OT:The return of Will Hays and The Hays Office
StormChaser
The Washington DC response to the calf-worshipping going on
in Hollywood of the 1920's has returned in a new guise: The new
FCC rule that will levy a $500,000 fine for any hint of impropriety
present in an OTA broadcast.
Stemming from an accidental disrobing during the 2004 Superbowl game
half-time show, it triggered a slow burn in DC that Edgar Kennedy would
be envious of. Calls for decent citizens to take back the airwaves were
made (not realizing that the airwaves had already been taken by the con-
glomerates). Michael Powell, former head of the FCC (and Will Hays
surrogate) shook and pounded fist, called hearings and generally looked
like one of the reformers from a DW Griffith movie.
This culminated in controversial airwave and music personalities being
targeted. Martyrs were made of a Boston University graduate, Michael
Jackson's sister and a boy toy.
At this point, I suppose, "good clean fun" will prevail and the art of the
subtext will once again be practiced.
Mark
lokke...@yahoo.com
one of a series, a puffety front man for a Puritan way of looking at
the world--deep, pervasive and bedrock American to the core.
Catholicism has its own set of inconsistencies, but Puritanism was a
radical form of Protestant tradition that first constructed dichotomies
between good and evil, desire and pureness, then must ran around itself
trying to square a human attribute it had earlier just made a circle.
Our country was founded on this Puritan tradition, and it was also
founded on tobacco, and slaves to pick the tobacco crop, and the
violence needed to keep this all in check. Hundreds of years later,
these are still the issues that confront us. The French may be
children of Marx and Coca-Cola, but we Americans are all children of
Paris Hilton and Jerry Falwell. We Americans find ourselves suspended
forever half-way between between titillation and salvation. Cecil B.
DeMille wasn't making escape movies, he was making documentaries
exploring our American psyche.
Hawthorne picked up on the primary blind-spot of American Puritanism,
desire as expressed as land-hunger--that is, real estate (House of
Seven Gables) and by sex (The Scarlet Letter) and we've been part of
riffs of these two stories ever since. Janet's partially covered
nipple becomes just the latest incarnation of Hester's scarlet letter.
Beaver Lad
<lokke...@yahoo.com> wrote:
==================================================
Nice analysis, Lokke. Meanwhile, here in the Great White North, we have
a public broadcaster (the CBC) that, for all its faults, treats us as
adults, and allows (after the obligatory warning) such things -- in
PRIME TIME -- as naked breasts, pubic hair, and the "F" word.
Of course, you get TCM, and we don't.
Constance Kuriyama
(lokke...@yahoo.com) writes:
> It would be nice to blame Hays for our troubles, but Will was but a
> one of a series, a puffety front man for a Puritan way of looking at
> the world--deep, pervasive and bedrock American to the core.
> Catholicism has its own set of inconsistencies, but Puritanism was a
> radical form of Protestant tradition that first constructed dichotomies
> between good and evil, desire and pureness, then must ran around itself
> trying to square a human attribute it had earlier just made a circle.
Ahem. The Pruitans did not invent the dichotomy between good and evil, which
is already well established in the Old Testament. They simply had some novel
ways of applying it.
> Our country was founded on this Puritan tradition, and it was also
> founded on tobacco, and slaves to pick the tobacco crop,
Cotton is picked. Tobacco is cut and dried. Slave labor is more closely
associated with cotton than with tobacco.
> and the
> violence needed to keep this
What is "this"?
> all in check. Hundreds of years later,
> these are still the issues
These?
> that confront us. The French may be
> children of Marx and Coca-Cola, but we Americans are all children of
> Paris Hilton and Jerry Falwell.
I don't find Falwall anywhere on my family tree, although there must be
a few other monkeys there. ;-)
> We Americans find ourselves suspended
> forever half-way between between titillation and salvation.
Speak for yourself. I'm all for instant gratification.
> Cecil B.
> DeMille wasn't making escape movies, he was making documentaries
> exploring our American psyche.
>
> Hawthorne picked up on the primary blind-spot of American Puritanism,
> desire as expressed as land-hunger--that is, real estate (House of
> Seven Gables) and by sex (The Scarlet Letter) and we've been part of
> riffs of these two stories ever since. Janet's partially covered
> nipple becomes just the latest incarnation of Hester's scarlet letter.
It looked like a nipple to me.
Probably it falls into the same category as those cow's udders that were
cut from _Modern Times_.
Connie K.
"A cigar is sometimes a cigar." --Freud
--
"To hell with the pillow in the background. It's a good scene, and that's
more important." Chaplin, Interview with Richard Meryman, 1966.
lokke...@yahoo.com
> Catholicism has its own set of inconsistencies, but Puritanism was a
> radical form of Protestant tradition that first constructed
dichotomies
> between good and evil, desire and pureness, then must ran around
itself
> trying to square a human attribute it had earlier just made a circle.
Ahem. The Pruitans did not invent the dichotomy between good and evil,
which
is already well established in the Old Testament. They simply had some
novel
ways of applying it.
The "novel ways of applying it" is what I meant by squaring the circle,
so you repeat my point, although certainly more clearly. All religions
have to address the good-evil question. Some construct a more rigid
dichotomy than the Puritan form of Protestantism, some less. Since you
bring up the Old Testament, the OT has a long tradition of argument and
debate as to what it all means. Most of the OT is not black-and-white,
but many shades in between. We see the more rigid interpretation of
good vs. evil in the NT of John, where often things ARE black and
white. John is considered influenced by Gnosticism, so we can blame a
pre-Christain religion on our Puritan culture. The devil didn't make
me do it, the Greeks did. When I said the Puritans first constructed
the dichotomy between good and evil, I didn't mean they were the first
ever to do it, I meant they were the first to do it in a way that was
directly relevant to American culture.
> Our country was founded on this Puritan tradition, and it was also
> founded on tobacco, and slaves to pick the tobacco crop,
Cotton is picked. Tobacco is cut and dried. Slave labor is more closely
associated with cotton than with tobacco.
File this under the department of pedantic corrections. Cotton
certainly became the main reason to maintain slavery, but this was an
afterthought. It was the tobacco plant and cheap labor that made
Virginia and the intial American colonies viable.
"Picked" .... You got me there. I think a farmhand would have to pick
up the tobacco leaf at some point after he cuts it, but I could be
wrong. Let's go with "harvest" instead.
"It looked like a nipple to me."
Which sort of encapsulates the weirdness of the whole set-up. I was
watching the half-time, and didn't see a thing, everything happened so
fast. This was a controversy created by TiVo, where one was able to
slow things down and freeze-frame.
Even close-ups showed the entire nipple was not exposed, the much of
the areola area was covered up in a decorative display. Which,
intentionally or not, calls to the silliness of the whole question.
Janet wasn't doing much different than most cheerleaders bump-and-grind
routine. Three centimeters more exposure and she would have been
"decent" which means in a larger sense that titillation and sexual
pandering is OK, as long as you play by certain "rules," which meant
the game really is in understanding and exploiting the "rules," which
is what DeMille's later career was all about.
Constance Kuriyama
I think the Manicheans get in there somewhere.
>> Our country was founded on this Puritan tradition, and it was also
>> founded on tobacco, and slaves to pick the tobacco crop,
>
> Cotton is picked. Tobacco is cut and dried. Slave labor is more closely
> associated with cotton than with tobacco.
>
> File this under the department of pedantic corrections.
I thought I was just pointing out the obvious. ;-)
> Cotton
> certainly became the main reason to maintain slavery, but this was an
> afterthought. It was the tobacco plant and cheap labor that made
> Virginia and the intial American colonies viable.
> "Picked" .... You got me there. I think a farmhand would have to pick
> up the tobacco leaf at some point after he cuts it, but I could be
> wrong. Let's go with "harvest" instead.
I grew up in a tobacco growing region in southern Indiana. You cut off the
whole stalk of tobacco, which is taller than many people, and hang it in
the barn upside down to cure. Harvesting tobacco is not as labor intensive
as picking cotton used to be, and a lot of it is grown on family farms as
a major cash crop.
> "It looked like a nipple to me."
>
> Which sort of encapsulates the weirdness of the whole set-up.
Well, of course the fuss is silly, but I'm not sure it says all that much
about American character in general. A few blue noses and a gaggle of
bored journalists can make something out of nothing any day--and usually
do.
The Falwells of the world needed a break from ranting about "secular humanism"
and seized on Janet's nipple (well, not literally, but . . . ).
Connie K.
> I was
> watching the half-time, and didn't see a thing, everything happened so
> fast. This was a controversy created by TiVo, where one was able to
> slow things down and freeze-frame.
> Even close-ups showed the entire nipple was not exposed, the much of
> the areola area was covered up in a decorative display. Which,
> intentionally or not, calls to the silliness of the whole question.
