Front Page

The 'Zine

Sunsphere City

Bonus Track

Market Square

Search
Contact us!
About the site

Advertisement
Incoming

Letters to the editor:
[email protected]

Letters to the Editor

Exploitation Mindset

I would like to respond to the letters to the editor bashing your article on "Homegrown Porn" [by Coury Turczyn and Herschel Pollard, Vol. 9, No. 24]. I noted that all three of the negative letters were from women, obviously upset over anyone else (especially men) having a good time. One of the upset writers implied that this type of exhibition on the Internet could cause all women to be looked at a "little less seriously and seen more as sex-crazed bodies," or "easy access sex utensils." This writer obviously has been reading too many works by anti-sex feminists. Unfortunately, she, like many other modern feminists, has bought into the mindset that all women are exploited by men even though other unenlightened women such as Jenna and Becca (poor little things) don't even know it. This is a bunch of crap. These women are doing what they enjoy or what will bring them food on the table. Just like anybody else in the working world. Why do these women have to represent a symbol of all womankind? Are all men sleazy and immoral just because Bill Clinton can't keep his pants zipped? Why do women take everything other women do as a personal vendetta to illustrate how exploited they are by men? If some of your female readers want to go on a crusade to save all womankind from the horror of such oppression, count me out.

Helen Smith
Knoxville

The Man's Eternal Quest

What In the Hell are they doing to Chilhowee Park? ["Coming Attraction?" by David Madison, Vol. 9, No. 25] So, they removed that mauve cable-car monstrosity from the middle of the lake, the unsightly presence of which caused many of the more sensitive ducks to seek accommodations elsewhere. Too, they razed the dozen or so flood-damaged huts, where, during Fair Week, credulous hordes of gap-toothed hillbillies were tempted by glib carnies to risk the egg money to win a cotton candy goat, a hand-blown glass swan, a genuine goldfish, or some such item of kitsch. These were the last vestiges of Chilhowee's incarnation as the city's only amusement park, complete with rides including a world-class Merry-Go-Round with hand-carved steeds and a calliope (I wonder who stole THAT), Dodgem cars, a skating rink, a bowling alley, and lots of other stuff that amused white people all summer, every day, except Thursdays, that day being set aside for the oppressed class. Alas, TV made this sort of fare obsolete long before video games, the Internet, and other virtual realities sent many of us to remain quietly in our rooms for good.

So, one might hope that the park could be now restored to some semblance of a green space. I believe that in the original bequest that parcel of land was given to the City of Knoxville for that explicit purpose. But no, except for the small picnic area at the 5th Avenue entrance the obliteration of all green things is almost complete. Once again THE MAN in his eternal quest for more revenue has looked upon Chilhowee as a source for additional commercial exploitation. The renovation millions are being squandered on asphalt and fancy brick entrances for a park that no longer exists. The motley array of peddlers, pickers, car junkies, and cat and dog show impresarios have completed the takeover. And there, presiding over the acres of asphalt, perches the Jacobs building, a fitting monument to Babbittry and the centerpiece of the new Chilhowee Parking Lot.

I wonder if THE MAN could send a bus by on, say, Thursdays to take those of us who need a nature-fix out to Sequoyah Hills to see the trees?

C.A. "Buzz" Kelley
Knoxville

Stop the Renaming!

As a former resident of Knoxville and an avid reader of the Metro Pulse, I would like to comment on Jack Neely's article entitled "Bad News." [Secret History, Vol. 9, No. 27] I am glad that someone in Knoxville seems to have a head on their shoulders and their eyes open! I couldn't agree with Neely's viewpoint more. In the future, how tacky will it be to have visitors to Knoxville and the University of Tennessee only to show them around street after street named after UT sports stars? As if that is not enough, the wise leaders of Knoxville decided to change Mulvaney Street to "Hall of Fame Drive"? Although the only plausible excuse for this name change would be to direct visitors to the Women's Basketball Hall of Fame, as mentioned by Neely, isn't the largest orange basketball in the country enough to tell visitors to Knoxville where the Hall of Fame is located? Finally, I would just like to say that I also support a moratorium on street name changes. Thank you Jack Neely for your well written editorial.

Mark Morrison
Cork, Ireland

Special Bonus Letter!

Gosh darn it, we do love getting mail from our readers but we just can't print it all. Sometimes the missives are unsigned, run too long, don't relate to any of the issues we usually cover, or verge on the loopy. Rather than let these bits of personal expression go unread, we will now start posting them here. Enjoy!

