Jaime N. Christley wrote:

>I'm guessing that's my site. I'm sure you're right, but my eyes and
>ears just aren't sensitive enough to know the difference....
>
Oh, I really think you'll know the difference.

> For now, the DVD is a godsend after all
>the years when the only copy available was the pan & scan videotape.
>
>
OK, here's my point. I admit that anything can happen when you see this
on film. You might like it even less. You might even hate it. But let's
say there were 100 knowledgeable cinephiles with a reasonably advanced
aesthetic who had your reaction to the DVD:

"....Preminger's rigorously ambivalent style fails to alleviate the
malaise I experience in the company of spoiled rich playboys/-girls on
the French Riviera...."

(fromhttp://www.filmwritten.org/ -- I don't know if you code your site
yourself or create it with some WYSIWYG blog program, but I have to say
I really don't like that form of Web site design that won't let me post
the url to a specific part of it...)

It's my claim that the greatest number would have a very different
reaction to the actual film. What seems like "rigorous ambivalence"
would be revealed, in the film's true color and space, as hypnotic
delirium, erotic enchantment, a crazy imbalance that harks back to
"Whirlpool." So is it a "godsend" if what's great about the film is
being reduced, and yet people are still watching it in this form and
thinking that they've seen it?

- Fred