|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
This letter to the editor was printed in The Valley Advocate, a weekly arts and politics newspaper here in the valley. Their dumb-ass movie reviewer made some disparaging comments about heavy metal in the context of his review of Rock Star. (By the way, this is the same reviewer who gave five stars for Moulin Rouge and AI. Read Jon's response to that debacle.) The first draft of my letter was about 750 words - this is the 250 word trimmed down version that they printed.
A good journalist must, unquestionably, possess the ability to rise above his or her own prejudice. Judging from his review of Rock Star, John Boonstra does not possess this ability. Many of Boonstra's criticisms of Rock Star were valid. However, he lost me in his last, spiteful paragraph: "Sure, it's a facile, disappointing movie. But since the subject is heavy metal, what else should we have expected?" I could go on about heavy metal's virtues: its politically-charged lyrics, its unapologetic sexuality, its determination to speak of unspeakable subjects. Heck, even my mother "got it" after I showed her the lyrics to Metallica's "... And Justice for All." But I won't bother. Closed minds - especially of those whose opinions are in the majority - usually remain closed. I have my prejudices too, but when I watch a movie I try to understand its value outside of my little world. Boonstra hates metal, and is unable to acknowledge the artistic credibility of a genre he casually dismisses. He's about as qualified to review a metal movie and soundtrack as I am to review a Garth Brooks concert! If I wrote a review dismissing O Brother, Where Art Thou? because "all Appalachian music is crap," I would catch hell. But Boonstra can toss a metal movie aside behind the safety of cultural elitism.
Rachel Meyers
|
|
||