To Coury Turczyn:

1. It is not 1977. Making that assumption is the first fault of your review. Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace is not a "new paradigm of amusement" and was never intended to be. It is the first installment of a nine part series. George Lucas was not trying to impress us; he was trying to give a beginning to the story that we love. Expecting anything more than the beginning to a great story, which has been released twenty years after the middle of the story has been released, is a mistake. On a personal note, why would you go into a movie theatre expecting anything other than to see a movie? Any seasoned movie goer knows that high or low expectations ruin the best of films.

2. Why would you want The Phantom Menace to stand on it's own? As I said before, The Phantom Menace is the first in a nine part series. It was not written to stand on its own. To forget that Star Wars: Episodes IV, V and VI ever happened would be to ignore a third of the plot. Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace is one ninth of the Star Wars saga. Think of it as the first thirteen minutes and thirty three seconds of a two hour movie. Would you walk out of any other movie thirteen minutes into it and pretend as if you had seen an entire story?

3. Your list of reasons is exactly that: a list, not evidence or an explanation, just a list that gives no credence to your argument. Now for the list itself. First, you slammed Lucas' use of technology. Computer animation at this stage in its development does not look "real." It didn't look real in A Bug's Life, Antz, Toy Story or the rereleases of Star Wars: Episodes IV, V and VI. That is a flaw in the technology, not in the use of it. Why should any director compromise the story because the technology available to him or her is new and not yet perfect? Second, you slammed the use of a child in one of the title roles. Have you no concept of the story? Have you ever picked up a Star Wars novel or comic book? Have you ever heard or read anything that George Lucas has ever said about the Star Wars saga? The first trilogy occurs thirty years before the second trilogy. It is the story of The Clone Wars and the end of the Jedi Knights. Anakin Skywalker is an important part of the story and is a child at the time The Phantom Menace takes place. Are you not the least bit interested in where Darth Vader came from? As far as the dialogue is concerned, it seemed pretty realistic to me. I work with children every day and that is how they talk. As for the acting, I believed the role and the child is a child. Do you expect him to have the experience of Sean Connery? Third, I doubt that Jar Jar Binks was written for marketing purposes. (This story and the other eight were all outlined and partially written at the same time 20 years ago.) If you think that this character "torpedoes" the movie, you should explain why. An opinion means nothing if it is not backed up. Finally, there is your comment about the "hardware." I do not remember The Phantom Menace having any more ships than The Return of the Jedi. They seemed about equal to me. Also, can you think of a better way of invading a planet than using robots and blasters?

4. No one that I know, including myself, thinks that The Phantom Menace is more than a movie. I did not think that the other three Star Wars movies were anything more either. They all are wonderful movies that have had a profound impact on me, but they are still movies. Why do you think that they are not?

To Hillari Dowdle:

1. You said that "What [Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace] lacks are the elements that made the original Star Wars so great: character development, plot, dialog, message, central conflict, acting, pace, and whatnot." How long has it been since you have seen the original Star Wars? Obviously, it has been a while, because if you had based your comment on the actual movie and not a romanticized memory than you would not have said that. The original Star Wars (meaning Episode IV - A New Hope) had no character development, little plot, cheesy dialog, no message, only the faint beginnings of a central conflict, contained two forms of acting—whining and not whining, had the same pace as The Phantom Menace and how do you define "whatnot?" Yet, somehow we both loved that movie and the other two. I wonder why.

2. I don't know what movie you were watching, but it was not the one that I saw. There is no "cantina" scene in The Phantom Menace. In fact, there is no cantina either. I'm not sure which scene you think is a "cantina scene," but I sure would like to know. Hard as I tried, I cannot remember a scene that resembles the one that occurs in Mos Eisley in the original movie.

3. I did not think that the actors' talents were wasted.

4. Watch the movie again and this time pay attention. There are several times where more than two consecutive lines of dialog are uttered.

5. What do you have against Jar Jar Binks? Yes, he is cute and too much so. But the "movie's fatal flaw?" Jar Jar Binks is a supporting character, give him the appropriate amount of consideration.

6. Study Eastern religion, then you will have the knowledge to recognize its influence and understand the full scope of its complexity. "The Force" is a symbol on which all other religions can be superimposed. It is the ideal of what personal religion should be. Or at least that is what George Lucas has said about it.

