I hate Pitchfork, still.

Today, Pitchfork posted a review of the two-disc soundtrack to Marie Antoinette, which is a soundtrack that I love to a movie that I also loved. They gave it a 7.6 (I'd love to understand, exactly, how they get such precise numbers. Why not just a 7? 7.5? How did it deserve a 7.6 instead of a 7.5?). The interesting thing about the review is that Stephen M. Deunser chose to write it in two parts: one is a review of the album before seeing the film, the second an attempt to review the way the music works in the movie. Unfortunately, Mr. Deunser fails at the second part of the review and, instead of analyzing the music in the film, he begins to share his disappointment in Coppola's treatment of the political aspect of the film.

It seems after reading the reviews of the film that critics are split down the middle on the political issues. Should it have been heavier on the negative aspects of Marie Antoinette's life? I don't think so. I think that since the subject matter has been covered extremely well in the past two-hundred years, it's not a big deal for an American writer / director to make a film simply because she related to the character she was writing about. Art doesn't have to be historic.

But that is not the point of my post. My point is this: PITCHFORK SHOULD NOT PUBLISH MOVIE REVIEWS DISGUISED AS MUSIC REVIEWS. And, not surprisingly, Deunser ended his article with a reference to the fake-quotation, "Let them eat cake." Lame!