ORBzine - Subject: The Kane Saga, Episode 1138 - August 1999

From: Gerthein Boersma
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 16:35:32 +0200

Please put this up on your webzine ASAP, Spec (ie. don't wait for a new issue, I have no patience ;)

[Since there will be no next issue, I have no option but to cram this into the August/September Edition at the last moment! - EDITOR]

---

Kane Lives!

A rebuttal to a rebuttal to a review of a review,
by Gerthein Boersma

I am reminded yet again of that favorite line from the Coen brothers' 1991 film "Barton Fink" (with thanks to Scott Renshaw). Barton Fink, an intellectual writer who has come to Hollywood in the early 1940s, reports to his studio boss that he's having trouble getting started on his first assignment, a wrestling film starring Wallace Beery. The baffled mogul responds, "Wallace Beery... wrestling picture... what do you need, a road map?".

You see, when it comes to writing for a public, there's the simple, obvious and sensible approach, and there's the approach taken by RASSMag's John Kane, hack writer extroardinaire. But then, I suppose I shouldn't judge him so harshly because, after all, his response to my 'review of the review' was remarkably coherent and actually much more of a review than that thing he originally churned out. Of course, the same repeated missing of points and listless argumentation is in evidence yet again, but then we don't expect a wheelchair-bound person to start climbing stairs within mere days... instead, we should be chuffed with the progress made and smile politely.

Let's look at the rebuttal, then. I would ignore the sobbing in the opening paragraphs: it is clear that the first point, the entire purpose of my original article, has already been missed. Fact is, my review of his review was exactly that: a review. As such, I'll critique and pick apart at leisure (you could call it flaw-searching but that wrongfully implies that the flaws were hard to find) because it's what reviewers do.

When Roger Ebert massacred 'Baby Geniuses' in his review (with such harsh words that they make my article look meek by comparison), is the conclusion that he personally hates the filmmakers? Did he feel that the total failure of that motion picture was a crime comparable to "a billion dollar fraud"? Of course not. He's reviewing! You would expect self-proclaimed Hard-Sci-Fi *reviewer* John Kane to be able to wrap his mind around such a simple concept, but you would be wrong. Instead, when I sketch a silly charicature of him chuckling with glee, he gets all offended and calls me "contemptible" (sic). And I'm the one overreacting? Now that's comedy, eh Coens?

Is a review of a review not a bit of a silly concept? It most certainly is. Why, it's looney as a toon! That's why it works: as satire (it may be bonkers, but at least it was an actual point-by-point review with arguments and reasoning and bells and whistles), as criticism (even Kane can't help admitting that I have a point occasionally -- he concedes his review was hastily assembled), as something for Spec to grab attention with. As for my tone, well... now I feel like I'm explaining a joke: I was mirroring Kane's over-the-top 'pissed on us' approach. But since Kane himself admits that entertainment ain't that important after all, perhaps somewhere deep down he does grasp the concept of rhetorical hyperbole (how else would he defend his own 'blowing up' at TPM?). And, there's room to explain one more obvious thing here: when I review a review, I'm obligated to point out poor writing style the same way Ebert is obligated to point out poor cinematography when he reviews a film. It's part of the parallel. And everything.

I'll dedicate a word or two to this apostrophe-thing before we get into Kane's defense of his previous writings: when you quote someone ad verbatim who himself made a spelling- or grammatical mistake, you use '(sic)'. This is so commonplace that I wouldn't even call it a complaint, and yet Kane chooses to take it that way... in a big way. If three letters between parenthases constitute a big deal to this guy, then it's no wonder my tongue-in-cheek tone scarred his psyche in such a manner that our little yellow admiral feels the need to offend all Star Wars fans alike by stating flat-out that Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey-Maturin series is "too good" for us.

But onward! His defense of the review itself is a mixed blessing, but at least he finally gets a few things right. One of those things *isn't* his explanation of the comments he directed at the original trilogy, sadly, because he misses yet another point: my real problem with his anti-trilogy comments. The tone of said comments was decidedly close to "the originals were always overrated", as evidenced by the accusation of Kurasowa rip-offage and the unsubstantiated complaints of 'silly heroics' et al. At least he now clarifies that 'at least loosely based in reality' was actually meant as a compliment -- should have been made clear from the outset because it sounds disparaging by itself. But the point remains: these comments just don't add up, certainly not to the sum of "Less Japanese Influence = More Disney-esque Crappola". If Kane wants us to understand his reasoning and accept such a far-reaching conclusion, he needs real argumentation.

So why did Kane put those comments in there in the first place? What's the point? In all probability, there is none: Kane simply wanted to express, concisely, his opinions -- in fact, that's mostly what the original review is about: a scattershot of opinions (Jar Jar's sub-Steve Martin, Anakin's home situation "sucks") without clarification. Kane actually admits as much in his rebuttal, which therefore reads almost as if he wants to say he did hate the movie but can't quite explain why. That wouldn't be a problem if he wasn't writing a *review*, which brings us back to the original point of my review of the review (isn't it all getting needlessly complex, folks?). Deconstruction is mechanistic; opinion is holistic; and for Kane, argumentation is incidental.

But I've called Kane's rebuttal a mixed blessing and remarkably coherent in the paragraphs above -- I would be amiss if I did not point out these blessings and sparks of coherency. Better late than never, Kane finally backs up some of his previous points and does so reasonably well (witness his anti-Ewok stance, although his reasons are still Deja-vu city). In one line ('this film was a kids' movie and should not have been', a sentiment with which I can but agree), he actually does more real reviewing than in his entire original article. Also appreciated is his exposition regarding his point of view: as a "gamer" (yeah, I know...), he'll invariably focus on some elements more, others less.

Of course, that's exactly the kind of explanation that was so sorely lacking in his original review. I better understand Kane's view now that I've seen his rebuttal (and, for the record, have never disagreed with the opinion that TPM was weak), but my opinion that the review itself was laughably poor when read *as a review* still holds. Critiques need sequitur, understandable, well-thought out reasoning to substantiate the opinions and conclusions; any critic -- or their Fink-esque bosses -- will tell you that. "The Phantom Menace... negative review... what do you need, a road-map?"

Gerthein Boersma