MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Taking Sides?

Interesting that Time.com (who knows if it will be in print?) decided to run a Jeff Ressner piece mocking Paramount

9 Responses to “Taking Sides?”

  1. jeffmcm says:

    Hey, David, is there _any_ media outlet that you still have respect for? I would be interested to hear just for the sake of contrast.

  2. David Poland says:

    Well, Jeff… you might want to look on the cover of MCN for dozens of daily links to stories we think worth reading.
    Btw… do you have any thoughts about the actual topic? Or were you just waiting for Spam to leave so you could get rolling again?

  3. jeffmcm says:

    It was an honest, if lazy, question.
    You have links to the L.A. Times and the N.Y. Times and every other outlet that you regularly criticie on your front page, so I assume that front-page-status is not an endorsement.

  4. David Poland says:

    What gets posted in here, Jeff, is intended to be discussion points, not a way for me to let off steam. There are many, many stupid stories – incliuding in the major papers- that never get posted or commented on.
    The point of this post was to discuss this piece and whether it is reasonable or fair. Spam chose to slam Jeff Ressner. You took a shot at me. My interest is only the discussion. Maybe you don’t care about the subject. But I do.
    And frankly, the idea that I read all these things because I don’t respect any media is silly. I like around 10% of what I read a lot, am irritated by about 20% and most of it is just fodder. Fodder is not a conversation starter.

  5. James Leer says:

    DP likes British newspapers a lot.

  6. jeffmcm says:

    I didn’t ‘take a shot’ at you, DP. I’m sorry if you think so, but I think it’s a sign of your oversensitivity and not my insistent needling.
    The meta-theme of every story that you post along these lines is that the traditional media is slipping in its standards, which I agree with. My question, which apparently I needed to rephrase to avoid offending you, still remains: are there any media outlets who still have standards and integrity?
    You really mustn’t get so defensive when your readers question your underlying premises instead of limiting ourselves to your own parameters of discussion.

  7. David Poland says:

    Anything on the subject, Jeff?

  8. jeffmcm says:

    If you’re going to insist that people only write on your narrowly circumscribed topic, then no. A news outlet has allowed themselves to be corrupted. Fine, I’m sure you’re right, you typically do your homework about these things.
    If I might be allowed to ask about the bigger picture, though, that underlies your topic – what this means to the culture at large, and once again, if there are any trustworthy news outlets at all in this day and age, then I hope I can have that conversation. Because I find the whole topic very frustrating, and as far as I’m concerned, constantly nattering around the edges doesn’t help any.

  9. “still remains: are there any media outlets who still have standards and integrity?”
    Seems like a decent question to me. Considering nobody else seemed to have anything to say about the actual topic, was it so hard to just answer him and save all the negative mumbo jumbo?

Leave a Reply

Quote Unquotesee all »

MB Cool. I was really interested in the aerial photography from Enter the Void and how one could understand that conceptually as a POV, while in fact it’s more of an objective view of the city where the story takes place. So it’s an objective and subjective camera at the same time. I know that you’re interested in Kubrick. We’ve talked about that in the past because it’s something that you and I have in common—

GN You’re obsessed with Kubrick, too.

MB Does he still occupy your mind or was he more of an early influence?

GN He was more of an early influence. Kubrick has been my idol my whole life, my own “god.” I was six or seven years old when I saw 2001: A Space Odyssey, and I never felt such cinematic ecstasy. Maybe that’s what brought me to direct movies, to try to compete with that “wizard of Oz” behind the film. So then, years later, I tried to do something in that direction, like many other directors tried to do their own, you know, homage or remake or parody or whatever of 2001. I don’t know if you ever had that movie in mind for your own projects. But in my case, I don’t think about 2001 anymore now. That film was my first “trip” ever. And then I tried my best to reproduce on screen what some drug trips are like. But it’s very hard. For sure, moving images are a better medium than words, but it’s still very far from the real experience. I read that Kubrick said about Lynch’s Eraserhead, that he wished he had made that movie because it was the film he had seen that came closest to the language of nightmares.

Matthew Barney and Gaspar Noé

A Haunted House 2 is not a movie. It is a nervous breakdown. Directed by Michael Tiddes but largely the handiwork of star, producer, and co-writer Marlon Wayans, the film is being billed as yet another Wayans-ized spoof of the horror movie genre, à la the first Haunted House movie and the wildly successful Scary Movie series. (Keenen Ivory Wayans and his brothers were responsible for the first two Scary Movie films; they have since left that franchise, which may explain why a new one was needed.) And there are some familiar digs at recent horror flicks: This time, the creepy doll and the closet from The Conjuring, the family-murdering demon from Sinister, and the dybbuk box from The Possession all make appearances. But this new film is mostly an excuse for star Marlon Wayans to have extended freak-outs in response to the horrors visited upon him—shrieking, screaming, crying, cowering, and occasionally hate-fucking for minutes on end. Yes, you read that last bit right. A Haunted House 2 puts the satyriasis back in satire.”
Ebiri On A Haunted House 2