City Paper is not for tourists
Never in my life have I read such a snide, smug review of a movie as Joel E. Siegel’s review of Bridget Jones’s Diary (“Drear Diary,” 4/13). It’s a comedy. Human foibles (e.g., Bridget’s “pursuit of men, addictions to food and other substances…and attempts at self-improvement”) are funny. You know what isn’t funny? Watching a movie about people with “independence, talent, self-control, compassion, poise, insight, confidence, even culinary skill.” If I want to watch that, I won’t go to see a comedy; I’ll watch C-SPAN or Julia Child.
Siegel’s job is to review the film itselfthe actors, the adaption of the book, and so forth. His job is not to give us his snippy, male-centered, chauvinistic opinion of a book geared toward women with a sense of humor, which he apparently lacks. Could you kindly employ someone with a sense of humor and an ability to look beyond himself to review movies? If this movie were about Joel E. Siegel, he’d do a great job reviewing it. But, luckily for the world, it seems as if no one wants to make a movie about Joel E. Siegel, much less write a book about him and then make it into a movie. But they are crazy about Bridget. So could he just at least try to open himself to the possibility that (gasp!) there just might be something worthwhile about the movie, given its mass appeal? And, after recognizing that it might have some worth, could he then review it? I mean, even if he doesn’t necessarily understand its appeal? Shocking idea, I know.
That fellow can just go scratch himselfhe needs it!