Scathing Letters

To: Harry Knowles | From: Murphy

>> From: Don_Murphy@spe.sony.com >> Date: Tue Mar 4, 2003 11:20:15 AM US/Pacific >> To: Harry Knowles >> Subject: IRREVERSIBLE ? LET'S SAVE AICN >> >> >>Don, >>The fact is most murders of passion are extreme. THAT IS TRUE. IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THERE IS NO MURDER OF PASSION IN THE FILM SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT? THERE IS AN UNMOTIVATED POINTLESS VIOLENT RAPE AND A MURDER OF FURY IN A NIGHT CLUB. DID YOU SEE THE FILM? CRIMES OF PASSION HAPPEN BETWEEN PEOPLE IN LOVE. >> You find stories in the paper, online, in the news daily, weekly and monthly of >> people that went too far, for real. 72 stab wounds. Homeless men beaten till >> their head is collapsed and then set ablaze. I remember one report >> that someone read to me of a man who found his wife cheating on him, >> shot them both to death, then drug her out of the bed to the kitchen >> floor where he beat her face in with an aluminum baseball bat, THEN >> sic-ed the family pitbull on her hamburgered face. Reality is that >> sometimes inhuman brutalities take place. THAT IS TRUE. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A FILM. A NARRATIVE STORY. NOT A DOCUMENTARY. MAYBE YOU THINK BUMFIGHTS IS THE SHIT. I DON'T. BUT IN A FILM YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO HOLD THE FILMMAKER UP AND EVALUATE HOW THE FILM TELLS ITS STORY. HERE IT STARTS WITH HOMOPHOBIC NONSENSE AND SOME FAT FREAK TALKING ABOUT FUCKING HIS DAUGHTER AND DESCENDS FROM THERE- THERE IS NO STORY- HE IS TRYING TO SHOCK YOU FOR NO REASON. THAT IS NOT A FILM- THAT IS PUTTING YOUR DICK IN A WALL SOCKET . MIGHT AS WELL POST ABOUT THAT. >> That doesn't mean everything needs to be that dark. It doesn't mean that I'll >> even watch the film again, I have no intention of buying the film on DVD. >> However, that is what unbridled rage looks like. BUT YOU ARE SUPPOSEDLY HOLDING YOURSELF UP AS A FILM CONNOISSEUR. DID NOE'S CHOICE OF 12 KICKS TO MONICA'S STOMACH HELP ESTABLISH THE RAGE BETTER THAN 8 KICKS? WOULD 2 KICKS BE ENOUGH? WHY DO 12? UNLESS YOU ARE WANKING. WHICH GASPAR WAS. >> As for the rape scene, it is the most incredibly disgusting degrading >> and horrible thing I've ever seen. HOWEVER, the scenes between her >> and her husband earlier in the film recalled Nicholas Roeg's DON'T LOOK >> NOW with Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie as some of the most >> naturalistic and comfortable coupling depicted on screen. Which makes >> everything we've seen leading to that loving scene all the darker. AND ALL THE MORE POINTLESS. WE NEVER LEARN WHO THE TAPEWORM IS. WHAT HE IS ABOUT. HE IS JUST A ONE DIMENSIONAL WANKING FANTASY OF NOE'S. HOW MUCH STRONGER A FILM WOULD IT HAVE BEEN TO HAVE REALIZED WHY HE WAS DOING WHAT HE WAS DOING- AND TO SEE LESS, WHICH IS ALWAYS MORE? BUT THAT WOULD REQUIRE TALENT OF WHICH NOE HAS NONE. >> Whether the artist intended meaning is irrelevant, the meaning is to >> be found by the viewer. THAT IS A FILMSCHOOL WANK LINE WHICH I GUESS YOU CAN QUOTE SINCE YOU CONTINUE TO WANK. IF I PUNCH YOU IN THE NOSE AND BREAK IT YOU CAN FIND A MEANING IN THAT I SUPPOSE. BUT IF THERE IS NO MEANING IN THE TEXT, AND THERE ISN'T, THEN RATHER THAN WANKING I WANTED TO LEARN HIS MEANING- AND HE HAD NONE. SO HE IS NOT EVEN A FILMAMKER, HE IS A WANKER. >> If you found nonsensical inane bullshit, well >> that's what you saw. I SAW SOMEONE TRYING DESPERATELY TO GET ATTENTION. LIKE IN A CIRCUS. HIS MOTHER SHOULD HAVE BREASTFED HIM. >> We saw different films, and many viewers will agree with you, and many >> will agree with me. >> WE SAW THE SAME FILM. YOU NOW HAVE SLID TO ACCEPTING WANKING AS >> "FILMMAKING" JUST LIKE YOU REPORT WANKING RUMORS AS >> "NEWS" (HOW IS THAT ANGELINA JOLIE LOVELACE FILM GOING, HMM?) iF YOU >> HAVE A SIDE, DEFEND IT- DID WE NEED 24 HITS WITH THE EXTINGUISHER? A >> ND IF WE DID NOT, THEN HOW MANY DID WE NEED? WHY THE EXTRAS? UNLESS YOU >> ARE TRYING TO GET A REACTION THAT THE FILM ITSELF HAS NOT EARNED. >> We represent two extremes. Somewhere in the middle are the people >> that'll edit the rape scene out of the film and >> digitize and put in a loop to masturbate to. BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT NOE