> Janet wasn't doing much different than most cheerleaders bump-and-grind
> routine. Three centimeters more exposure and she would have been
> "decent" which means in a larger sense that titillation and sexual
> pandering is OK, as long as you play by certain "rules," which meant
> the game really is in understanding and exploiting the "rules," which
> is what DeMille's later career was all about.
>
comed...@netzero.com
lokke...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Our country was founded on this Puritan tradition, and it was also
> founded on tobacco, and slaves to pick the tobacco crop, and the
> violence needed to keep this all in check. Hundreds of years later,
> these are still the issues that confront us.
Boy, you really have America pegged, don't you? Religion, bigotry,
violence and tobacco. By the way, speaking of tobacco -- since
you're seemingly against TV censorship I assume you're against the
ban on tobacco advertising.
Despite your lengthy analysis, it's really quite simple. As a
Catholic, I believe sex is a gift from God that belongs in the marriage
bed, and not in mindlessly exploitative entertainment. But you're
right that we live in a paradox. Our society is okay with Justin's
sleazy lyrics and then we are surprised when Janet's "wardrobe
malfunction" happens. We deplore the sexual exploitation of women
and children while at the same time reaching for the latest issue of
Playboy. By the way, I hope you're a supporter of the V-chip, which
allows parents who care to restrict what their kids are accidentally
exposed to in the home.
As for the Motion Picture Code, it had its faults (the racial taboos,
and the twin beds for married couples), but I think it is fair to say
that there were more TIMELESS CLASSICS during that era than in any
other time in the history of the movies. Who hasn't at least heard
of IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, CASABLANCA, THE WIZARD OF OZ, YANKEE DOODLE
DANDY, SINGIN' IN THE RAIN, MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS, MR. SMITH GOES TO
WASHINGTON, THE AFRICAN QUEEN, THE PRIDE OF THE YANKEES, STAGECOACH, or
SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS? These and others substituted
creativity and inspiration for sleaze. They can be likened to classic
paintings such as the Mona Lisa, Whistler's Mother and The Last
Supper, in that they are a part of our heritage we can share with our
children and grandchildren. You can't say that about most of
today's blockbusters, can you?
Come to think of it, Chaplin, Keaton, and Lloyd in the 1920's did a
pretty bang-up job of giving us entertainment that can be enjoyed by
all ages, as well. And that was pre-Code! Today, even "family
films" have to be rated PG for fear we'll hear nothing but crickets
in the theatre seats.
PAUL FITZPATRICK
Lincoln Spector
> a public broadcaster (the CBC) that, for all its faults, treats us as
> adults, and allows (after the obligatory warning) such things -- in
> PRIME TIME -- as naked breasts, pubic hair, and the "F" word.
>
> Of course, you get TCM, and we don't.
Americans!
Lincoln
Lincoln Spector
> watching the half-time, and didn't see a thing, everything happened so
> fast. This was a controversy created by TiVo, where one was able to
> slow things down and freeze-frame.
> Even close-ups showed the entire nipple was not exposed, the much of
> the areola area was covered up in a decorative display. Which,
> intentionally or not, calls to the silliness of the whole question.
> Janet wasn't doing much different than most cheerleaders bump-and-grind
> routine. Three centimeters more exposure and she would have been
> "decent" which means in a larger sense that titillation and sexual
> pandering is OK, as long as you play by certain "rules," which meant
> the game really is in understanding and exploiting the "rules," which
> is what DeMille's later career was all about.
sight of a naked female breast. I'm waiting for someone to realize that
millions of the youngest, most innocent of Americans are regularly exposed
to naked female breasts, and outlaw breastfeeding.
Lincoln
Lincoln Spector
"Constance Kuriyama" <do...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:cv8qam$cup$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
> The Falwells of the world needed a break from ranting about "secular
> humanism"
> and seized on Janet's nipple (well, not literally, but . . . ).
Lincoln
Lincoln Spector
> and the twin beds for married couples), but I think it is fair to say
> that there were more TIMELESS CLASSICS during that era than in any
> other time in the history of the movies. Who hasn't at least heard
> of IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, CASABLANCA, THE WIZARD OF OZ, YANKEE DOODLE
> DANDY, SINGIN' IN THE RAIN, MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS, MR. SMITH GOES TO
> WASHINGTON, THE AFRICAN QUEEN, THE PRIDE OF THE YANKEES, STAGECOACH, or
> SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS?
II, Jaws, Annie Hall, Star Wars, Nashville, Raiders of the Lost Ark,
Cabaret, Amadeus, and Taxi Driver--all made in the first 20 years of the
rating system. The ratio of timeless classics to good movies to so-so movies
to bad movies has pretty much remained constant since the invention of the
feature.
Good filmmakers make good films whether or not there's heavy censorship. But
without the censorship, they have one less obstruction in their way. And
there's nothing to stop a filmmaker from making a clean, family-friendly
film even in times of artistic freedom.
Lincoln
George Shelps
>Janet's partially covered nipple becomes
>just the latest incarnation of Hester's
>scarlet letter.
Hate to interrupt this bout of anti-Americanism, but the principal
objection to Janice's nipple was based
on the context in which it appeared
and the expectations of the Superbowl
as an event for family viewing.
Constance Kuriyama
Temporarily. Then they'd be gripped by remorse and have to schedule an
"I have sinned" event in which they bared their souls to their TV
congregation.
Connie K.
LHER...@hotmail.com
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 10:41:59 GMT, Beaver Lad <beav...@febloo.ralnig>
wrote:
what's not to get? they show old movies.
Beaver Lad
Spector <Notr...@myemailaddress.com> wrote:
====================================
Always room for improvement! Technically, cable system operators in the
GWN *can* carry TCM, but the "rules" state that for every foreign cable
channel carried by a broadcaster, TWO Canadian channels must be
included. Or at least that's my understanding of the CRTC ruling.
Any Canucks here know of any place in Canada that makes TCM available
as part of their cable package? I may have to move...
Frederica
>
> "Lincoln Spector" (Notr...@myemailaddress.com) writes:
> > "Constance Kuriyama" <do...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> > news:cv8qam$cup$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
> >> The Falwells of the world needed a break from ranting about "secular
> >> humanism"
> >> and seized on Janet's nipple (well, not literally, but . . . ).
> > Too bad. I think they could a good nipple seizure. It would be
therapeutic.
> >
> > Lincoln
>
> Temporarily. Then they'd be gripped by remorse and have to schedule an
> "I have sinned" event in which they bared their souls to their TV
> congregation.
>
> Connie K.
While asking for LOTS AND LOTS of money.
Frederica
Eric Grayson
> of IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, CASABLANCA, THE WIZARD OF OZ, YANKEE DOODLE
> DANDY, SINGIN' IN THE RAIN, MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS, MR. SMITH GOES TO
> WASHINGTON, THE AFRICAN QUEEN, THE PRIDE OF THE YANKEES, STAGECOACH, or
> SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS? These and others substituted
> creativity and inspiration for sleaze. They can be likened to classic
> paintings such as the Mona Lisa, Whistler's Mother and The Last
> Supper, in that they are a part of our heritage we can share with our
> children and grandchildren. You can't say that about most of
> today's blockbusters, can you?
First off, it annoys me that the above list of films consists of the
entire diet of classic films most Americans have seen, and that's going
a bit far, because I'll bet 90% of America hasn't seen all these.
(Come to think of it, I haven't even seen Pride of the Yankees all the
way through)...
But the idea that Casablanca uses creativity and inspiration instead of
sleaze???? Are you kidding? Granted, it's a great film, but let's
look at the plot outline:
During the early part of WWII, a woman unwittingly cheats on her
husband with a bartender in Paris. Upon finding her husband is still
alive, she dumps the bartender without explanation, crushing his
spirit. The bartender, unable to completely extricate himself from the
Germans, he starts up a bar in northern Africa. The woman and her
husband, now reunited, want to enlist the bartender's help in escaping
to freedom.
The bartender, justifiably, is unwilling to do this. Having come
across documents that people died to get, he figures that he could use
them to make his own escape or some other arrangement. He is also
heartbroken to see the woman again, having been dumped the same day he
had asked her to marry him. (Hey, family values and everything).
In desperation, the woman seduces the bartender again to convince him
that she really loved him all along. She becomes confused about where
her real allegiances are. By this time the Germans are trying to find
out who has been killing their couriers and engage a corrupt police
official to do their bidding.
The police official is a real piece of work, selling passports to women
who will sleep with him, and doing so unabashedly. He also cheats at
gambling and drinks at the bartender's place without paying so that the
bar can remain open. It is a public bribe.
The bartender bribes the police official to keep from interfering, but
the Germans figure out what is going on. Unable to get the police
official to help him, the bartender is forced to shoot a German officer
in pretty much cold blood. He puts the woman and her husband, who
understands about the affair now and isn't really shocked, on the plane
to freedom.
Then he walks off in friendship with the officer who didn't help him.
So we've got illicit, unmarried sex happening all over the place,
killing of innocent German officers, gambling, drinking, and such.
