Thanks for joining in the conversation. Please know that the LanceAround team respects all viewpoints. Truly I understand that my perspective is just that–mine. I’m happy to post alternative opinions. In fact, I enjoy a healthy debate. It helps me to see the films from a different perspective and find new ways to appreciate them. Your posts makes some very good points that are worthy of examination.

When I first read your post, my initial reaction was to become defensive. I wanted to point out to you that you are doing the same thing in your critique of me that you accuse me of doing with my critique of films. But such a response would only widen the divide rather than bridging the gap between us.

One thing I am aware of is that these filmmakers are passionate. They put themselves out there. It takes a lot of time, energy and money to make even short films and often there is no return on that investment beyond the intrinsic satisfaction one receives from seeing one’s work viewed and appreciated. Every time I write something negative, it pains me a little to think about how the artist might feel when they read it.

The other side of the coin is the duty I have to my readers to present, honestly, my viewpoints and descriptions of the films. I make the assumption that my readers tend to be more intelligent then the average theatre going public. As such, I trust their ability to take my reviews in stride, accounting for my obvious (and often stated) biases. I trust they do the same thing with my reviews that I do when I read other reviews–which is to read between the lines and make a judgment not only based on whether or not the reviewer “liked” the film but also what they had to say about it. Indeed, there are some reveiwers I read because I know that if they DON’T like a film, I am more likely to want to see it. Perhaps that is your opinion of my reviews and if that is a service I provide you then consider it all for the good. I know that my readers can’t possible see 170 movies in 10 days so they have to make choices. I try to give them a perspective that will help them make a more informed decision; even if that decision is, “Hey, LanceAround didn’t like this film so I’ll probably love it!”

I also realize I have limitations in my appreciation of films. As I do for artwork. My wife loves Picasso and Monet. I’m a Rembrandt man. Sometimes, like when we watched the film The Hungry Boy, I will defer to her opinions. Another example is 8 1/2. She so much loved that film more than I did that I actually had her write her first review because we were worried about the backlash if I were stupid enough to tell a group of art film aficionados that I did not like Fellini. Oops, maybe I shouldn’t have written that

I am very amused by one thing you wrote–You took offensive to the fact that I found the title “Solipsist” to be pretentious. What I didn’t say in the review is that came from a personal experience of mine. I once wrote a play that took place from creation to extinction within the time frame of when Eve gave the apple to Adam and he took a bite. I entitled the piece “Destiny.” My playwrighting teacher circled the title in big red letters and wrote, “OVERLY PRETENTIOUS TITLE!!!” on my play. At first I was offended, then hurt (or maybe vice versa.) Then I thought about it. It took some time, but I came to realize he was correct. I renamed the play, “From Hand to Mouth.” To this day I prefer the new title far above the old one and I’m grateful to my teacher for making that critique. It helped to open my eyes.

Flash forward to yesterday. My education is lacking in some areas and I had never heard of the word solipsist until I encountered it in the title of that film. (Ironically, just this morning I encountered it again in a New Yorker Magazine article–Hmmm I wonder if anyone ever called the New Yorker pretentious?) Anyway, I looked up the definition of the word and, once I knew what it meant, I found that it had a negative impact on how I viewed the short film. In fact, it was one of my favorite shorts until I learned what the title meant. Isn’t that odd? I had the same reaction to this film and its title as my playwrighting teacher had to my play. Funny how things come around again, isn’t it. I suppose I could have infused my blog post with this story, but like the filmmakers I put a lot of time, energy and money into going to the FFF (in addition to my full time job) interviewing the audience, filmmakers and FFF team members and writing my blog posts. I don’t always get it right. I seldom say everything I mean to say. I just do the best I can.

Clint I don’t recognize your name. (Forgive me, I’m horrible with names and faces) but I’m sure I’ll recognize you if you’ll introduce yourself to me next time we’re in the theatre together. I would love to have a conversation with you face to face. I’ll buy you a drink and I look forward to talking about ways to make my blog even better. I’ll even write a post about it, if you want.

Your Friend,

LanceAround

If you’re going to review films, I would make a couple of suggestions… Don’t feel obligated to write something for every single film you see. It just dilutes your thoughts. And there are several films that you write on above that you didn’t really have anything to say about. Second, rather than writing about things being good or bad, why don’t you spend more time writing about the actual film… it’s aims, etc? Everyone has a good/bad opinion of films and they’re mostly worthless unless you’re a famous critic. Lastly, it doesn’t seem that films that defy conventions and have experimental forms, narratives or concepts are really your cup of tea. Probably best to avoid writing about them generally as you just sound contemptuous about them, and as someone who sat in that same Theater with you watching the same films, you’re bias prevents you from even describing those films well.