To Zak Weisfeld:

1. Your friend was right; the movie was "damned entertaining." But I doubt that he meant that the film was designed to "please, and ostensibly protect, children." Assuming that you quoted him correctly, your friend said that the center of George Lucas' universe was his children. George Lucas has said that his children are the most important things in his life. I do not see how that fact means that The Phantom Menace was meant to please all children.

2. How am I, like every other reader, supposed to know what you mean by "lack of humanity" if you do not explain yourself?

To Jesse Fox Mayshark:

1. Did you go to college? If you did than I am sure you will remember taking English Composition I. That is the class where you learn basic writing skills. The basic skills that go along with using quotes are these:

A. Consider the motivation of the person you are quoting. (Ex-wife?)

B. Do not take quotes out of context. (Or at least give us a sentence or two of introductions to lay out the context.)

C. Clarify the subject when necessary. (In this case, it would be the "film" she mentions.)

D. Take out unnecessary information, but not if it makes your quote look suspicious. (Removing at least one full sentence from the middle of a quote is very suspicious.)

2. If you are going to discuss George Lucas' motivation, it might be helpful to do some research.

3. Your piece is not a review. It is a poor attempt at smartass prose and you should be ashamed for trying to pass it off as journalism. Write a real review and stop trying to be cute. It is not becoming.

Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion. If you do not like Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace, that is fine with me. It is your right to think for yourself. But please, discuss your opinions responsibly. Spouting off, like the four of you have done, dissolves any credibly that you previously had.

Christy Williams
[email protected]

Oddly enough, Coury Turczyn takes the time to respond. Who's the bigger geek? You decide!

In a message dated 5/26/99 10:44:48 PM, you wrote:

<1. It is not 1977. Making that assumption is the first fault of your

review. >>

How exactly did I "assume" that it's 1977? What I actually wrote was: "The crowd roars, and it's 1977 once again—or whenever it was when you first saw our popular culture's defining piece of entertainment." The point is that many people were looking forward to Phantom Menace to once again feel the same excitement they did when they saw the original SW. This hardly seems disputable—nostalgia is a big factor here for many longtime fans.

<paradigm of amusement" and was never intended to be.>>

I did not say that. Here's what I actually wrote: "And isn't that really what we're all here for? To feel that same contact high from being immersed in a new paradigm of amusement: the E-ticket ride movie." The point, again, is that I think people wanted to feel the same thrill they did when they first saw the original SW—that excitement over discovering something new: the purely entertaining blockbuster. As I point out in the next sentence, that paradigm has become a template, so there's no going back to that feeling.

I did not say that the George Lucas intended Phantom Menace to also be a new paradigm of amusement—though I could easily make the argument that he intends it to set new *film making* paradigms, based on his goals of going fully digital with his films, changing performances in post-production, etc.

<>

No? Then what's with all the special effects sequences that don't actually advance the story?

<love. Expecting anything more than the beginning to a great story,

which has been released twenty years after the middle of the story

has been released, is a mistake. >>

Couldn't disagree more. You have mighty low expectations for film entertainment. And even so, Lucas' offering of just "a beginning to the story" is awfully spotty.

<Any seasoned movie goer knows that high or low expectations ruin the best of films.>>

All that is moot since I never expected Phantom Menace to set a new paradigm in amusement, nor did I say so. In fact, as far as expectations go, I wrote: "Could we enter theaters without any preconceived notions and leave thinking, 'What a great movie!'?" My opinion was no. See question number two.

<<2. Why would you want The Phantom Menace to stand on it's own?>>

Silly me—I expect a two-hour plus movie to stand on its own as a story. It seems like a rather humble expectation of any film.

<>

Nonsense. As the very first part, it should stand alone the *most* out of all the sequels, which are later parts of the story. Furthermore, Phantom Menace has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Thus it ought to have a story within that framework that keeps our attention—and that's clearly what Lucas intended to do with the whole struggle between Queen Whatshername and the Asian-sounding middlemen. Unfortunately, he told the story so disjointedly that it was difficult to understand what the hell was really going on.

Certainly, characters and plot points will (hopefully) develop in the later parts, but is it really too much to ask that we at least know who or what they are in this first part? There's barely a scene in this movie in which we get any indication as to what these characters are like as individuals. And since, as you point out, this is the very first part of the series, shouldn't we be given at least *some* hint of who to root for? If you hadn't seen the other SW movies, you'd have little idea of who is "bad" or who is "good" (other than Darth Maul, whom we know is evil just because he wears a hood and has face paint—but NOT because of any particular actions he takes).

