- I can recall a time in the seemingly not-so-distant past
when Hollywood movies would adhere to certain basic formulas of right and
wrong. The good guy (or guys), who never smoked or cursed or dressed in
black, always triumphed over evil and never, without exception, failed
to make the most moral, socially conscious choices when their mettle was
tested. But the arrival of the late 60s to early 70s ushered in a new trend
in American cinema, one which has enraptured and thrilled many a pretentious
film critic, but which may also be responsible for a steady corrosion in
the moral fabric of American culture.
-
- Perhaps beginning in the mid-60s with such films as BONNIE
AND CLYDE and BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID, we first saw movies whose
protagonists were anti-social figures who prospered mightily by breaking
the law. Major film stars Warren Beatty, Faye Dunaway, Robert Redford and
Paul Newman portrayed real-life thieves and murderers as affable anti-heroes
who, despite ultimately paying for their lawlessness with their lives,
were nonetheless extraordinarily attractive, charismatic, and likeable
characters.
-
- These films at least had the redeeming value of saying
to the viewer, "What goes around comes around--if you choose a life
of crime, you might one day be canonized in a major motion picture, but
you,ll still be dead." But in 1971, Stanley Kubrick single-handedly
and irrevocably changed the course of filmmaking with his Oscar-winning
atrocity, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. For those of you unfamiliar with the film,
it was faithfully derived from the legendary Anthony Burgess novel of the
same title. It,s a tale set in the relatively near future somewhere in
England, and is told from the perspective of one of the most insidiously
evil figures ever to appear in fiction.
-
- The story is narrated by a young punk named Alex, who
heads a gang of equally perverse savages. We watch as these young men merrily
and without remorse commit rape, beatings, maim, theft, and eventually
murder, all to a soundtrack of some of the most beautiful music ever composed(including
Beethoven and Mozart). We listen rapt as Alex (played by Malcolm McDowell)
speaks Burgess, enigmatic yet strikingly beautiful and poetic prose in
a soothing and nearly hypnotic voice.
-
- After crushing a woman to death with the stone sculpture
of a giant phallus, Alex is sent to jail, where he volunteers for a rehabilitation
program that is touted by his country,s politicians. He is forced to view,
with his eyes peeled open by steel foreceps, the type of "ultra-violence"
that he happily indulges in. While watching these dramatizations, he is
injected with nausea-inducing chemicals, which later causes him to become
ill upon engaging in brutality.
-
- Alex is then released from jail a changed man; that is,
changed for the worse, at least in the eyes of Kubrick. This violence-repressing
therapy robs him of the life-essence that made him such a colorful lad.
He coincidentally encounters the man whose wife he murdered, and is nearly
killed himself. He then finds himself in a hospital, where he becomes the
center of a media frenzy, as civil rights activists protest the therapy
that altered his personality. He is given total immunity for his crimes,
and is either surgically or chemically returned to his prior self. The
final scene of the movie depicts Alex, glazed grin on his face, envisioning
himself in violent sex with a naked woman in the center of a large, cheering
audience. Kubrick fades to black, Alex cooly utters "I was cured alright,"
and "Singing in the Rain" plays merrily as credits role.
-
- On the Fox News channel December 24th, Dr. Richard Brown,
a professor of cinema studies, had this to say about A CLOCKWORK ORANGE:
"Upon reviewing this film, I,m reminded just how uncomfortable it
made me. It,s not just the brutality; it,s the fact that there,s nothing
in the film that says, 'Isn't this terrible?' In fact, what Kubrick says
is, 'Well this is fine!! This is fun!!' Malcom McDowell's voice in the
narration is warm and whimsical, but in fact, what we see is some of the
sadistic, brutal images ever put on the screen."
-
- The 1990's has spawned a new breed of nihilistic filmmakers
who obviously aspire to equal Kubrick,s depravity. None has reaped more
critical or financial reward than the unspeakable Quentin Tarantino. In
his 1993 release RESERVOIR DOGS, Tarantino tells the tale of a group of
bank robbers embroiled in a heist that goes violently wrong. As in CLOCKWORK,
there is no moral voice which reminds the audience that the film's protagonists
are not admirable. Again, the characters are exceptionally witty, urbane,
likeable fellows without any regard for human life. Cops are portrayed
as inhuman characters without intelligence or restraint. Tarantino views
them with so little dignity, he treats us to the scene of a cop having
his ear slowly dismembered by a smirking wise guy. It is one of the cruelest,
most pitiful moments in film history. We are again told that criminals
are ultra cool hipsters who have tapped into a greater, cosmic Truth that
law abiding folk can never know.
