Column About ‘A.I.’ Elicits Real Emotions

I may be out of touch but I’m a rank-and-file moviegoer with a completely different reaction to “A.I. Artificial Intelligence” than anyone Patrick Goldstein talked to (“Reviewers’ ‘A.I.’ May Be ‘Aging, Irrelevant,”’ July 17).

I thought it was a truly outstanding movie, one of Steven Spielberg’s best. Certainly it had a few flaws, but relatively minor ones compared to many movies nominated for best picture last year. Quite frankly, I’m surprised that “A.I.” got mixed reviews rather than wholeheartedly favorable ones.

If some people really liked “A.I.” and other people didn’t, why assume that the people who liked it are either stupid or just not “with it”? Maybe some moviegoers hated “A.I.” because it just wasn’t quite what they had expected.

RICHARD DAVID LESTER

Los Angeles

*

Goldstein is right on target about film critics. According to more than 200 members of the Political Film Society around the world, the main problem seems to be that films are about people and institutions, yet film reviewers display little knowledge of (and even disdain for) the relevance of a film within the context of the wisdom of the social sciences.

Accordingly, they appear to be graduates of community colleges trying to criticize PhDs.

MICHAEL HAAS

Los Angeles

*

I’m not a big fan of Jasper Johns or Jackson Pollock, but just because an average guy like me doesn’t like it doesn’t mean it’s without merit. Furthermore, someone who really knows art, especially in the 20th century, can make a strong argument about why it is important and why and how it is great.

Unfortunately, there aren’t too many people who cover film or write about it who can do the same in cinema. I think Goldstein and I agree about one thing: Film criticism in this country is in a deplorable state, but I don’t think it’s just because the films are bad. I’ve found that most people who are so-called critics have just a minimal of background or training in cinema studies and hence it all becomes one big popularity contest.

JOSEPH F. ALEXANDRE

Venice

*

Goldstein notes that “with rare exceptions, such as ‘American Beauty,’ today’s audiences prefer safe, less demanding fare.” That may be what major studios perceive to be true, but as one of today’s audience members and speaking for some fellow moviegoers, I couldn’t disagree more.

As witnessed these past few years at the Academy Awards, audiences (and academy voters) have demonstrated their appreciation for more challenging, edgier and thought-provoking work. Whether or not some of these films become classics, only time will tell. “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” “Traffic,” “You Can Count on Me,” “Wonder Boys,” “Before Night Falls,” “Pollock,” “Requiem for a Dream,” “Dancer in the Dark,” “Boys Don’t Cry,” “Being John Malkovich,” “Magnolia” and “Central Station” are all films that both audiences and critics mutually responded favorably to in the past few years.

Audiences have soundly demonstrated their appreciation for Spielberg’s more mature fare, “Saving Private Ryan” and “Schindler’s List,” and they continue to embrace films that are not “feel-good” movies. Many filmgoers simply didn’t agree with Spielberg’s choices as a storyteller this time around and judged the film not on the merits of the critics or on Kubrick’s and Spielberg’s involvement with the project but on the film’s achievements or lack thereof.

JAMIE PAINTER YOUNG

Los Angeles

*

When you bring the unlimited resources to the making of a film as Spielberg has, and when you use futuristic sci-fi as your setting--which is as close to a blank slate as you can get--there’s little excuse for failing to breathe life into the resulting product. I’m left to wonder if his own taste for things mechanical and robotic didn’t overweigh the scale against human subtleties and sensibilities. That balance eluded him. JULES BRENNER Hollywood

I’m responding to Goldstein’s snide anti-”A.I.” piece because, as a fellow film journalist, I’m overwhelmed by the know-it-alls who are happy to bash Spielberg and “A.I.”

They’ve won this round: They’ve killed “A.I.” Goldstein is wrong to say reviews were generally favorable. He mentions Newsweek without detailing the bizarre Newsweek ad quote calling “A.I.” “frustrating.” That’s not a word that sells tickets or conveys critical enthusiasm.

Plus, there’s an essential lack of seriousness in Goldstein’s piece. He’s reporting party chatter and general snideness. Thanks for nothing. He quotes Pauline Kael without summarizing her important (in “On the Future of Movies” and “The Numbers”) condemnation of Hollywood corporate practices, L.A.-insider hipness and business school philistinism. So it’s a totally corrupt piece.

Does The Times take joy in “A.I.,” the single most interesting American movie so far this year, being drummed out of the marketplace by hipper-than-thou journalists? It’s a pity.

ARMOND WHITE

New York Press