You have a great deal of insight on the technical side of filmmaking. Congrats on all your reading or classwork or something.

But you don't have the first clue--really, not even a hint, man--as to why typical people go to the movies.

To appreciate any of the things you write about, you have to take yourself out of the picture and back to the classroom, dissect them, then nod in wise approval and return. The point of any filmmaking device is to affect the viewer in the moment, not to allow him to reflect on how smart he is. These tricks---and they did require skill and effort, you're right--are lost on nearly all viewers. What's the point of, say, ingenious blocking, if not to affect the audience's feelings? You seem to want the directors to get a cookie every time they set up an interesting problem to solve. They shot in a small room! Cool! What does your appreciation of that have to do with creating sympathy for the plight of the poor in Gomorrah? Nothing, that''s what. But to you, tha'ts the height of filmmaking. Do you like to spend hours watching skilled welders, too? I invite you to make a movie of that, cos that's what you propose as elegant filmmaking.

Read "The Immediate Experience" by Robert Warshow. He understands culture, criticism and entertainment in a way that has never occurred to you. It's not about impressing other people... YaDink. Otherwise cordially, ML

Burt, I am beginning to feel like your press agent. Hey, everybody, Burt WROTE about five of the best episodes of MASH, including the famous one in which the solider believes he is Jesus. Burt knows I'm a little bit of his Crazy Fan on this matter--just trying to recruit you all to the cause.

Oh--and Green Acres rules.

If you were entertained by the movie, Pete, you let us know--if you even saw it. If you had bothered to read what I wrote, you'd see that I explain that the topic deserved a more engaging picture precisely because it is so important and the Camorra so dangerous. But please, pop off uninformed (and anonymously) any time you like.

Endre--For the record, almost all those scenes were re-enactments. Petit did not have the resources to record his practice runs. This was a source of some controversy when the picture was released. Cheers, Mike Long

Either that, or getting it right as entertainment. (See Jimmy C above.) ML

My point exactly. Thanks for posting! ML

Here's a long article I wrote in the WEEKLY STANDARD January 1, 2001 about Bob Dylan's career and why he is worth your time. Money quote: "Bob Dylan’s work is art because it does what art should do: edify and entertain, provoke thought, promote truth, extol beauty. ... If we believe character cannot be divorced from the nature of what is produced—that the heart of a man appears in his creations—then the music of Bob Dylan tells us that he is a man of integrity and character, a worker for beauty and truth and good."

Link: http://whwg.com/thefirm/sample.php/80/Michael__Lo...

I'm a huge fan. If you are a conservative or libertarian who appreciates thoughtful, independent-hearted artists and you're not yet a Dylan fan, you may be about to discover something wonderful.

I have seen it and I hated it for lots of reasons. Never even got down to the acting. I rarely write about acting cos I don't feel that commenting on acting is much more than random opinion... but I am shifting in that view.

I assume that by "inside out" you mean feelings beget action, and by "outside in" you mean the actions are intellectually motivated, not driven by assumed feelings? (something like that)

I tihnk you're getting at the heart of it right here, you and Vince both.