The Height of stupidity is reached at the point where someone starts analysing fiction as documentary fact. Brett's example is perhaps the most outstanding and astounding use of this:
"Why's he scared of them? The kid lived with dead people walking around all his life...surely around the time he began to speak he'd be asking mum or whoever 'Who's that?" and point into space."
What, where you thinking of a scientific thesis with a title like that? Let us not forget that this mailing is also a ruse to get a response. Mr Hall probably loved the film, but is expecting a response, and we will not disappoint, even if our integrity is questioned in a joking, half hearted and ruse-worthy manner!
"Of course this film will win awards."
That's a presumption. I don't think it will win any major academy awards, though I think it's the best film of the year so far (barring Eyes Wide Shut).
"of course it will kill at the box office"
That was never taken for granted... indeed there was absolutely no hype on the film in America until its amazing first week result and subsequent minimal declines. It's a great film, and it is reflected by audience attendance. Rarely does a bad film gross over 250 million dollars - and there are only 20 movies that have done so.
"*** mentions "Alice in Wonderland" on his website - now there is a book and film worthy of study - Lewis Carroll is still debated about today by mathematicians."
If you read my site, I didn't link it to Alice In Wonderland - I said that the use of red in the film was radical. Radical because it was symbolic of protection. Usually red is indicative of danger, passion, dreaming (eyes wide shut), however, in this film it is structured more towards security (and perhaps compassion). I still can't get over this coding of red as security - it goes against everything red has ever stood for... I'm almost sure I'm wrong except the evidence is very strong to support my case. The acting was outstanding, and you can't criticise that. The use of colour was excellent. All undisputed. But just because it wasn't true you don't like it. And this from an alleged fan of Star Wars. I didn't like the film because it was spiritual - it was an excellent psychological thriller, a worthy successor to the Excorcist.
"(Oh and of course I was so scared of the 'ghosts' because there was a loud 'bang' accompanying each of their traverses across the screen. I hope 'The Blair Witch Project' has more to offer in thrills...it wasn't aimed at the general American audience was it? So it hopefully won't be popularist nonsense?)"
As is the case with the film, your "intelligence" prevented you from enjoying the film the same way it would when you watch any film with spiritual overtones to it because they simply cannot be factual. All I can suggest is that you go watch philip adams/paul davies documentaries.
"Another jibe at *** -you're sounding so much like mainstream media these days, I'm sick."
The editor of the tele actually likes Paul Keating. Paul Keating as far as I'm concerned was the best Prime Minister in memory. Obviously, you've read the headline and not the fine print - because if you see what I said, it was critical of the Howard Government. But what you have to remember is that there is some remarkable (should that be "unbelievable") stuff coming out of Howard Foreign policy - and that is open-ness. The Bulletin has printed out some amazing cables that we'd usually wait 30 years to see. These cables support much of what Paul Keating said (and I intended to write a clarifying piece in light of that)... but Keating was wrong because he would've gone the Howard approach but even with less of a room for East Timor independence. I don't think it's healthy to bow down and revere anyone - Soeharto was ruthless and he was a dictator - sure, he held together his country, but times have changed. Of course, we're being hypocrites after trying (and continuing) to assimilate our own indigenous people, but that doesn't mean the cause isn't right. Paul Keating was wrong because he never saw independence as necessary. Beazley Labor on the other hand was calling for peacekeepers BEFORE the ballot, calling for independence BEFORE the Howard Government was forced into accepting it at an outcome (I remember the jibes about Brereton being an idiot - even Whitlam attacked him, and Mr Brereton was right from day one). The Government under-handedly lied to the people on a number of occasions because they had intelligence reports that unless there were troops there, there would be a bloodbath. Also, the United States knew the situation strategically better than Australia did... they guessed what would happen, but Australia would not give intelligence to the USA, nor would they accept a peace keeping force BEFORE the ballot, even though the US was highly supportive of that initiative. It is obvious why the USA appeared to do nothing when the blood bath hapenned - because we tried to be too clever, we tried to run it on our own without realising that Habibe didn't have the power to keep the situation under control - what's worse is that the Government knew this but because THEY wanted to handle it by themselves, they shot themselves in the foot. What's more extraordinary is that after all this, after ignoring the USA until after the bloodbath, that Howard comes out saying that we are the deputy of the USA.
And that's what was so annoying about Keating's speech... it made out as if Labor was not happy with the move towards independence. Labor was exposing all the ineptness of foreign affairs, but Keating wrecked that. Keating's speech made it out as if Labor was not supportive of independence. That's why he was misguided - Labor was starting to expose the very inept handling of the issue by the Government and then Paul Keating comes in and becomes like the opposition leader - but for the wrong reason. The cables that appeared in the Bulletin should have been hammered at the Government - instead, we had Paul Keating wishing things were like the old days. It wrecked the fine work of Laurie Brereton and Kim Beazley - and now you'll have the Keating comments flying in the face of Labor all through question time next week. It should've been a great week for Labor - I can imagine the questions put to Allexander Downer - "do you remember saying this to the Australian people, when your intelligence said the complete opposite?" - And now, Downer will answer "Here you are lecturing us, the Government about East Timor when Paul Keating goes around criticising independence... you shameful people, blah blah"
"Kennet is arrogant says the tele, so do most news stations - so does ***. It's ok, to follow the pack *** - it means I don't have to watch commerrcial stations to know what the right wing populace is thinking - I'll just go to your page."
That's true - Kennett is extremely arrogant (btw. I wrote the piece on the night of the election, so that's the word that reminded me most of kennett), and the right wing thinks this (considering they're the ones that voted for him)... and he was becoming an autocrat - there's nothing more that I hate than Government that is not open. There should be no reason for secrecy of any kind in a Government that is open and accountable and honest. If you read www.jeffed.com, you'd realise that perhaps a stronger word than arogant should have been used. I'm so happy that the independents have the balance of power, because you'll notice how much less arrogant he has become. Yes, my convergence with the media has become quite worrying. It's taken them a while to recognise how good the writing is on the AV, and they've been following our lead. However, as editor I've got to come up with some more radical articles... Indeed, I was ready to praise Keating until I realised that what he said was that things should have been same old same old. He was right in 90% of the speech, but his conclusions weren't right. But as all good leaders of the media industry, the AV will continue its path of journalistic and editorial excellence, once again leaving behind its competitors in the Murdoch/Packer camps.