<?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"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: I am an escapist (spoiler alert)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://jueseph.com/2007/03/i-am-an-escapist-spoiler-alert/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://jueseph.com/2007/03/i-am-an-escapist-spoiler-alert/</link>
	<description>home</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:37:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wang</title>
		<link>http://jueseph.com/2007/03/i-am-an-escapist-spoiler-alert/comment-page-1/#comment-28</link>
		<dc:creator>Wang</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:42:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sh133.surpasshosting.com/~jueseph/blog/?p=51#comment-28</guid>
		<description>Jeff -- I agree with the distinction you draw, but I see it as more a difference in kind rather than degree. One cannot really bill &lt;em&gt;The Lives of Others&lt;/em&gt; as falling short of some standard of depth or subtlety that films like &lt;em&gt;Syriana&lt;/em&gt; manage to fulfill. Rather, &lt;em&gt;Lives&lt;/em&gt; seems to be constructed in the Classical Hollywood tradition of drama (of which the Spielberg films are certainly a part) and ought to be judged on those terms. &quot;Good&quot; films under your definition are admirable in their acute historical awareness and critical eye, but I&#039;m not sure what &quot;entertainment&quot; value one gets out of the postmodern nausée that they tend to inspire. Anyway, I love both kinds of movies -- maybe that is my weakness as a critic.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jeff &#8212; I agree with the distinction you draw, but I see it as more a difference in kind rather than degree. One cannot really bill <em>The Lives of Others</em> as falling short of some standard of depth or subtlety that films like <em>Syriana</em> manage to fulfill. Rather, <em>Lives</em> seems to be constructed in the Classical Hollywood tradition of drama (of which the Spielberg films are certainly a part) and ought to be judged on those terms. &#8220;Good&#8221; films under your definition are admirable in their acute historical awareness and critical eye, but I&#8217;m not sure what &#8220;entertainment&#8221; value one gets out of the postmodern nausée that they tend to inspire. Anyway, I love both kinds of movies &#8212; maybe that is my weakness as a critic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Sharlet</title>
		<link>http://jueseph.com/2007/03/i-am-an-escapist-spoiler-alert/comment-page-1/#comment-29</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Sharlet</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:21:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sh133.surpasshosting.com/~jueseph/blog/?p=51#comment-29</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s funny. I do indeed scorn Saving Private Ryan and Schindler&#039;s List, but Three Kings and Syriana are on my favorites list, too. I think they&#039;re both far subtler, revealing, morally challenging, and entertaining than The Lives of Other People. The end of Three Kings is cheap, but that got foisted on Russell. Syriana, meanwhile, strikes me as a strange loop of complexity.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s funny. I do indeed scorn Saving Private Ryan and Schindler&#8217;s List, but Three Kings and Syriana are on my favorites list, too. I think they&#8217;re both far subtler, revealing, morally challenging, and entertaining than The Lives of Other People. The end of Three Kings is cheap, but that got foisted on Russell. Syriana, meanwhile, strikes me as a strange loop of complexity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