-
- Other movies that have brought us such reverent heroes
as professional hit-men, drug-dealers, gang-bangers, serial-killers and
rapists include the 1997 release GROSS POINTE BLANK. John Cusack plays
an adorable professional killer who returns home for his 10 year high school
reunion. We are supposed to care about this character because he is so
darn cute and clever, and he eventually learns to love again by dating
his high school sweetheart.
-
- In 1994, Oliver Stone released NATURAL BORN KILLERS,
which was based on a script by Tarantino, and has as its protagonists two
serial killers (played by Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis) who discover
true love by going on a cross-country murder spree. A more senseless and
abject insult to human life would be difficult to find.
-
- 1995 brought us LEAVING LAS VEGAS, the uplifting story
of an alcoholic (played by Nicholas Cage) who commits suicide by drinking
himself to death, but not before finding his soulmate in a prostitute with
a heart of gold (played by Elisabeth Shue). Few films have portrayed women
with more despicable contempt-we see a gang rape in a hotel, angry pimps
beating women senseless, and Shue utters such lines as "You can f*#*
me in the a**, you can c*** in my mouth, just don't mess up my hair."
-
- In 1999, FIGHT CLUB, starring Brad Pitt and Edward Norton,
depicts a young corporate lawyer (Norton) who finds his inner zen by forming
an underground, bare-knuckle boxing cult. This group of disenfranchised
young men brutalize each other and (sometimes themselves) in no-holds barred
fisticuffs, until eventually, their violent ambitions grow to include minor
acts of terrorism. In the film's final sequence, Norton "heroically"
blows up several buildings owned by the world's largest credit card companies.
Again, the only discernible moral to the story is that attitude is everything,
while love, friendship and decency are contemptible.
-
- Some would argue that the glorification of sociopathic
behavior in films is a product of our times. Free-speech advocates will
tell you that the movie industry is simply following the trends set by
society. This is clearly specious reason. History has shown that the trends
in popular culture are often set by the entertainment industry. Does anyone
believe that John Lennon and Paul McCartney wore their hair long because
it was all the craze in American high-schools? Was SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER
such a hit because America couldn,t get enough of the disco-craze, or did
the chicken follow the egg in that case? Is it a coincidence that interest
in vampire lore increased dramatically after the release of Interview With
the Vampire? Our television, our music, our books, and our movies have
always had a profound effect on the way we talk, dress, act, behave, and
think.
-
- In his book, "Hollywood vs America," film critic
Michael Medved writes: "I worry over the impact of media messages
not only on my children but on myself, and on all the rest of us. No matter
how sophisticated we believe that we are, or how determined our best efforts
to counteract their influence, the positions of the popular culture seep
into our very souls. A well-known slogan of the 1960's declared, with reasonable
accuracy, 'War is unhealthy for children and other living things.' Today,
one might similarly observe, 'The popular culture is unhealthy for children
and other living things.'"
-
- The next time you go to the movies, examine closely the
mannerisms of a young man as he walks out of an exceptionally violent film.
The smugness in his grin, the swagger in his walk, and the hollow glaze
behind his eyes are not things to be taken lightly. I wonder how often
Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris displayed those behaviors before spring of
last year at Columbine High.
-
- It's difficult to argue against the point that, in a
free society, everyone must have the right to express their ideas regardless
of how repugnantly poisonous they may be. The alternative to having such
freedoms may ultimately be worse. But how much farther must our civility,
our mental health and our collective morale sink before Hollywood recognizes
its role in our sad decline?
-
-
- _____
-
-
- Comment
-
- From M.L.Clark 12-27-99
-
- Well, you should be most pleased by the coming era of
Stalinesque crushing of Freedom of Speech. You depict one perspective and
yet no other.
-
- The generation you laud also gave us child molestation
in secrecy, wife battery, racism and genocide. Hollywood might have depicted
simple-minded civility, but it was far from the truth.
-
- Poor Lennon and McCartney, they gave us an age of beautiful,
soulful music, and all people from the right-wing can do is rag on them.
And McCartney was married nearly thirty years to one woman and has four
lovely children.
