Comments on: Chayefsky: ahead of his times?

By: Daniel

Daniel — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

Much as I love NETWORK and the other Cheyefsky ouvre, his dialog always seemed a little tin-eared to me. His characters talked like they were in a novel. Rod Serling, his early-television contemporary, had the same problem. Great ideas, but you tolerated the dialog.

By: Gary Rosen

Gary Rosen — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

I once made a list of my 10 all-time favorite movies, and I placed “Network” at #9, right behind “Casablanca”. I saw it again recently and I’m not sure I would still rate it so highly – the last half of the movie is kind of meandering and the characters do a lot of pontificating, i. e. relaying speeches written by Chayefsky.

But the first half of the movie, leading up to the memorable “Mad as Hell …” scene, is still explosive, brilliant, and chillingly prescient of the current state of the media. Of course, this may go back far past the mid-70s. While browsing the IMDB, I recently found a movie directed by Billy Wilder (“Some Like It Hot”, “Double Indemnity”, “The Apartment” etc.) in 1951 called “Ace in the Hole” about a cynical reporter who exploits a mine tragedy. Anyone seen it (probably not, it’s pretty obscure)?

By: snowonpine

snowonpine — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

Just happened to see this comment about Wiki on jihadwatch.org–look at the first item in the section titled, “A Trip to the Nuthouse”

By: Assistant Village Idiot

Assistant Village Idiot — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

My wife, who is a librarian, deplores Wikipedia – on theory alone, because she never uses it. I love it. I know all the arguments why it’s supposed to be bad and could be unreliable, but in practice it doesn’t work that way. It puts the information you want in front of your eyes quicker.

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

That’s OK, snowonpine. Some of my best friends are librarians :-).

By: snowonpine

snowonpine — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

Neo--

Sorry to go all librarian on you.

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

Oh, I rarely do that, snowonpine. Especially for controversial issues.

When I cite wiki, it's usually because (as in the case of Chayevsky, for example) there's a dearth of other online information, or because the information is utterly noncontroversial, or because I've checked out other sources and they substantiate wiki.

By: snowonpine

snowonpine — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

I see a lot of people use Wikipedia as their source of background information. I would be very cautious about using Wikipedia as your main or only source for information. I believe anyone can submit an article for this free collaborative public encyclopedia and, although there is probably some fact checking and editorial scrutiny its still very easy to get it wrong. It's also very easy to twist things and mislead. Witness the recent charges that some Capitol Hill politicians have sanitized their own Wiki profiles (of course it was their misguided, over zealous staff that did it) and dirtied up that of their opponents.

Just because its written and just because its in an "encyclopedia" doesn't necessarily mean its correct or true.

Back in the day US subscribers to the "Great Soviet Encyclopedia" sometimes got new pages and a razor blade mailed to them from Moscow with instructions to cut out the lauditory profile of a recently purged "non-person" and substitute the enclosed article on the Siberian Mugwort.

By: Tom Grey

Tom Grey — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

I'm MAD AS HELL and I'm NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE -- isn't that the new Dem Party unofficial emotional state.

Didn't WaPo have a Lefty blogger like that?

Of course, come the midterm elections, we'll see how much, or little, changes. Gerrymandering is terrible.

By: MT

MT — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

Great stuff…I’m coming back.

Posted at http://conservativeblogtherapy.blogspot.com/2006/04/neo-neocon-question-authority.html