MovieChat Forums > capuchin > Replies
capuchin's Replies
That's quite the threat. Not sure this website can survive without you.
Reminds me of when I quit Twitter. But then you younglings probably don't even remember Twitter. Because I quit and the whole thing went down in flames within <i>days</i>.
... Oh.
The OP was talking about how language and attitudes evolve over time; you were talking about sexual harrassment and jurisprudence.
They don't seem that strongly related to me, but fine: it's about 'people [who] don't want to let old transgressions go'? And crimes are equivalent to social norms in this regard? Are sexual assault, blackface and using now-outmoded language all essentially the same thing to you? I don't think you can seriously believe that.
<blockquote>Do entertainers really need to apologize for wearing blackface 20 years ago?</blockquote>
Well, it's polite, isn't it? It serves to demonstrate that they have evolved their views and now understand that the earlier behaviour was wrong.
If you met someone you'd hurt even in some minor way twenty years ago, and they said 'Do you remember that time when...?', would you not say 'Yeah, sorry about that. I was young, I was stupid, I let my mouth run'? You'd just say 'It was YEARS ago. Let it go!'?
Bigger the hurt, the more reason to apologise, I would think.
Not sure what this has to do with the topic in hand. Could you explain?
But, as far as I'm aware, statutes of limitation still apply. But just because you may not be able to prosecute someone for a crime they committed X number of years ago, it doesn't mean they didn't do it - and it doesn't mean they can't be held accountable for their actions in other ways.
<blockquote>How is it that some sexual harassment 20 years ago is still a criminal charge today. </blockquote>
No expert on the US justice system, but wouldn't that be - by definition - because it hasn't passed the statute of limitation?
Personally, I'm not sure there should be statutes of limitation for serious offences, especially given what is known about how long it can take victims to process this stuff and choose to come forward.
But none of this seems relevant to the OP's question about 'rudeness in entertainment', nor my response.
Every piece of entertainment is a product of its time. Even stuff that seems ahead of the curve.
Star Trek is a good example. Gene Roddenberry was a progressive by 1960s standards. The original series was his vision of humanity putting its petty differences of race and nationality aside and heading out together to explore the stars...
... but he wasn't so hot on gender issues. And by the time of Next Generation, his attitude towards female characters became a serious problem for younger writers and the cast (and indeed significant parts of the audience). Things had moved on. Roddenberry (in that regard) had been left behind.
Does this devalue what Roddenberry did in the 1960s? No. It just places it in the context of its era. Just as Next Generation is now placed in the context of its own.
And it's important, I think, when watching older material to consider the context. So, say, the word 'cripple' used for people with physical disabilities may make us wince in the 2020s. But dismissing a film/TV show for using language that was current at the time would be silly. What's the context? What's the sentiment behind the story? What are its <i>values</i>?
Nobody's perfect. Nobody's future-proofed against standards they can't even imagine in their own era. Language and attitudes change. People should just do the best they can with what they've got.
Do they cycle around? Choose to use a different bathroom every day - 'Huh, I haven't been in here since, um, must be, let me see now, since April' - or do they stick to their favourites?
These are the big, important questions all ex-presidents should be asked.
'His beliefs differ from Blavatsky´s, in that, she worshipped Satan as a personal being while Lavey worshipped what he represented. Both are forms of Satanism though.'
They're not. I've already explained why not. I'll repeat it only fleetingly: Blavatsky was a syncreticist and LaVey was an atheist. The 'Satan' she talked about was a syncretic entity drawn from her own reading and, in a sense, her own invention. She might as well have been worshipping a tea cup and calling it Beelzebub for all her Lucifer had to do with the evil Satan of Christian mythology.
I don't think I'm imposing strict criteria in suggesting one has to believe in the worship of Satan to be a Satanist.
'By the way being non-theistic and being a Satanist, aren´t mutually exclusive.'
Of course they are. Unless you're a fundamentalist Christian who ultimately believes that all religions - and non-religions - other than your own special brand are ultimately the devil's work, it helps to take a more secular and academic view of people's belief systems.
But evidently we aren't going to agree on basic definitions, so the conversation becomes futile.
Gamera, the Giant Monster (Noriaki Yuasi, 1965)
Gamera vs Barugon (Shigeo Tanaka, 1966)
Gamera vs Gyaos (Noriaki Yuasi, 1967)
The first film is fairly successful and efficient Godzilla rip-off. The first two sequels are increasing dumb fun. These are the films before Gamera became an unabashed kids' franchise. 4/5, 3/5, 3/5 respectively.