But, horror of horrors, the corrupt official is portrayed as CHARMING,
and the slutty woman portrayed as a heroine.
This could have been a Tod Browning film and been less sleazy.
Eric (still reeling at the fact that Connie "Call me Diegesis" Kuriyama
hails from southern Indiana, home of the red-state ethic)
Frederica
"Eric Grayson" <filmspam...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:210220051218112634%filmspam...@earthlink.net...
> > Who hasn't at least heard
> > of IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, CASABLANCA, THE WIZARD OF OZ, YANKEE DOODLE
> > DANDY, SINGIN' IN THE RAIN, MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS, MR. SMITH GOES TO
> > WASHINGTON, THE AFRICAN QUEEN, THE PRIDE OF THE YANKEES, STAGECOACH, or
> > SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS? These and others substituted
> > creativity and inspiration for sleaze. They can be likened to classic
> > paintings such as the Mona Lisa, Whistler's Mother and The Last
> > Supper, in that they are a part of our heritage we can share with our
> > children and grandchildren. You can't say that about most of
> > today's blockbusters, can you?
>
> First off, it annoys me that the above list of films consists of the
> entire diet of classic films most Americans have seen, and that's going
> a bit far, because I'll bet 90% of America hasn't seen all these.
> (Come to think of it, I haven't even seen Pride of the Yankees all the
> way through)...
>
> But the idea that Casablanca uses creativity and inspiration instead of
> sleaze???? Are you kidding? Granted, it's a great film, but let's
> look at the plot outline:
(snip) BWAHA!! Remember the capsule synopsis for THE WIZARD OF OZ?
"Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first woman she
meets and then teams up with three complete strangers to kill again."
And that ain't a field of California poppies everyone is falling asleep in.
Frederica
comed...@netzero.com
> And
> there's nothing to stop a filmmaker from making a clean,
family-friendly
> film even in times of artistic freedom.
Nothing except the studios' fear of losing their shirts. As I pointed
out, even "family" movies nowadays have to include something which
will cause the film to be rated at least PG ("Parental Guidance
Suggested -- Some Material May Not Be Suitable For Children"). This
is not artistic freedom, but a studio-imposed attempt at box-office
insurance. Even the 2003 film THE CAT IN THE HAT had to have crude
"humor" and language to avoid the dreaded G rating -- and this was
based on a PRE-SCHOOL book!! But unfortunately, this is how far the
balance has shifted. If THE WIZARD OF OZ were made today, it would
have to include this kind of material as well -- to its detriment as a
film.
PAUL FITZPATRICK
Frederica
<comed...@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:1109014971....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Nothing except the studios' fear of losing their shirts. As I pointed
> out, even "family" movies nowadays have to include something which
> will cause the film to be rated at least PG ("Parental Guidance
> Suggested -- Some Material May Not Be Suitable For Children"). This
> is not artistic freedom, but a studio-imposed attempt at box-office
> insurance. Even the 2003 film THE CAT IN THE HAT had to have crude
> "humor" and language to avoid the dreaded G rating -- and this was
> based on a PRE-SCHOOL book!! But unfortunately, this is how far the
> balance has shifted. If THE WIZARD OF OZ were made today, it would
> have to include this kind of material as well -- to its detriment as a
> film.
>
> PAUL FITZPATRICK
Uhhhhh...movie studios are a business, you know. They have stockholders and
the whole shebang. They are SUPPOSED to sell a product that makes a profit.
I fully understand how frustrating it might be to a parent not to find
something suitable for his child to watch, but isn't your best choice simply
NOT to watch? If someone else chooses to watch such stuff, do you really
care? It's not like the world lacks good "family" films (why is that word
used? my family likes sword and sandal epics). You could not possibly
watch all the good films out there, even if you never went to another film
as long as you lived. You could set your television parental guidance
controls to "TCM Only" and you would still never lack entertainment. Going
out to a movie nowadays is an expensive, time-consuming proposition and I
would imagine that quadruples with children. Why not NOT go out to see
movies?
Frederica
Lincoln Spector
and Finding Nemo come immediately to mind.
Lincoln
Lincoln Spector
"Eric Grayson" <filmspam...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:210220051218112634%filmspam...@earthlink.net...
dressed after their unseen sex scene. He's even bothered to put his coat and
tie back on.
Lincoln
Darren
Frederica,
First I want to apologize for replying to your post privately. I am using
Outlook Express as my newsgroup browser and am new to it. Netscape was my
old one and I had been used to that browser's button placement due to over 7
years of use.
Although Outlook allows you to confugure the browser buttons for some reason
my rearranging will nto lock.
You said....
>"Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first woman
she
> meets and then teams up with three complete strangers to kill again."
the house accidently lands on the witch who happened to have a reign of
terror over the inhabitants of the Land of OZ.. Dorothy did not kill her
intentionially. As a matter of fact she was shocked to find out what had
happened at that and folks were congratulating her for it.
> And that ain't a field of California poppies everyone is falling asleep
in.
Blame L Frank Baum for that one. :)
Why use Poppies in the field? Was poppy opium a common medical cure or
relaxant back in Victorian times? (I have a feeling that it was.)
Darren
StormChaser
Warner Brothers redesigned the characters
based on a study they did that kids today
only respond to cartoon characters that look
like Japanese Anime.
<comed...@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:1109014971....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Igenlode
[snip]
> As for the Motion Picture Code, it had its faults (the racial taboos,
> and the twin beds for married couples), but I think it is fair to say
> that there were more TIMELESS CLASSICS during that era than in any
> other time in the history of the movies.
[snip]
> These and others substituted creativity and inspiration for sleaze.
While I'm no Catholic (or even a believer), I don't care for 'explicit'
material either... and adding it into re-makes of old films such as "The
Postman Always Knocks Twice" has never been an improvement.
But even I can think of at least one example of a film adaptation that
was definitely undermined by the Hays Code: "Rebecca", where both the
title character's motive for her actions
[Oh, spoiler space I suppose..!]
(cancer of the womb) and the motive for the hero's attitude towards her
memory, and for the actions of the entire second half of the film (he
murdered her) were apparently deemed unsuitable for the screen,
seriously affecting the plausibility of what -- let's admit it -- was a
pretty far-fetched plot even in the nail-biting original thriller...
lokke...@yahoo.com
violence and tobacco. By the way, speaking of tobacco -- since
you're seemingly against TV censorship I assume you're against the
ban on tobacco advertising.
Huh? I never said I was against censorship of any kind. What I was
railing against was censorship that is so blatantly hypocritical.
Having the half-time show set up as basically one long T&A show, and
then get blown out of the water because two centimeters too much of the
"T" was showing, strikes me as amazing, like the scene in Casablanca
when the Claude Rains tuts about gambling at Rick's, just as a porter
slips him his winnings. And you can't say this T&A show was unusual,
in fact it was quite similiar to half-times in prior superbowls, so the
sponsors knew what they were getting. So this year we get a convicted
drug-user who has served time, singing a song about smoking pot, which
I guess is OK because god forbid we didn't see any sign of that
forbidden female territory.
Despite your lengthy analysis, it's really quite simple. As a
Catholic, I believe sex is a gift from God that belongs in the marriage
bed, and not in mindlessly exploitative entertainment. But you're
right that we live in a paradox.
So make up your mind, George, it is simple, or do we live in a paradox?
I thought you'd be glad I didn't come down on the Catholics, although
if you can find a way to tie it into silent films, I'd be happy to try.
I love it. A criticism of a cultural problem is redefined as
"Anti-Americansim." I guess that means if I was critical of the war in
Iran, that would make me "anti-American." In fact, any view I have
that you don't have, could be also "anti-American." This is a
two-hundred year old tactic in the U.S. othewise known as "wrapping
yourself in the flag."
And the reference to the expectation of the Superbowl being a family
event means you missed my point about TiVo. I was watching on "normal"
TV and didn't see a thing. The nip is only there for a split second,
and amid such flash that you can't really see anything anyway. The
only people who really saw it were the ones who freeze-framed it, to
play it over and over. Is this a common family event?
Now if the argument had been that Janet Jackson's entire routine had
been lude and not fit for family viewing, that would have made more
sense. Except who here can say in good faith that this really would
have happened, unless the nipple had been there to ignite the
"firestorm of outrage"?
George Shelps
lokke...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>Despite your lengthy analysis, it's
>>>really quite simple. As a Catholic, I
>>>believe sex is a gift from God that
>>>belongs in the marriage bed, and not
>>>in mindlessly exploitative
>>>entertainment. But you're right that we
>>>live in a paradox.
>>So make up your mind, George, it is
>>simple, or do we live in a paradox? I
>>thought you'd be glad I didn't come
>>down on the Catholics, although
>>if you can find a way to tie it into silent
>>films, I'd be happy to try.
You're conflating two different posts.
I did not write the above.
