<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Stephanie Zacharek</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/topic/stephanie_zacharek/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 13:41:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Movie critics: Shut up already!</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/04/15/film_critics_2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/04/15/film_critics_2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Movie news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington Post]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stephanie Zacharek]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Movies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/andrew_ohehir/2010/04/15/film_critics</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Is criticism dying? Maybe, sort of. OK, yes. Nobody cares! Write about movies, instead of your wounded pride]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If film criticism really is dying, it's doing so with all the dignity of a bunch of clucking old hens, squawking in despair while the fox gnaws his way through the wire. I myself have participated in three panel discussions in the last three years about the dire plight of people who get paid to write about movies other people make -- attended primarily if not exclusively by other critics or aspiring critics -- and there must have been dozens more. No self-respecting film festival, it seems, is complete without one.</p><p>This meme has been growing in intensity (and tiresomeness) for four or five years, ever since it became clear that new forms of media were eating away the business model of print journalism and that the elite cadre of professional cultural critics was being swamped by the blogulous hordes of InterTwitterMcGoogleyness. Do I really have to keep writing this paragraph of background explanation? I didn't think so. Thanks! (Salt Lake Tribune blogger Sean P. Means maintains an <a href="http://blogs.sltrib.com/movies/index.php?p=12512&amp;more=1&amp;c=1&amp;tb=1&amp;pb=1">online list</a> of downsized film critics that now includes 65 names.)</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/04/15/film_critics_2/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/04/15/film_critics_2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>54</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The 10 best movies of 2004</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2004/12/24/best_movies/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2004/12/24/best_movies/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Dec 2004 21:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stephanie Zacharek]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Movies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/feature/2004/12/24/best_movies</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Salon's critics pick the year's finest films -- from the modest "Before Sunset" to the operatic "House of Flying Daggers" to the magical "A Very Long Engagement" to the triumphantly weird "Incredibles"  and "SpongeBob."
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>Stephanie Zacharek's 10 Best Films </b> </p><p> The compilation of the 10-best list is the hardest chore of the year, not because it isn't a pleasure to look back on the movies that were the most delightful or affecting but because the final list never feels as definitive as it should. The things we love about movies are far too slippery for lists. Javier Bardem's face, so beautifully chiseled and yet a thorny argument against the tyranny of joie de vivre, in <a href="/ent/movies/review/2004/12/17/sea_inside/"> "The Sea Inside,"</a> for example: It's a face that could constitute a whole category in itself. </p><p> No character made me laugh harder than Edna Mode, the dictatorial fashion designer in "The Incredibles" -- as actors, cartoon characters get no respect. And a picture like Catherine Breillat's <a href="/ent/movies/review/2004/10/15/breillat/">"Anatomy of Hell,"</a> flawed and difficult, has lingered with me longer than other movies I've seen that I love and admire more. How do you explain that? You don't. You simply make a list, which is, at best, a valiant attempt to fold the greatest number of intangibles into a measly handful of discrete, numbered items. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2004/12/24/best_movies/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2004/12/24/best_movies/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The 10 best movies of 2003</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2003/12/27/best_movies_sz/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2003/12/27/best_movies_sz/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Dec 2003 20:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stephanie Zacharek]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Movies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/feature/2003/12/27/best_movies_sz</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From the eccentric, intimate "Lost in Translation" to the epic nobility of "Return of the King" to the rough-hewn affirmation of "In America," Salon critics Stephanie Zacharek, Charles Taylor and Andrew O'Hehir list 2003's best films.