Prologue, deplete once read... or not.
Dear kind, intelligent, and beautiful *YOU*, (the editor now reading this),
I suppose I must apologize for attempting to contact YOU.., though quite likely you've experienced a "shift change", and the ONE I technically seek, the ONE who read and approved my review of Lamb late last night, is likely dragging INTO bed with a strong cup of vodka and a mild sedative.
But, since you be, as I've noted, kind, intelligent, and beautiful, I implore you to read this and act upon my bitter ruminations accordingly (and we ALL know you're right now visualizing the "waste basket".
My first bitter rumination bitterly questions the choice of IMDb to display all reviews with very wide lines of SMALL text, making them painful to read, if not impossible on a smaller device.
My second and last bitter rumination is possibly less bitter and more actually curious, but with a hefty side of cynical. That is, I do not understand your/IMDb's method for selecting the placement of new reviews. I've understood when a website places one's post at the front or back of the cue on the basis of chronology. It makes sense. BUT!, I discovered that my review of Lamb, officially approved by THE ONE zoonself, had been mysteriously hidden away in the middle of the second page (of 3). So I ask: Do you editors give each review a rating, and the reviews then arrange themselves accordingly? Or perhaps (and this is the cynicism talking) I was banished to the seldom- read middle of the pack because I confessed my Christianity, a status currently well below pedophile or Donald Trump.??
I am reachable via email or landline, which I unflinchingly offer (figuratively) as a daring adventure, because I am an "idealist"; and I'm currently seeking an edgy, progressive, poetic, transcendental, and romantic cross-generational relationship with a 10, 20, or 30-something zoon (who tends to be female), who is wildly intellectual and has a broad aesthetic paradigm, willing to settle down on my wooded acreage with zoonself's Tantric partner slash gender- fluid MK-Ultra handler, shortly after slitting my throat and burying me behind the goat barn.
Cordially, Scarlet Pumpernickel Author of.. "Everyone Usually But Not Necessarily Always Poops".
cheers!!😇
-------------------------------------------
July 20, 2017
I think I can safely say this film is Art for Art's sake; and I guess that's OK. There are indeed an infinite number of provocative, trendy, YouTube-eligible topics that one could make a movie about, but of which it would be imho pointless to do so. And at the end of Lamb, I was simply left asking myself, now what the hell am I suppose to do with THAT? I suppose I could write a pointless review that almost no one will read, and rhapsodize about how cool and edgy and transcendent it was.
But in the end, in reality, this daringly whatever film takes you nowhere. Perhaps it rationalizes itself, as other reviewers have noted, as a creative adventure in idealizing love, imagining perhaps that in some enlightened society, we might be free to accept love where we find it - this mystical force that floats in the ether and descends willy-nilly upon its hapless victims, who apparently have no will or reason with which to resist.
The comment that made me decide to write this was: "The real strength of the movie is that it pushes and breaks boundaries, which most of us adhere to."
So, in the realm of reality where we like to think that boundaries have value, the only function this film can serve is to plant the seed of doubt, perhaps making it just a little bit easier for yet one more budding, albeit "idealistic" pedophile to cross the line, but with the best of intentions, I'm sure.
So, OK, I admit it -- I'm one of those born- again Christians, whose life prior to becoming brainwashed however was filled with aesthetic adventures, pursuing ideals and stretching boundaries which Christianity would only have clucked at me for. Like most people, I had to learn the hard way. In the end, while it's easy to aspire to and imagine ideal relationships, and even easier to write about them, etc., the human mind or soul, if you will, has a way of turning good intentions and lofty ideals and beautiful aspirations into sludge. And thus, as I would often say to my wife after a film like this, "That's why the Amish don't go to movies."
My preference, knowing what I know, is to believe that I'll just have to be content to wait for Heaven, the next life that awaits, where all relationships will be ideal, as well as absent the potential for turning sour or landing me in jail. As for this life here and now, if one craves a deep relationship with an eleven year old girl, I think I'd just have to recommend becoming a parent.Along the lines of what "Gary" says to Tommie near the end, just think of it as an "expensive" relationship. And as a parent, that way... it really will be (expensive); and your quest for an idealized cross-generational relationship can then legitimately be (more or less) guilt free.
Like I say, one can theoretically appreciate Art for its own sake, but at least couldn't the artist once in a while make art without having to achieve it by simply breaking yet another taboo? This well-worn gimmick does not make for an "expensive" film.., and nobody's leaving me a farm in their will. I want my money back.
COME ON, PEOPLE!! Let's DO something truly, actually worth while; and help me bring back the semicolon!!
