« Director's cut | Main | Bloomsday revelry »

06/13/2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a01156f86ecd3970c0115710a87c6970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Cutting Basterds (updated):

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Gavin, I was at Cannes and the Cannes program was wrong. Thompson's basically got it correct, but obviously its going to change a few minutes here and there.

After reading the author's piece, I have a few questions that, considering the reach (i.e. digg/pieces about Tarentino films), I think are particularly important, because they regard the clarity of the author's opinion (which is privy to information of much interest to the reader, and therefore also of much importance).

"Here's the larger problem, aesthetically and structurally with the idea that you're going to just whack away at the movie and cut it down to a more manageable shape that makes it more commercially viable. That's a lot easier said than done."

What? While reading that comment as a whole makes some sense, I'm actually not sure that my interpretation is correct. Some simple grammar (or even logic-type) restructuring of that sentence would help a lot. Does the author mean "Here's the larger problem with whacking away at the movie and cutting it down to a more manageable shape that makes it more viable: that's a lot easier said than done."

Ticky-Tacky, you say? Semantics, at best, you say? Well the point is, if you're writing about topics like, say, TARENTINO, and you have insider information, you should also have an editor that is able to make your writing have the clarity (and thus levity) that it needs. So really, I just broke down part of the disputes between print media and the blogosphere into a single example.

You're welcome.

The comments to this entry are closed.