The first stage of a £150m investment in regional museums is praised for boosting visitor numbers.
Jonathan Ross is dubbed "risque" by Ofcom but not in breach of rules over an interview with David Cameron.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).