aug 2 (?) New Yorker issue
I did find it in the trash, but then left it in another state, so I'll be working without the magazine in front of me.
Philip Gourevitch, why do you always wax rhapsodic about landscape? Examine this, be critical of this romantic tendency of yours. Sri Lanka piece was interesting, but off-putting. Why did you bring up Faulkner? Really, I mean it, think about what it does to your argument . . . .
Review of new Gus Van Sant movie, could have applied to Elephant, which I just saw this summer. However, there is not a clear enough sense in the written review of how much Last Days appears to rely on a kind of period movie recreation of the grunge look. Honestly, this is genius, and was in his Psycho. Looks almost EXACTLY the same, feels different. He inserts a kind of absolute, unbridgable difference, despite an uncanny visual verisimilitude. Plus, I luv Michael Pitt and have since his tortured Dawson's Creek days.
Review of Steven Bocho's new Iraq war TV series. This sounds like a disaster, but I too (along with the New Yorker) am interested in the long career of odd Steven Bocho. General query: Why does the New Yorker review TV?
David Sedaris, tired, tired and out of season.
Another cute sidebar in the front . . . by Alex Ross. Who is this Alex Ross? Oh, here he is, or, rather, his temporarily out of order blog. Music critic. Sidebar was on Aaron Copeland, with a great quote about making pop music. Under the "Lit" heading at Ross's blog this piece on Thomas Mann looks interesting . . . I luv Doctor Faustus.
Also watched Hollywood Ending (Woody Allen, 2002) this past weekend. Blindness as slapstick and philosophical problem. For those who've seen it, he went blind from "narcissistic masturbation" right? I feel the son subplot is quite lame and the movie is about moviemaking . . . would provide cute clips for teaching undergrads about auteur theory.
Categories: newyorker, film
Philip Gourevitch, why do you always wax rhapsodic about landscape? Examine this, be critical of this romantic tendency of yours. Sri Lanka piece was interesting, but off-putting. Why did you bring up Faulkner? Really, I mean it, think about what it does to your argument . . . .
Review of new Gus Van Sant movie, could have applied to Elephant, which I just saw this summer. However, there is not a clear enough sense in the written review of how much Last Days appears to rely on a kind of period movie recreation of the grunge look. Honestly, this is genius, and was in his Psycho. Looks almost EXACTLY the same, feels different. He inserts a kind of absolute, unbridgable difference, despite an uncanny visual verisimilitude. Plus, I luv Michael Pitt and have since his tortured Dawson's Creek days.
Review of Steven Bocho's new Iraq war TV series. This sounds like a disaster, but I too (along with the New Yorker) am interested in the long career of odd Steven Bocho. General query: Why does the New Yorker review TV?
David Sedaris, tired, tired and out of season.
Another cute sidebar in the front . . . by Alex Ross. Who is this Alex Ross? Oh, here he is, or, rather, his temporarily out of order blog. Music critic. Sidebar was on Aaron Copeland, with a great quote about making pop music. Under the "Lit" heading at Ross's blog this piece on Thomas Mann looks interesting . . . I luv Doctor Faustus.
Also watched Hollywood Ending (Woody Allen, 2002) this past weekend. Blindness as slapstick and philosophical problem. For those who've seen it, he went blind from "narcissistic masturbation" right? I feel the son subplot is quite lame and the movie is about moviemaking . . . would provide cute clips for teaching undergrads about auteur theory.
Categories: newyorker, film
posted by zoe p. at 12:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home