Posted by DuelingPersonas at 68.156.3.162 on March 21, 2004 at 15:34:30:
In Reply to: Interesting? posted by Mrs. Isis Fabulous on March 21, 2004 at 11:12:14:
In defense of Ansen (and, I guess, film critics everywhere), think about all of the romantic comedies that he's gotta sit through. "Conventions," even well-placed ones, rarely go over well with film critics. Most of them will be upfront about (and Ansen hints at) the fact that they tend to overvalue "new" ideas, even if they don't work quite as well as the tried and true conventions--it's an inevitability, given the amount of tedious crap they have to sit through. Thus, even when a film is good, but conventional, it's not as praised by many as an unconventional film would be.
: Hmmm at least he was honest I guess.
: This is one of those interviews that reads like the reporter changed the wording of the questions after the interview but prior to publication. Because I can't picture an average entertainment journalist -- pillars of insincerity that they are -- being quite so insistently rude to someone's face.
: Also, the "running scene" convention goes back to THE GRADUATE and beyond.
: And I find it odd that he feels DOGMA is more cutting-edge than this movie, granted the reasons he's giving for not finding JG original. Is DOGMA the first movie made about Catholic theology? Is it even the first slapstick comedy made about Catholic theology? Is CLERKS the very first dialogue-driven buddy movie ever? I just don't get it.
: I guess I'd wonder what this guy's track record is in reviewing romantic comedies in general. It is a genre that to some extent thrives upon cliches -- boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy meets girl again -- and it seems like he just ain't a fan.
: Two people falling in love in an amusing fashion is one of the most oft-repeated stories in the book. A good romantic comedy is original in style, not in content.
: That's enough rambling for me, I haven't even seen the dang thing yet.