Friday, April 10, 2009

Is it just me,

or does this new version of Grey Gardens look dubious and unnecessary? I guess the Wall Street Journal didn't think so, but I'm skeptical.


  1. I'm with you, Katie. The review says that the film allows us to discover that "a documentary camera is not always a reliable recorder." But how does thee reviewer know that the new version is more reliable than the documentary? Is it simply because she felt more comfortable watching a fictional version rather than the real thing?

  2. Maybe the reviewer thinks this version is more reliable because Drew Barrymore's publicist got involved. Someone else's PR firm? HBO's, maybe?

    So what does a PR firm cost an actress on a month to month basis? Does she hire them by the month, the year or the movie?

    Do they send checks to just the reviewer or does the WSJ get a taste, too?


  3. I saw the original documentary years ago, and was blown away. It's hard to believe this new film will provide much new insight. I suppose there will be biographical background that supposedly "explains" why they ended up that way. The power of the original documentary was that it was an observer's eye, and made no judgments, drew no conclusions, just let events and people speak for themselves.

    I might rent it later, at most.