[Between the Lines] is meant to be a tale of deradicalization, of how a group of bright, undisciplined but idealistic kids who during the sixties put out a paper with some genuine bite to it … decline into slackness, indifference, jadedness, selling out. To make any sense, the action should be situated some eight years back, which is where, as I understand, the original scenario placed it. Updated to 1977, the movie taunts us with an unfillable lacuna: What kept these kids going till this day? Why is dissolution setting in now? Why haven't they already gotten over and beyond their disenchantment?
The film records, with however questionable accuracy, a particular moment of time, and misplaces it; we feel that the kids might just as well be bemoaning the death of Pancho Villa. More troublesome yet is that we are not given a sense of anyone's former power…. We do not experience these young people's talents; we do not believe that they were ever dangerous. Or are they phonies whom the picture is mocking?
This is a free excerpt of 173 words. There are 495 words (approx.
2 pages at 300 words per page) in the full critical essay.
Read the rest of this Criticism with our Silver, Joan Micklin 1935–: Critical Essay by John Simon Access Pass.
