or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by anantksundaram

Why? It is really addressed to the world. I choked up a bit reading that note. I can recall very few passings that caused the kind of worldwide outpouring of grief and sadness as Job's death did. I think it's a great day to pause and reflect on his legacy every year. I am sorry to say this, but your post sounds churlish.
I wonder if you're overreacting. Perhaps because my reaction was different.I saw no elitist snobbishness there. I also happened to think that books are a little more abstract than movies/TV, and music is probably the most abstract art form of all (but that's a much longer discussion that I am willing to engage in separately, so that I don't bore people to tears).
I was actually ambivalent about seeing this film. Sorkin's interview (previously reported) put me off. After reading this blog, and seeing the (overwrought) comments above, I've decided it's a must-see. I'll decide for myself, and post my thoughts after I've seen it. I'll try to keep an open mind.
I agree with parts of what you've both posted. In particular, I totally get what Flaneur is saying there (although I appreciate the visual medium as much as any other).What do you find so problematic about that statement that you have to do a facepalm? I am genuinely puzzled.
Oh, don't get all worked up. Rock is not the same as jazz, in case you did not realize (although Joni Mitchell's credentials in terms of working with people like Wayne Shorter and Jaco Pastorius is what drew me to her music in the first place -- btw, Burns barely mentioned either, at least not as far as I can recall). My knowledge of the latter is better than the former, because I grew up listening to a lot British Rock and didn't have enough time or access to US Rock. By...
I realize that Joni Mitchell's (I am a huge fan, btw) version of it is well-known, but to give credit when it's due, the song was originally written and performed by Judy Collins (in the '60s).
I can't speak to Burns's documentaries on the civil war or baseball, but the one on jazz was a biased, narrow, shallow piece of work.
Fair enough. I go to movies solely for the purposes of being entertained, and never take the stuff too seriously. Particularly non-fictional ones, such as documentaries and biopics.For irony, bathos, pathos, lump in the throat, reflection and learning about life, etc. I tend to rely on the real world and news (such as it is).
I think the discussion is wandering into the territory of being a non-sequitur. I've completely lost you at this point, and perhaps it's time to get on with my day... :-/
1) I've already said how I interpreted his comments. There's no point in arguing that further.2) I stated the part about having 'a clue' poorly. What I really meant to say was that all we have at this point are second-hand, not first-hand, information on the movie. In any event, that does not take away from the larger point about our knowledge of what Sorkin may or may not know about Jobs relative to any of us. You did not even address it in your response.
New Posts  All Forums: