Heartless but Not Blameless

The important element Kenneth Turan missed in his Perspective about today’s new breed of filmmakers was who was responsible for this change (“New Cinema’s Heartless Beat,” Dec. 2). Who is the most responsible party? Film critics.

Independent films can only be financially viable with the support of the critics. Critics only praise movies that are “edgy.” Therefore, executives who produce and acquire independent films look for projects that are “edgy” (i.e., sick, disturbed, twisted, lacking in humanity).

“Moulin Rouge” and “Magnolia” did not belong on Turan’s list of “edgy,” only-for-effect films. These were both human, innovative films and deserve critical respect. They didn’t get critical respect because they are human, not sick and twisted, stories.

“Moulin Rouge” is not a classic story and, yes, the story has been told before, but the style is original. If you are not cynical, you can appreciate the warmth in this film.

“Magnolia” offers an interesting comparison. Paul Thomas Anderson’s earlier film “Boogie Nights,” while good, was overrated by critics. The difference in the films? “Magnolia” was a warm, human one with complex, tragic characters, whereas “Boogie Nights” was mostly for effect, without complex characters, and mostly heartless.

In the past, human stories were valued. While critics wistfully wish for a return to a golden age, they show no appreciation for any human films made today.

There is too much cynicism, envy, anger, arrogance and bitterness among film critics. It is affecting the type of films we see. It is sad.

STEVE MILLER

Los Angeles