-
- Why not go to some island where you have only your own
thoughts to encounter? You'll be much happier -- and we'll be much safer.
-
- Melody
-
-
- Dear Melody,
-
- Once again, anyone with the audacity to question the
healthfulness of viewing violent images is accused of being a fascist advocate
of censorpship. If you actually read the entire article, you'd know that
your key point (that I favor bigger government to restrict free speech)
is totally invalid. I stress the point that "the alternative to having
such freedoms is worse." Violence in the media can be viewed as a
mental health issue, and people should be allowed to point out the possible
effects of media violence without being subject to such reactionary attacks.
If you noticed, the last line in my article was: "When will HOLLYWOOD
take responsibility....not, "When will government do more to censor
them."
-
- BTW, where in the heck did you find a criticism of Lennon
and mcCartney in my article? I pointed out that they were one of the instigators
of the long-hair trend....where did I say that was a bad thing? I happen
to have several of their CDs, including Abbey Road (my favorite).
-
- Thanks for your input, anyway.
-
- --Michael Goodspeed
-
-
-
- Comment
-
-
- As regards Goodspeed's "Cold Blooded Sociopaths:
The New Protagonists In Modern Film,"
-
- --Further comment
-
- by Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/arecibo/46/
12-28-99
-
-
- --Michael Goodspeed writes
-
- Once again, anyone with the audacity to question the
healthfulness of viewing violent images is accused of being a fascist advocate
of censorpship.
-
- In for a penny in for a pound Mr. Goodspeed. Your article
was a thin weave of apology for a return to a kinder and gentler past that
existed only in your own imagination, and NEVER in a real world.
-
- If you actually read the entire article, you'd know that
your key point (that I favor bigger government to restrict free speech)
is totally invalid.
-
- I read your article, but I don't think we read the same
rebuttal. Her whole point was the spoon gagging she was experiencing after
reading your smarmy appeal for a return to the customs and traditions of
a past that was merely an efficient Disneyland for comfort loving sociopaths.
Read some James Lowen, and Michael Parenti and forget your Gary Bauer.
Invalid is your piqued responce to Melody's criticism.
-
- I stress the point that "the alternative to having
such freedoms is worse." Violence in the media can be viewed as a
mental health issue, and people should be allowed to point out the possible
effects of media violence without being subject to such reactionary attacks.
-
- Nonsense -- it has been the decided LACK of the revolutionary
attack that keeps our feet mired in the customs and traditions of oppressive
cultures that benefit an unelected few, and that you (perhaps innocently)
blithely shill for. Moreover -- what you mash down in ONE spot just pops
up in another -- only meaner. Hiding the violence will not make it go away.
-
- If you noticed, the last line in my article was: "When
will HOLLYWOOD take responsibility....not, "When will government do
more to censor them."
-
- Einstein blew up any rationalism for the the moral absolutism
you would return to discovering the utility of relativism. It's why he's
the man of the century. Before we exposed this violence in the real world
it was practiced with passionate regularity behind the scenes, and enjoyed
a complete non-restriction with its unjust anonymity. You would return
us to that?
-
- In your article you write:
-
- Major film stars Warren Beatty, Faye Dunaway, Robert
Redford and Paul Newman portrayed real-life thieves and murderers as affable
anti-heroes who, despite ultimately paying for their lawlessness with their
lives, were nonetheless extraordinarily attractive, charismatic, and likeable
characters.
-
- Yes -- these actors are ALMOST as popular as the characters
they portray. A casual look at real history shows that the working poor
(the vast majority) hated the banks, law enforcement, and the law -- and
loved the men and women that stood against them, even if from a distance
-- even if undeserved. WHY is that? During this time there existed the
clearly depicted and straightforward moral decisions of black and white
issues that you refer too. Life did not mirror art THEN, why should life
mirror art, NOW.
-
- You write:
-
- "But in 1971, Stanley Kubrick single-handedly and
irrevocably changed the course of filmmaking with his Oscar-winning atrocity,
A CLOCKWORK ORANGE."
-
- Atrocity? Only it's suppression would have been an atrocity!
Your labeling it an atrocity is, in and of itself, an atrocity.
-
- You write:
-
- After crushing a woman to death with the stone sculpture
of a giant phallus, Alex is sent to jail, where he volunteers for a rehabilitation
program that is touted by his country,s politicians.
