<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: SXSW 2008: The Order of Myths</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.spout.com/2008/03/09/sxsw-review-the-order-of-myths/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.spout.com/2008/03/09/sxsw-review-the-order-of-myths/</link>
	<description>Daily coverage of what is truly interesting in the film world</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:24:38 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: T.Holly</title>
		<link>http://blog.spout.com/2008/03/09/sxsw-review-the-order-of-myths/#comment-82316</link>
		<dc:creator>T.Holly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:30:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.spout.com/2008/03/09/sxsw-review-the-order-of-myths/#comment-82316</guid>
		<description>Thanks for approving my comment, I'm sure this doc will be much debated by people who study docs.  There's also a Hollywood Reporter critique up as well, by a writer whose work I'm not familiar with presently.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for approving my comment, I&#8217;m sure this doc will be much debated by people who study docs.  There&#8217;s also a Hollywood Reporter critique up as well, by a writer whose work I&#8217;m not familiar with presently.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: T.Holly</title>
		<link>http://blog.spout.com/2008/03/09/sxsw-review-the-order-of-myths/#comment-82240</link>
		<dc:creator>T.Holly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 01:45:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.spout.com/2008/03/09/sxsw-review-the-order-of-myths/#comment-82240</guid>
		<description>IMO, it's not worth your talent to link the Variety review and offer such a simplistic assumption or worse, to engage in simplistic misconstruing or worse, to do it for kicks.  The critic's work speaks for itself and is a click away from his name at Variety. 

And I don't think the first two paragraphs of his review (cut and pasted below) support the assumption you draw from it.  However, if you had the time, I think you could make it work in an intellectually interesting and honest way for your review.

"The Order of Myths," about America's oldest -- and still-segregated -- Mardi Gras celebration, is as divided in its sensibilities as the city of Mobile is in its racial attitudes. Doc may find an audience, but it will likely be because of the derisive nature of its portraiture rather than the weightier issues of race and class that helmer Margaret Brown attempts to grapple with -- when not making some easy targets look ridiculous. Film's concern with entrenched sociopolitical attitudes is commendable, but snideness will more likely be the factor that broadens its appeal.

Mardi Gras in Mobile was founded in 1703, we're told, before New Orleans was even a city. Given what was apparently unprecedented access to the behind-the-scenes machinations of Mobile Mardi Gras (helmer's grandfather is a longtime member of two mystic societies, one of which lends its name to the title of the film), Brown makes short work of the defenses mounted by people who want to maintain separate celebrations.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>IMO, it&#8217;s not worth your talent to link the Variety review and offer such a simplistic assumption or worse, to engage in simplistic misconstruing or worse, to do it for kicks.  The critic&#8217;s work speaks for itself and is a click away from his name at Variety. </p>
<p>And I don&#8217;t think the first two paragraphs of his review (cut and pasted below) support the assumption you draw from it.  However, if you had the time, I think you could make it work in an intellectually interesting and honest way for your review.</p>
<p>&#8220;The Order of Myths,&#8221; about America&#8217;s oldest &#8212; and still-segregated &#8212; Mardi Gras celebration, is as divided in its sensibilities as the city of Mobile is in its racial attitudes. Doc may find an audience, but it will likely be because of the derisive nature of its portraiture rather than the weightier issues of race and class that helmer Margaret Brown attempts to grapple with &#8212; when not making some easy targets look ridiculous. Film&#8217;s concern with entrenched sociopolitical attitudes is commendable, but snideness will more likely be the factor that broadens its appeal.</p>
<p>Mardi Gras in Mobile was founded in 1703, we&#8217;re told, before New Orleans was even a city. Given what was apparently unprecedented access to the behind-the-scenes machinations of Mobile Mardi Gras (helmer&#8217;s grandfather is a longtime member of two mystic societies, one of which lends its name to the title of the film), Brown makes short work of the defenses mounted by people who want to maintain separate celebrations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