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>Stephanie Zacharek's 10 Best Films</b> </p><p><b><a href="/ent/movies/review/2003/09/12/translation/">"Lost in Translation"</a></b> (directed by Sofia Coppola). A jet-lag romance not just for the modern age, but for the ages. Coppola meditates on the nature of intimacy and dislocation, sustaining a mood of rapturous melancholy that few older, more experienced filmmakers have matched. The characters played by Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson circle each other on currents of sleeplessness: Both suffering from travelers' insomnia, they repeatedly drift toward their accidental meeting spot, the bar in the Tokyo hotel where they're staying, as if they were tuned in to the same silent whistle. Johansson is luminous and touching; Murray, whose expressiveness radiates from within instead of just beaming off the surface, turns in the performance of a lifetime. </p><p><b><a href="/ent/movies/review/2003/11/26/in_america/">"In America"</a></b> (directed by Jim Sheridan). A man moves his young family from Ireland to Hell's Kitchen, NYC, and figures out the difference between surviving and living. There's something emotionally rough-hewed about Sheridan's movie (which is based loosely on his own experience and that of his two daughters, who co-wrote the movie with him). Its edges aren't polished and smoothed under, which may be why the picture cuts so deep. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2003/12/27/best_movies_sz/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2003/12/27/best_movies_sz/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Evelyn&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2002/12/13/evelyn/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2002/12/13/evelyn/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2002 20:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stephanie Zacharek]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/entertainment/indie/2002/12/13/evelyn</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A small Irish movie dramatizes a real-life court case about separating children from their parents. (And it stars James Bond.)]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are several wonderful actors in Bruce Beresford's "Evelyn" (Alan Bates, Aidan Quinn) and one particularly hardworking performer who carries his role off valiantly (Pierce Brosnan). But "Evelyn," a small, sweet movie set in Ireland in the early '50s and based on a true story, is just too slight to amount to much. Brosnan plays Desmond Doyle, a mostly unemployed painter and contractor who's shattered when his wife suddenly leaves him. Declaring him an unfit father, the Irish courts take away his three children, Evelyn (Sophie Vavasseur), Maurice (Hugh McDongagh) and Dermot (Niall Beagan), making them wards of the Catholic Church. Worse yet, the kids are split up: The boys are sent to a school for boys (about which we learn nothing), and Evelyn is sent to a strict Catholic school, where she's left to the mercy of one kindly nun and one evil, abusive one. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2002/12/13/evelyn/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2002/12/13/evelyn/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Worth a thousand words</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2000/12/20/gift_3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2000/12/20/gift_3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Dec 2000 18:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stephanie Zacharek]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Laura Miller]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2000/12/20/gift</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For the last-minute holiday shopper, Salon presents a sumptuous selection of gift books.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No matter how esoteric his interests or how finicky her taste, the most perplexing person to shop for can usually be pleased with a well-chosen gift book. Even the season's most popular choice so far -- <a href="/books/review/2000/11/01/beatles/index.html">"The Beatles Anthology"</a> -- won't appeal to everyone, so we've compiled our own list of recommended books for the procrastinating holiday gift-giver. (First and foremost, of course, we'd suggest two new Salon-related titles: <a href="/promo/feature/2000/08/18/salonguide/index.html">"The Salon.com Reader's Guide to Contemporary Authors"</a> for friends and family with a literary bent, and <a href="http://jump.salon.com/xlink?361">"Wanderlust,"</a> a collection of stories from our late lamented travel site.) </p><p> The books listed here (with the notable exception of the first) place the emphasis on images rather than words, but all of them feed the mind as well as the eye. </p><p><font face="times new roman, times, serif" size="1" color="#999999">- - - - - - - - - - - -</font></p><p><img class='wp-image-10020808' src='http://media.salon.com/2000/12/dictionary.gif' /> </p><p> <b>The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th edition)</b> <br> Houghton Mifflin, 2,074 pages </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2000/12/20/gift_3/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2000/12/20/gift_3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bottoms up!</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2000/12/04/diarysun3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2000/12/04/diarysun3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2000 20:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stephanie Zacharek]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Television]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/entertainment/tv/diary/2000/12/04/diarysun3</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["Queer As Folk" -- we blush to relate! Plus: David Blaine gets cold; "G-String Divas" take it all off; and the new Mulder gets his man!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>Wednesday, Nov. 29 <br> "David Blaine: Frozen in Time" (ABC, 10 p.m.)</b> </p><p>Dear Diary: </p><p>The Ice Man cometh; and the ambulance taketh away! </p><p>It's the epitome of sensationalism, an hour-long special about a street magician cum self-aggrandizing Zen daredevil encasing himself in a 6-ton block of ice for three days -- in Times Square, no less. </p><p>As Blaine's "Master Ice Carvers" patiently begin slicing away minuscule slivers of ice (hey, they had to stretch this out over an hour!), his doctor, a Dr. Ruden, explains the risks associated with the stunt -- blood clots and dehydration, and the potential of having to have a lung or two removed. It is all pretty silly, and I can not explain why I remain riveted to the TV for the duration of the broadcast. </p><p>Was it the celebrity appearances? Michael J. Fox makes a few witty remarks to the crowd as the hour progresses. An attempt to film Kevin Spacey making a clever comment at some point during the three-day ordeal proves fruitless. Uma Thurman is caught kissing the ice. