Art for hire vs art for art's sake vs DD
trajan
"Well, that's just bullshit.
That's not why I did the movie. I don't think you should make movies
for those
reasons because then you're doing Soviet art. You're doing art for the
State or
art for the Church or whatever. And that's not art. That's not gonna
work."
Per the extensive discussion about the value of art for hire (and the
valid references to Michelangelo, whose work was commissioned by the
Church), I found this statement of DD's amusing. I guess he means art
for $$ is the only valid art. You think he should have gone into
advertising?
(Tee hee...Carrie, Dr. B and LaGuy...this is for you!)
Regards,
Trajan
Bast Black
*should* also consider Michelangelo a "sellout," but I doubt it.
I think it's mistake to read *too much* into his statement.
I think he's just expressing his anti-censorship views. :)
bB
Cheryl Deering
trajan wrote:
> >From ALFORNOS' post of 4-12 DD interview:
>
> "Well, that's just bullshit.
> That's not why I did the movie. I don't think you should make movies
> for those
> reasons because then you're doing Soviet art. You're doing art for the
> State or
> art for the Church or whatever. And that's not art. That's not gonna
> work."
>
Relatedly (because DD has brought up this "Soviet art" mention while
speaking disparagingly of women being shown as victors more than they
used to be) I _really_ wish folks like DD would stop confusing being asked
to be
fair/decent to non-mainstream folk with being "censored." The reason
people protest when (for example) women are always shown as being
victims or AAmericans are always shown as thugs is because that is an
unreal picture of how things are, not because they want to "squash"
language or show only one way people should be portrayed. He (and
others) forget (or choose to ignore) that the whole reason people started
protesting is because mostly white, male culture dictated how others
were seen and you rarely saw differing pictures--to the detriment not only
of
others, but to the culture at large. What is with his (and other folks')
blind spot in this regard--it's not like they don't know history or
culture or
how one view of life used to predominate?
C.
**
(sheesh, one gets really fucking tired of guys like him whining about
PC-ism
when they have no idea what things used to be like--and still are in
several
places--:PPPPPP)
petitesoeur
news:38F6E668...@primenet.com...
True TBTP have been and, to a large extent continue to be, those homo
sapiens Caucasian possesors of the "Y" chromosome and affiliates of
Protestant Christianity who inhabit North America and Northwest Europe. The
rest of us are considered to be some variety of the Other. Luckily for us,
the tide of history seems to be slowly rising for us and receding for them.
The changing political climate has fostered a growing awareness that the
bulk of human history has been composed of the Few oppressing and destroying
the Many. The acknowledgement that Many have paid a heavy price so that the
Few can live in the lap of luxury is definitely a Good Thing. I,
personally, have benefited from the movement of political emancipation that
has been gathering speed since the late eighteenth century. If TBTB hadn't
begun to seriously implement and practice the higher ideals of Western
civilization I wouldn't have had the educational and economic opportunities
that allow me to sit @ my computer writing rhetoric and polemic. However, as
in all aspects of life, there is a shadow side to the growing political
awareness and sensitivity towards human diversity in all its manifestations.
The struggle is an age old one that has engaged people's hearts and minds
for centuries. For political, economic, religious, social emancipation
foments the restriction of liberty as well as its expansion. It provokes us
to conside: Where do my rights end and yours begin? How can public
discourse be inclusive without becoming exclusive? How do we keep our
expanding sense of deceny and decorum from constricting the arena of
freedom of action and of speech. How do we ascertain where to draw the
lines? As the lines blur how will we know when we have crossed them? Ad
utrumque paratus?
--- irene aka petitesoeur the mad rambler:
"Down With Everythi......" ["Jules et Jim"]
Anarchy [from Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary] -- a *theory*
that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political
*ideal* and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association
of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
Let's Hear it For: Free Speech, Family Pets & Fatherhood!
The MulderGirls: Putting the virtue in virtual reality.
www.muldergirls.com/home.html
Heidi
>Date: 4/14/00 4:40 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <38F6E668...@primenet.com>
>Relatedly (because DD has brought up this "Soviet art" mention while
>speaking disparagingly of women being shown as victors more than they
>used to be) I _really_ wish folks like DD would stop confusing being asked
>to be
>fair/decent to non-mainstream folk with being "censored." The reason
>people protest when (for example) women are always shown as being
>victims or AAmericans are always shown as thugs is because that is an
>unreal picture of how things are, not because they want to "squash"
>language or show only one way people should be portrayed. He (and
>others) forget (or choose to ignore) that the whole reason people started
>protesting is because mostly white, male culture dictated how others
>were seen and you rarely saw differing pictures--to the detriment not only
>of
>others, but to the culture at large. What is with his (and other folks')
>blind spot in this regard--it's not like they don't know history or
>culture or
>how one view of life used to predominate?
Hmmm......folks like DD? Seems to me that he is complaining about unrealisitic
scenarios.....that women are no longer allowed to lose *ever* and how that
results in unrealistic television or "art". What I didn't hear him say is that
he doesn't want people to be treated fairly or decently. Two different topics,
IMO, and a fair amount of projecting. You say that AAmericans as thugs and
women as victims is unrealistic.....and you are right. But women beating the
crap out of men three times there size *every single time* is equally
unrealistic. IMO, there is no difference and neither one is preferable to the
other. One is PC and one is anti-PC. Why can't there be a middle ground?
Does being PC fix *anything*? Or does it just represent an opposite extreme
which will eventually have just a detrimental effect as the things it attempts
to right?
Heidi
::::::::with head in hands, rocking slowly::::::::::
"It just doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter."
<Mulder: He's not just lean.......he's cuisine.>
DoThompso
>From: geo...@aol.com (Heidi)
>Date: 04/14/2000 5:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Hmmm......folks like DD? Seems to me that he is complaining about
>unrealisitic
>scenarios.....that women are no longer allowed to lose *ever* and how that
>results in unrealistic television or "art". What I didn't hear him say is
>that
>he doesn't want people to be treated fairly or decently. Two different
>topics,
>IMO, and a fair amount of projecting.
<Deep Sigh> Bless you Heidi!! This thread really needed the fresh air.
