Salon | Letters to the editor

_______________ ROCKS IN THE HEAD BY CHARLES TAYLOR(07/01/98)

Charles Taylor's review of "Armageddon" was good until the last paragraph. He confirmed for me much of what I suspected the movie would be like: big budget, good effects, poor dialogue, poor story development, etc. What upset me was the "political" spin in the last paragraph.
Perhaps one could interpret the working joe vs. big government as a conservative position. To remain consistent, however, I should have examined the liberal views that are routinely foisted upon the public by Hollywood (many villains are white, male corporate-executive types; big business is evil; the list goes on). I suspect that this is a petard that Taylor would not like to be hoisted upon.
The potshot at fundamentalists at the end of the review not only is uncalled for but ruins what was a well-written review. A movie review should be about the movie, whether it is good or bad, not about the political leanings of the review's author. Unfortunately I will be much more skeptical of Taylor's work going forward.
-- David George
Please keep your politics where they belong. If you want to be a pundit, be a pundit. But if you're reviewing movies, please stick to movies. I don't care what you believe; I want to know if the picture is any good.
I have no problem with what I personally consider to be narrow-minded, provincial liberalism: I think Salon is full of it, but I read it anyway. It's invigorating to read a current events publication that isn't ashamed of having a viewpoint. Salon unapologetically nails its flag to the mast, and becomes that much more readable because of it. And, hey, if Taylor thinks a movie sucks, fine. But I'd rather he didn't lecture me about the nuttiness of the narrator's politics, or use a movie review to take shots at political groups he doesn't like.
-- William A. Ryan
I just read Charlie Taylor's review of "Armageddon," with which I don't necessarily disagree. What I object to is the way he insults Charlton Heston. A writer whose message contains intelligent argument or observations should not have to insult the person behind a character in a performance. I will definitely look elsewhere for a writer of greater intelligence (and respect for his betters). Heston's name will be in the history books. Taylor's won't be.
-- Ken LeBlanc

_______________ MOMMIE DEAREST IN DRAG BY PAUL FESTA (07/01/98)

I am a few years younger than Paul Festa, so "Mommie Dearest" deeply affected me in youth as well. I haven't read the memoir, but I have watched the film many times and have always enjoyed it. So I disagree with Festa's comments that the film is "disastrous," "unspeakably terrible," a "campy joke." I dismiss those remarks as unfortunate errors in critical judgment.
But truly, Salon, I cannot so easily dismiss his other comments, which strike me as outrageously wrong. Festa writes that "divas have slipped from being objects of sincere worship to targets of morbid satire. Joan Crawford had as large a gay following as any star throughout her career, and she is representative of the devolution -- from idols to virtual laughingstocks -- screen legends have undergone." I was shocked when I read this because it never appeared to me that the enthusiasm people have for fierce-faced, thick-shouldered, spike-heeled, teeth-gritting, hanger-wielding Joan Crawford is satiric mocking. Not at all. I don't believe it. Reject it totally.
I've recently read "Just Desserts," the tell-all biography about "domestic diva" Martha Stewart. Certainly any fan of "Mommie Dearest" will love "Just Desserts." The tales of Stewart stealing, shouting, stomping and screaming are wildly amusing. And the portrayal of Stewart in this book and Crawford in the film are very similar. What stands out is the strong will and cruel power of both. These are truly angry women, glamorous monsters, unbearable to the people around them. They are in a struggle with the gods, fight nature and man, life and death and still find time to trim the rosebushes.
In my view this form of fiction is an evolution of the style of the Marquis de Sade. The two works bring humor into sadism, as if Oscar Wilde wrote "The 120 Days of Sodom." For people with drag queen minds this is the highest form of art. Some would simply call it camp. I think it's different from camp because it has to it a sense of the sublime. A great film, "Mommie Dearest" is an honest portrayal of the circumstance of life, where cruelty and comedy are one. Mommie Dearest is Mommie Nature, the diva of life and death at the center of all our lives. Festa, who thinks that Crawford is mocked by the film, fails to see that we, her worshipful audience, are the laughingstock. Salon, nature mocks us all!
-- Damion Matthews
SALON | July 9, 1998

R E C E N T L Y+| FROM CRACKHEAD TO LITERARY STAR BY MATTHEW FLAMM

If you'd like to submit a letter to the editor for publication,
please e-mail us at salon@salonmagazine.com.
Letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness.
If you do not wish the letter to be published, please say so.