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2000/12/04/diarysun3/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2000/12/04/diarysun3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Olympian heroes</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2000/05/09/sleater/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2000/05/09/sleater/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 May 2000 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stephanie Zacharek]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Music]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/entertainment/music/feature/2000/05/09/sleater</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jeff Stark and Stephanie Zacharek discuss the new album from Sleater-Kinney, the band that wants to take over the freaking world.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><br><br><b>Jeff Stark:</b> Sleater-Kinney is rock's last great band. </p><p>That's sort of a bullshit sentence. I wrote it because reviews like this, about bold, important rock bands, are supposed to have bold, declarative openings. The lead is supposed to be forceful and opinionated, with a tone of grand importance. I'm making, you know, a <i>pronouncement.</i> </p><p>But it's bullshit, really, because I'm sort of posturing, as if I'm the first person to say that these three women from Olympia, Wash., represent a sort of last-ditch effort to save a fading form that has been at the center of nearly every positive cultural change in America for the past 50 years. As if. And even if it were true, with all of the fanatic critical support the band riles up, I'm just one more dork with bad posture and a word processor saying the same thing as all of the other dorks. At this point, I'm even <a href="/ent/music/reviews/1999/03/09review2.html">repeating myself.</a> </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2000/05/09/sleater/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2000/05/09/sleater/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Presents of mind</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/1999/12/14/gift_books/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/1999/12/14/gift_books/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stephanie Zacharek]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/books/feature/1999/12/14/gift_books</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A selection of books sure to charm, delight and inform even the most particular readers on your list.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>T</b>he books that make the best gifts take us back to childhood picture books. They're either oversized or smallish and square, and when you hold them their difference from ordinary books makes <i>you</i> feel somehow different. The pages are thick and smooth and full of stuff to look at while you're reading, or to look at instead of reading. These are books you want to spread out on your lap and take your time ambling through. You needn't proceed chronologically. And you can share them, sitting side by side with someone else.</p><p>In tune with the general air of excess surrounding the millennium, this season's gift books sometimes take lushness and extravagance so far they cross over into the outrageous: We don't recommend purchasing "Sumo," the $1,500 Helmut Newton book which comes with a folding table by Philippe Starck. We also took a pass on the mountain of books purporting to review the century that's about to end -- these scream "1999" louder than a ponyskin bag, and we want the books we give to look good on a coffee table for years to come.</p><p><font size="1" color="#999999">- - - - - - - - - - - -</font><br></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/1999/12/14/gift_books/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/1999/12/14/gift_books/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Letters to the Editor</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/1999/11/16/catholic/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/1999/11/16/catholic/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stephanie Zacharek]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John McCain, R-Ariz.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Catholicism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mexico]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Latin America]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/letters/1999/11/16/catholic</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Do Catholics deserve "Dogma"? Plus: You can&#039;t define the Net by its ghettos; what did the Bible tell white supremacist killers?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b><font face="times, times new roman" size="4"> <a href="/ent/feature/1999/11/09/catholics/index.html">The new inquisitors</a> </font></b><br><font face="times, times new roman" size="2"> BY STEPHANIE ZACHAREK </font><br><font face="times, times new roman" size="2" color="#666666"><br /> (11/09/99)</font><br></p><p><b>"D</b>ogma" may, in fact, be a very good movie.  We know in advance<br />  of seeing it, however,  that it treats very lightly subjects that are of supreme<br /> importance to a believing Catholic.  To suggest that it is offensive to<br /> portray the Virgin Mary as non-virginal and her descendant as working in an<br /> abortion clinic is not to say that such portrayals ought to be suppressed,<br /> but only to state the obvious -- such a portrayal is offensive.</p><p>What is really at issue here is whether Catholics are wrong<br /> to be so offended.  