>>>Janet's partially covered nipple becomes
>>>just the latest incarnation of Hester's
>>>scarlet letter.
>>Hate to interrupt this bout of
>>anti-Americanism, but the principal
>>objection to Janice's nipple was based
>>on the context in which it appeared
>>and the expectations of the Superbowl
>>as an event for family viewing.
>I love it. A criticism of a cultural problem
>is redefined as "Anti-Americansim."
It is a form of cuiltural anti-Americanism
cranking up the image of America;s
supposedly "sick" puritan heritage,
>I guess that means if I was critical of the
>war in Iran, that would make me
>"anti-American."
If it was based on a policy disagreement,
no,
>In fact, any view I have that you don't
>have, could be also "anti-American." This
>is a two-hundred year old tactic in the
>U.S. othewise known as "wrapping
>yourself in the flag."
"Criticism" that strikes at the motives
of American politicians or hopes for
American failure is anti-American.
>And the reference to the expectation of
>the Superbowl being a family event
>means you missed my point about TiVo.
>I was watching on "normal" TV and didn't
>see a thing. The nip is only there for a
>split second, and amid such flash that
>you can't really see anything anyway.
>The only people who really saw it were
>the ones who freeze-framed it, to play it
>over and over. Is this a common family
>event?
Because you were inattentive, why do
you assume others were?
>Now if the argument had been that Janet
>Jackson's entire routine had been lude
>and not fit for family viewing, that would
>have made more sense. Except who
>here can say in good faith that this really
>would have happened, unless the nipple
>had been there to ignite the "firestorm of
>outrage"?
Public nudity certainly changes the
character of a performance.
Eric Grayson
> of American politicians or hopes for
> American failure is anti-American.
George, do you really want to say that?
That last part is pretty clear and not refutable, that if you're hoping
for American failure that you're being un-American.
However, if you criticize a politician (on the left or right) for
motives that you find completely disagreeable, aren't you exercising
the American way, and being pro-American?
I personally see the people criticizing Clinton's immoral behavior as
the equivalent of the people criticizing Bush's Iraq policy. Both very
American and very needed.
The problem comes when you have someone disagreeing with Bush's Iraq
policy and hoping it proves disastrous for our country. That's not
really helpful for anyone, including Iraq and the rest of the world.
Eric
Frederica
"Darren" <dnem...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:S6vSd.146$Lr1...@fe04.lga...
>
>
> Frederica,
>
> First I want to apologize for replying to your post privately. I am using
> Outlook Express as my newsgroup browser and am new to it. Netscape was my
> old one and I had been used to that browser's button placement due to over
7
> years of use.
WHOOPS!! You didn't reply privately!! It's WAY public. Fortunately you
didn't say anything about last Saturday night, so we're safe.
> You said....
> >"Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first woman
> she
> > meets and then teams up with three complete strangers to kill again."
>
> the house accidently lands on the witch who happened to have a reign of
> terror over the inhabitants of the Land of OZ.. Dorothy did not kill her
> intentionially. As a matter of fact she was shocked to find out what had
> happened at that and folks were congratulating her for it.
Well, it wasn't my capsule review, it's kind of a classic. I was simply
responding to Eric's unique but yet utterly correct precis of Casablanca.
Apparently family viewing all depends on how you look at it.
> > And that ain't a field of California poppies everyone is falling asleep
> in.
>
> Blame L Frank Baum for that one. :)
>
> Why use Poppies in the field? Was poppy opium a common medical cure or
> relaxant back in Victorian times? (I have a feeling that it was.)
>
>
> Darren
It was both, although the common usage of it medicinally was in laudanum,
which is opium mixed with alcohol. They used laudanum for everything, it
was even put in baby food to keep the little dear quiet. For purposes of
recreation, it was traditional to go to the Limehouse and partake of it in a
comfortable "den." Should you wish a detailed description of the process, I
recommend Thomas De Quincey's "Confessions of an English Opium Eater."
It was illegal by 1939, though, so I think the filmmakers may have been
having a wee bit of fun at the censors' expense. Either the censors and the
family viewers didn't know it was a field of opium poppies (although those
of us in California should know, I've never seen anyone fall asleep in a
field of California poppies...at least not from the poppies), or they knew
and they didn't care.
I've always sort of wondered why, at the end of the film when Glinda tells
Dorothy that she always could have gone home simply by clicking the red
shoes together, Dorothy doesn't turn around and scream "YOU BITCH!!!"
Frederica
Brett Leveridge
> While I'm no Catholic (or even a believer), I don't care for 'explicit'
> material either... and adding it into re-makes of old films such as "The
> Postman Always Knocks Twice" has never been an improvement.
Have you read the James M. Cain novel? I'm fond of the Garfield/Turner
"Postman," but it was definitely a sanitized version of the source material.
Brett
George Shelps
filmspam...@earthlink.net (Eric Grayson) wrote:
>>"Criticism" that strikes at the motives
>>of American politicians or hopes for
>>American failure is anti-American.
>George, do you really want to say that?
>That last part is pretty clear and not
>refutable, that if you're hoping for
>American failure that you're being
>un-American.
>However, if you criticize a politician (on
>the left or right) for motives that you find
>completely disagreeable, aren't you
>exercising the American way, and being
>pro-American?
By motives, I really meant insinuating that
the politician is a moral criminal who
cares nothing for his country. When you
reach that point, it's time for impeachment, but as a form of "dissent"
it's destructive and it undermines the
country as well as the morale of our
soldiers.
I couldn't stand Clinton, but I never
believed he was depraved.
>I personally see the people criticizing<
>Clinton's immoral behavior as the
>equivalent of the people criticizing
>Bush's Iraq policy. Both very American
>and very needed.
You can dissent on Iraq, but when Bush
is routinely called a liar or a Hitler, that
goes too far.
>The problem comes when you have
>someone disagreeing with Bush's Iraq
>policy and hoping it proves disastrous for
>our country. That's not really helpful for
>anyone, including Iraq and the rest of the
>world.
I believe many of his critics do hope for
that, They don't want him to succeed
and reap political benefits.
Frederica
"George Shelps" <G-H...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:3952-421...@storefull-3317.bay.webtv.net...
You can dissent on Iraq, but when Bush
is routinely called a liar or a Hitler, that
goes too far.
Uhhhhmmmm, George, he did lie.
Frederica
Frederica
"Brett Leveridge" <sky...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:nOidneqDap6...@giganews.com...
> Have you read the James M. Cain novel? I'm fond of the Garfield/Turner
> "Postman," but it was definitely a sanitized version of the source
material.
>
>
> Brett
Seriously sanitized. As is Mildred Pierce. Or almost any other novel
filmed during the "golden years."
Frederica
George Shelps
missme...@RATSPAMMERSyahoo.com (Frederica) wrote:
>>You can dissent on Iraq, but when Bush
>>is routinely called a liar or a Hitler, that
>>goes too far.
>Uhhhhmmmm, George, he did lie.
Uhhhhmmmm. No. What he said about
WMD was in line with international
intelligence reports.
Nor did he say that was the only reason
for going into Iraq.
Calling Bush a "liar" is protected dissent
but serves no purpose except political
destruction.
Frederica
>
> Uhhhhmmmm. No. What he said about
> WMD was in line with international
> intelligence reports.
Not quite sure where you're getting your international intelligence reports
from. Mine are probably better than yours.
> Nor did he say that was the only reason
> for going into Iraq.
>
> Calling Bush a "liar" is protected dissent
> but serves no purpose except political
> destruction.
DAMN STRAIGHT.
Frederica
Frederica
<John A.> wrote in message
news:dprm11p4sovanmn85...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:16:53 -0800, "Frederica"
> >I've always sort of wondered why, at the end of the film when Glinda
tells
> >Dorothy that she always could have gone home simply by clicking the red
> >shoes together, Dorothy doesn't turn around and scream "YOU BITCH!!!"
> >
> >Frederica
>
> dream, and as we all know, dreams don't always make sense.
>
> --John A.
Especially the kind of dreams you get with red poppies! And besides, I've
screamed "YOU BITCH!!" in my dreams. Often.
Frederica
mikeg...@gmail.com
"It's Not the Nipple: A Super Sunday reminder to Frank Rich and other
righteous anti-FCCers: The big problem with last year's Janet
Jackson/Justin Timberlake halftime show was not that people saw
Jackson's breast. It wasn't what Jackson did that was offensive. It was
what Timberlake did. Here was a massively popular, relatively hip
singer whose message was that it was a hip, transgressive thing for men
to rip clothes off women when they feel like it (which is quite often).
...Yet the press has effectively recast this complicated issue as an
uncomplicated case of "Nipple-gate," of blue-noses overreacting to the
sight of a breast. No wonder red staters respond negatively when New
Yorkers call them simplistic."