Doug
Magpie
> >From: Cheryl Deering dee...@primenet.com
> >Relatedly (because DD has brought up this "Soviet art" mention while
> >speaking disparagingly of women being shown as victors more than they
> >used to be) I _really_ wish folks like DD would stop confusing being asked
> >to be
> >fair/decent to non-mainstream folk with being "censored." The reason
> >people protest when (for example) women are always shown as being
> >victims or AAmericans are always shown as thugs is because that is an
> >unreal picture of how things are, not because they want to "squash"
> >language or show only one way people should be portrayed. He (and
> >others) forget (or choose to ignore) that the whole reason people started
> >protesting is because mostly white, male culture dictated how others
> >were seen and you rarely saw differing pictures--to the detriment not only
> >of
> >others, but to the culture at large. What is with his (and other folks')
> >blind spot in this regard--it's not like they don't know history or
> >culture or
> >how one view of life used to predominate?
> Hmmm......folks like DD? Seems to me that he is complaining about unrealisitic
> scenarios.....that women are no longer allowed to lose *ever* and how that
> results in unrealistic television or "art". What I didn't hear him say is that
> he doesn't want people to be treated fairly or decently. Two different topics,
> IMO, and a fair amount of projecting. You say that AAmericans as thugs and
> women as victims is unrealistic.....and you are right. But women beating the
> crap out of men three times there size *every single time* is equally
> unrealistic. IMO, there is no difference and neither one is preferable to the
> other. One is PC and one is anti-PC. Why can't there be a middle ground?
> Does being PC fix *anything*? Or does it just represent an opposite extreme
> which will eventually have just a detrimental effect as the things it attempts
> to right?
Right. Why not write a non-stereotyped character who is
real (complex, many-sided etc.) rather than a set of
approved traits. The character's guaranteed to last
longer, imo. Some of the most racist and sexist
characters were probably created as somebody's idea
of how these groups "should be." Sometimes the *good
characters* are even worse than the bad ones. If
you make a realistic character it's harder to use as
a stereotype. There's only one Scarlett O'Hara, even
if she doesn't break all the sexist stereotypes.
Hey, my reading material at lunch today was "The Berenstein
Bears and No Girls Allowed." Brother Bear and his friends
started a no girls club, and so the girls started their
own club and eventually they both kept their clubs
but invited each other over. But here's the part
the annoyed me. The boys started the club because
they were jealous of Sister Bear doing everything
better than all the boys. Essentially, we've got
a 6-year-old girl who has little interest in sports
who just naturally is able to outrun, outhit, outclimb
and outcatch a crowd of boys 2 years older than she
is. Could they not have just had the boys start a
boys club because girls annoy them? Must they be
jealous of her?
It really pulled me out of the story. And I was a
little disappointed in the bears. This plot
device just doesn't live up to the quality I've
come to expect in such works as "BB and the Trouble
with Nightmares," or "BB and The Bully."
-m (who reads with a 2nd grader at lunch on Fridays.
Today we made a princess puppet!!<g>)
--
The MulderGirls: We put the virtue in virtual reality.
It's not just a nickname, it's a website:
http://www.muldergirls.com/
Cheryl Deering
Heidi wrote:
> Hmmm......folks like DD? Seems to me that he is complaining about unrealisitic
> scenarios.....that women are no longer allowed to lose *ever* and how that
> results in unrealistic television or "art".
When has that situation _ever_ predominated on TV--or in movies?
I'm still seeing women getting a fair amount of emotional/physical knocks just from
the few TV shows (WONDERLAND, ER, OUTER LIMITS, L&O: SUV)
I caught last week.
> What I didn't hear him say is that
> he doesn't want people to be treated fairly or decently.
(sigh) What is the logical outcome if we drop so-called PC thinking
and go back to the way things were?
> Two different topics,
> IMO, and a fair amount of projecting. You say that AAmericans as thugs and
> women as victims is unrealistic.....and you are right. But women beating the
> crap out of men three times there size *every single time* is equally
> unrealistic. IMO, there is no difference and neither one is preferable to the
> other. One is PC and one is anti-PC. Why can't there be a middle ground?
> Does being PC fix *anything*? Or does it just represent an opposite extreme
> which will eventually have just a detrimental effect as the things it attempts
> to right?
The problem is is that anti-"PC" people act as if PC extremism has completely
taken over, and imply that that should be a reason to "swing the pendulum back."
The truth of the matter is is that this country is in flux when it comes to
attitudes, but
there is certainly plenty enough sexist/racist attitudes out there to deal with.
Acting as if
these attitudes have completely gone away and that there is no reason to have to
combat them is ignorant and short-sided to the extreme. And it is most often people
who do not have to deal with this stuff day-to-day who spout this nonsense as if it
is the Holy Writ.
C.
**
petitesoeur
news:20000414215141...@ng-fn1.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Art for hire vs art for art's sake vs DD
> >From: geo...@aol.com (Heidi)
> >Date: 04/14/2000 5:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>
> >unrealisitic
> >scenarios.....that women are no longer allowed to lose *ever* and how
that
is
> >that
> >he doesn't want people to be treated fairly or decently. Two different
> >topics,
> >IMO, and a fair amount of projecting.
>
>
> Doug
After I read your response to Heidi , I went back and re-read my post on
this thread. Much to my chagrin, I realized that it was perfectly possible
that I had managed to write exactly the opposite of what I meant to say.
See when I first read CD's posts my reaction was Oh No -- DD's been
accused of backmailing FOX and now he's being painted as being part of the
problem instead of part of the solution.
At first I was going to fire off a post in DD's defense and then I thought:
I don't have to defend DD he's totally capable of doing that himself -- as
he demonstrates time & again in his print & media interviews. But I did
want to express my position on the "PC" debate which CD brought up.
Seems like I did a pretty lousy job of expressing myself -- tripping up on
too much abstraction & generalization. So let's see if I can be clearer &
more straightforward instead:
I don't think DD is blackmailing FOX, I think he is trying to work a deal
that will serve his needs. Actually, I think it's more like FOX is
backmailing him -- to stay or watch his "baby" -- aka the part of Mulder
murdered, done away with or mutilated, given to another actor.