Dear kind, intelligent, and beautiful *YOU*, (the editor now reading this),
I suppose I must apologize for attempting to contact YOU.., though quite likely you've experienced a "shift change", and the ONE I technically seek, the ONE who read and approved my review of Lamb late last night, is likely dragging INTO bed with a strong cup of vodka and a mild sedative.
But, since you be, as I've noted, kind, intelligent, and beautiful, I implore you to read this and act upon my bitter ruminations accordingly (and we ALL know you're right now visualizing the "waste basket".
My first bitter rumination bitterly questions the choice of IMDb to display all reviews with very wide lines of SMALL text, making them painful to read, if not impossible on a smaller device.
My second and last bitter rumination is possibly less bitter and more actually curious, but with a hefty side of cynical. That is, I do not understand your/IMDb's method for selecting the placement of new reviews. I've understood when a website places one's post at the front or back of the cue on the basis of chronology. It makes sense. BUT!, I discovered that my review of Lamb, officially approved by THE ONE zoonself, had been mysteriously hidden away in the middle of the second page (of 3). So I ask: Do you editors give each review a rating, and the reviews then arrange themselves accordingly? Or perhaps (and this is the cynicism talking) I was banished to the seldom- read middle of the pack because I confessed my Christianity, a status currently well below pedophile or Donald Trump.??
I am reachable via email or landline, which I unflinchingly offer (figuratively) as a daring adventure, because I am an "idealist"; and I'm currently seeking an edgy, progressive, poetic, transcendental, and romantic cross-generational relationship with a 10, 20, or 30-something zoon (who tends to be female), who is wildly intellectual and has a broad aesthetic paradigm, willing to settle down on my wooded acreage with zoonself's Tantric partner slash gender- fluid MK-Ultra handler, shortly after slitting my throat and burying me behind the goat barn.
Cordially, Scarlet Pumpernickel Author of.. "Everyone Usually But Not Necessarily Always Poops".
cheers!!😇
-------------------------------------------
July 20, 2017
I think I can safely say this film is Art for Art's sake; and I guess that's OK. There are indeed an infinite number of provocative, trendy, YouTube-eligible topics that one could make a movie about, but of which it would be imho pointless to do so. And at the end of Lamb, I was simply left asking myself, now what the hell am I suppose to do with THAT? I suppose I could write a pointless review that almost no one will read, and rhapsodize about how cool and edgy and transcendent it was.
But in the end, in reality, this daringly whatever film takes you nowhere. Perhaps it rationalizes itself, as other reviewers have noted, as a creative adventure in idealizing love, imagining perhaps that in some enlightened society, we might be free to accept love where we find it - this mystical force that floats in the ether and descends willy-nilly upon its hapless victims, who apparently have no will or reason with which to resist.
The comment that made me decide to write this was: "The real strength of the movie is that it pushes and breaks boundaries, which most of us adhere to."
So, in the realm of reality where we like to think that boundaries have value, the only function this film can serve is to plant the seed of doubt, perhaps making it just a little bit easier for yet one more budding, albeit "idealistic" pedophile to cross the line, but with the best of intentions, I'm sure.
So, OK, I admit it -- I'm one of those born- again Christians, whose life prior to becoming brainwashed however was filled with aesthetic adventures, pursuing ideals and stretching boundaries which Christianity would only have clucked at me for. Like most people, I had to learn the hard way. In the end, while it's easy to aspire to and imagine ideal relationships, and even easier to write about them, etc., the human mind or soul, if you will, has a way of turning good intentions and lofty ideals and beautiful aspirations into sludge. And thus, as I would often say to my wife after a film like this, "That's why the Amish don't go to movies."
My preference, knowing what I know, is to believe that I'll just have to be content to wait for Heaven, the next life that awaits, where all relationships will be ideal, as well as absent the potential for turning sour or landing me in jail. As for this life here and now, if one craves a deep relationship with an eleven year old girl, I think I'd just have to recommend becoming a parent.Along the lines of what "Gary" says to Tommie near the end, just think of it as an "expensive" relationship. And as a parent, that way... it really will be (expensive); and your quest for an idealized cross-generational relationship can then legitimately be (more or less) guilt free.
Like I say, one can theoretically appreciate Art for its own sake, but at least couldn't the artist once in a while make art without having to achieve it by simply breaking yet another taboo? This well-worn gimmick does not make for an "expensive" film.., and nobody's leaving me a farm in their will. I want my money back.
COME ON, PEOPLE!! Let's DO something truly, actually worth while; and help me bring back the semicolon!!