|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: This is NOT about intelligence posted by Joe S on July 09, 2000 at 09:16:55:
***Actually its about naive adults who take 9 year olds to R rated movies. I always wondered who those folks were. Now I know. My parents sure didnt do it.Criticism well placed, agreed. At first I missed that it was an R-rated flick.
***And Victor, while I can relate to what you say to some degree mass media entertainment has never been about quality. It been about entertaining the masses.
So I don't get any credit for knowing this? No proble so far.
***Using is as a barometer of societal health is a bit of a reach.And here IS a problem, Joe.
The point is that we are not talking abot quality of that entertainment, but its offensive value. The way I see it, the degree of that offensive shock is only getting higher and higher, and you will not convince me that we had all this in the fifties. True, I was not here, and you got the head start on me, but my impression is that it was perhaps at times corny, poor quality, naive and in poor taste, but we can't compare it to the current river of decayed matter. I think we all know that the movie producers have been pushing the envelop since the beginning, and they really now have only few things uncovered.
***The US has NEVER been a country in with the majority of filmgoers would have sat through (never mind enjoyed) a screening of the films you typically enjoy.That is unfortunate enough in itself, but on top of that we are the major source and trend setter in the offensiveness department. Not only have we failed to build a robust and healthy movie culture here, at home, we have also done our best to destroy the cultures of many other countries. They all to large degree have succumbed to the relentless pressure and cheap temptation - ala the McDonald penetration. And this is not just the American fault - the French, the Italians, the Germans, etc hold as much respolsibility for allowing the bad things happen to THEIR movie cultures as well. They complain too much and do too little.
***I know its popular for some to look over hollywoods history and name good films of the past and decry the drop in quality its worth remembering that that library of exceptions is culled from a population of thousands of ordinary or worse movies accumulated over the better part of a century.
Again, Joe, it is NOT the quality that I am talking about, but the shifted focus towards the shock. And while in the art area you can keep expanding forever, the shock thingy is limited. At some point you simply start recycling the old junk.
***And never mind the pre code days in which sex / drugs and moral ambiguity were a staple, or the post code exploitation flicks. This movie has always been out there and there has always been an audience for it. Sweeping it under the rug doesnt make that magically disappear nor does using it as an object lesson in social decay makes any sense.I don't doubt it was always there to some degree, but there is large difference between existing on the fringes of the society and being actively pushed, promoted in the most "mass of the mass" media. You can't deny that the trash like the teen movies was not there with all the morons and idiots being presented as "nice lovable slightly inti-social rebels". I don't think there was a phenomenon like that king of morons, John Belushi (sp under time pressure) and those who keep copying him.
***I suspect what really drives the frustration with this movie is the violation of a traditional US film taboo - showing the penis or a representation of it. There is something about male frontal nudity that seems to define a rather ridiculous US moral standard which permits female nudity in movies yet reactions of moral outrage if a male is involved.
We are mixing things here. The naive and ridiculus reactions come from ALL angles, and the fact they exist doesn't take from the fact that they are largely justified. You are simply talking about the arbitraty line, and no matter how you draw it it will not look right, that's given. And I don't share your concern about the male nudity - it has been used without bad effects for a long time and by the British, of all people.
***Both this movie and the new Jim Carrie movieOh, please, don't even mention THAT name in relation to the movies...
***(in this case in the form of a dildo)
You are right, he IS one large dildo.
***have crossed this rather parochial US barrier and have gotten slammed for it.It is not the mere existence, it is what you do with it. The Clockwork Orange used the dildo before.
...Jim Carrie fan eh? I never would have guessed ;-) Actually, I'm not either.I dont think its fair to single out this type of entertainment and read to much into its achieving mass distribution compared to the past because thats a technology issue, not an art or societal issue. With the internet, cable, satellite communications and the myraid of other communication channels spewing information forth EVERY form of expression has increased exponentially. We've got 24/7 religous cable TV channels, Consevative (as well as liberal) talk radio hosts with national syndication, 24/7 coverage of congress on TV (2 channels), and a half doxen 24/7 domesitc and international news channels - we didnt have that in the '50s. And lots more people watch TV than go to movies. A movie in in 1950 was true mass comunication when it came to visual imagery - people didnt have TV. What portion of available viewing time and audience reach does a movie like this have in the TV era of today in comparison? I think one could argue that this is still the fringe and that the number of people it reaches in proportion to other media is no greater than it ever was...
joe
...what do they all watch on that dreaded tube?You point about the TV vs. movies is right, but the TV did not replace the bad movies with good news or art movies on the tube - far from it.
Look at the fast growth of movie channel after movie channel - they all show trash (with a possible exception of Bravo, but its presence is near zero).
I get funny feeling when I drive past the $40K homes with small dishes on top - that means the river of shit is reaching the masses with 500 channels of it to watch.
So unfortunately the same trashy movies are on every tube in every home - mine included.
...but the average American doesnt subscribe to many (if any) of those premium movie services. DSS penetration isnt that great in the bigger shceme of things. Most still soldier on with cable and maybe one or two movie channels at most due to the high monthly cost. And from what I've seen those folks with kids are more concerned about getting the Disney channel than those services anyway. I've also noticed among those folks with dishes I know, they are pretty scrupulous in controlling what their children watch on it....joe
Is there a technical (or economic) reason as to why cable is bundled? I would be much more likely to actually subscribe to cable if I could pick the channels (and only the channels) that I want to watch. That way, I wouldn't have to pay for crap like skinimax 1,2,3,etc just to be able to get one or two of the more obscure channels (like MTV-2, the MTV channel that actually shows videos).
The Cinemax Movie Channel, HBO and other "premium" (jeez, what award for a sewer pipe!) channels are not bundled into the basic service that you need to get in order to see the MTV whatever. I think you can selectively subscribe to paid channels - check your local provider. There is no technical reason why you should not be able - they can turn your access to any paid channel on and off from their office.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: