Film FlamTo the Editor,
The Tucson Weekly is supposedly an alternative paper. And in fact, in its political reporting and editorials, and in its coverage of music, books and theater, it is. So why do you treat film differently? An alternative paper would offer intelligent reviews of movies that are outside of the mainstream--independent, foreign, experimental. For the most part, The Weekly's film section only offers pseudo-hip sarcasm about stupid megaplex films. In the last few weeks we've seen reviews of The Flintstones Viva Rock Vegas, Big Momma's House and Gone in 60 Seconds, all in the same flippant, put-down writing style. The analogy would be if your book section only offered satirical reviews of John Grisham and Danielle Steel novels. The few times an alternative film is reviewed, it's more often than not dismissed in witless fashion, like when one of your reviewers panned the Cannes winner Rosetta because it had a waffle stand in it.
Apparently James DiGiovanna and company think that they are very clever and cool and progressive. In fact, their approach to film is totally reactionary, dating back to the days when it was assumed that film was not an art form, but just some dumb amusement to be made fun of. Your film section is nothing less than an embarrassment. I know it is, because the mediocre, middle-of-the-road Arizona Daily Star actually has better film writing than The Weekly.