That's pretty much how I feel-- generally against the FCC nannyizing
TV, and yet at the same time, appalled by the mass trashification of
pop culture which continues apace, which is represented not by mere
nudity but by the whole package of a Super Bowl with a pantomime rape
act in the middle of it. I'd like to think that a group named
alt.movies.silent would find a few other folks who dislike the way a
sluttish and brutish sexuality peers out of every corner and find
refuge for my children from it in movies made back in those awful
repressed days before 1967, even as I, as an adult, watch South Park or
[insert grownup show here].
R H Draney
>
>I've always sort of wondered why, at the end of the film when Glinda tells
>Dorothy that she always could have gone home simply by clicking the red
>shoes together, Dorothy doesn't turn around and scream "YOU BITCH!!!"
Ooh!...director's cut!...r
Frederica
<mikeg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109096979.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> That's pretty much how I feel-- generally against the FCC nannyizing
> TV, and yet at the same time, appalled by the mass trashification of
> pop culture which continues apace, which is represented not by mere
> nudity but by the whole package of a Super Bowl with a pantomime rape
> act in the middle of it. I'd like to think that a group named
> alt.movies.silent would find a few other folks who dislike the way a
> sluttish and brutish sexuality peers out of every corner and find
> refuge for my children from it in movies made back in those awful
> repressed days before 1967, even as I, as an adult, watch South Park or
> [insert grownup show here].
Didn't I say that previously? Look, I don't have television so I completely
missed that half-time show (and I would have missed it even if I had
television) so I also completely missed the demise of western civilization.
(It is a little odd, I see two nipples every day, so for me it's not a
problem but maybe for someone else it's a big deal. And people just noticed
that sexuality lurks in every corner on television? It is to guffaw.) The
thing is, if television has dumbed down (let's face it, by it's very nature
it's dumb, you're sitting on your butt letting someone else do the thinking
for you) you can make the decision to turn it off and go do something else.
Plant a garden. Read poetry together. Make a quilt. Put on amateur
theatrics. Hold a neighborhood kids science fair. Volunteer at a library.
Take ballroom dance classes. The list is endless. Now that would be good
for the kiddies.
Frederica
michael_s...@spe.sony.com
excuse to clamp down on what they consider wretched excess. If it
hadn't been Janet Jackson, it would've been something else a month
later. But it would've happened sooner or later. The Bozells and
Dobsons of the nation are so out of control that even their lapdog
Powell threw out three dozen of their complaints as unmerited--one of
which was against "Gilmore Girls," which was developed and partly
funded by an organization dedicated to promoting family-friendly
programming!
It wasn't long ago that people smirked when these censorship groups
condemned such family programs as "The Wonderful World Of Disney" and
"Brisco County Jr." as "the most violent shows on television." Alas,
these days, such nonsensical complaints would probably be taken
seriously.
Mike S.
(who didn't complain about the violence in that Christ movie, but, hey,
what's a whipping or two among friends?)
George Shelps
>>Calling Bush a "liar" is protected
>>dissent but serves no purpose except
>>political destruction.
>DAMN STRAIGHT.
Which, by my lights, is anti-American,
an import of the politics of destruction
from Europe.
George Shelps
>It should be also noted that the
>bluenoses were just waiting for an
>excuse to clamp down on what they
>consider wretched excess.
No evidence that objections to the strip
show were confined to "bluenoses."
That's just your own cultural prejudice
operating.
lokke...@yahoo.com
I did not write the above.
Here's what you wrote with the "middle" back in ....
Despite your lengthy analysis, it's really quite simple. As a
Catholic, I believe sex is a gift from God that belongs in the marriage
bed, and not in mindlessly exploitative entertainment. But you're
right that we live in a paradox. Our society is okay with Justin's
sleazy lyrics and then we are surprised when Janet's "wardrobe
malfunction" happens
If we live in a paradox, is it indeed simple? Can paradoxes be simple?
>I love it. A criticism of a cultural problem
>is redefined as "Anti-Americansim."
It is a form of cuiltural anti-Americanism
cranking up the image of America;s
supposedly "sick" puritan heritage,
Nobody did a better job cranking up the "sick" puritan heritage than
Hawthorne. The first chapter of Seven Gables is as damming a scene as
you'll ever find.
Was he being un-American? George, if you've READ either Scarlet Letter
or House of Seven Gables, and have a different view of his attack on
puritan values, then I'd be the first person who wants to hear your
version of what he was saying.
>In fact, any view I have that you don't
>have, could be also "anti-American." This
>is a two-hundred year old tactic in the
>U.S. othewise known as "wrapping
>yourself in the flag."
"Criticism" that strikes at the motives
of American politicians or hopes for
American failure is anti-American.
Don't you see the thick layer of judgment in your comment? It's the
very judgment of the question of motive that is the center of the
issue. Since there is NO way you can judge my motive, there's no way
you can use this for a litmus test on what is anti-American or not.
Those of us old enough to remember Vietnam remember the same arguments
used against the war movement. Surely, George you have to allow that
protesters of that war had a point, and they weren't being unAmerican.
Or maybe you think we should still be fighting there.
>The only people who really saw it were
>the ones who freeze-framed it, to play it
>over and over. Is this a common family
>event?
Because you were inattentive, why do
you assume others were?
I WAS being attentive. Did I say I wasn't? And I still didn't see it.
I challenge you to find one family, or even one person under eighteen,
who saw a nipple as the show first played out.
unless the nipple
>had been there to ignite the "firestorm of
>outrage"?
Public nudity certainly changes the
character of a performance.
It's an interesting question of when a breast does become public
nudity? It's not the top part. It's apparently not the bottom of the
breast. And it's not the outline of the nipple. We see that
constantly on TV now. Apparently, it's the nipple itself, and six
frames of video flashed are enought to do it.
Constance Kuriyama
"Frederica" (missme...@RATSPAMMERSyahoo.com) writes:
> "Constance Kuriyama" <do...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:cvafnc$kjg$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>>
>> "Lincoln Spector" (Notr...@myemailaddress.com) writes:
>> > "Constance Kuriyama" <do...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>> > news:cv8qam$cup$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>> >> The Falwells of the world needed a break from ranting about "secular
>> >> humanism"
>> >> and seized on Janet's nipple (well, not literally, but . . . ).
>> > Too bad. I think they could a good nipple seizure. It would be
> therapeutic.
>> >
>> > Lincoln
>>
>> Temporarily. Then they'd be gripped by remorse and have to schedule an
>> "I have sinned" event in which they bared their souls to their TV
>> congregation.
>>
>> Connie K.
>
> While asking for LOTS AND LOTS of money.
>
> Frederica
Right. And if they got enough, it would be time for another grab at
the nipple--and the cash.
Connie K.
--
"To hell with the pillow in the background. It's a good scene, and that's
more important." Chaplin, Interview with Richard Meryman, 1966.
Constance Kuriyama
> hails from southern Indiana, home of the red-state ethic)
Not to mention the Ku Klux Klan. But the county I grew up in was still
under the influence of the New Deal.
Hey, all I said about diegesis was that it *sometimes* means more
than story or narrative, though it is often just a mystifying synonym
for simpler terms. I never use it myself.
James Roots
You talkin' to me?
Jim
Eric Grayson
> > hails from southern Indiana, home of the red-state ethic)
>
>
> Not to mention the Ku Klux Klan. But the county I grew up in was still
> under the influence of the New Deal.
You must have been really south, like Harrison County or something.
Most of Indiana is very, very Republican and hates the New Deal.
> Hey, all I said about diegesis was that it *sometimes* means more
> than story or narrative, though it is often just a mystifying synonym
> for simpler terms. I never use it myself.
Well, I know that. I also think it's about the goofiest word out
there. There is so much goofy verbiage in the film world these days
that it makes me cringe. Wasn't it Flaubert who said, "We murder to
dissect?"
Eric
George Shelps
>Nobody did a better job cranking up the
>"sick" puritan heritage than Hawthorne.
>The first chapter of Seven Gables is as
>damming a scene as you'll ever find.
>Was he being un-American? George,
He was a novelist, not a poltical
commentator or a newsgroup contributor.
> if you've READ either Scarlet Letter or
>House of Seven Gables, and have a
>different view of his attack on puritan
>values, then I'd be the first person who
>wants to hear your version of what he
>was saying.
I've read THE SCARLET LETTER,
and Hawthorne is attacking hypocrisy,
which is probably not confined to
the puritains.
Nevertheless, the religious heritage
brought to these shores by the Pilgrims
is an essential part of the American
zeitgeist. The view of America as
"the shining city on the hill" endorsed
by Ronald Reagan is a vital aspect
of American culture.
America is not just any old thing
that pops into your head. It is more
than the legalities of being a citizen.
It is a tradition composed of the
Enlightenment views of the Founders
and the spiritual ideals of the puritans...and to attack either is to be
anti-American, in my opinion.
>>>In fact, any view I have that you don't
>>>have, could be also "anti-American."
>>>This is a two-hundred year old tactic in
>>>the U.S. othewise known as "wrapping
>>>yourself in the flag."
>>"Criticism" that strikes at the motives
>>of American politicians or hopes for
>>American failure is anti-American.
>Don't you see the thick layer of judgment
>in your comment? It's the very judgment
>of the question of motive that is the
>center of the issue. Since there is NO
>way you can judge my motive,
I'm not judging your motives. I was
making a general statement, Accusing
me of "wrapping" myself in the flag
is judging my motives, however.,
> there's no
>way you can use this for a litmus test on
>what is anti-American or not. Those of us
>old enough to remember Vietnam
>remember the same arguments used
>against the war movement.
Many of the opponents of the war were
principled, many were pro-Hanoi and
wanted to see the US defeated.
The latter were exercising their rights under the First Amendment, but
were nevertheless anti-American.
> Surely, George you have to allow that
>protesters of that war had a point, and
>they weren't being unAmerican. Or
>maybe you think we should still be
>fighting there.
The protestors who waved Viet Cong
flags were anti-American. The anti-war
movement was a mixed bag of American
citizens fed up with the war and those
who wanted us defeated by the
Communists.
>>Public nudity certainly changes the
>>character of a performance.
>It's an interesting question of when a
>breast does become public nudity? It's
>not the top part. It's apparently not the
>bottom of the breast. And it's not the
>outline of the nipple. We see that
>constantly on TV now. Apparently, it's
>the nipple itself, and six frames of video
>lashed are enought to do it.
That was a strip-tease, pure and simple.
comed...@netzero.com
lokke...@yahoo.com wrote:
> So make up your mind, George, it is simple, or do we live in a
paradox?
George didn't write that; I did. But to explain: What is simple is
the Church teaching on sexuality. The paradox is that of the secular
culture which tolerates sexual excess and then wonders how the
Timberlake/Jackson fiasco could have happened.
> I thought you'd be glad I didn't come down on the Catholics,
although
> if you can find a way to tie it into silent films, I'd be happy to
try.
No thanks. Even if you COULD tie it into silent films, this group is
no place for that kind of attack.
PAUL FITZPATRICK
comed...@netzero.com
> Uhhhhh...movie studios are a business, you know. They have
stockholders and
> the whole shebang. They are SUPPOSED to sell a product that makes a
profit.
Well, corporate America is often criticized for putting the bottom line
ahead of every other value. Why should Hollywood get a pass? Besides,
as another poster pointed out, G-rated films such as FINDING NEMO have
done very well. So the question is -- why don't they make more?
> I fully understand how frustrating it might be to a parent not to
find
> something suitable for his child to watch, but isn't your best choice
simply
> NOT to watch? If someone else chooses to watch such stuff, do you
really
> care?
Actually yes, because I care about our cultural environment,
particularly what children are exposed to. Even though I am not a
parent myself.
It's not like the world lacks good "family" films (why is that word
> used? my family likes sword and sandal epics).
The word is used because there are so many films out there unsuitable
for the family. The consequence is that "family" has come to mean
strictly kiddie fare to many people, who pass anything by which carries
that label. I'm sure SAFETY LAST was not touted as a "family" film,
although it's a great one.
> You could set your television parental guidance
> controls to "TCM Only" and you would still never lack entertainment.
That's for sure!! Although, especially during this "31 Days of Oscar"
month, the ratings V-chip would still come in pretty handy!
Going
> out to a movie nowadays is an expensive, time-consuming proposition
and I
> would imagine that quadruples with children. Why not NOT go out to
see
> movies?
I certainly WISH more parents would choose films like MEET ME IN ST.
LOUIS, THE GOLD RUSH, or THE THIEF OF BAGDAD (Fairbanks or Sabu) as
entertainment for their children, although kids have so much peer
pressure to see the trendiest movies and TV shows.
PAUL FITZPATRICK
Stephen Cooke
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, it was written:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:16:53 -0800, "Frederica"
> <missme...@RATSPAMMERSyahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >I've always sort of wondered why, at the end of the film when Glinda tells
> >Dorothy that she always could have gone home simply by clicking the red
> >shoes together, Dorothy doesn't turn around and scream "YOU BITCH!!!"
>
> Folks, The Wizard Of Oz is a F-A-N-T-A-S-Y. Besides, it was all a
> dream, and as we all know, dreams don't always make sense.
Except in the books, Oz isn't a dream at all. It's a magical kingdom
surrounded by a deadly desert (and Dorothy's shoes, which were silver,
fall off while she's flying overhead). But for the movie, they had to make
it a dream; we couldn't go filling children's heads with flights of fancy
now, could we?
swac
Stephen Cooke
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005, George Shelps wrote:
> lokke heiss wrote:
>
> >Janet's partially covered nipple becomes
> >just the latest incarnation of Hester's
> >scarlet letter.
>
> Hate to interrupt this bout of anti-Americanism, but the principal
> objection to Janice's nipple was based
> on the context in which it appeared
> and the expectations of the Superbowl
> as an event for family viewing.
Filled with ads for beer and viagra.
Frankly, most beer ads are more obscene than the occasional stray nipple.
swac
bpnjensen
>>You can dissent on Iraq, but when Bush
is routinely called a liar or a Hitler, that
goes too far. <<
But, dang, he *IS* a liar! He's been caught enough now so that even
his best friend can't refute it. He's been wrong a lot, too, despite
what may have been good intentions.
Before you go off on this idea, note that I believe that practically
all other politicians have this very fault as well. In this respect,
Bush is neither better nor worse than the rest.
He is not a Hitler - to say that is demagoguery.
I'd not think many people want us to fail in Iraq, although I think it
may be a foregone conclusion without considerable local oppression, and
then where is the success? This is not to say I want him in office - I
find him too damaging in too many respects.
Bruce Jensen
michael_s...@spe.sony.com
to launch their crusade. I did NOT say they were the ONLY ones who
objected!
Mike S.
lokke...@yahoo.com
> He was a novelist, not a poltical
> commentator or a newsgroup contributor.
>
fiction, but the same opinion is not OK if its a from a political
commentator or someone contributing to a newsgroup. So if a political
commentator says something he thinks may be too far, he should put it
in the form of a novel. George, tell me where you're getting these
minute, detailed answers. I've got to start taking notes.
>
> Nevertheless, the religious heritage
> brought to these shores by the Pilgrims
> is an essential part of the American
> zeitgeist. The view of America as
> "the shining city on the hill" endorsed
> by Ronald Reagan is a vital aspect
> of American culture.
So while we're namedropping presidents, what do you think of Thomas
Jefferson's comment that we should have a revolution in this country
every so often? Was he being un-American? Maybe he should have put
that idea in a novel.
> America is not just any old thing
> that pops into your head. It is more
> than the legalities of being a citizen.
> It is a tradition composed of the
> Enlightenment views of the Founders
> and the spiritual ideals of the puritans...and to attack either is to
be
> anti-American, in my opinion.
Well, at least you said 'in my opinion,' so I'm getting somewhere.
> The latter were exercising their rights under the First Amendment,
but
> were nevertheless anti-American.
Wait... if you are exercising your First Amendment rights, doesn't that
MAKE you American? It doesn't make you anti-American, it makes you
anti-current policy of the U.S. In the days before the Civil War,
protesters against slavery weren't being anti-American, they were being
anti-current policy of slavery. But I give up. If you can't see the
inconsistancy of even your own sentence, then this is part of the
discussion is pointless.
> That was a strip-tease, pure and simple.
But now you're agreeing to what I was originally saying. If the anger
had been that her whole act was lude and a strip-tease, then I would
have understood it. But these strip-tease acts have been common in
other super-bowl like settings. So what made this so different? The
only difference were those five frames of half a nipple.
I do think that this discussion should be relevant to silent film, and
I've been trying to push it back to questions of ludeness that were
coming up in the silent film era. DeMille was very aware of these
issues, and he almost made it a career. Who was the woman director who
did the film where the ghostly-almost-naked body of a woman parades
through parts of the film chastising men and women for their sins?
Talk about having your cake and eating it too!
George Shelps
Even so, I still think your characterization
of even some who objected to a strip show during SuperBowl half-time as
bluenoses reflects your own cultural prejudices...and they ~should~
bring a "crusade" against a repeat of the same
thing in the future.
George Shelps
lokke...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>He was a novelist, not a poltical
>>commentator or a newsgroup contributor.
>Wow, I've get to get this right.
Yes, do keep trying.
> It's OK to have an opinion if it's fiction,
>but the same opinion is not OK if its a
>from a political commentator or someone
>contributing to a newsgroup.
Art is a different genre, yes.
> So if a political commentator says
>something he thinks may be too far, he
>should put it in the form of a novel.
They call it a "roman a clef."
>George, tell me where you're getting
>these minute, detailed answers. I've got
>to start taking notes.
Sorry to go on with this...it's off
topic, but I always like to make
those who introduce off-topic slams
at other peoples' social or political
views suffer a little bit for doing it
here.
