Films/DVD Asylum Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ] [ Edit ] [ Delete ]

---

Some good points, but...

207.20.89.117

Posted by Daryl on July 10, 2000 at 10:41:43

In Reply to: Re: This is NOT about intelligence posted by Joe S on July 9, 2000 at 09:16:55:

...unfortunately both you and Victor have strayed from one of the most important, and frightening, aspects I mentioned in my original post. The responsibility, or irresponsibility in this case, of the press to disclose the true nature of the film. The front page of our local paper (a New York Times owned rag, I might add) states, "Spoof of horror movies is mindless, but fun." Roger Ebert's column failed to disclose ANY instances of sexual display, explicit or implied. As did the syndicated capsule review. Nowhere, I repeat, nowhere, did any reviewer allude to the filth and toilet humor (not to mention the pro drug use and racism) rampant in this film. No, they all concentrated on the "humor", which IMO was non-existent.

Anyone with money (or backing) can produce and distribute a film, but it will only attract viewers if it is sufficiently publicized. In many cases, this precludes an honest, objective review which would drive prospective customers away. Had not the local rag, Roger Ebert, and the syndicated capsules suppressed the fact that this was NOT a harmless spoof of horror movies, but instead a degenerate sexploitation film, it would not have been as popular as it is today.

While it may be true that some people are thrilled by this type of crap, the negative reaction of the audience proved that they are in the minority. I am willing to bet that half the people at the showing that day would have stayed home if they had but known the true nature of the film.

Incidently Joe, my family owned movie theaters most of my life and your statement that "...the pre code days in which sex / drugs and moral ambiguity were a staple" is simply not true. This impression is a figment of the imagination of folks like yourself who attempt to decry films of the past to justify those of today. For your information, "the [Scary Movie type] movie has NOT always been out there", even though there may have been an audience (albeit small) for it.

>>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.<<

Traditional US film taboo?? Parochial US barrier?? Please, your condescending nature is unappealing. As is your ignorance of the feelings of the majority of our population. This is not a question of "film taboo", but rather moral integrity. Decency. Heard of it?? We are speaking of the gratuitous display of male frontal nudity and the penis, not something that is an integral part of the plot. We are talking about injecting disgusting sexual displays into the spoof of a movie which had no sex in the first place.

And what in the hell do the ordinary movies of the past have to do with the filth we are discussing here? Your analogy is skewed.

Daryl R

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Kimber Kable

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---