Andrew:
Well each to his own, but it does focus on 'poetry' whether raw or original.
I was with a group of friends, and some I admit, were shocked at the
confrontational, sexual aspect of the film, but not the poetry. To me, if
poetry at least stays focused in the public's mind it can't be a bad thing
for us poets - at any stage of our development! I must add I was never
bored, once! Les Murray bores me, sorry!
Cheers
Helen
>From: Andrew Burke <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Poetryetc provides a venue for a dialogue relating to poetry and
> poetics <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: The Monkey's Mask
>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 09:44:04 +0800
>
>Sorry Helen to disagree, but that film was ugly, amateurish in many aspects
>(like the awful acting), embarrassing when it came to the portrayal of
>poets and poetry readings, and those nude tableaus were laughable. In fact,
>I did laugh out loud at it - not with it.
>
>I too went back to the book after - and found it as slight as the first
>time I read it. The MM to me is no big deal, either as a book or as a film.
>
>Dorothy Porter says she was very surprised at the popularity of the book -
>and I think she was right. Her humility is appealing. It was a halfway good
>idea but the poetry style was sort-of-minimalist and this restricted the
>breadth of the books novelistic range. Les Murray uses a more expansive
>poetic in writing verse novels, and his work better. I haven't read the
>Alan Wearne newie, so can't comment.
>
>Regards -
>
>Andrew
>
>----------------------------------------
>Andrew Burke Copywriting
>[log in to unmask] Creative Writing
>http://www.bam.com.au/andrew/ Editing
>----------------------------------------
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
|