No one would expect to start a civil conversation with a<br /> Muslim with the opening premise that Mohammed was not Allah's prophet and<br /> that anyone who thinks so is foolish.  Yet, over and over again,<br /> Catholics (and to a degree, all Christians) are asked to respond with unique<br /> good humor to veritable broadsides against the content of our faith.  Like<br /> it or not, "Dogma" presents a mere caricature of Catholic faith and practice.<br /> While it may, in a sense, examine "questions of faith," the fact that it<br /> requires a foul-mouthed apostle, "fart and dick jokes," and other such<br /> puerile devices does not lead one to confidence in the movie's ability to<br /> answer said "questions of faith."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/1999/11/16/catholic/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/1999/11/16/catholic/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Letters to the Editor</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/1999/10/20/kpfa_2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/1999/10/20/kpfa_2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Oct 1999 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stephanie Zacharek]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/letters/1999/10/20/kpfa</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mary Frances Berry talks back, defending KPFA strategy; Cintra Wilson is "simplistic and condescending; differentiating between self-love and self-absorption.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b><font face="times, times new roman" size="4"> <a href="/news/feature/1999/10/12/berry/index.html">There's something about Mary</a> </font></b><br><font face="times, times new roman" size="2"> BY JUDITH COBURN </font><br><font face="times, times new roman" size="2" color="#666666"><br /> (10/13/99)</font><br></p><p><b>I</b> have not described "white male hippies over 50" as somehow a problem at KPFA<br /> or anyplace else. What I have called attention to is the need for greater<br /> diversity and a larger audience at KPFA and at other Pacifica stations. The<br /> Arbitron data analyzed for us by Audience Research Analysis show that about<br /> 90 percent of KPFA's audience (only about 146,000 in a potential market of 8<br /> million persons) is non-black and non-Hispanic. The greatest share of that<br /> audience, which was in decline in the year before the protests started, is<br /> male and white and over 45, with many over 50. I do not point this out to<br /> play a race card but to deal with a reality. By the way, Arbitron Data was<br /> already being collected and analyzed for Pacifica before I became chair; it<br /> is not some recent innovation.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/1999/10/20/kpfa_2/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/1999/10/20/kpfa_2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Letters to the Editor</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/1999/09/10/robin_williams/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/1999/09/10/robin_williams/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Sep 1999 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stephanie Zacharek]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Evolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Creationism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/letters/1999/09/10/robin_williams</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Robin Williams stinks (maybe); the WNBA doesn&#039;t need The Dunk; attack ads and the First Amendment.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b><font face="times, times new roman" size="4"> <a href="/ent/movies/feature/1999/09/03/robin/index.html">When good actors go bad</a><br /> </font></b><br><font face="times, times new roman" size="2"><br /> BY STEPHANIE ZACHAREK</font><br><font face="times, times new roman" size="2" color="#666666">(09/03/99)</font><br></p><p><b>S</b>tephanie Zacharek is on the money about the dilution of Robin Williams'<br /> movie performances. Maybe not surprisingly, his best performances are on the<br /> talk-show circuit, embarrassing Leno and Letterman by pushing the network<br /> censors, daring them to cut away from his endless masturbation gestures and<br /> references. Why do those instances work and his recent movies falter?<br /> Audiences. Give him a crowd to play to and he's Jackson Pollack. Give him a<br /> camera and he's Anne Geddes.</p><p>There are two performances that illustrate his range, and I wish Zacharek had<br /> made mention of them. In "Awakenings" he was at his best, restrained and<br /> motivated, recreating Dr. Oliver Sacks. He had an actor of note to work<br /> with (Robert De Niro) and he rose to the challenge, all but eliminating the<br /> obligatory ad-libbed one-liner.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/1999/09/10/robin_williams/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/1999/09/10/robin_williams/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Letters to the Editor</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/1999/08/10/horowitz_6/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/1999/08/10/horowitz_6/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Aug 1999 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stephanie Zacharek]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/letters/1999/08/10/horowitz</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[David Horowitz can&#039;t blame all progressives for the SLA&#039;s crimes; Salon&#039;s Zacharek is too old to rock; don&#039;t cry for Linda Tripp.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b><font face="times, times new roman" size="4"> <a href="/news/col/horo/1999/08/02/soliah/index.html">Mercy for a terrorist?</a> </font></b><br><font face="times, times new roman" size="2"> BY DAVID HOROWITZ </font><br><font face="times, times new roman" size="2" color="#666666"><br /> (08/02/99)</font><br></p><p><b>D</b>avid Horowitz's piece conflates "radicals" with "progressives," and<br /> even implies that "progressives" are all now defending Kathleen Soliah. Maybe some<br /> progressives.  