>>Nevertheless, the religious heritage
>>brought to these shores by the Pilgrims
>>is an essential part of the American
>>zeitgeist. The view of America as
>>"the shining city on the hill" endorsed
>>by Ronald Reagan is a vital aspect
>>of American culture.
>So while we're namedropping presidents,
>what do you think of Thomas Jefferson's
>comment that we should have a
>revolution in this country every so often?
>Was he being un-American?
No.
>Maybe he should have put that idea in a
>novel.
>>America is not just any old thing
>>that pops into your head. It is more
>>than the legalities of being a citizen.
>>It is a tradition composed of the
>>Enlightenment views of the Founders
>>and the spiritual ideals of the
>>puritans...and to attack either is to be
>>anti-American, in my opinion.
>Well, at least you said 'in my opinion,' so
>I'm getting somewhere.
DId you learn anything?
>>The latter were exercising their rights
>>under the First Amendment, but were
>>nevertheless anti-American.
>Wait... if you are exercising your First
>Amendment rights, doesn't that MAKE
>you American?
Anti-American speech is protected speech unless it foments treason.
> It doesn't make you anti-American, it
>makes you anti-current policy of the U.S.
>In the days before the Civil War,
>protesters against slavery weren't being
>anti-American, they were being
>anti-current policy of slavery.
Please don't equate your rants
with the abolition movement.
> But I give up. If you can't see the
>inconsistancy of even your own
>sentence, then this is part of the
>discussion is pointless.
There's no inconsistency. You
don't make a distinction between
legal citizenship and being committed
to an American vision...ie a nationalistic
perspective...and I do.
>>That was a strip-tease, pure and simple.
>But now you're agreeing to what I was
>originally saying. If the anger had been
>that her whole act was lude and a
>strip-tease, then I would have
>understood it. But these strip-tease acts
>have been common in other super-bowl
>ike settings. So what made this so
>different? The only difference were those
>five frames of half a nipple.
I don't think you've ever seen a strip
show if you can say that.
George Shelps
bpnj...@yahoo.com (bpnjensen)
wrote:
>>You can dissent on Iraq, but when Bush
>>is routinely called a liar or a Hitler, that
>>goes too far. <<
>But, dang, he *IS* a liar!
I doubt that you listen to his speeches carefully but being wrong about
WMD does not constitute "lying,"
> He's been caught enough now so that
>even his best friend can't refute it. He's
>been wrong a lot, too, despite what may
>have been good intentions.
He didn't anticipate the Ba'athist
insurgency---but who did?
Igenlode
On 22 Feb 2005 Brett Leveridge wrote:
> Igenlode wrote:
> > While I'm no Catholic (or even a believer), I don't care for 'explicit'
> > material either... and adding it into re-makes of old films such as "The
> > Postman Always Knocks Twice" has never been an improvement.
>
> Have you read the James M. Cain novel?
I *think* so. Yes, I'm pretty sure I did soon after I saw the film,
though I don't remember what the differences were any more :-(
I wanted to find out what the title of the film meant, for a start, and
it comes up in the last paragraph, if I remember correctly :-)
> I'm fond of the Garfield/Turner
> "Postman," but it was definitely a sanitized version of the source material.
>
I don't recall explicit coitus in the novel either..? (I mean, we know
it's going on, I just don't remember a blow-by-blow description ;-)
--
Igenlode <Igenl...@nym.alias.net> Lurker Extraordinaire
* The old that is strong does not wither *
bpnjensen
being wrong about
>WMD does not constitute "lying,"
I listen, to his speeches and many other things from the White House.
No, this example is not a lie - it constitutes being wrong, as I
mentioned below. One of many instances.
He has lied about many other things - not just international but
domestic as well. My intent here is to stop my involvement with this
thread here, but if you want, I can give you a passel of examples from
domestic policy, which I (if not others) still consider to be keenly
important.
>> He's been caught enough now so that
>>even his best friend can't refute it. He's
>>been wrong a lot, too, despite what may
>>have been good intentions.
>He didn't anticipate the Ba'athist
>insurgency---but who did?
A smart president anticipates all possibilities at all times, even when
they seem remote. Right now, he confidently charges on, assuming that
the people of the Middle East will embrace democracy after we dash
their autocratic rulers, hardly thinking (at least publicly) that they
will follow their restrictive, deeply-held religious beliefs. We'll
see, shan't we?
I'm done.
Love those Beau Hunks scores to the Laurel and Hardy silents!
Bruce Jensen
Frederica
<comed...@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:1109189725.1...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > I fully understand how frustrating it might be to a parent not to
> find
> > something suitable for his child to watch, but isn't your best choice
> simply
> > NOT to watch? If someone else chooses to watch such stuff, do you
> really
> > care?
>
> Actually yes, because I care about our cultural environment,
> particularly what children are exposed to. Even though I am not a
> parent myself.
Now we're talking something entirely different. Now you are not talking
about finding adequate entertainment for children, you are talking about
enforcing a cultural norm. You said that you believe sex belongs within
marriage (I'm paraphrasing, but I think this is what you mean). I don't. I
believe...actually let's back up here and say "belief" has nothing to do
with it, it just is--I'll do it when it suits me. I want to see things that
deal with sex (in all its splendor) in a mature fashion. Is that suitable
viewing for children? Probably not, but I don't think everything has to be
geared to a child's level. I expect people who have children to make
decisions for themselves about what they want their children to see (and
eat, and wear, and etc.) and make the appropriate choices, and I will butt
out. I, in turn, will make my own choices, and I expect that THEY will butt
out. It's very much one of those YMMV things.
Frederica
Frederica
"George Shelps" <G-H...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:27247-421...@storefull-3318.bay.webtv.net...
> He didn't anticipate the Ba'athist
> insurgency---but who did?
>
Frederica
George Shelps
>He has lied about many other things -
>not just international but domestic as
>well. My intent here is to stop my
>involvement with this thread here, but if
>you want, I can give you a passel of
>examples from domestic policy, which I
>(if not others) still consider to be keenly
>important.
I would very much like to see these
examples of "lies."
But, as you say, this is not the place.
George Shelps
missme...@RATSPAMMERSyahoo.com (Frederica) wrote:
>>He didn't anticipate the Ba'athist
>>insurgency---but who did?
>Me. And just about everyone I know.
Oh, phooey.
But in the end, the insurgency will
fail for lack of popular support throughout
Iraq.
lokke...@yahoo.com
the silent film era, and how this thread started. Do you think the
enforcement of the Hays Code in 1934 was a good idea?
James Roots
Ah! Yes, one of those "You Make Me Vomit" things...
Jim
George Shelps
No. The Code was designed to forestall
government censorship and, as such, was
executed in bad faith. It would have better to have taken on the issue
of free expression in the arts in the legislatures and in the courts.
Brett Leveridge
> I would very much like to see these
> examples of "lies."
Fine -- you asked for it, you got it. And these are just off the top of
my head; honestly, there are dozens -- even hundreds -- more:
He lied about Iraq seeking to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore in Africa --
and then he lied about lying about it. Dubya had been told repeatedly by
the CIA and others that this claim was shaky at best. But so intent was
he upon rushing the nation into war, he went ahead and included it in
his 2003 State of the Union address. And then, even as late as July
2003, Dubya was claiming he'd not been warned against citing this bit of
"evidence."
He had been -- repeatedly.
Dubya and his minions lied about the cost of the Medicare drug bill. And
when it was learned that a government actuary was planning to go to
Congress with the true costs of the plan, the actuary was threatened
with losing his job.
What's more, the actual cost of that bill has since been revealed to be
even higher:
Dubya also blatantly lied about his military service:
"Another example of a clear-cut Bush lie about his military record that
has gone almost completely unnoticed by the media this year is a false
claim he made in his autobiography about how long he flew jets for the
Guard. The Boston Globe reported: 'Bush himself, in his 1999
autobiography, A Charge to Keep, recounts the thrills of his pilot
training, which he completed in June 1970. "__I continued flying with my
unit for the next several years__ [emphasis added],' the governor wrote."'"
http://tinyurl.com/3tvbp
(You'll have to use the free "day pass" option for that one, if you're
not a Salon subscriber -- and I'm guessing you're not -- but hey, a day
pass was good enough for Dubya's pal James Gannon, so...)
Dubya also insisted during the 2000 campaign that gay marriage was a
matter for the states to address, not the federal government. So either
he was lying or he flip-flopped -- you make the call.
To the rest of the group -- I apologize for this political screed. I
kept biting my tongue and waiting for this thread to die. But it
wouldn't, and when George finally asked for proof of Dubya's lies ...
well, I just had to oblige him. Believe me, I won't make a habit of it.
Brett
bpnjensen
fail for lack of popular support throughout
Iraq.<<
...and we'll end up with another form of totalitarian religious
dictatorship there. Oh joy.
