Bad Grammer
- Thread starter The Dude
- Start date
Risquit
Member
Cool review of The Big Lebowski
The Big Lebowski
There are actually two Lebowskis, a big one and a little one, a multimillionaire philanthropist and a lazy, laid-back bowler, both christened Jeffrey; and when the latter -- who prefers to be addressed as "the Dude" -- is mistaken for the other by a pair of dim-bulb thugs, he is pulled into an apparent kidnapping plot of rapidly deepening complexity: "a lot of ins, a lot of outs, a lot of what-have-yous." The Coen brothers, writer-director Joel and writer-producer Ethan, are here having fun with, among other things, complexity per se. Fun with the very idea of complexity. Fun with the concrete and mountainous evidence of complexity. And one of the richest sources of fun, played off in the sharpest contrast to complexity, is the glorious spectrum of stupidity on exhibit: the dope-addled but gropingly rational Dude (Jeff Bridges); the big lug who is always absolutely sure he is right in spite of the fact that he has never been right yet (John Goodman); the woolgatherer who falls behind in the slowest of conversations (Steve Buscemi); the several teams of hired "muscle" (all brawn, no brains), one team of which are self-styled Nihilists; the nympho bimbo; the adolescent joyrider who afterwards forgets his corrected homework ("Use a dictionary," "Spelling") in the abandoned car. The complexity is no illusion. It is right there in front of us in frightening and multiplying detail. It brutally illuminates the stupidity. And at the same time it forms the philosophical foundation for a broad and accepting, if aloof and frosty, view of humankind. The Coens -- who better? who else? -- are able to make wonderful sport of deadbeats and boneheads from the high ground of diligence and ingenuity. They never play "down" to the audience. They demand effort and intelligence, and they reward these by the truckload: lively characterizations, flavorful dialogue, dense atmosphere, clever and convoluted plotting, rich and well-developed themes, abundant allusions, "in" jokes, grace notes, and red herrings, each element teamed with the others in common purpose. Julianne Moore, David Huddleston, Sam Elliott, Peter Stormare, Ben Gazzara, John Turturro, Jimmie Dale Gilmore. 1998.
--Duncan Shepard, San Diego Reader
The Big Lebowski
There are actually two Lebowskis, a big one and a little one, a multimillionaire philanthropist and a lazy, laid-back bowler, both christened Jeffrey; and when the latter -- who prefers to be addressed as "the Dude" -- is mistaken for the other by a pair of dim-bulb thugs, he is pulled into an apparent kidnapping plot of rapidly deepening complexity: "a lot of ins, a lot of outs, a lot of what-have-yous." The Coen brothers, writer-director Joel and writer-producer Ethan, are here having fun with, among other things, complexity per se. Fun with the very idea of complexity. Fun with the concrete and mountainous evidence of complexity. And one of the richest sources of fun, played off in the sharpest contrast to complexity, is the glorious spectrum of stupidity on exhibit: the dope-addled but gropingly rational Dude (Jeff Bridges); the big lug who is always absolutely sure he is right in spite of the fact that he has never been right yet (John Goodman); the woolgatherer who falls behind in the slowest of conversations (Steve Buscemi); the several teams of hired "muscle" (all brawn, no brains), one team of which are self-styled Nihilists; the nympho bimbo; the adolescent joyrider who afterwards forgets his corrected homework ("Use a dictionary," "Spelling") in the abandoned car. The complexity is no illusion. It is right there in front of us in frightening and multiplying detail. It brutally illuminates the stupidity. And at the same time it forms the philosophical foundation for a broad and accepting, if aloof and frosty, view of humankind. The Coens -- who better? who else? -- are able to make wonderful sport of deadbeats and boneheads from the high ground of diligence and ingenuity. They never play "down" to the audience. They demand effort and intelligence, and they reward these by the truckload: lively characterizations, flavorful dialogue, dense atmosphere, clever and convoluted plotting, rich and well-developed themes, abundant allusions, "in" jokes, grace notes, and red herrings, each element teamed with the others in common purpose. Julianne Moore, David Huddleston, Sam Elliott, Peter Stormare, Ben Gazzara, John Turturro, Jimmie Dale Gilmore. 1998.
--Duncan Shepard, San Diego Reader
deliverance
ecnareviled
dorian gray
Returning videotapes
- Apr 8, 2004
- 21,258
- 489
- 83
the_3_toed_sloth
Massive member
Aaron A. said:
Bah, its not a massive error, just a confusion between verb and noun. If its 'fear of me' then 'fear' is a noun ('of me' an adjectival construct, describing the fear), something that needs to be 'had' (note missing verb 'to have'). If, as in this sentence, you being with "You will fear" then 'fear' is a verb and takes a direct object ('of' now superfluous). "You will fear me" would've worked. "You will have fear of me" would too. But im thinking that Mike just ignored all this to make it sound cool.
