--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens" <bradstevens22@h...> wrote:

> It is possible to produce satire without being snobbishly superior.


Agreed, although I'm not sure about the added inflection of "snobbish," which
implies
a class bias.

For the record, Frye following Aristotle distinguishes the characters of each
mythos
according to their degree of freedom:

romance - more free than us
comedy - as free
tragedy - more free, then less (after the fall)
satire - less

So that superiority is built in. This is something cinephiles don't like - the
Cahiers
translated this particular esthetic preference into a reflex political gotcha in
the 70s
(borrowing some jargon from Lacan) by excoriating filmmakers who put the
spectator
in the position of being a "non-dupe." Alrman is the example Serge Daney gives
in
our interview, on-line at Steve Erickson's site. Everything he says about Altman
is
being re-said here about Leigh.

>
> The satire of DR STRANGELOVE implies a humanist rage at man's
> stupidity. The 'satire' of NUTS IN MAY implies nothing but the
> filmmaker's own feelings of snobbish superiority.

How about humanist rage at the English class system, which produces warped
characters like the husband? I love that film, by the way. Steadman is hilarious
in it.