_______________ ROCKS IN THE HEAD BY CHARLES TAYLOR(07/01/98)
	Charles Taylor's review of "Armageddon" was good until the last paragraph. He confirmed for me much of what I suspected the movie would be like: big budget, good effects, poor dialogue, poor story development, etc. What upset me was the "political" spin in the last paragraph. Perhaps one could interpret the working joe vs. big government as a conservative position. To remain consistent, however, I should have examined the liberal views that are routinely foisted upon the public by Hollywood (many villains are white, male corporate-executive types; big business is evil; the list goes on). I suspect that this is a petard that Taylor would not like to be hoisted upon. The potshot at fundamentalists at the end of the review not only is uncalled for but ruins what was a well-written review. A movie review should be about the movie, whether it is good or bad, not about the political leanings of the review's author. Unfortunately I will be much more skeptical of Taylor's work going forward. -- David George Please keep your politics where they belong. If you want to be a pundit, be a pundit. But if you're reviewing movies, please stick to movies. I don't care what you believe; I want to know if the picture is any good. I have no problem with what I personally consider to be narrow-minded, provincial liberalism: I think Salon is full of it, but I read it anyway. It's invigorating to read a current events publication that isn't ashamed of having a viewpoint. Salon unapologetically nails its flag to the mast, and becomes that much more readable because of it. And, hey, if Taylor thinks a movie sucks, fine. But I'd rather he didn't lecture me about the nuttiness of the narrator's politics, or use a movie review to take shots at political groups he doesn't like. -- William A. Ryan I just read Charlie Taylor's review of "Armageddon," with which I don't necessarily disagree. What I object to is the way he insults Charlton Heston. A writer whose message contains intelligent argument or observations should not have to insult the person behind a character in a performance. I will definitely look elsewhere for a writer of greater intelligence (and respect for his betters). Heston's name will be in the history books. Taylor's won't be. -- Ken LeBlanc
_______________ MOMMIE DEAREST IN DRAG BY PAUL FESTA (07/01/98)
	I am a few years younger than Paul Festa, so "Mommie Dearest" deeply affected me in youth as well. I haven't read the memoir, but I have watched the film many times and have always enjoyed it. So I disagree with Festa's comments that the film is "disastrous," "unspeakably terrible," a "campy joke." I dismiss those remarks as unfortunate errors in critical judgment. But truly, Salon, I cannot so easily dismiss his other comments, which strike me as outrageously wrong. Festa writes that "divas have slipped from being objects of sincere worship to targets of morbid satire. Joan Crawford had as large a gay following as any star throughout her career, and she is representative of the devolution -- from idols to virtual laughingstocks -- screen legends have undergone." I was shocked when I read this because it never appeared to me that the enthusiasm people have for fierce-faced, thick-shouldered, spike-heeled, teeth-gritting, hanger-wielding Joan Crawford is satiric mocking. Not at all. I don't believe it. Reject it totally. I've recently read "Just Desserts," the tell-all biography about "domestic diva" Martha Stewart. Certainly any fan of "Mommie Dearest" will love "Just Desserts." The tales of Stewart stealing, shouting, stomping and screaming are wildly amusing. And the portrayal of Stewart in this book and Crawford in the film are very similar. What stands out is the strong will and cruel power of both. These are truly angry women, glamorous monsters, unbearable to the people around them. They are in a struggle with the gods, fight nature and man, life and death and still find time to trim the rosebushes. In my view this form of fiction is an evolution of the style of the Marquis de Sade. The two works bring humor into sadism, as if Oscar Wilde wrote "The 120 Days of Sodom." For people with drag queen minds this is the highest form of art. Some would simply call it camp. I think it's different from camp because it has to it a sense of the sublime. A great film, "Mommie Dearest" is an honest portrayal of the circumstance of life, where cruelty and comedy are one. Mommie Dearest is Mommie Nature, the diva of life and death at the center of all our lives. Festa, who thinks that Crawford is mocked by the film, fails to see that we, her worshipful audience, are the laughingstock. Salon, nature mocks us all! -- Damion Matthews SALON \| July 9, 1998