Shit, i have waaay too much time on my hands. Im going to go watch the rugby...
Risquit
Member
<crimson> said:that's a shit review, it's not even a review.
Its a good review if you understand that it makes you think about the movie beyond the basic plot and what you see on the screen.
Mantraschism
Skáld
@the_3_toed_sloth: Just because there's a preposition after 'fear' doesn't mean that Mike thought it was a noun. There are lots of English verbs that require an accompanying preposition (ex: listen -- you don't 'listen' something, you 'listen TO' something), and others still if after which you put a preposition then you change the meaning (ex: throw UP, throw OUT, throw IN; run OUT, run UP, run OVER, run IN). It's much more likely that Mike just thought 'fear' belonged to the former group, rather than that he thought 'fear' was a noun.
the_3_toed_sloth
Massive member
I never said he thought it was a verb or a noun specifically, just that he hasn't quite constructed the sentence correctly for either way. As i said, if used as a verb then it does not take a preposition, and 'of' is a junk word.
I'm usually a grammar Nazi, but I'm of the opinion that English grammar is at least somewhat flexible. One can say that "your fear of me is paralyzing" or that "you fear me", but why not fearing *of* something? My justification is as follows: the narrator in Still Life is telling us a story, and that if we bear with him we will fear *of* him. Since our relationship with him is inherently that of hearing his recorded story far after the fact, it seems to be simply a light distinction between fearing the already established presence of something and fearing its approach. He is never present in the room with us, so we cannot fear him. We can, in a different degree, only fear *of* him.
Whether you take stock in my justification or not, I see it as far more noteworthy that Deliverance has "A Fair Judgement" instead of "A Fair Judgment", as "judgement" is essentially only in the dictionary because of chronic misuse.
All hail Mikael, who never wrote the lyric "forced to make you dead". Or needed to have Niklas Sundin translate for him.
Whether you take stock in my justification or not, I see it as far more noteworthy that Deliverance has "A Fair Judgement" instead of "A Fair Judgment", as "judgement" is essentially only in the dictionary because of chronic misuse.
All hail Mikael, who never wrote the lyric "forced to make you dead". Or needed to have Niklas Sundin translate for him.
Botfly
"I Am"
What I believe is incredible is that he swedish. Most "english-as-a-second-langauge" singers, (especially swedish) have an accent when singing in english, i.e. Vintersorg (Btw, at the rate his voice is getting progressively higher, by the next three Borknagar/Vintersorg releases, it's safe to say that his vocal preformance will be the equivelant pitch to a nasally chipmunk and his death vox will sound much like Dany Filth's girly shrieks and shrills).
Anyways, my point is that you'd never guess he's Swedish. In fact, he sounds alot more like he's some country rock singer (Not the annoying kind, the good kind) from America. Plus, he knows his english pretty well, at least to the extent of where we get the point. Besides, poetry isn't meant to be gramatically correct, much like E.E. Cummings with his poetry (Although all he did was insert random punctuation marks, half-assed and insipid if you ask me. Just some dumbass trying to look cool, I guess). When it comes to poetry, there are no grammatical errors, it's art, and Opeth's lyrics sound fantastic the way they are.
Anyways, my point is that you'd never guess he's Swedish. In fact, he sounds alot more like he's some country rock singer (Not the annoying kind, the good kind) from America. Plus, he knows his english pretty well, at least to the extent of where we get the point. Besides, poetry isn't meant to be gramatically correct, much like E.E. Cummings with his poetry (Although all he did was insert random punctuation marks, half-assed and insipid if you ask me. Just some dumbass trying to look cool, I guess). When it comes to poetry, there are no grammatical errors, it's art, and Opeth's lyrics sound fantastic the way they are.
the_3_toed_sloth
Massive member
dragonfear said:
I think the point of this thread is that it can be annoying when people make grammar mistakes, not that its annoying unless you can justify it with an abstract reference to the plot (which doesn't make sense, as by the previous line, 'bear with me', there is a direct presence). But i like your stance alot better than "Hes Swedish! Leave him alone!"
Yeah. When I hear Mikael talk in english, he seems even better at it than Gildenlow who taught english at some schools and is like a god among men. Go Mikael!
Botfly said:Besides, poetry isn't meant to be gramatically correct, much like E.E. Cummings with his poetry (Although all he did was insert random punctuation marks, half-assed and insipid if you ask me. Just some dumbass trying to look cool, I guess). When it comes to poetry, there are no grammatical errors, it's art, and Opeth's lyrics sound fantastic the way they are.
I suppose that is a good point...
