Johnny Johnson wrote:
Hi Moose,
Personal life preferences are an interesting thing. Caffeine-free
diet Coke is my drink of choice in a soft drink.
Hi Johnny,
At least we agree on the Kiron 105/2.8 and both like making pretty
pictures of flowers and other wonders of nature.
I don't like yam/sweet potatos, my SO does. So we were watching that
most amusing and informative Southerner, Alton Brown, do a show on sweet
potatos. One of his points was that anything you could do with 'regular'
potatoes, you could do with sweets. My response was 'but, it won't taste
nearly as good'. Hers was that it might often taste better. Conclusion,
there's no accounting for taste, but it is crucial to how we live our
lives.
and I shake my head in wonder when I hear someone call M. Moore's
tripe thought provoking. But, what the heck, with you being from
Berkeley I guess I shouldn't be surprised. ;-)
In Berkeley High, I had a wonderful English teacher, who taught many
useful things in addition to English and American lit. He would
occasionally post two poems, 2 paintings, etc. and have us write an
in-class essay on which was better and why. Although it was easier to
get an A by picking the one he preferred, it was perfectly possible to
pick his choice and fail or to pick the other one and get an A. The most
important factors were the quality of thinking and writing. Amazingly,
he would grade them immediatly in class, hand them back out and then
open the class to questions, discussion and disagreement. Even changed
the occasional grade based on the discussion.
Your comment seems to me to say that I endorsed the strong viewpoints
that Moore espoused when I said "An interesting, moving and thought
provoking movie, I can see why it won an Oscar." Or perhaps you weren't
beating up :-) on me, but just taking an opportunity to blast something
you don't like. Fire away!
My point is that something need not be pleasing, accurate, morally
correct, etc. etc. in order to be of interest, provoke thought or be
emotionally affecting, the 3 things that I specifically mentioned. In
fact, I would suggest that any group that only exposes itself to things
with which it already agrees is on the road to trouble when it
inevitably encounters the rest of life unprepared. Those qualities are
what I find valuable in a documentary, whether or to what extent I agree
with the inevitable viewpoint with which it is assembled. Thus my
agreement that it is a quality documentary.
Note that the Yam story applies here too. Whether the content is
pleasant or not, it it affects my thoughts and feelings. It's my choice
whether I simply adopt opinions and believe 'facts' presented, do the
opposite, or see what they arouse in me and be aware of that. Also, I
like yams better than tripe.
BTW, for another thought provoking look at Bowling for Columbine
follow this link:
<http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html>
Rob Jackson beat me to the punch here:
"FWIW, we're taught in documentary classes that there's no such thing as
a documentary and there's no such thing as a "fiction film." All
documentary is fiction. All fiction is documentary. Every filmmaker
brings an agenda, or at least a point of view to the table. Even the
Cinema Verite guys decided what footage to include in their finished
films when they got to the editing stage."
Note that the Yam story applies here too. Is 'Good Eats' a documentary?
Fact or Fiction? He stated and proved a truth about the versatility, yet
ignored the most important quality, of the subject, at least from this
viewer's perspective.
You may notice I still haven't ventured an opinion about the specific
content and biases in the film. That's partly 'cause I really don't want
to argue about it here and partly 'cause I think it would detract from
my main point. I will say that I find issues and meaning in these events
as a mystic and student of the symbolic content and meaning of life's
events that are important to me and untouched in this film or anything
else I've seen on the subject. As with all works of art, there are
always additional depths of meaning. I would also note that, whether an
emotionally affecting piece is intended to create or reinforce a point,
my reaction to the human drama is meaningful and valuable to me
completely independent of whether I agree with the filmaker's point of
view or no. Viewing people being shot and killed is a psyhchospiritually
important event, regardless of the apparent context.
I do find it structurally interesting that he essentially closes the
film with the Heston interview, which is hesitant, ambiguous and
inconclusive in content and presentation, and in the behavior and
emotional affect of both parties. Conscious or unconscious, this
placement and treatment seems to me to make sure the film ends with more
questions and uncertainty than answers and certainty. I suspect that it
reflects the interior lack of complete certainty of MM as advocate. At
another level it seems to me to reveal Heston as a not to bright,
insightful or introspective hired front man and Moore as an emotional
child still looking for approval from an important father figure. Who
better to go to with his being and life's work in hand and ask for
redemption than a man who has played God, Moses and the leader of a very
important organizing force in his childhood and center of moral
uncertainty since then.? His emotional pleading for CH to look at the
picture of the injured child and his compulsion to leave the picture
seem far beyond the intentional content of the film.There are theses in
at least film and psychology in this thing for those still in academics.
Back to similarities of preferrences, did you ever find a cone for your
Weston?
Thanks to the soapbax,
A. W. Moose
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|