As for DD's remarks re: Soviet Art -- every system of patronage has its
price and exacts its toll -- some are steeper, more stultifying and
ultimately more dangerous than others. My viewpoint on his remarks is that
he's simply speaking out on the pitfalls & dilemmas that artists &
entertainers have always faced as they navigate their way through whatever
system sustains their creative efforts. It's a tricky balancing act to
serve your Muse and please your Master.
As far as I'm concerned, DD's creative efforts and his public rhetoric
reflect a committment to democratic ideals of political, economic, social,
religious and intellectual freedom. He knows how to walk the walk as well
as talk the talk. However, he doesn't mouth platitudes or avoid the
complexity of social issues. To accuse him of being an oppressor is to
woefully misread the man.
We're all navigating muddy and treacherous waters these days. As evidenced
by what just occurred on this ng -- it is difficult to know how to maintain
freedom of thought & expression in the face of its all too prevalent abuse.
Bast Black
On Dd's quote. I refrained from mentioning DD's Democratic
ideology because I didn't want to drag it into the conversation.
*bB pulls out her crystal ball and tries to read the mind of DD*
I believe when the reporter tossed a loaded question like:
"They should make more movies like this..." DD saw it as a
conservative grassroots trap.
Obviously, he's against it because by saying "We should make more
movies like this," one is implying that certain OTHER movies should
not be made.
DD wisely saw this, and threw up a defense for first amendment
rights.
I totally agree with him, -btw. :)
Yes, I don't love every thing being created in America. However,
when one starts to say this is good, and that is bad, we fall
into the trap of censorship and tyranny., -two very un-American
things. (But that's not to say laws can be broken under first
amendment rights.)
However, as consumers we *do* have the power to see what movies
will be made and what won't. Supply and demand will take care
of that. If movie-goers flock to the theaters to see "A Sweet Old
Fashioned Tale Of Romance", but run the other way from "The Killer
Yuppy Psycho Of Wall Street," I think it's safe to say what movie
companies will invest in next year.
Now about "PC."
*groan*
I have no idea what DD thinks, but I do think it annoys him when
PC ideals are taken to the extreme and he gets into trouble for
using an insensitive term like "fag." (but no one blinks about
"pussy?")
*shrug* Whatever. There is no word in the English language
one could toss at me or call me that would get *my* blood boiling.
I've been called everything. I have two foulmouthed sisters from
the Eddie Murphey School of Swearing that worked all that out of
my system. ;P
But I am not indifferent PC ideals. I don't think is it is a bother
that Native Americans want to be called by their tribal names and
NOT by the historical blunder of a name "Indians." Until the PC
movement, no one thought twice about calling a NA woman
a "Squaw" or calling someone an "Indian giver." Both of these
terms are HIGHLY offensive! One them is the equivalent of
calling a woman the "C" word in English!
This is just one tiny example of PC, but I personally think whatever
pain the PC movement has caused, it's well worth it. Why
should we blindly perpetuate racist or derogatory terms?
It's embarrassing that our parents don't even realize how
offensive these words or phrases are! I'm glad to purge them,
or at least get people to think twice about using them. =)
On one hand, PC has gotten out of control. For example, calling
someone vertically challenged, is stupid. Please. He's short. Get
over it. ;p
I only support eliminating racist or derogatory names and phrases.
And as far as needing words to use as insults against each other,
I think it's kind of fun to be creative. I personally love calling
people, "turkey-banana-poo-poo-heads." --I picked that one up from
a child. Children are the best swearers. ;)
bB
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.geocities.com/BastBlack
GravesPA2
"They should make more movies like this..." DD saw it as a
conservative grassroots trap.>>
Maybe the question just meant, "Wouldn't it be nice if Hollywood did more
movies like this?" Reading into it, "Maybe Hollywood should stop doing movies
like AMERICAN BEAUTY" into that question smacks of paranoia. Best I can tell,
the "conservative grass roots" has no roots in Hollywood, and the only first
amendment violations there, frankly, are probably against conservatives who
fear that their politics will derail their careers in the entertainment
business.
Paula Graves
A woman and her okra create a little webpage....
http://members.aol.com/gravespa2/index.htm
petitesoeur
> Heidi wrote:
> > Hmmm......folks like DD? Seems to me that he is complaining about
unrealisitic scenarios.....that women are no longer allowed to lose *ever*
and how
> When has that situation _ever_ predominated on TV--or in movies?
> I'm still seeing women getting a fair amount of emotional/physical knocks
>just from the few TV shows (WONDERLAND, ER, OUTER LIMITS, L&O: > SUV)I
caught last week.
All is not fair on TV nor in the RW by a long shot.
> > What I didn't hear him say is that
> > he doesn't want people to be treated fairly or decently.
>
> (sigh) What is the logical outcome if we drop so-called PC thinking
> and go back to the way things were?
Why do you assume participation in a debate is a signal of a desire to
return to the ways things were? To examine the dilemmas surfacing as
society changes should help to move us toward a more equitable and just
future.
What exactly did DD say that has given you the impression that he wants to
go back to the way things were? He certainly wouldn't want to go back to
the Soviet Union. I can't image he would find it desirable to live in a
country that didn't maintain the separation of Church and State. Where has
he said he's against equal opportunity?
> > Two different topics,
Cheryl -
As far off-topic as this thread seems to have gotten in a sense I don't
think that it is OT @ all.
One of the beauties of TXF was its subtextual examination of normative
values -- a calling into question about the way things were & continue to
be. In ep after ep, we were presented with ambiguous descriptions of the
Other and with the consequences of confronting the Inexplicable with fear.
The ngs that sprung up not only debated these issues but in their internal
dynamics of the groups we have played out the difficulties arising in the
interaction of multiple & diverse POVs
I'm probably over-sensitized from last week's debacle over the validity of
scholarly popular culture studies but I'm gona ask the question any way:
Who exactly are you accusing of being 'Un-PC'? Just DD? Or now have you
cast a wider net out on to include some of us on the ng -- like me for
instance? Cause if you are, then I have cause for concern vis-a-vis my
communication skills.
So let me try to be perfectly clear -- I am not anti-PC. OTOH I do see that
PC -ism comes into conflict with principles like freedom of speech.
Legislating ethical & moral dilemmas is a tricky business. I think there are
aspects of PC-ism that constitue a cause for concern & examination. I may
not agree with what you say but I will defend to the best of my
communications ability your right to say it.
