Subject: Mike Nichols Is Bad for Broadway
Re: "Culturebox: Starstuck"
From: Angela Marie
Date: Aug 8 2001 9:47 a.m. PT

First, almost half the "Hollywood transplants" named started in theater (not just Streep, Kline, and Spacey, but also Matthew Broderick, Nathan Lane, Christopher Walken, Philip Seymour Hoffman, etc.). It can't be bad for theater when properly trained actors return to the stage with more acting experience and the ability to draw a crowd besides. Furthermore, two of the three problems mentioned with The Seagull (lack of ensemble, poor handling of the drama) fall squarely on the shoulders of the director. The problem, therefore, is Mike Nichols. I would argue that transplanted directors are a much more dangerous trend in theater today. If film and stage acting are miles apart, film and stage directing have light years between them. A stage cast, no matter how talented, can never escape the albatross that is a director with no vision.

[Find this post here.]

Subject: Thank You, David Edelstein

Re: "Movies: Acid Redux"

From: Helio9000

Date: Aug 10 2001 10:17 p.m. PT

I'm glad somebody is finally telling the truth about Redux. It is understandable for critics to be enthusiastic about seeing what Coppola added but the way they have vomited all over themselves claiming that it is now, finally, a "true masterpiece" is downright hilarious. What will be funnier still is watching them clean up that mess a few years from now. I can already see the essays, "The Pleasures of Staying on the Boat, Redux Reconsidered."

[Find the rest of this post here.]

Subject: Has Wright Read Kass' Discussions of Cloning?

Re: "The Earthling: Fearful New World"

From: Dan

Date: Aug 13 2001 10:04 a.m. PT

Robert Wright has every right to disagree with Leon Kass' belief that we should forgo some of the potential benefits of cloning-related research, but to claim that Kass' opinions are based simply on a vague sense of revulsion (and sloppy analogies to Brave New World) is simply not true. …

In fact, what has made Kass' writing so valuable a contribution to the debate is that he does not fall back on faith or religious concepts about life's sacredness (which Wright back-handedly admires for their greater clarity) in making his arguments. Instead, he articulates the relevant first principles involved, as well as the possible societal consequences of moving towards commodification and design in how we think about life and bring new people into this world.

[Find the rest of this post here.]