Errata is a web journal written by Robert Davis who has neither spent a night in a ghost town nor pulled a turnip from the earth. He doesn't even know if turnips grow in the ground. Perhaps on trees, like candy corn. Therefore, Errata is a non-commercial project.

Observation #1: It may be appropriate, when leaving a movie theater, to say "mysterious."

Observation #2: It may be appropriate, when leaving a movie theater, to say "mysterious" at the top of your lungs. Bring your eyebrows together before you say it. Effective!

Observation #3: Same for books. Even at libraries.

There is a prize for people who correctly guess the thing about Metropolis, Nevada.

Except where the text specifically states otherwise, Errata's vagaries are indicated vaguely and its authors are indistinct in the traditional way of the Internet, except where the authors lay claim to their work. In some cases Robert Davis lays claim to work that is not his own but has been abandoned like so many ghost towns. Except where held presently, fistfuls of dirt are suspended via dispersal, or dispersed via suspension (in the air), and thus their dissolution is their transcendence, or their transcendence is their dissolution. And yet our eyes tear, and our vision is impaired, demonstrating for the umpteenth time that one entity's gain is another's fit of sneezes. Except where indicated, storms shall outlive the clay upon which they rain, unless storms are improperly delimited by their clouds, which dissolve, rather than by their inevitable return. Thus the clay loses, unless the clay is said to own the storm, to use it to make itself heavy, to make itself cling to white garments, refuse dispersal, cake upon the facades of abandoned buildings, and sit like Man [sic] upon the earth where it is pelted by a storm that it owns. In which case the clay still loses, if you ask us.

Some of the above is legally binding and should be considered a mental contract between Errata and those upon whom it acts. The bit about the prize should be considered an overstatement insofar as prizes differ from dirt and prize dispersal differs from dirt dispersal. Please recall that ownership is a weight and, therefore, hope that you do not win the prize.

One day Errata or its representatives will call upon you for a favor. It is expected that you will hop-to without delay.

You may contact Robert Davis by email unless it's about the rock that was thrown in anger. The rock is more properly called a clod. Why do you continue to raise the topic?

17 November 2003

Kauffmann on Elephant

Writing in the latest issue of The New Republic, Stanley Kauffmann has a contrarian view of Gus Van Sant's Elephant, calling it "a braggart piece of empty exhibitionism."

Posted by davis | Link

Reader Comments

November 27, 2003, 10:05 AM

pete

How exactly is it contrarian? Most of the reviews I've read of that movie have been negative. If anything, it seems a bit chic to pan it.

December 7, 2003, 02:07 AM

davis

You may be right, Pete. I may have been a bit loose with the word. I haven't tallied up reviews or anything. Maybe I meant "here's a view that's contrary to my own". It may be worth pointing out that Kauffmann's review is predicated on the idea that some critics embrace anything modern, even if it's empty, but that he will not; thus, he seems to see his own review as contrarian, at least when compared to those kinds of reviews.

Also, since you made me curious, I took a look at metacritic which shows Kauffmann giving Elephant a score of 10, dead last among the 38 reviews listed, which have a median score of 75. I'm not one to quantify, though. I don't put much stock in tallies and averages.

By the way, I didn't see this comment until over a week after it was posted. I promise to pay more attention from now on.

Other Recent Posts

Other Recent Episodes

Favorite Films