i wonder how could he get the papers needed for the CHILDREN to participate in this disgust...
this thing is not a movie. even not a "b movie". not a work of art. it is nothing but "advocating pedophilia via child pornography" covered up as an "art movie".
on the other hand i see that people who criticize the film are "molested" by "partizans" of the director by easily putting "you didn't understand" etc... i reaaly wonder when and how could Todd Solondz "supporters" monopolize the ability of "understanding a film"
if Todd Solondz was such a "successful" director as put forward by his "fanatics" then there should have never been this much people who "couldn't understand". if a work of art is a medium of communication then the composer of the work is assessed via the work's "communicablity". if vast majority even almost all of the people who "suffered this thing" point out that this "thing" is nothing but a piece of disgusting pornabd eventually "labeled" as "didn't understand" then the "advocates" of Todd Solondz should -at least- question the capabilities of Todd Solondz.
Child pornography? Wow, I must have been taking a bathroom break when that scene came on. All of the children that I saw were fully-clothed and I didn't even glimpse genitalia on any of the ADULTS. How may times were you playing and rewinding, Mr. Thomas, to find the nudity? But I guess I should just "read your message more carefully." I'm sure you've found that reading very slowly and moving your lips with the words helps you understand better.
I concer. I found it horrible that a man easily twice the young girl's age, and having sexual relations with her! HOW GROSS!! That EASILY advocates child molesting and other vices that involve inappropriate relationships with children. I always look at it like this: if a man ia old enough to be my father, he is too old for me to have a sexual relationship with because it is like having sex with my father (or one of his friends) and that is just sick. Anyway, this movie was horrible, and that people who like it will not be easily swayed into realizing that it was a horrible movie, so it is pointless to even post anything critical about it. These people who like this movie feel they are superior to others because they can grasp the subtleties this movie has to offer, and they can see beauty in it that others cannot; when in reality, even the director had no idea what was going on, and I am sure the director didn't intend for the movie to have as many interpretations as it does. You can say 'this is a symbol for that' all you want, but in the end of the argument, it is still a bad movie with no plot, no character development, and bad acting. You know, I think they have something for people who want to make good movies, but don't know where to start- it is called college, I think the director needs to spend a few years there.
Following allencurl's rationality, Schindler's List isn't about the holocaust, it actively "advocates" all actions taken by any character in the film. Friday the 13th isn't just about a serial killer, it "advocates" repeatedly killing people. allencurl complains that a film titled Palindromes has "no character developement"? My god he must have done wonderfully on the reading comprehension parts of tests in school.
Really though, I just genuinely wonder why on earth such folks would put the time in to see this movie. I don't go to see whatever the latest romantic comedy was and complain that its shallow. What's with mainstream people going to art films and then complaining "they didn't follow the formula I unfairly presumed they would follow". If you actually had the capacity to take in the film, then you may well have a reasonable complaint about it or critique of it. This is clearly not the case. I hate to say the same old line about "go see Transformers" or something like that, but honestly . . . go watch Transformers.
What are you, 12? You're against the movie because you're against sexual relationships between two people whose age difference is greater than 20 years? Does Demi Moore constitute a pedophile in your view because she could conceivably be Ashton Kutcher's mother?
Let's also remember that a boy becomes able to inseminate a female at age 12. Given this possibility, a boy could become a father at the age of 13. By your incredible, medically-sound rationale, if you know any man who is 13 years older than the woman he's screwing, have him arrested for sexual assault, because surely it is icky gross.
Also, you misspelled "concur", and your second sentence is missing the rest of your thought in the middle. I give you the benefit of the doubt that there was one.
Lastly, the director Solondz knows exactly what he is doing with each film he creates. He graduated from Yale University in 1981, and not because his father was the Director of the C.I.A. You're welcome.
I do not think I am superior to you. I have hope that by the time your brain fully develops at 18 you will have discovered the thrills of knowing what you're talking about before you speak. Sometimes it involves research. This will become necessary if you enter college.
Or you can marry rich. But s/he will no doubt be +13 years older than you.
"I" "don't" "know" "how" "this" "movie" "advocates" "pedophilia" "just" "because" "there" "is" "a" "pedophile" "character" I don't think palindromes advocates anything. It's hard to imagine somebody looking at any of the characters and saying "I really want my life to be like that." The movie obviously takes a negative view toward pedophilia. And there was no child pornography.. what are you talking about. Child pornography is illegal. This is a mainstream movie.