Plenty of others, however, think the SLA was a hyperviolent, sexist,<br /> Marxist offshoot of the Panthers; we were then and are still horrified by the<br /> Foster slaying, and think the whole group, had they survived the Los<br /> Angeles fire fight, should have faced a jury, and if necessary a death<br /> sentence.</p><p>All liberals and progressives are not apologists for<br /> the SLA, any more than Horowitz and all his conservative buddies are apologists for<br /> Timothy McVeigh.  This liberal says that if  there is probable cause to charge<br /> Kathleen Soliah in the Sacramento robbery/homicide under the felony murder<br /> rule, let's "throw the book at her."  If the fact that liberals believe in<br /> the rule of law makes Horowitz uncomfortable, perhaps he should examine<br /> his pre-assumptions.  Perhaps they have become prejudices.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/1999/08/10/horowitz_6/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/1999/08/10/horowitz_6/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Letters to the Editor</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/1999/06/15/chick_flicks/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/1999/06/15/chick_flicks/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 1999 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stephanie Zacharek]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/letters/1999/06/15/chick_flicks</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Don&#039;t insult MY intelligence with chick flicks;  readers quibble with male nipples story.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b><font face="times, times new roman" size="4"><br /> <a href="/ent/feature/1999/06/09/romantic/index.html">Is this as good as it gets?</a> </font></b><br><font face="times, times new roman" size="2"> BY STEPHANIE ZACHAREK </font><br><font face="times, times new roman" size="2" color="#666666">(06/09/99)</font><br></p><p><b>E</b>xcellent analysis of the sorry state of romantic comedies. I refuse to<br /> see them because I don't like having my intelligence insulted. I<br /> resent the notion that women will go see a "chick flick" because "it<br /> reflects their experience" and not notice how bland and inane the films are<br /> (although saying this in a group of women will often elicit narrow-eyed<br /> stares with daggers behind them and pursed lips). I would follow Ewan<br /> McGregor anywhere, but Tom Hanks? Please. I've seen Jimmy Stewart act,<br /> sir, and you are no Jimmy Stewart.</p><p align="right">-- Meredith Renwick</p><p><b>A</b>s a card-carrying specimen of the guy<br /> species, I'm just as guy about Clint Eastwood and<br /> Larry, Moe and Curly and things that go boom as the<br /> next guy. Yet my favorite<br /> movies are the romantic and screwball comedies of the '30s and '40s.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/1999/06/15/chick_flicks/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/1999/06/15/chick_flicks/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Letters to the Editor</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/1999/04/30/nude_girls/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/1999/04/30/nude_girls/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 1999 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stephanie Zacharek]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/letters/1999/04/30/nude_girls</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Americans obsessed with sex; clashing over David Horowitz.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b><font face="times, times new roman" size="4"> <a href="http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/1999/04/26/nudity/index.html">Live nude girls</a></font></b><br><font face="times, times new roman" size="2"> BY STEPHANIE ZACHAREK</font><br><font face="times, times new roman" size="2" color="#666666"> (04/26/99)</font><br></p><p><b>S</b>tephanie Zacharek's attitudes and comments about nudity in movies show exactly what is wrong with the American approach to nudity. Unlike Europeans, we equate nudity with sex. If there is a naked body in an American film, you can bet it is sweaty and heaving. Zacharek, too, mentions nudity only in relation to sex scenes. When is the last time, for example, that you've seen a naked body portrayed matter-of-factly in an American film? Americans are obsessed with sex (whether as prudes or voyeurs), and until we get over it, we'll either see no nudity or just more gratuitous nudity. Neither is particularly grown-up.</p><p align="right">-- Stephan von Pohl <br>Oakland, Calif.</p><p><b>C</b>ontrast the energy with which the MPAA exerts its influence over sexuality with its total abdication of responsibility with regard to violence. While glorification of violence is certainly not the only cause, or even the main one, of the carnage in Littleton, it is probably one of the building blocks.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/1999/04/30/nude_girls/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/1999/04/30/nude_girls/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Flesh Guitar</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/1999/03/09/sneaks_207/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/1999/03/09/sneaks_207/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 1999 20:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stephanie Zacharek]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/books/review/1999/03/09/sneaks</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Stephanie Zacharek reviews &#039;Flesh 

