Posts from 30th July 2007

Jul 07

Goethe In Love

Do You See + FTPost a comment • 580 views

moliere.jpgLike many seventeenth century punters who did not early adopt Facebook or the like, we don’t know much about Molière’s life. Much like we don’t know an awful lot about Shakespeare’s day to day routine. This I fear is not a good enough reason in both cases to suggest that the highpoint in their respective bodies of literature are based on real actual events than happened to them which resembled nothing more that an early 21st century romantic comedy.

It is particularly galling for Molière, writer of noted farces, to suggest that an aspect of his life was indeed a plainly ridiculous farce that he later based Tartuffe on. It does however allow the film-maker to make a freely adapted version of Tartuffe without having to bother with Molière’s language, pacing or indeed plot to do so. Instead you can just dress up an attractive young actor like the very few poor paintings of Molière that exist, stuff the ladies into corsets and you have a pleasantly amenable period rom-com.


warning sign off now

FTPost a comment • 529 views

7th sealseems like everyone i’ve ever been in love with has been a bergman lover, some of them fixating on films which shd maybe have pressed the panic button WELL in advance… on the other hand joan tate, who wz the first (i wz maybe 5 when i fell for her), and who translated his autobiography, is who set me on the course of wantin to be a writer so hurrah

anyway IB (1918-2007) :(

MTV takes on Michael Moore

Do You See + FT + Proven By Science2 comments • 768 views

It’s nice to see MTV putting long-form reviews online. But when it’s as hapless and baffled as Kurt Loder’s review of “Sicko” one begins to wish they hadn’t.

Loder, you may remember, is the éminence grisé of MTV News — the laconic, jaded one who was a little older than everyone else and so tasked with all the big stories — Courtney Love, global warming, stuff like that. Or you may not.

In his review, Loder says that Michael Moore has “cherry-picked facts” in his film and resorted to “manipulating interviews”. Indeed, the headline of Loder’s piece says that Moore’s film is “heavily doctored”. Moore is a “brazen” “con man”, “never more so than in this movie”, we learn.

Strong words. (If printed in England, they would probably earn MTV a law suit.) The gauntlet thrown, the reader naturally assumes Mr. Loder has come armed with a few facts of his own — a corrective to Moore’s distortions.

But Loder can produce just one figure of Moore’s that sounds fishy — that 18,000 Americans will die this year alone for lack of health insurance. “How does he know?” asks Loder.