I do not want to be a prisoner of the way things used to be. OTOH I've seen
too much plus ca change plus c'est meme chose in my life to believe that
suddenly we've figured out how to bring Peace & Justice into the world.
"Es iz shver tzu zayne a yid."
--- irene aka petitesoeur the mad rambler:
"Down With Everythi......" ["Jules et Jim"]
Anarchy [from Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary] -- a *theory*
that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political
*ideal* and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association
of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
Let's Hear it For: Free Speech, Family Pets & Fatherhood!
The MulderGirls: Putting the virtue in virtual reality.
www.muldergirls.com/home.html
.
trajan
Bast Black wrote:
>
> Whoa. Did we spark up a OT debate or what?
>
You said it!
>(snip)
>
Here's the full text of the question and answer:
In this age of nihilistic stories, do you think we need movies like
this?
I don't know if we need it. I don't like people that say, "We need
more movies
like this." And I would never say, "I did this movie because we need
more
movies like this." Or I did this movie because "now I have a daughter
and I
want her to see movies that have no violence." Well, that's just
bullshit.
That's not why I did the movie. I don't think you should make movies
for those
reasons because then you're doing Soviet art. You're doing art for the
State or
art for the Church or whatever. And that's not art. That's not gonna
work. I
mean, no one's looking at Soviet art over the last fifty years because
it's
State-ordered with an agenda that's political and not artistic. So, I
don't
think we need more movies like this, but when I sat in that theatre
and I
watched it and the movie was ending--because I had been in the movie,
I knew
when it was gonna end--I was sad because I felt, "I want this world to
go on."
> I believe when the reporter tossed a loaded question like:
> "They should make more movies like this..." DD saw it as a
> conservative grassroots trap.
>
> Obviously, he's against it because by saying "We should make more
> movies like this," one is implying that certain OTHER movies should
> not be made.
>
> DD wisely saw this, and threw up a defense for first amendment
> rights.
>
> I totally agree with him, -btw. :)
In the context of the earlier discussion of art for hire vs art for
art's sake, I was simply using the excerpt to illustrate that while DD
seems to have an aversion to Church (Michelangelo)- and State
(Soviet)-driven art, and art that springs from a personal POV (not
wanting daughter to have to see only violent movies), he carefully
avoids accusing "art for hire." That's why I asked tongue-in-cheek
if perhaps he should consider advertising.
I'm not sure the issue of "to PC or Non-PC" are relevant!
(snip)
>
....but I just couldn't stay out of this one:
> But I am not indifferent PC ideals. I don't think is it is a bother
> that Native Americans want to be called by their tribal names and
> NOT by the historical blunder of a name "Indians." Until the PC
> movement, no one thought twice about calling a NA woman
> a "Squaw" or calling someone an "Indian giver." Both of these
> terms are HIGHLY offensive! One them is the equivalent of
> calling a woman the "C" word in English!
The American Indians I know personally (the katela of the Sioux Nation
and the chief of the Lenni Lenape) think it's hysterically funny that
guilt-ridden non-natives have taken to calling them "Native
Americans." They call themselves Indians and encourage everyone else
to do the same. (Not that they're insensitive to being denigrated, or
typecast, or refused work, etc. They just think this particular new
convention is a laugh riot.)
I personally love calling
> people, "turkey-banana-poo-poo-heads."
I shall remember that one. :)
Regards,
Trajan
Aurora Lobster
Cheryl Deering <dee...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>
> Heidi wrote:
>
> > Hmmm......folks like DD? Seems to me that he is complaining about
unrealisitic
> > scenarios.....that women are no longer allowed to lose *ever* and
> > results in unrealistic television or "art".
>
> I'm still seeing women getting a fair amount of emotional/physical
knocks just from
>
> I caught last week.
>
> > he doesn't want people to be treated fairly or decently.
>
> (sigh) What is the logical outcome if we drop so-called PC thinking
> and go back to the way things were?
one sex above the other won't get support. People who were not racist
and sexist did not speak out against PCism until it got so extreme.
People who spoke out when the PC movement took a turn still believed in
equal rights for women and people of all races, they just didn't want
to support a movement that wanted to call short people vertically
challenged and portray women as being omnipotent.
I am a female liberal Democrat who was there pre-PC and and I don't
like the fact that some feel pressure to show nothing but "perfect"
women on TV. And there's a difference between the angry white male who
doesn't want equality for women and a man who does, but is not in favor
constant superiority. DD is a Democrat as well, so I doubt that he is
in favor of the angry white male POV, and trying to portray him as a
mini-Strom Thurmond is unfair. Some people who are anti-PC now are anti-
PC because of the extremism now prevalent in the movement. It does not
mean that they stopped supporting what the movement stood for before it
became known as the " They're vertically challenged, darn it!"
movement. Portraying women as superpeople won't do the movement one
iota of good, imo, and it's unrealistic to boot. Showing women who can
lose and win fights while commanding respect will help combat sexist
attitudes,imo.
Wanting realism does not mean reverting back to " woman as perpetual
victim" syndrome just because it's a man who says he's in
favor of realistic portrayals of women. In short(or vertically
challenged:), people who say there are anti-PC now don't necessarily
want to go back to the pre-PC era, they may just want to go back to the
time before PCism acquired an extremist tag among non-racists or
sexists.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Magpie
>
> In article <38F7F8B4...@primenet.com>,
> Cheryl Deering <dee...@primenet.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Heidi wrote:
> >
> > > Hmmm......folks like DD? Seems to me that he is complaining about
> unrealisitic
> > > scenarios.....that women are no longer allowed to lose *ever* and
> how that
> > > results in unrealistic television or "art".
> >
> > When has that situation _ever_ predominated on TV--or in movies?
> > I'm still seeing women getting a fair amount of emotional/physical
> knocks just from
<snip>
> Wanting realism does not mean reverting back to " woman as perpetual
> victim" syndrome just because it's a man who says he's in
> favor of realistic portrayals of women. In short(or vertically
> challenged:), people who say there are anti-PC now don't necessarily
> want to go back to the pre-PC era, they may just want to go back to the
> time before PCism acquired an extremist tag among non-racists or
> sexists.
