In Reply to: A very nasty piece of work. When none of the characters has posted by tinear on August 1, 2005 at 06:18:26:
To movies with real, flawed human beings--but in the case of this film, not wholly flawed, as it wasn't at all mysanthropic, as you imply--you prefer, what, John Wayne and Shirley Temple? Are your films of preference from Hollywood's code era? I really don't get your criticism, esp. when stated as a general principle. Would the film have redeemed itself if one of the main characters, to the accompaniment of angelic voices, had a dawning of moral clarity and announced: "Wait! Stop! Key parties are just immoral!" No human traits to admire or respect, fine. I'm not sure anyone would argue that as an aim of this film. It's something of an unabashed "downer," though quite moving, nevertheless. But none to empathize with? You're implying a degree of personal saintliness I've never encountered in anyone ever.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- That's about the weirdest "aesthetic" criteria I can imagine - Bulkington 13:43:38 08/01/05 (3)
- You'd enjoy life more if you'd take a few moments and study logic. nt - tinear 15:33:05 08/01/05 (2)
- Maybe you should try following you own advice. - Bulkington 06:28:21 08/02/05 (1)
- Try reading Shakespeare in the - tinear 16:25:05 08/02/05 (0)