Comments on: GUEST OF CINDY SHERMAN Review http://blog.spout.com/2009/03/24/guest-of-cindy-sherman-review/ Daily coverage of what is truly interesting in the film world Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:00:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: paul h-o http://blog.spout.com/2009/03/24/guest-of-cindy-sherman-review/#comment-123867 paul h-o Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:28:02 +0000 http://blog.spout.com/?p=12477#comment-123867 I'm very impressed with your critique of the film (even if on a personal level at times pained) because you are one of the few writers to have parsed (remember how overused that chestnet was?) key components within the story's trajectory. I do think that there are problems inherent to making a film that has triple duty, but what a process!. So much material and life mixed, the archive and dailies forcing us to make choices from days into years. In 2004 I'd had a long discussion about the story with Barbara Koppel, and she helped convince us that the track of using a personal account was a recipe to breathe life beyond the art world. She had literally seen parts of my video archive. Cindy was part of that discussion. Your critique leaps to a depth that few would. In many ways deeper than analysis by Tom and me. My story is what it is, some like it and some think it's self-serving crap. People can decide for themselves but at least we have something, a film, and it's a long, long haul to get it into a theater. It's praise in itself that you would think about it, Karina. T. Holly is right on for choice copy that could have been used instead of what is. (ocme and work with us next time) Paul I’m very impressed with your critique of the film (even if on a personal level at times pained) because you are one of the few writers to have parsed (remember how overused that chestnet was?) key components within the story’s trajectory.

I do think that there are problems inherent to making a film that has triple duty, but what a process!. So much material and life mixed, the archive and dailies forcing us to make choices from days into years.

In 2004 I’d had a long discussion about the story with Barbara Koppel, and she helped convince us that the track of using a personal account was a recipe to breathe life beyond the art world. She had literally seen parts of my video archive. Cindy was part of that discussion.

Your critique leaps to a depth that few would. In many ways deeper than analysis by Tom and me. My story is what it is, some like it and some think it’s self-serving crap. People can decide for themselves
but at least we have something, a film, and it’s a long, long haul to get it into a theater. It’s praise in itself that you would think about it, Karina.

T. Holly is right on for choice copy that could have been used instead of what is. (ocme and work with us next time)
Paul

]]> By: T.Holly http://blog.spout.com/2009/03/24/guest-of-cindy-sherman-review/#comment-123635 T.Holly Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:14:23 +0000 http://blog.spout.com/?p=12477#comment-123635 "time capsule of several decades worth of contemporary art" Spout "good-natured, engaging and uncensored autopsy of male ego and strip-searched celebrity" Variety If they put some quotes of reviews other than Wired (who cares about Wired?) on their film site, someone might want to read the reviews instead of everyone assuming nobody wants them to be written. “time capsule of several decades worth of contemporary art” Spout

“good-natured, engaging and uncensored autopsy of male ego and strip-searched celebrity” Variety

If they put some quotes of reviews other than Wired (who cares about Wired?) on their film site, someone might want to read the reviews instead of everyone assuming nobody wants them to be written.

]]>