Sorry–I thought you were in fighting sort of mode. Obviously I read your post as playful but also aggressive in a good way, like you wanted to debate and wouldn't mind going at it. You made some great statements in your first post questioning certain aspects of the film like its importance. I was just trying to defend my position. If I made references to older directors or to the idea of film history, I was just using those as my reasons for finding the film important. It wasn't a personal attack, it was just a general defense of my positions on the film.
If my post was aggressive, I apologize. I thought you inviting that with your post. Obviously, you met me. I'm one of the least aggressive people you could meet. I know it's hard to read tone in someone's writing, but seriously my post was just me defending my positions and nothing personal. You read my Midnight in Paris post to John and also my posts to Brandon. I'll tell them why I think they are wrong and then they do the same. It doesn't mean either of us is right. When it comes to Malick or the Tree of Life, I'm not right. I will defend the way I feel about both if I'm questioned on them, but I'm not correct or right about anything in anyway.
Looking back on my post, I can see how my comment on the importance of the film being related to "a serious interest in film history" seems like I'm saying you're not interested in film. I'm sorry for that. It was not intended as personal at all. I was just defending why I think it's important. You could obviously strike back at that and tell me that you don't need to know anything about film history to appreciate/dislike the film, that it's an irrelevant comment. I would have thought "great point" and then tried to come up with a new or better defense. I'm sorry about that but I was really just trying to debate with you.
Also, my thoughts on the film's themes were not directed at you or intended to be pedantic (there's a good use for that word). I was just working out my ideas on the film's themes. They probably were obvious or shallow insights, but those definitely weren't arguments directed at you. I know you said you understood the themes in your post. The parts that were directed towards you were only my responses to you questioning Malick or the film's importance. Again, I'm wasn't trying to throw you to the wolves. I was hoping you'd write back and tell me why Malick wasn't that important or why the film wasn't the most important film of the year. You can tell me I'm dead wrong at any time. I probably am a lot.
Also, I know you're smart. You're working on your Ph.D in the fall. I guarantee you're a hundred times smarter than me. I don't doubt that for a second. I didn't make literary references to be pretentious or to make you feel stupid. I put them in because I knew you could relate to them. Literature is my main focus and I use it a lot for comparison, just for future reference everyone. I didn't say Nabokov's name as an assumption that you wouldn't know who he is. I said his name because it fit the description and also because I knew you'd know who he is or maybe really like him. I was just trying to defend myself by making comparisons to things you'd know. Sorry.
Listen up film club! My posts are never personal. I may make them more aggressive as time goes on but only because I don't want to hold any punches and I know the rest of you will not either. But they are seriously all in good fun. I like all of you too much to ever mean anything by them. We are all friends here. I'm sorry if I ever make any of you feel bad. Please, take nothing personally unless I make a personal attack. Even those will be in good fun. Y'all can pick on me all you'd like. I can take it!
Again, I'm sorry Lisa. Just trying to debate with you.