- ... Well, it might be because theaters have matinees only on Wednesday, Saturday, and Sunday and few theatergoers these days--including critics--go to threeMessage 1 of 5 , Jul 12, 2009View SourceOn Jul 12, 2009, at 4:22 PM, Bilge Ebiri wrote:
> always find it intriguing when people in and around NY (like, say, aWell, it might be because theaters have matinees only on Wednesday,
> writer for the NY Times) use this put-down, as if somehow NY is a
> where people place a lot of importance on being out in the sun. I can
> understand it coming from somebody in LA perhaps, but really? Also
> isn't it
> funny how theater also requires sitting in the dark and yet nobody
> seems to
> complain about regular theatergoers being sun starved. Why? I
> suspect class
> may actually have something to do with it.
Saturday, and Sunday and few theatergoers these days--including
critics--go to three matinees every week. Whereas the true cinephile
sits through movies all day many days. I don't find this much of a put-
down (few of those people will die of skin cancer!) and I don't think
it has anything to do with class. In the old days, cinema completists
with no access to video took pride in spending less time in the sun
than in darkened movie houses. I know in the '80s before I had kids I
was in theaters for four or five hours a day and was delighted to be
pale in the name of the art.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- ... It just struck me that it s probably just a typo for Sarrisites. (That term has even appeared in a_film_by.)Message 2 of 5 , Jul 12, 2009View Source
> I have never heard that term, "Sarristes," in all these many years --It just struck me that it's probably just a typo for "Sarrisites." (That term has even appeared in a_film_by.)
- ... ***** I haven t encountered it either; and it s entirely possible that it s something Powell heard in the course of his reporting; presuming it to have aMessage 3 of 5 , Aug 1, 2009View Source--- In email@example.com, "jess_l_amortell" <monterone1@...> wrote:
> I have never heard that term, "Sarristes," in all these many years -- at least in English and in an auteurist context. (A search turns up a usage related to a French political figure.) Or could it have been the exclusive property of the "Paulettes"?
I haven't encountered it either; and it's entirely possible that it's something Powell heard in the course of his reporting; presuming it to have a pedigree of some duration.
That would at least be in keeping with the article as a whole, which is really no more than the kind of consensus history one would expect from a reporter who isn't, uhh, overly acquainted with the subject at hand (a quick check reveals that the bulk of Michael Powell's reporting has been done for the Times' National Desk).
> Anyway, nice to see a piece so even-handed that a hoary epithet like "sun-starved cinephile crowd" can be applied, for once, to both sides of the aisle.*****
Hoary it is, but I wouldn't call it an epithet. To me it almost qualifies as an institutional analysis.