-
- You object to this imagery. I see it as an powerful admission
that, since Abraham, womankind HAS, to a HUGE degree, been CRUSHED under
the *phallus* of a wrong minded mankind -- that in many cases (in many
different places in the present day world, and still in these United States)
it continues to this very day. Rather than be offended by this imagery,
perhaps an exploration of it is in order. It MAY be that the roots of your
outrage are not where you thought they were.
-
-
- BTW, where in the heck did you find a criticism of Lennon
and mcCartney in my article? I pointed out that they were one of the instigators
of the long-hair trend....where did I say that was a bad thing? I happen
to have several of their CDs, including Abbey Road (my favorite).
-
- I'll bet some of your best friends are black people too.
-
- Thanks for your input, anyway.
-
- Pay more attention to her (you GO girl!). Her world exists
under the misdirection of the convenient mask that you would place over
it. I have learned that your warm fuzzies for an adored but fictitious
past are specious nonsense. Truly, you might too.
-
- You write:
-
- On the Fox News channel December 24th, Dr. Richard Brown,
a professor of cinema studies, had this to say about A CLOCKWORK ORANGE:
"Upon reviewing this film, I,m reminded just how uncomfortable it
made me. It,s not just the brutality; it,s the fact that there,s nothing
in the film that says, 'Isn't this terrible?' In fact, what Kubrick says
is, 'Well this is fine!! This is fun!!' Malcom McDowell's voice in the
narration is warm and whimsical, but in fact, what we see is some of the
sadistic, brutal images ever put on the screen."
-
- Maybe you want Dr. Brown to tell YOU what you should
get out of a film experience. I do not. I'm sure most of the viewers watching
did not walk out of their respective theatres convinced that the depicted
"Ultra violence" was fine and fun. Your suggestion that our societal
problems could be solved with the spoon feeding of contrived moral pablum
in feature films is shallow, insulting -- and just plain wrong.
-
- You write:
-
- The next time you go to the movies, examine closely the
mannerisms of a young man as he walks out of an exceptionally violent film.
The smugness in his grin, the swagger in his walk, and the hollow glaze
behind his eyes are not things to be taken lightly. I wonder how often
Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris displayed those behaviors before spring of
last year at Columbine High.
-
- Let's forget that these two tragic youngsters were the
focus of ridicule and torment from society, faculty, and student body for
months if not years. They saw themselves as betrayed, abused, and discounted,
and while I regret their actions keenly, I can only wonder that there are
not MORE such outbursts. Your authoritarian approach is not the solution,
sir. It is, and has EVER been, the PROBLEM!
-
- Lehmberg@snowhill.com
-
-
-
- ~~Ö~~ EXPLORE Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View"
at his Fortunecity URL. http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/arecibo/46/
**<Updated 25 December**
-
- "I cleave the heavens, and soar to the infinite.
What others see from afar, I leave far behind me." - Giordano Bruno,
burned at the fundamentalist's stake.
-
-
- From Michael Goodspeed
- 12-30-99
-
- Hello, Alfred. This is Michael Goodspeed from "ExNews."
First of all, I'd like to compliment you on arguing your point effectively
on Jeff Rense's site. I don't agree with your conclusions, but you succeeded
in making me aware of a failure on my part to properly convey some key
points.
-
- In response to your criticisms, I have some things to
clarify. Number one, both you and Melody make the claim that my dislike
of Hollywood's celebration of the anti-hero is born out of an anal-retentive
need to return to the era of June and Ward Cleaver. You say that I am threatened
by the grittier, more realistic offerings in Hollywood today. This is not
true. I have no objection to films that delve into the darkest, most perverse
aspects of the human condition. I DO object to the ones that deliberately
portray them in the most positive light imaginable.
-
- If you saw Reservoir Dogs, are you actually going to
tell me that it was true to life? Do you think most murderers and bank
robbers have 180 IQs and talk like Steve Buscemi, or Samuel L. Jackson
in Pulp Fiction? Was Val Kilmer's portrayal of Doc Holliday in Tombstone
an honest depiction of a tubucular, sociopathic, murdering thief? Likewise
Malcolm McDowell's portrayal of a rapist/murderer in Clockwork? These were
phony-baloney, idiot fantasies without a shred of psychological truth to
them. In the real world, people who choose lives of crime are the most
inept, uneducated, uniteresting, sloth-ridden slogs of human beings you
could ever meet.