Bruce Jensen
michael_s...@spe.sony.com
EVERYONE who objected to JJ as a bluenose. In fact, I happen to agree
with you that it was inappropriate in that context. My initial
statement was--and continues to be--that the bluenoses used it as an
excuse to launch their cultural war, and that the aftermath was way out
of proportion to the incident.
Your own cultural prejudices are showing when you misrepresent my
words.
Mike S.
michael_s...@spe.sony.com
THE VERY HUNGRY CATERPILLAR was his favorite book when he was a
child...it was first published two years after he graduated from Yale.
Mike S.
George Shelps
sky...@yahoo.com (Brett Leveridge) wrote:
>>I would very much like to see these
>>examples of "lies."
>Fine -- you asked for it, you got it. And
>these are just off the top of my head;
>honestly, there are dozens -- even
>hundreds -- more:
>He lied about Iraq seeking to buy
>"yellowcake" uranium ore in Africa -- and
>then he lied about lying about it. Dubya
>had been told repeatedly by the CIA and
>others that this claim was shaky at best.
>But so intent was he upon rushing the
>nation into war, he went ahead and
>included it in his 2003 State of the Union
>address. And then, even as late as July
>2003, Dubya was claiming he'd not been
>warned against citing this bit of
>"evidence."
British Intelligence also confirmed the
"yellow cake" information. Bush believed
it, so he included it. Not a "lie"
>He had been -- repeatedly.
>Dubya and his minions lied about the
>cost of the Medicare drug bill. And when
>t was learned that a government actuary
>was planning to go to Congress with the
>true costs of the plan, the actuary was
>threatened with losing his job.
>What's more, the actual cost of that bill
>has since been revealed to be even
>higher:
I haven't followed that one, but
I'm sure it's a matter of interpretation.
>Dubya also blatantly lied about his
>military service:
Yawn.
This National Guard stuff has been
aired and re-aired. Even forged.
>(You'll have to use the free "day pass"
>option for that one, if you're not a Salon
>subscriber -- and I'm guessing you're not
>-- but hey, a day pass was good enough >for Dubya's pal James Gannon,
so...)
>Dubya also insisted during the 2000
>campaign that gay marriage was a
>matter for the states to address, not the
>federal government. So either he was
>lying or he flip-flopped -- you make the
>call.
Was that before the Supreme Court
ruling in a Texas sodomy case---which
demonstrated that the Court might over-rule the Defense of Marriage Act
and the right of the states to set their
own marriage laws?
>To the rest of the group -- I apologize for
>this political screed. I kept biting my
>tongue and waiting for this thread to die.
>But it wouldn't, and when George finally
>asked for proof of Dubya's lies ... well, I
>just had to oblige him. Believe me, I
>won't make a habit of it.
I'm glad your tongue will not need to
be amputated, but none of these are
"lies."
There "lies" were all aired time and again
before and during election, and Bush
won and increased his margins in both
houses of Congress. Why not wait until the 2006 elections instead of
rehashing
them here?
George Shelps
bpnj...@yahoo.com (bpnjensen)
wrote:
>>But in the end, the insurgency will
>>fail for lack of popular support.
>>throughout Iraq.<<
>...and we'll end up with another form of
>totalitarian religious dictatorship there.
>Oh joy.
Why are so sure of that? The United
Iraqi Alliance, the largest Shiite religious
party, has officially rejected a theocracy
and the Grand Ayatollah Sistanit, its
spiritual leader, is for separation of
mosque and state.
The insurgency is a minority (Ba'athist
diehards, foreign terrorists, and criminals
released by Saddam before the war) of
a minority, confined mostly to the Sunni
regions. 8 milion ink-stained fingers
rejected them.
George Shelps
>My initial statement was--and continues
>to be--that the bluenoses used it as an
>excuse to launch their cultural war, and
>that the aftermath was way out of
>proportion to the incident.
The cultural war was launched long
ago and the "bluenoses" are a minority
in it.
>Your own cultural prejudices are showing
>when you misrepresent my words.
The fact that you focus on the political
appetites of "the bluenoses" is a way
of diverting the topic. In fact, for once,
the "bluenoses" had a case and they
should have been militant in opposing
strip shows during the Superbowl or
any other future family-oriented televised
event.
I have no objection to in-context displays
of nudity. I make common cause here
with those who do object in order to prevent future ~out-of-context~
displays.
And so should you, instread of ranting
about "bluenoses."
David P. Hayes
news:210220051218112634%filmspam...@earthlink.net...
> But the idea that Casablanca uses creativity and inspiration instead of
> sleaze???? Are you kidding? Granted, it's a great film, but let's
> look at the plot outline:
>
> During the early part of WWII, a woman unwittingly cheats on her
> husband with a bartender in Paris. [...]
>
> [...] He is also
> heartbroken to see the woman again, having been dumped the same day he
> had asked her to marry him. (Hey, family values and everything).
>
> In desperation, the woman seduces the bartender again to convince him
> that she really loved him all along. [...]
>
> The police official is a real piece of work, selling passports to women
> who will sleep with him, and doing so unabashedly. He also cheats at
> gambling and drinks at the bartender's place without paying so that the
> bar can remain open. It is a public bribe.
>
> [...]
>
> So we've got illicit, unmarried sex happening all over the place,
> killing of innocent German officers, gambling, drinking, and such.
A rather lousy book titled "The Censorship Papers" can nonetheless be
recommended to anyway who wants to read correspondence between the
Production Code Administration and Warners concerning this film, and much
that is delineated here was caught by the MPA, objected to, but remains in
the movie as it has come down to us. (The stupid author of the cited book
didn't bother to look at the film again after reading the correspondence,
because he takes it as gospel that if the MPA asked that something not be
shown then it was not shown. In fact, what is in the movie is either the
same material objected to or a modification that expresses the same point.
Nonetheless, if you know enough of what is in the 20 or so movies that he
reprints correspondence for, then you can "read through" his dunce comments
about how the film "would have been" had the filmmakers "been permitted"
"their visions" [which they were].)
--
David Hayes
remove the director name to get a usable address
mikeg...@gmail.com
added the explicit sex, it's that they took out all the insurance
stuff. (So did Visconti, in Ossessione, the only film of his I don't
like, though I grant its importance to Italian filmmaking at the time.)
The whole point of the middle of the book is that the two of them are
separated and slowly ground down by the impersonal forces manipulating
the case for their own ends. By the end of that process, which is
shown to be utterly amoral, they no longer trust or love each other.
But people always seem to treat it like, "Ennh, Cain was an ex
insurance guy, he just stuck all that stuff in because he knew it, it's
not important."
Cain's interesting theme, what makes him more than just a guy who wrote
juicy books, is this thing of cold-blooded industrialized society
chewing up hot-blooded lovers like cogs in a machine-- read Schickel's
little monograph on Double Indemnity in that BFI series and you see
that Billy Wilder had a whole different ending for that film which used
the mechanization theme to carry MacMurray's character all the way to
the gas chamber like a product on the assembly line.
George Peatty
wrote:
[snip]
Talking about Postman Always Rings Twice:
>The whole point of the middle of the book is that the two of them are
>separated and slowly ground down by the impersonal forces manipulating
>the case for their own ends.
I've not seen the '80's version, but I've seen the '46 classic, and the
sabotage of the lovers' relationship is a big part of the movie.. here it's
done by the lawyers .. both prosecution and defense .. each for their own
ends. What was shown of Nick's insurance policy was little more than a red
herring. I don't think it was important to the movie at all, and would have
preferred to see it left out.
James Roots
"mikeg...@gmail.com" (mikeg...@gmail.com) writes:
> The problem with the 1980s Postman Always Rings Twice isn't that they
> added the explicit sex, it's that they took out all the insurance
> stuff. (So did Visconti, in Ossessione, the only film of his I don't
No they didn't. I saw it for the first time less than a month
ago, and the insurance was a significant key to the plot once
the lovers got arrested.
They may not have given it as much play as the novel did, but
they certainly didn't "take it all out".
Jim
lokke...@yahoo.com
government censorship and, as such, was
executed in bad faith. It would have better to have taken on the issue
of free expression in the arts in the legislatures and in the courts.
And I think that's well said, and am happy we can agree on at least
this issue.
Lokke
George Shelps
>And I think that's well said, and am
>happy we can agree on at least this issue.
Yes we can. The Code wasn't instituted
to protect the public--as many cultural
conservatives believe--but as a PR ploy
and for that reason I do not respect
it.
I think the whole idea of a written
and enforced code, even if well-meaning,
was a bad idea.
Nevertheless, despite the restrictions.
the Code Era coincided with the Golden
Age of American movies. Some argue
that there was connection between
the restraints imposed by the Code
and the quality of films made in that
era.
I really don't know what to think about
that argument. I would say that the
disappearance of the mass audience
in the 50s and 60s and the rise to power
of the cultural left in Hollywood probably
were factors, too.