Also, from what I've seen of DD's work and interviews etc. I think
he's speaking as someone who tells or helps to tell stories for
a living and he's very vocal about it when he feels a story is
being told badly for an arbitrary agenda. He obviously has
his own ideas that he uses to make points--such as bringing
the Nazis into the mytharc. But I do feel that he suggested that
not just to say something about post-WW2 American politics, but
because it was *right* for the story, a natural part of it.
I know many people were angry over the wedding ring in
Travellers, but I totally believe DD had considered this
part of Mulder's backstory for a long time (whether he
should have been there on screen is, of course, another
issue).
If you create a character that's just an embodiment
of certain ideals, it's going to show. Creating a character
that demonstrates an idea is fine, but using a character
as a mouthpiece for an idea and twisting the world they
inhabit accordingly feels like something else.
-m
trajan
Magpie wrote:
>
>>
> If you create a character that's just an embodiment
> of certain ideals, it's going to show. Creating a character
> that demonstrates an idea is fine, but using a character
> as a mouthpiece for an idea and twisting the world they
> inhabit accordingly feels like something else.
Thanks for reminding me of this...it's helped clarify a problem with
characterization I've been having with a non-XF project.
Regards,
Trajan
Magpie
> Magpie wrote:
Cool!:-)
Numue99
> unrealisitic
> > > scenarios.....that women are no longer allowed to lose *ever* and
> how that
> > > results in unrealistic television or "art".
> >
> > When has that situation _ever_ predominated on TV--or in movies?
> > I'm still seeing women getting a fair amount of emotional/physical
> knocks
Besides that, there is *obviously* room for fantasy in the XF, so the question
is why that particular fantasy is a bone of contention? Hollywood fulfills male
fantasies all the time, whenever you see a fiftysomething male hero chasing
down 25-year-old bad guys or bedding young women with 100% success and no
little blue pills in sight. Yet, few complain about the lack of realism (and
let's see if DD does, if he ever gets to the point of being a fiftysomething
male hero). I have no problem with women having to be rescued some of the time,
but in a fantasy vehicle, I also have no problem with women being stronger than
they would be in reality.
Magpie
I don't think he's complaining about the lack of realism. He's
talking about the show having less dramatic choices because
something "can't" happen. Fantasy choices are fine, and I
love watching women as superheroes. But I don't need all
my women to be superheroes. I don't get much pleasure
out of watching the woman win when I know her opponent
is just being held down so that she can get him all
the time. Same thing with the 50-year-old man thing.
I don't always have trouble with that, if I believe the
two characters would be together, but if it's clear she's
just being held down so he can get her it loses its
appeal for anyone besides the people who are watching
just to see that particular fantasy.
Maggie Helwig
> On one hand, PC has gotten out of control. For example, calling
> someone vertically challenged, is stupid. Please. He's short. Get
> over it. ;p
Just a question -- have you ever _actually_ heard someone say that? Or
did you hear someone say that someone else said that? A lot of this
alleged "PC extremism" is more of an urban myth than a reality. I mean,
I move in circles that are exactly where the "PC horrors" are supposed
to take place, and I can easily testify that no one has ever said
"vertically challenged" except as a joke.
On the other hand, calling a child "developmentally disabled" rather
than, let's say, "a retard", is a great step forward. And the language
is important not only because it is less insulting but because it
changes our perceptions of what people are capable of. A generation ago,
everyone assumed that a person with Downs Syndrome would never do
anything much but sit around and drool. So they got locked away and
that's about what they did. Now we know that with the right kind of
help, Downs Syndrome people can lead productive and creative lives. And
I think that the change in attitude has gone hand in hand with changing
the language we use. (Just thought I'd pick a less obvious example than
racist & sexist language).
About the whole term "PC" by the way -- I'd like to remind everyone that
it first entered general usage as a gentle piece of _self_-mockery by
the left (yes, before that it was Maoist and dead serious, but only used
by a tiny group). I was around then, and I remember perfectly well that
we were always ribbing each other about being "politically correct". As
in, "My, that's very politically correct peanut butter you're eating
today." It was a _joke_, and it was a joke on ourselves, a friendly one.
Then the right wing decided to invent the Horrors of PC and make out
that we were all walking around with big whips yelling "Use my words or
I'll kill you!"
The other myth is that the "PC People" (if they existed) really have all
this power to control what other people say or do. More than ten years
ago I was in a bookstore. One of the customers, a white man, was waving
around a book written by another white man. The book -- like much of the
rest of the writer's work -- contains depictions of native people which
many, including me, find offensive. Anyway, the guy was waving it around
and proclaiming, "You better buy this book now, the Indians aren't gonna
let you read it soon!" Okay, well, it's more than a decade later now and
the writer is still thriving & publishing widely, and still saying
insulting things about native people, and has not suffered a thing for
it as far as I can see. And the mighty and powerful Indians are still
mostly living in third world conditions here in Canada.
I would just like people to check the "tales of PC" against reality and
see if they really line up.
Incidentally, I don't think this is what DD was talking about at all. He
was, as far as I could see, expressing the opinion that art should not
be used primarily to forward some ideological position, and I agree with
him about that. And I agree that it was implicitly a liberal rather than
conservative critique that he was putting forward.
maggie h
Deborah
trajan quoted DD:
>That's not gonna work. I mean, no one's looking at Soviet art over the last
fifty years because
> it's State-ordered with an agenda that's political and not artistic.
Honestly, it depends on the state, the dictatorship. I really like a lot of
the early Soviet graphic art, the Italian Futurists, and some of the German
WWII propaganda posters. They had some great designers who knew how to use
type, shape and color. Aesthetically, some of the "art" that came out of
these eras was incredible. It gives one a sense of their idealism, their
vision for the future. In hindsight, of course we know how scary that was,
but there is some really dynamic work out there.
snip
I think this next quote was from bB--but correct me if I'm wrong:
> > But I am not indifferent PC ideals. I don't think is it is a bother
> > that Native Americans want to be called by their tribal names and
> > NOT by the historical blunder of a name "Indians." Until the PC
> > movement, no one thought twice about calling a NA woman
> > a "Squaw" or calling someone an "Indian giver." Both of these
> > terms are HIGHLY offensive! One them is the equivalent of
> > calling a woman the "C" word in English!