-
- It might surprise you that one of my favorite movies
of 1998 was the exploration of the 70s porn industry, Boogie Nights. Why,
you ask? Because it portrayed people on the outskirts of society in the
most realistic light that I've seen in any film. It also accorded them
a depth of human dignitiy that is all-too rare in Hollywood today. The
truth is, when "aberrant" behaviors such as drug-dealing, theft,
rape, murder and other violence are shown for what they are, they will
NEVER be seen as admirable.
-
- You and several other respondants seemed to imply that
increased movie violence is somehow responsible for quelling the problems
of racism, sexism, homophobia, and every stereotype imaginable. Really?
How? Are you going to tell me that in 1999 America, those problems are
less prevalent than they were 30 years ago? If anything, hatred and intolerance
are at an all time high. Certainly women, minorities and gays are afforded
more equality by the law than they were several decades ago, but how in
the world can you credit movie violence with that?
-
- One thing I should have made clear in the article is
that the dissolution of the old Hollywood stereotypes has been a good and
necessary thing. No one wants to see only the "light" and the
white(as in caucasian) side of humanity on the big screen. Intelligent
people prefer art which is brutally and sometimes painfully honest. But
"honest" cannot describe a film which portrays the unspeakable
as admirable.
-
- And just for the record, I do not support witch burning,
wife beating, child molestation, racism, sexism, homophobia or anything
else implied in your statements.
-
- I would never deny that a movie cannot turn a decent
and sane person into a criminal; we all have God's gift of free will and
no one else can truly encroach upon it. But minds that are predisposed
to antisocial actions have more sources than ever before to feed their
twisted delusions. You may remember some school-shootings in recent years
that called into question the Stephen King book, "Rage." On more
than one instance, kids who shot classmates and teachers cited that book
as a source of inspiration. You will no doubt recoil in indignation at
the notion that a piece of fiction could play a role in a murder. Well,
one person who disagrees with you is STEPHEN KING. He has stated repeatedly
that, if he had the power, he would go back in time and unwrite it. He
even went so far as to refuse to put the book up for redistribution.
-
- Words and images mean things, sir. Why do you think it
is that we don't allow tobacco companies to advertise in kindergartens?
-
- I chose to speak out against movie violence not because
I think government should do more to regulate it, but because I'm fed up
to the hilt with Hollywood apologists and their intellectual dishonesty.
If parents are responsible for their children's viewing habits, then they
should be allowed to hear both sides of the issue, including the argument
that vilolent imagery may not be entirely healthful to consume.
-
- --Regards,
- Michael Goodspeed
- Cold Blooded Sociopaths:
Further comment Still
-
-
- From Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com 1-1-00
-
- Goodspeed writes:
-
- Hello, Alfred. This is Michael Goodspeed from "ExNews."
First of all, I'd like to compliment you on arguing your point effectively
on Jeff Rense's site. I don't agree with your conclusions, but you succeeded
in making me aware of a failure on my part to properly convey some key
points.
-
- Lehmberg responds:
-
- I had the article formatted better than what appeared
on 'Sightings'. It was difficult to tell where you left off and I began.
As regards your expression, you were, and are, perfectly clear.
-
- Goodspeed writes:
-
- In response to your criticisms, I have some things to
clarify. Number one, both you and Melody make the claim that my dislike
of Hollywood's celebration of the anti-hero is born out of an anal-retentive
need to return to the era of June and Ward Cleaver. You say that I am
threatened by the grittier, more realistic offerings in Hollywood today.
This is not true. I have no objection to films that delve into the darkest,
most perverse aspects of the human condition. I DO object to the ones
that deliberately portray them in the most positive light imaginable.
-
- Lehmberg responds:
-
- I think art mirrors life, sir. There has been too much
opportunity in the past for the inverse to occur -- it never has. I think
that what you perceive as "a positive light [on violence]" is
ANY light at all. ANY light is better than none at all.
-
- Goodspeed writes:
-
- If you saw Reservoir Dogs, are you actually going to
tell me that it was true to life?
-
- Lehmberg responds:
-
- More a caricature of life than true to life. I thought
the film (which I did not finish) sucked pond water. I did; however, breath
a sigh of relief that I did not have to live the way the people in that
film did. Perhaps that was the lesson.