Guitar&#039; by Geoff Nicholson]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><font size="+1" color="#000000" face="TIMES, TIMES NEW ROMAN">F</font>or such a short book, Geoff Nicholson's "Flesh Guitar" represents a pretty  ambitious undertaking. Half sprawling, witty novel, half primer on the  physical appeal and spiritual inexplicabilities of the guitar, it tries to  do far too much at once -- and ultimately comes off as just so much  noodling. Nicholson has built a sturdy career out of writing pleasingly  wild books (like "Footsucker" in 1996); "Flesh Guitar" is probably just an  instance of a hugely inventive novelist grabbing the chance to write about  something he feels passionately toward and ultimately writing too much  <i>around</i> it.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/1999/03/09/sneaks_207/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/1999/03/09/sneaks_207/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Turkey Shoot 1998</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/1998/12/24/cov_24featurea/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/1998/12/24/cov_24featurea/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Dec 1998 20:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stephanie Zacharek]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Suzanne Somers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Caroline Knapp]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/books/feature/1998/12/24/feature</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The worst books of 1998]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><font size="+1">E</font>arlier this week, we announced the winners of the third annual <a href="http://www.salonmagazine.com/special/1998/12/bookawards">Salon Book<br /> Awards</a> -- our 10 favorite books of 1998. But as even Santa knows, you<br /> can't have a who's-been-nice list without a who's-been-naughty list, too.<br /> So without further ado, here's the second annual Salon Turkey Shoot, a<br /> roundup of what some of our contributors thought were this year's<br /> <i>least</i> successful books.</p><p><font size="-3" color="#000000">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></p><p><br><b><font color="#CC6600">Dennis Drabelle</font></b></p><p><b><font size="-2" color="#000000">WORST:</font></b>  <b>"The Best Little Boy in the World Grows Up"</b> by Andrew<br /> Tobias (Random House). The title ends too soon -- "And Becomes an A-Gay<br /> Snot" would round it out accurately. Andrew Tobias' follow-up memoir is so<br /> name-droppingly smug that it sends you back to its predecessor, "The Best<br /> Little Boy in the World," published in 1976 under the pseudonym John Reid,<br /> to see if you misremembered that sometimes affecting story of growing up<br /> gay in a homo-hostile world. And in fact, you did: In light of the new book,<br /> the earlier one's tendencies toward self-satisfaction become all the more<br /> noticeable. What a blunder -- to write a book so bad that it snakes back<br /> and infects a predecessor that had been edging its way toward minor-classic<br /> status.<br /> <br><font size="-2"><a href="http://barnesandnoble.bfast.com/booklink/click?sourceid=290868&amp;ISBN=037550<br /> 1118" target="_top">BUY IT FROM barnesandnoble.com</a></font></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/1998/12/24/cov_24featurea/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/1998/12/24/cov_24featurea/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Night Beat</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/1998/02/06/06review_2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/1998/02/06/06review_2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 1998 20:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stephanie Zacharek]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/books/review/1998/02/06/06review</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Stephanie Zacharek reviews &#039;Night Beat&#039; by Mikal Gilmore]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><font size="+1" color="#000000">T</font></font>he best pieces of criticism are a little like memoirs: They're secret windows into the writer's heart, a ray of light filtered through a book or a movie or a piece of music. Mikal Gilmore, who's been a rock journalist and critic for more than 23 years, has already written his memoir. His 1994 "Shot in the Heart," a chronicle of his family's troubled, violent past (Mikal's older brother was executed murderer Gary Gilmore), is one of the most haunting books of the last decade. But "Night Beat," a selection of Gilmore's writing on rock 'n' roll from publications such as Rolling Stone and the old Los Angeles Herald Examiner, feels almost like an extension of Gilmore's memoir. Not all the pieces here are works of criticism: Many of them are built around interviews Gilmore conducted with the likes of Keith Jarrett, Bob Dylan and Miles Davis, as well as members of various bands including Van Halen and the Clash. These essays and profiles illuminate their subjects first and foremost -- yet it's Gilmore's insight, and his willingness to face up to the desperate loneliness (as well as the elation) that marks some of the best rock 'n' roll, that makes "Night Beat" a personal book in the best sense of the word.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/1998/02/06/06review_2/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/1998/02/06/06review_2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>It doesn&#039;t add up</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/1998/02/06/zero/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/1998/02/06/zero/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 1998 20:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stephanie Zacharek]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Movies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/review/1998/02/06/zero</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["Zero Effect" trails a paranoid private eye from pretzel-hoarding squalor to gooey love.