I know a black woman artist who attempts to take back the power of certain
pejorative terms. She did an incredible paintining that she called, Jigaboo.
It was kind of an expressionistic Voudou Mammy (with the tied kerchief)
dancing with a white gloved black figure. I loved the power of that piece,
but when the lawyers came to lecture us on PC, they suggested I take that
painting out of my office because people might misunderstand it and be
offended as I am white. LaJay, the artist, displayed it in my office as a
favor (I asked if I could put some of her work up). I left it up, but I
didn't buy it because truthfully, I was afraid what people would think of
me. I bought another piece from her instead.
Also, I heard a piece on NPR a few months ago where some atheletic team in
the West was called The Squaws. Some of the Native Americans wanted it
changed, but others were very proud of it. They didn't feel squaw was
pejorative. It may have started that way, but they had turned it into a
positive image for themselves (these were olde women who had graduated from
the school). Maybe someone else remembers the story better, but it did
strike me. We have the same thing with the K.C. Chiefs. Some want the name
changed, while other Native Americans like having the football team called
The Chiefs (we have a significant NA population in KC and nearby Lawrence,
KS). I stay out of it. I figure in a matter like this I don't really get to
have an opinion.
> The American Indians I know personally (the katela of the Sioux Nation
> and the chief of the Lenni Lenape) think it's hysterically funny that
> guilt-ridden non-natives have taken to calling them "Native
> Americans." They call themselves Indians and encourage everyone else
> to do the same. (Not that they're insensitive to being denigrated, or
> typecast, or refused work, etc. They just think this particular new
> convention is a laugh riot.)
Yep, I've run into both. I use Native American because I don't want to
offend anyone. The same with African American. I used to always use the term
black (I learned that in the sixties), but I was told that AAmerican was
preferred. When I use AAmerican, half the time I get lectures about how they
are just Americans and they aren't from Africa and how would I like to be
called an English/Irish/Scottish/Welsh/German American (I prefer Anglo Mutt
myself).
>> I personally love calling people, "turkey-banana-poo-poo-heads."
> I shall remember that one. :)
It's so evocative!
Deborah
Michele Jackson
Numue99 wrote:
>
> >
> Besides that, there is *obviously* room for fantasy in the XF, so the question
> is why that particular fantasy is a bone of contention? Hollywood fulfills male
> fantasies all the time, whenever you see a fiftysomething male hero chasing
> down 25-year-old bad guys or bedding young women with 100% success and no
> little blue pills in sight. Yet, few complain about the lack of realism (and
> let's see if DD does, if he ever gets to the point of being a fiftysomething
> male hero). I have no problem with women having to be rescued some of the time,
> but in a fantasy vehicle, I also have no problem with women being stronger than
> they would be in reality.
And it's not as if Scully hasn't been over-powered, captured,
bound, violated, subdued, and rescued plenty of times in this
series. Just because Scully saved the day in FPS, TXF is hardly
in danger of becoming (or having been) a show about an invincible
Amazon heroine and her supllicant male sidekick. Michele
Heidi
>From: "petitesoeur" petit...@my-dejanews.com
>Date: 4/15/00 12:28 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8d8ukf$pbe$1...@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>
>
>DoThompso <doth...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20000414215141...@ng-fn1.aol.com...
>> >Subject: Re: Art for hire vs art for art's sake vs DD
>> >From: geo...@aol.com (Heidi)
>> >Date: 04/14/2000 5:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>
>> >unrealisitic
>> >scenarios.....that women are no longer allowed to lose *ever* and how
>that
>is
>> >that
>> >he doesn't want people to be treated fairly or decently. Two different
>> >topics,
>> >IMO, and a fair amount of projecting.
>>
>>
>> Doug
>
>After I read your response to Heidi , I went back and re-read my post on
>this thread. Much to my chagrin, I realized that it was perfectly possible
>that I had managed to write exactly the opposite of what I meant to say.
>
>See when I first read CD's posts my reaction was Oh No -- DD's been
>accused of backmailing FOX and now he's being painted as being part of the
>problem instead of part of the solution.
Someone actually said he was blackmailing FOX??? Lordy, that's the most
ludicrous thing I have ever heard. Well, we are talking about newsgroups, so
maybe not. <g> Look at is this way. We are talking about HIS LIFE. His life
includes a wife and a child and a right to do what he pleases......like most
Americans, thankfully. For him to continue to work on the X-Files, certain
conditions have to be met or he just can't do it. What the hell is wrong with
that? FOX is screwing up big time by treating one of their stars (who has
busted his ass for seven years while making considerably less money that CC,
TPTB and the network) like total shit. The way I understand it, he told Fox
what he wanted eons ago and they *have not responded*. Whose fault is that?
>At first I was going to fire off a post in DD's defense and then I thought:
>I don't have to defend DD he's totally capable of doing that himself -- as
>he demonstrates time & again in his print & media interviews. But I did
>want to express my position on the "PC" debate which CD brought up.
Go fer it, kiddo.
>Seems like I did a pretty lousy job of expressing myself -- tripping up on
>too much abstraction & generalization. So let's see if I can be clearer &
>more straightforward instead:
>
>I don't think DD is blackmailing FOX, I think he is trying to work a deal
>that will serve his needs. Actually, I think it's more like FOX is
>backmailing him -- to stay or watch his "baby" -- aka the part of Mulder
>murdered, done away with or mutilated, given to another actor.
Oh, I couldn't have said it better. They are *trying* to blackmail him. They
are playing chicken with him knowing that he cares what happens to Fox Mulder
and perhaps banking on RTM failing. Yes, he stated numerous times in the past
few weeks that he really cares what happens to Mulder....that he wouldn't want
anyone else playing him or them killing him off. But FOX is being incredibly
stupid in this game.....they can't afford it, while David certainly can. It
seemed, in watching his interviews progress over the past weeks, that he is
coming to terms with them screwing Mulder over. I would be disappointed if he
came back, at this point. FOX doesn't deserve him or Gillian after the way
they have been acting. Please, God, let Gillian walk like she said she would.