<>

Again, nonsense. This is the first part, right? Therefore, we shouldn't have to know a damn thing about the Star Wars universe in order to understand Phantom Menace—it's supposed to introduce us to all of it. Why in the world should we have to know a third of the future plot if it conceivably *hasn't even occurred yet* when this movie takes place?

<Star Wars saga. Think of it as the first thirteen minutes and thirty

three seconds of a two hour movie. Would you walk out of any other movie thirteen minutes into it and pretend as if you had seen an entire story?>>

Let me get this straight—I can't officially review this movie for another four years or so until I can finally see the other two parts? It seems rather silly to think that we can't consider the creative success or failure of an individual film until we see the "entire story." (And although you probably know better than I, didn't Lucas say he's no longer interested in making the last three parts? What does this do to the "entire story"?)

<<3. Your list of reasons is exactly that: a list, not evidence or an explanation, just a list that gives no credence to your argument. Now for the list itself. First, you slammed Lucas' use of technology. >>

No, I slammed Lucas' bad decision to *overuse* weak technology.

<>

BECAUSE ITS USE COMPROMISES THE STORY. That IS a flaw in the use of it. Bug's Life, Antz and Toy Story were all cartoons—that is, they existed in their own universe where things didn't have to look "real." Thus, the technology wasn't flawed at all—it did the job fine. But by combining silly-looking (and sometimes poorly designed and animated) CG characters with live-action people, Lucas's overuse of iffy technology greatly weakened his film.

By placing such an annoying and ridiculous creation as Jar Jar in the movie, he just about destroyed the sense of reality he worked so hard to create. Add to that fact that Jar Jar gets more screen time than some of the actual actors, and you've got an unconvincing mish-mosh of cartoony slapstick and deadly earnest emoting. It doesn't work. Compare it to the original Star Wars, in which Lucas had no choice but to use people in costumes—while the technology wasn't exactly perfect there either, the costumes didn't disturb your suspension of disbelief. He was forced to rely on real actors to create these characters, and they did a good job; in Phantom Menace, he had the freedom to dispense with physical actors, and their replacements *didn't* do a good job. That was a poor creative decision on his part; with Phantom Menace, I think he's more interested in technological challenges than in conveying a good story.

<>

No kidding. Here's what I actually wrote: "Too bad Lucas doesn't know how to write for an 8-year-old, and cast a boy who doesn't know how to act." I realize Lucas had to have a child in the movie to show us the young Darth, but the things he had Anakin do didn't reveal much about the character—but they will sell value meals and speeder toys.

<>

Yes. And Phantom Menace didn't tell me a damn thing about him other than that his mommy was supposedly a slave and that he's got weird thingies in his blood stream.

<Then we have a difference of opinion.

<No. But I'd hazard a guess that there are many child actors who could've been more convincing. I've seen much better child actors in other movies. (Another problem is probably Lucas' inability to direct actors well, and a child actor would no doubt need lots of help that he was unable to give.) But this isn't just a "child"—this is the future Darth freakin' Vader. Sadly, we don't see even a hint of him in the movie, not in the acting nor in the writing.

<>

So? There was no desire to market action figures 20 years ago? Sure seemed like it....But the point over when he developed the idea of Jar Jar is irrelevent—in final execution, he adds absolutely nothing to the plot (whereas in the original SW, the comic relief characters were closely tied to the story).

<>

Here's what I wrote: "Too bad the aptly named Jar Jar Binks is the single most annoying character in all human creation..." This would seem to make it clear that I thought the character was extremely stupid and detrimental to the enjoyment of the film.

<>

In Star Wars, the characters made the movie work, even moreso than the special effects—they were cliches, yes, but you knew what their motivations were, what they wanted, how they felt. You liked them. In Phantom Menace, they're secondary in development to all the wonderful machines. I love cool hardware as much as the next movie fan—but not at the expense of character development.

<<4. No one that I know, including myself, thinks that The Phantom Menace is more than a movie. I did not think that the other three Star Wars movies were anything more either. They all are wonderful movies that have had a profound impact on me, but they are still movies. Why do you think that they are not?>>

Uhhh, perhaps because they changed the face of American film making for the last 20 years? That they became a world wide marketing phenomenon, spawning its own industry? That they enabled Lucas to further the technological horizons of film making and film playback? That they became cultural and societal touchstones throughout the world? They they inspired millions of cult-like followers to center their leisure time and money on collecting, reading, and writing everything they can about SW?

Sheesh. Give me a hard question.