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><font size="+1">D</font>aryl Zero is, by his own astute estimation, the world's greatest private investigator. He can tell what you do for a living by the smell of your skin. He can size up your emotional state by the way you move on a treadmill. He solves mysteries of global import with a single phone call. He is also a paranoid, junk-food-devouring, speed-sucking slob who writes impossibly awful power ballads and doesn't know what day of the week it is. Inhabiting the grizzled body of Bill Pullman, he's a modern day Sherlock Holmes, right down to the substance abuse and musical aspirations. So far, so good.</p><p>We first see the |berdetective through the eyes of his admiring if endlessly flummoxed Watson, Steve Arlo (Ben Stiller), Zero's emissary and his public face. It is Arlo who sits calmly on the couch at the beginning of "Zero Effect," negotiating with a potential new client with all the self-satisfied assurance of a Good Humor man cruising hell. He ticks off an impressive list of Zero's accomplishments, but he doesn't have to give too hard a sell -- the customer, Gregory Stark (Ryan O'Neal), is practically sweating desperation. Stark's a hugely successful Portland businessman who's lost an incriminating key and is being blackmailed. And that's all he wants to say about it. It's obvious, even to someone whose powers of observation are less than Zero's, that Stark's a scumbag. But he can afford the detective's mind-boggling fees and can live with his eccentric terms -- including Zero's insistence on not actually meeting or speaking with his client.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/1998/02/06/zero/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/1998/02/06/zero/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The worst books of 1997</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/1997/12/24/24worst/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/1997/12/24/24worst/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Dec 1997 20:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stephanie Zacharek]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Laura Miller]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[J.D. Salinger]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/books/list/books/1997/12/24/24worst</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Salon Magazine&#039;s book critics survey the worst and most overrated books of 1997]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><font size="+1" color="#000000">It</font>  has to be said: 1997 was a good year to be a constant reader. Even if you consciously avoided the big books that made the most cultural noise (Don DeLillo's <a target="_top" href="http://www.salonmagazine.com/sept97/delillo970926.html">"Underworld,"</a> Thomas Pynchon's <a target="_top" href="http://www.salonmagazine.com/april97/pynchon970425.html">"Mason & Dixon,"</a> etc.), there were literally dozens of smaller and more idiosyncratic titles that were well worth searching out. We'll pay tribute to the best of them next month in our second-annual <a target="_top" href="http://www.salonmagazine.com/bookawards/">Salon Book Awards,</a> and you can let us know which books you liked best in our <a href="http://www.salonmagazine.com/special/1998/bookawards/19sba_readers.html">Reader's Choice</a> poll.</p><p>Before we start handing out laurels, however, we'd like to stop for a moment to talk about the books that, in our estimation, weren't quite as successful. George Orwell surely got it right about book criticism when he said that most reviewers tend to be overly generous. "It is almost impossible to mention books in bulk without grossly overpraising most of them," he wrote. "Until one has some kind of professional relationship with books one does not discover how bad the majority of them are."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/1997/12/24/24worst/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/1997/12/24/24worst/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>My Barbie, myself</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/1997/11/26/26moments/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/1997/11/26/26moments/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 1997 19:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stephanie Zacharek]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Camille Paglia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/life//feature/1997/11/26/26moments</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Cintra Wilson, Camille Paglia, Courtney Weaver and others recall their Barbie moments.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Barbie is no unconscious sexual icon to children.  We were totally hip to<br /> what a smut-primed rack she had.  The first thing any of us would do around a<br /> GI Joe would be to peel his camo fatigues off and have Barbie stare at the mound of<br /> brown plastic where his command unit was supposed to be.  Then we'd strip<br /> Barbie real slow, replete with dialogue like, "Take off your tu-tu, Barbie,"<br /> in a lecherous baritone.</p><p>"Oh, no, I can't!" she would twitter, porn-thirstily.</p><p>Something violent would happen; Joe would have a 'Nam flashback, or something<br /> would make him pull a gun or compel him to rip the clothes off Barbie, who<br /> liked it, even though she fought back.</p><p>"Let's have it, Tiger," Joe would growl.</p><p>"Oh, Joe," she'd hiss.</p><p>Then we'd clack their plastic bodies together for a hot round of inanimate<br /> scrogging.  This is the only thing you can do with a Barbie, besides dress<br /> her, and if you weren't rich, chances are she only had a couple of outfits<br /> anyway. We learned a lot from Barbie, in the vein of all that scurrilous<br /> man-woman drama as-seen-on-TV. Even at 7, we knew she was a wanton,<br /> submissive bimbo. After Joe left, she'd hang around naked for days, with her<br /> hair all mussed and one of her toeshoes floating in the dog dish.  She had no<br /> self-respect.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/1997/11/26/26moments/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/1997/11/26/26moments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