DESIGNED IT FOR SINCE IT SERVES NO OTHER PURPOSE - HE COULD HAVE DONE THE RAPE IN HALF THE TIME AND GOTTEN THE SAME NARRATIVE EFFECT. THE REST IS MASTURBATION., DE FACTO. >> Perhaps edit it together with Jennifer Connelly's performance sex scene from >> REQUIEM FOR A DREAM. Unfortunately, there's nothing that can be done for them. YES THERE IS- MAKE THEM STAY IN THE PORNO WORLD AND DON'T ENCOURAGE THEM BY SHOWING WANKING AND CALLING IT "ART" >> By the way, you sure do get personal and try to goad me into flaming >> back, I'll never understand why. I THOUGHT FLAMING MEANT SENDING YOU DOZENS OF EMAILS. MAYBE I AM WRONG. AND I AM NOT TRYING TO GOAD YOU. I KEEP HOPING YOU WILL COME BACK FROM THE NAP YOU HAVE BEEN ON SINCE YOU BETRAYED ME ON JOHN CARTER OF MARS. YOUR SITE IS NOW RUMOR AND INNUENDO MASQUERADING AS NEWS. YOUR CHOICES OF FILMS ARE PAT AND UNINTERESTING. YOU WERE ONCE A SOUL MATE AND I HOPE THAT THE WITCH'S SPELL CAN BE LIFTED AND ALL MADE RIGHT AGAIN. I WANT THE REAL HARRY BACK.!!!! I CAN DREAM, CAN'T I? >>Harry Harry Knowles on 03/04/2003 09:56:58 AM To: Don Murphy/LA/SPE@SPE cc: Subject: Re: IRREVERSIBLE >> Don, >> >> The fact is most murders of passion are extreme. You find stories in >> the paper, online, in the news daily, weekly and monthly of people >> that went too far, for real. 72 stab wounds. Homeless men beaten till >> their head is collapsed and then set ablaze. I remember one report >> that someone read to me of a man who found his wife cheating on him, >> shot them both to death, then drug her out of the bed to the kitchen >> floor where he beat her face in with an aluminum baseball bat, THEN >> sic-ed the family pitbull on her hamburgered face. Reality is that >> sometimes inhuman brutalities take place. That doesn't mean >> everything needs to be that dark. It doesn't mean that I'll even >> watch the film again, I have no intention of buying the film on DVD. >> However, that is what unbridled rage looks like. >> >> As for the rape scene, it is the most incredibly disgusting degrading >> and horrible thing I've ever seen. HOWEVER, the scenes between her >> and her husband earlier in the film recalled Nicholas Roeg's DON'T LOOK >> NOW with Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie as some of the most >> naturalistic and comfortable coupling depicted on screen. Which makes >> everything we've seen leading to that loving scene all the darker. >> >> Whether the artist intended meaning is irrelevant, the meaning is to >> be found by the viewer. If you found nonsensical inane bullshit, well >> that's what you saw. >> >> We saw different films, and many viewers will agree with you, and many >> will agree with me. We represent two extremes. Somewhere in the >> middle are the people that'll edit the rape scene out of the film and >> digitize and put in a loop to masturbate to. Perhaps edit it >> together with Jennifer Connelly's performance sex scene from REQUIEM FOR A >> DREAM. Unfortunately, there's nothing that can be done for them. >> >> By the way, you sure do get personal and try to goad me into flaming >> back, I'll never understand why. >> >> Harry >> On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 11:33 AM, Don_Murphy@spe.sony.com >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Had a chance to see the film last night at the Egyptian. >>> >>> It was completely without merit- pointless, stupid and dumb. >>> To confirm this, in the Q and A after Noe was asked what his message >> was >>> - NONE, why he made the film - TO PAY THE RENT, what the script was- >>> NONE. >>> >>> I turned to Susan and I said there were two dangers >>> >>> 1- Sad fucks who will jerk off to the violence and "sex" >>> 2- Wannabes who mistake brutal filmmaking for honesty and quality. >>> >>> >>> So then I went to the site and saw you loved it. >>> >>> So which of the two were you, Harry Baby? >>> >>> >>> If you cannot (like Noe) justify the 24th Extinguisher in the face >> hit, >>> then you should have only 23. If you cannot explain as a filmmaker >> the >>> 23rd, you should only have 22. You needed 2... maybe 3. All the >>> rest >>> INARGUABLY don't need to be there. It is wanking. Defending it is >>> wanking. >>> >>> Like most of what you've been doing since April 2002. >>> >>> I await your answer.