I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified
-- St. Paul, I Corinthians 2:2
And a Turkish bestseller contemplates the assassination of the Pope during his visit to Constantinople this fall.The problem with story lines like this is not that they put ideas into people's heads, but that by publicly contemplating such subject matter, they make it mainstream.I don't know if what I'm trying to say makes sense, but it's akin to the notion that seeing so much violence on TV makes people numb to it.
Here's what I posted on the website you linked:Of course, 'with a Syrian-born man wrongly put in the frame'. Wait! I'll bet the real killer is an anti-abortion activist. Isn't that the 'thought-provoking,' 'sophisticated' type of drivel that masquerades as art nowadays?
Perhaps the word Jay Anderson is trying to recall is desensitisation. I'm not an expert on mass psychology, but an overview of what has happened in recent years does suggest that people can become anesthetised to an idea they might have first found abhorrent, and then after a certain amount of exposure it sort of becomes acceptable - this has happened in areas from clothing styles to public behavior, as we have seen, to the detriment of a civilised society, and is probably applicable to other levels as well. As a believer in non-violence I find violent "entertainment" in film or literature unacceptable.
I have an immediate reaction, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how much of it is "moral" and how much of it is "political."I don't want to simply dismiss it as never allowable to include public figures in this sort of thing, because it seems to me that is part of the territory. (Makes me think of The Day of the Jackal, somewhat.) But it does seem fairly tasteless to have the film focus on someone currently holding office, though. And to have them killed is beyond tasteless.The filmmaker quotes do not instill me with great confidence, either:"It's a pointed political examination of what the War on Terror did to the American body politic. I'm sure that there will be people who will be upset by it but when you watch it you realise what a sophisticated piece of work it is. It's not sensationalist, or simplistic but a very thought-provoking, powerful drama. I hope people will see that the intention behind it is good."Even if I didn't want to have a "political" reaction, I'm not sure they would let me do anything else.
Could be good, could be bad.I'd rather they made up a thinly-veiled fictionalized President, but hey, what are you gonna do?I could readily believe that some of the people who comment on my blog would shoot President Bush.
I think it is more on political. Bush has not been having good ratings lately. Maybe it just purely publicity stunt. So that our attention wil be diverted in a little while.
My first thought is "President Cheney." Sweet Jesus in the morning...
My first thought is "President Cheney." Sweet Jesus in the morning...Which is precisely why various suggestions about Cheney possibly stepping down before the end of the term were unrealistic: to those who want Bush dead and/or impeached, Cheney's being next in line serves as a fantastic deterrent.
This film is an outrage. Who in their right mind would consider going to see this film much less make this film?I don't care what party you may be affiliated with....this goes well over the line.Karen
Well, I don't know if I'm in my right mind or not, but I was considering seeing it when I go to Toronto for annual pilgrimage-retreat before the god Lumiere.I decided against putting on my first choices list (which I get more than 95 percent of the time) -- for two parts scheduling reasons and one part "I know how this movie will be consumed, and it'll be like putting Father in a Jack Chick convention" reasons.I must honestly say that I did think about it though -- Father Barry's comparison to THE DAY OF THE JACKAL makes it not entirely unprecedented, partly the style/premise so resembles Woody Allen's great ZELIG.This is not **entirely** unprecedented. But there are some differences with DAY OF THE JACKAL. The original Forsyth novel was wholly fictionalized, but there was a real-life assassination attempt against Charles DeGaulle that it did resemble in several respects. Also, when the Zinneman movie was made (1973), DeGaulle was already dead (though that does not apply to the 1963 novel).
Post a Comment