Subject
Re: Kubrick's LO. (fwd)
Date
Body
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 11:54:42 -0500
From: Matt Morris - Forsyth Technical Community College
<mmorris@riscy.forsyth.tec.nc.us>
Goodness what a can of worms I have opened in my Kubrick critique--so far I
have been accused of ubermenschianism, shrieking, impatience, unfairness etc.
But no one has yet responded to my specific criticisms of Kubrick's Lo,
which I still think are valid.
And why all of the opposition to holding strong opinions (and by
implication, it would seem, Strong Opinions)? I sense that many of those
angered by my Kubrick critique would not have gotten along with the highly
opinionated VN.
Incidentally, I think it is important to remember that Nabokov had a
contractual obligation never to say anthing bad about Kubrick's version of
his film. To me, his praises have always been models of polite
disingenuousness.
From: Matt Morris - Forsyth Technical Community College
<mmorris@riscy.forsyth.tec.nc.us>
Goodness what a can of worms I have opened in my Kubrick critique--so far I
have been accused of ubermenschianism, shrieking, impatience, unfairness etc.
But no one has yet responded to my specific criticisms of Kubrick's Lo,
which I still think are valid.
And why all of the opposition to holding strong opinions (and by
implication, it would seem, Strong Opinions)? I sense that many of those
angered by my Kubrick critique would not have gotten along with the highly
opinionated VN.
Incidentally, I think it is important to remember that Nabokov had a
contractual obligation never to say anthing bad about Kubrick's version of
his film. To me, his praises have always been models of polite
disingenuousness.