I would agree with your review of Eros, but I have not finished watching the Wong part, because I saved that for last. I don't know why you say the one part makes the film "essential viewing." It makes the first part worth viewing, not the rest. The second and third segments are a complete waste of time and the Antonioni one only damages his high reputation; he ought to hang up his lens.

I know your positions. If I appeared to somewhat overstate them that was merely for the sake of drawing up clear lines of discussion. We can’t have a debate over issues if both of us agree on everything or if both of us take comprehensive, amorphous positions. I couldn't see what your point was about dialogue in recent movies and I still don't. Yes you like dialogue and plot but you can do without them. If you can do without them what is so bad about a trend in movies toward simplifying dialogue? If you cite a Disney film as one whose dialogue is prematurely dating, you're referring to stuff that just isn't very good, and that I would tend to avoid. I think I saw Aladdin, perhaps drawn in by the connection with Arabic literature, but the film was bland and pointless and left no impression. I doubt that Pulp Fiction is going to go stale simply because it is of its period, not if it's as witty and clever as I think it is. Movies always "date." I would argue that as an art they date far far more and more rapidly than painting or novels, but if they're good, they don't "go out of date." If Lopate is trashing trash, his essay is a waste of breath. As I mentioned, I want to take a look at the essay. But high-minded condemnations of modern decline rarely convince or entice me. Conclusions that the popular mind is growing dumber--what is the point of them? One can always make the past look rosier and one can always find the lowbrow lowbrow. The trouble may be not that we're illiterate, but that we're not illiterate enough.
__________________