-
- Goodspeed writes: Do you think most murderers and bank
robbers have 180 IQs and talk like Steve Buscemi, or Samuel L. Jackson
in Pulp Fiction? Was Val Kilmer's portrayal of Doc Holliday in Tombstone
an honest depiction of a tubucular, sociopathic, murdering thief? Likewise
Malcolm McDowell's portrayal of a rapist/murderer in Clockwork? These
were phony-baloney, idiot fantasies without a shred of psychological truth
to them. In the real world, people who choose lives of crime are the most
inept, uneducated, uniteresting, sloth-ridden slogs of human beings you
could ever meet.
-
- Lehmberg responds:
-
- I think the reasons that many people opt for a life of
crime are, many times, a little more complicated than you seem to suggest
here. Let's put at the top of the list a canted playing field, justice
dispensed to the highest bidder, and a protected elite even more sociopathic
than the cartoonish characters of "Reservoir Dogs," but (unlike
the Reservoir Dogs) very, very real.
-
- Goodspeed writes:
-
- It might surprise you that one of my favorite movies
of 1998 was the exploration of the 70's porn industry, Boogie Nights.
Why, you ask? Because it portrayed people on the outskirts of society in
the most realistic light that I've seen in any film. It also accorded them
a depth of human dignitiy that is all-too rare in Hollywood today. The
truth is, when "aberrant" behaviors such as drug-dealing, theft,
rape, murder and other violence are shown for what they are, they will
NEVER be seen as admirable.
-
- Lehmberg responds:
-
- It may be that the aggregate consciousness enjoyed today
regarding "drug-dealing, theft, rape, murder and other violence,"
are a direct result of the currenttreatments they presently receive, and
are best served by them.
-
- Goodspeed writes:
-
- You and several other respondants seemed to imply that
increased movie violence is somehow responsible for quelling the problems
of racism, sexism, homophobia, and every stereotype imaginable. Really?
How?
-
- Lehmberg responds:
-
- By pushing it up the nose of the complacently (or criminally)
indifferent, increasing consciousness and questioning EVERYTHING -- Family,
God, and Country. Give me more Marilyn Manson and less Elvis Presley, more
Howard Stern and less Rush Limbaugh -- more Jeff Rense and less Cal Thomas
<g. et al.
-
- Goodspeed writes:
-
- Are you going to tell me that in 1999 America, those
problems re less prevalent than they were 30 years ago?
-
- Lehmberg responds:
-
- Thirty years ago, the population of the world sat at
around three billion. Today that figure sits at around six billion. I've
lived all over the US and the world, and at fifty-one I've an uncluttered
view of how things work, succeed, or fail. An investigation of history
demonstrates that these problems you address as prevalent now are only
obvious in their exposure, and that every decade that one returns to is
more egregiously tyrannous than the decade that follows it. Thirty years
ago the United States was more of a social abomination than it is today
-- yes!
-
- Goodspeed writes:
-
- If anything, hatred and intolerance are at an all time
high. Certainly women, minorities and gays are afforded more equality
by the law than they were several decades ago, but how in the world can
you credit movie violence with that?
-
- Lehmberg responds:
-
- Violence is real. misogyny is real. Gay bashing is real.
Race hatred is real. Perhaps I'll see it on the screen, be reminded of
its actuality -- and just maybe have my consciousness changed. My consciousness
will not be changed if I am protected from it by "well meaning"
authoritarians such as yourself.
-
- Goodspeed writes:
-
- One thing I should have made clear in the article is
that the dissolution of the old Hollywood stereotypes has been a good and
necessary thing. No one wants to see only the "light" and the
white(as in caucasian) side of humanity on the big screen. Intelligent
people prefer art which is brutally and sometimes painfully honest. But
"honest" cannot describe a film which portrays the unspeakable
as admirable.
-
- Lehmberg responds:
-
- Remember the Seinfeld show? Everyone loved those characters,
but would you want them living next to you; would you want to have to depend
on them? Indeed -- they were the heroes, but would you want to emulate
them? Seinfeld didn't think so -- had them all sent to prison on the last
show, AND had them review all their shallow, mean spirited, and sociopathic
activities during their trial. Go with the first sentence of your preceding
paragraph, and don't be too concerned if the line gets a little fuzzy between
the unspeakable and admirable. THAT line really _IS_ fuzzy.
-
- Goodspeed writes:
-
- And just for the record, I don't support witch burning,
wife beating, child molestation, racism, sexism, homophobia or anything
else implied in your statements.
|