>As for DD's remarks re: Soviet Art -- every system of patronage has its
>price and exacts its toll -- some are steeper, more stultifying and
>ultimately more dangerous than others. My viewpoint on his remarks is that
>he's simply speaking out on the pitfalls & dilemmas that artists &
>entertainers have always faced as they navigate their way through whatever
>system sustains their creative efforts. It's a tricky balancing act to
>serve your Muse and please your Master.
>
>As far as I'm concerned, DD's creative efforts and his public rhetoric
>reflect a committment to democratic ideals of political, economic, social,
>religious and intellectual freedom. He knows how to walk the walk as well
>as talk the talk. However, he doesn't mouth platitudes or avoid the
>complexity of social issues. To accuse him of being an oppressor is to
>woefully misread the man.
Absolutely and thank god for that.
>We're all navigating muddy and treacherous waters these days. As evidenced
>by what just occurred on this ng -- it is difficult to know how to maintain
>freedom of thought & expression in the face of its all too prevalent abuse.
Did I miss something? I did delete several hundred messages.........
Heidi
>Date: 4/15/00 12:10 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <38F7F8B4...@primenet.com>
>
>
>
>Heidi wrote:
>
>> Hmmm......folks like DD? Seems to me that he is complaining about
>unrealisitic
>> scenarios.....that women are no longer allowed to lose *ever* and how that
>> results in unrealistic television or "art".
>
>I'm still seeing women getting a fair amount of emotional/physical knocks
>
>the few TV shows (WONDERLAND, ER, OUTER LIMITS, L&O: SUV)
>I caught last week.
Don't watch those shows, but IMO the XF has become very unrealistic in it's
treatment of Mulder and Scully.
>> What I didn't hear him say is that
>> he doesn't want people to be treated fairly or decently.
>
>(sigh) What is the logical outcome if we drop so-called PC thinking
>and go back to the way things were?
Logical outcomes???? So what? That still isn't what he was saying. I'm sorry
to say you are projecting again.
>> Two different topics,
>> IMO, and a fair amount of projecting. You say that AAmericans as thugs and
>> women as victims is unrealistic.....and you are right. But women beating
>the
>> crap out of men three times there size *every single time* is equally
>> unrealistic. IMO, there is no difference and neither one is preferable to
>the
>> other. One is PC and one is anti-PC. Why can't there be a middle ground?
>
>> Does being PC fix *anything*? Or does it just represent an opposite extreme
>
>> which will eventually have just a detrimental effect as the things it
>attempts
>> to right?
>
>The problem is is that anti-"PC" people act as if PC extremism has completely
>taken over, and imply that that should be a reason to "swing the pendulum
>back."
>The truth of the matter is is that this country is in flux when it comes to
>attitudes, but
>there is certainly plenty enough sexist/racist attitudes out there to deal
>with.
>Acting as if
>these attitudes have completely gone away and that there is no reason to have
>to
>combat them is ignorant and short-sided to the extreme. And it is most often
>people
>who do not have to deal with this stuff day-to-day who spout this nonsense as
>if it
>is the Holy Writ.
I could be wrong, but I don't think you addressed my question. Does being PC
*fix* anything? Does it just perpetuate the opposite extreme? Is this extreme
somehow more valid and less harmful? Being anti-PC in NO WAY reflects the
belief that these problems have gone away. I think it calls for realism. A
middle ground. *I* am anti-PC and a woman in a man's world. I *know* there
are still problems, but the solution is not to be so militant that you create a
new kind of workplace paranoia and fear. Is it less harmful to subvert the
sexism and racism (that admittedly still exists) than it is to discuss
it....or at least allow the discussion of it?
Heidi
>Date: 4/15/00 12:02 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8da7a7$gs1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
<snip>
>I am a female liberal Democrat who was there pre-PC and and I don't
>like the fact that some feel pressure to show nothing but "perfect"
>women on TV.
Scully, anyone? Sorry, just had an overwhelming urge to steer it back towards
"on-topic". <g>
And there's a difference between the angry white male who
>doesn't want equality for women and a man who does, but is not in favor
>constant superiority. DD is a Democrat as well, so I doubt that he is
>in favor of the angry white male POV, and trying to portray him as a
>mini-Strom Thurmond is unfair.
David, from what I have read in many interviews, is far more for equality than
many posters are. But true equality, not the (extremist) PC version.
Some people who are anti-PC now are anti-
>PC because of the extremism now prevalent in the movement. It does not
>mean that they stopped supporting what the movement stood for before it
>became known as the " They're vertically challenged, darn it!"
>movement. Portraying women as superpeople won't do the movement one
>iota of good, imo, and it's unrealistic to boot. Showing women who can
>lose and win fights while commanding respect will help combat sexist
>attitudes,imo.
> Wanting realism does not mean reverting back to " woman as perpetual
>victim" syndrome just because it's a man who says he's in
>favor of realistic portrayals of women. In short(or vertically
>challenged:), people who say there are anti-PC now don't necessarily
>want to go back to the pre-PC era, they may just want to go back to the
>time before PCism acquired an extremist tag among non-racists or
>sexists.
And that just about sums ME up. <g>
Invisiphile
"Heidi" <geo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000415231727...@ng-fx1.aol.com...
> >From: Aurora Lobster baron...@my-deja.com
> >Date: 4/15/00 12:02 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <8da7a7$gs1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
> <snip>
>
> >I am a female liberal Democrat who was there pre-PC and and I don't
> >like the fact that some feel pressure to show nothing but "perfect"
> >women on TV.
>
> Scully, anyone? Sorry, just had an overwhelming urge to steer it back
towards
> "on-topic". <g>
Steering onto a slightly different slant.....
One of the things we've discussed here before is the notion of Saint Scully
and how this may be a direct result of the boys at 1013 having this
idealised sacred image of her. We've also played with the idea of how
convincingly one sex can write the other.
As the first woman director on TXF (and one of the few women writers to boot
<sanguinarium shudder>) has GA tried to change this notion? Are we seeing a
more "feminised" Scully? Do we really want touchy feely Scully?
Inv <who got very twitchy during the Chakra scenes>
Michele Jackson
Deborah wrote:
>
> Yep, I've run into both. I use Native American because I don't want to
> offend anyone. The same with African American. I used to always use the term
> black (I learned that in the sixties), but I was told that AAmerican was
> preferred. When I use AAmerican, half the time I get lectures about how they
> are just Americans and they aren't from Africa and how would I like to be
> called an English/Irish/Scottish/Welsh/German American (I prefer Anglo Mutt
> myself).
