Re/Search
Remember them? Angry Women? Modern Primitives? Just read #10, Incredibly Strange Films. Very rewarding with lots of good info. Still, I am again pining for an editor. Same piece of trivia three times in one article? Interrupted and never-completed and utterly unimportant thought left in the transcript? Did they edit ANYTHING out of these interviews? Good on them for publishing woman writers, but that essay on the Joe Sarno flick is a completely unreadable botch - did anyone even proof it? And why is it that they are quite ready to discuss the flaws of any filmmaker EXCEPT the ones they interview? (I know the answer to this).
I know the point of the book is that hidebound rules of technique are distractions from the quest for true artistic inspiration. So it figures that they let the writers 'do their own thing'. But I don't need hipsters trying to sound like academics, I really don't.
Loved it anyway of course.
I know the point of the book is that hidebound rules of technique are distractions from the quest for true artistic inspiration. So it figures that they let the writers 'do their own thing'. But I don't need hipsters trying to sound like academics, I really don't.
Loved it anyway of course.