> Deborah
Do people actually object 50% of the time? I know that everyone
has their preference about what to be called, but I wasn't aware
that either "Black" or "African-American" had connotations
negative enough to cause someone to take offense.
I really got a chuckle last month when my office was filing a
class administrative complaint with the Equal Employment
Opportunity office in the Dept. of the Treasury. The complaint
said that minorities did not advance as rapidly within the
Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS as less qualified
"Caucasians," did. The EEO wrote us back and asked for
permission to replace the word "Caucasian" with the phrase
"European American" throughout the complaint. We thought this
was hilarious and everyone in the office was going around calling
themselves "European Americans" all day long. However, I can see
why the change was made. Hispanics were part of our class and
Hispanics are technically "Caucasian," so. . . Michele
DoThompso
>From: "Invisiphile" tho...@tnet.com.au
>Date: 04/16/2000 7:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Heidi" <geo...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20000415231727...@ng-fx1.aol.com...
>> >From: Aurora Lobster baron...@my-deja.com
>> >Date: 4/15/00 12:02 PM Central Daylight Time
>> >I am a female liberal Democrat who was there pre-PC and and I don't
>> >like the fact that some feel pressure to show nothing but "perfect"
>> >women on TV.
>>
>> Scully, anyone? Sorry, just had an overwhelming urge to steer it back
>towards
>> "on-topic". <g>
>
>Steering onto a slightly different slant.....
>One of the things we've discussed here before is the notion of Saint Scully
>and how this may be a direct result of the boys at 1013 having this
>idealised sacred image of her. We've also played with the idea of how
>convincingly one sex can write the other.
>
See, I've rarely (if ever) felt that Scully was written or acted as a "Saint".
Thats one reason I feel I can say I (usually) love the Scully I see on the
screen. The Saint business is, to me, more a fantasy/projection by some of the
fans (as many women as men) than an intentional creative choice. Thats one
reason I find it so silly.
But then I've never been inclined to think there's a misogynist cabal lurking
at the heart of 1013, keeping Scully down, either. ;-) Some really seem to buy
that idea.
>Are we seeing a
>more "feminised" Scully? Do we really want touchy feely Scully?
>
Well, its all relative. I love the Scully in say....Detour, perfectly strong
and professional without being a Wonder Woman Fembot, while also warm,
affectionate and funny (and sexy). I think I'd rather see CSM turn out to be
the hero than have Scully become a touchy-feely,
life-philosophy-of-the-month-club type. If she starts lighting incense I may
throw something at the tv.
>Inv <who got very twitchy during the Chakra scenes>
Doug, me too.
Michele Jackson
DoThompso wrote:
>
>
>
> See, I've rarely (if ever) felt that Scully was written or acted as a "Saint".
> Thats one reason I feel I can say I (usually) love the Scully I see on the
> screen. The Saint business is, to me, more a fantasy/projection by some of the
> fans (as many women as men) than an intentional creative choice. Thats one
> reason I find it so silly.
> But then I've never been inclined to think there's a misogynist cabal lurking
> at the heart of 1013, keeping Scully down, either. ;-) Some really seem to buy
> that idea.
>
> >
> Doug, me too.
I agree. I think that Scully from Season 1 to "All Things" has
always been portrayed as an imperfect, slightly nutty (because
she's tightly wound and there's quite a spring let loose when the
winding comes undone) person. She's never been presented as
always right or always good or even as wanting to be. She can be
mistaken, blind, unreasonable and selfish. If 1013 has given us
a recurrent theme about Scully being sent here from God for a
specific purpose (just like Mulder has a special purpose where
the consortium is concerned), then I've never felt she was the
Chosen One in the same sense that the Virgin Mary was chosen. If
God has selected her for something, I don't think it was because
she was so good, but because she was so human, frailties and
all. Maybe God thinks that because she has such a strong
likelihood of failing in whatever her mission is, if she doesn't,
it might mean that much more. Anyway, if she has visions or
feels that, from time to time, she's been given a divine
assignment, just because she's had a message from God, doesn't
mean she's godly herself. I think sometimes the audience gets
bored with the spiritual episodes and she was first called
"Saint" because those episodes were mostly related to her, but I
don't see 1013 ever passing her off as saintly. Michele
D Tinsley
> Do people actually object 50% of the time? I know that everyone
> has their preference about what to be called, but I wasn't aware
> that either "Black" or "African-American" had connotations
> negative enough to cause someone to take offense.
I didn't think either was pejorative, but I've been blasted a couple
times. Sometimes now, I just ask. It doesn't really come up too much, so
it totally caught me by surprise when I offended an African American by
calling them Black ("I'm not black") and then on the other hand when I
tried to be inoffensive by saying African American I was teased for it
(but not in an offensive way). So now, I do hesitate, but I tend to use
Black because that's what I learned when young.
--
Deborah
Life could be a dream, but it's not.
Marisa Blenman
This may sound weird, but I don't think 1013 portrays Scully
as saintly. I think fans do (not all fans). Partially it seems
to have started from the Mulder/Scully split for a lot of fans.
At least, in my faulty memory, I remember her being called a saint
and Mulder a punk. *I* don't agree with this, but that's when I
first remember her being called that.
I do think 1013 has since picked up on it and played with it a bit.
Risi
mgknight
<mjac...@earthlink.net> wrote:
As far as Saint goes I never thought 1013 use it as a real portrayal of
her character. Mostly an affection name that was tacked on by fans like
'Torture Mulder' or 'Moose and Squirrel.' But I do think that Scully
has been badly abused. Why? Well, it seems like lot of fans like her
less this year. I donąt know if had to do with 'Orison' or 'En Ami' Š
or even 'all things.' Or was it the comment in 'X-cops' being
embarrassed in front of live audience by Mulder. It's not me, to say,
but I have read where fans have cringe over Scully's statements and
even gone as far as to say they hate her.
Sorry. Don't mean to get off the subject.
Personally, I don't really like Scully being portray as some spiritual
leader. But I'm curious if anyone has any feelings of dislike towards
the character and why.
Mike G.