One Missed Call (Takashi Miike, 2003)
Pretty tedious and generic J-horror. The tagline on the poster appears to have been 'Ring, Ring, Ring', which also serves as a reminder that you could be watching a much better film on a similar theme. 2/5
Time Traveller: The Girl Who Leapt Through Time (Masaaki Taniguchi, 2010)
I liked the bit where the girl leapt through time; and I liked the fact that time travel came in a serum... But it's pretty stodgy and looked a lot like a TV movie. 2/5
Erika Pretended (Akiyo Fujimura, 2016)
Subtle, low-key and incidental drama about a failed actor finding a new perspective on life after the death of her sister. A good central performance sells it. 3/5
The Men Who Tread on the Tiger's Tail (Akira Kurosawa, 1952)
Low-budget Kurosawa, made before Kurosawa was really KUROSAWA. But he's mostly Kurosawa. He's almost there. 3/5
Orgies of Edo (Teruo Ishii, 1969)
Anthology film. Three stories of sexual corruption. The third one was the best one. Looked quite pretty at times, but anthology films always have weak links. 3/5
Why Don't You Play in Hell (Sion Sono, 2013)
Fast-moving, overly-complicated plot, irreverent. Typical but for me not prime Sono. 3/5
Yojimbo (Akira Kurosawa, 1961)
One of the best films ever made. 5/5
R100 (Hitoshi Matsumoto, 2013)
Guy hires dominatrixes at a secret sex club to publicly humiliate him for a year, usually by kicking him in the face. He can't break the contract... and then it goes meta and strange and nowhere you could have expected and gets interesting. 4/5
The Complex (Hideo Nakata, 2013)
Nakata seems to be bored of horror. 2/5
She wasn't a Satanist though, was she? She was a Luciferian. It's not the same thing. The New Thought Movement folk were principally interested in the pre-Christian (Egyptian) figure of Lucifer. 'The Bearer of Light'. The Morning Star. Venus.
Blavatsky had a hodge-podge of beliefs from throughout history and around the world. It was an attempt at religious syncretism. It was bollocks, and it remains bollocks in its New Age forms down to this day. It's the worst kind of spiritual tourism - but it wasn't Satanic.
'Anton Levey who founded the Church of Satan was also quoted as saying that most New Age philosophy is "playing the Devil´s game without using his infernal name".'
And psssst, Anton LaVey was not a Satanist in any meaningful sense either. He was a materialist. He didn't believe in the supernatural. The 'Church' he founded is atheistic. He was a guy who'd read a bit of Frederick Neitzche and some Ayn Rand and developed some proto-fascistic ideas into a sort of stupid frat-boy joke. 'Tee hee hee, let's tell 'em all we worship Satan. Aren't we clever little contrarians?'
But all this is probably by the bye. We're both agreed that the Law of Attraction doesn't work. And I think we're both agreed that Helena Blavatsky and Anton LaVey were quite foolish individuals.
'I'd bet most people are a combination of both intro- and extrovert'
Everyone is. There's really no such thing as an introvert or an extrovert in the way Carl Jung originally envisaged them. And even he said anyone who was purely one or the other would need to be in a lunatic asylum.
Modern neurology has demonstrated neuroplasticity; personality traits aren't fixed. People adapt and change through circumstance, life experience and environment.
That said, I'm more often (classically) introvert than extrovert myself. I'm bookish. I prefer small companies to crowds, and frequently no company at all to small companies. I'm the kind of person who is delighted to have guests, but secretly more delighted when they leave. So: lean introvert.
But, yeah, both - because everyone is.
Ha! You're right.
Invented by FW Thring.
I mention this only because I like the name FW Thring.
But he should've invented something to perform the same task, but that made a noise like 'thringngngng'.
A missed opportunity.
Use a magnet. Problem solved.
Edit: Well, I say 'solved'... I may not have entirely thought this through. But 'Problem made ever so slightly easier' isn't a phrase, is it?
Or... MASSIVE magnet? I don't know. I'll get back to you.
'You know, when you're watching a movie, and when something bad happens to the main character, YOU feel it; almost as if it was happening to you.'
I think it was Robert Ebert who suggested cinema was 'a machine that generates empathy'. And Alfred Hitchcock used to half-joke that if he could hook his audiences up to wires that made them feel the emotions he was attempting to raise in them, he could dispense with the inconvenience of actually making the films.
So, all in all, I think this is a normal experience and possibly a major function of the artform.
'I suspect I'm a little more squeamish than perceived public opinion, or perhaps I'm a little ahead of it(?)'
Definitely not ahead of it, based on public consultations over the last two decades. The BBFC did its first in the late-90s after James Ferman stopped being president and the generally expressed sentiment at the time was (unsurprisingly) that adults didn't much appreciate censorship.
They were, naturally, all in favour of certification and indeed a tightening up of the rules surrounding certification lower than 18. But they didn't want the BBFC arbitrarily deciding which films adults could and couldn't see. They wanted information, so they could make decisions for themselves. Which seems entirely sensible to me.
Each consultation since then has shown the public to be consistent in these matters. And the BBFC only bans material it believes in its expertise to be in violation of UK laws.
'perhaps I should apply for a job with the BBFC?'
You'd have to work within the framework of the law and the culture and methodologies of the organisation, which wouldn't lead to more films being banned. You'd have to leave matters of personal taste, guesswork based on decontextualised 'snippets', self-confessed squeamishness and suchlike at the door. These matters aren't decided on whims of individual taste.
And I agree with you that the BBFC does good work these days - which is why I was curious about your initial position that you 'weren't sure some of these films should be shown.' I'm still no clearer on why you believe this to be the case when you acknowledge that the BBFC has it covered pretty well. But given that you concede that you do not watch 'these films', cannot name any films that fit your criteria and readily confess that you can't provide evidence of harm, I don't suppose we'll get to the bottom of it.
You do you, as they say.
'Chopping someone to bits and that's all the story is about'
Which horror movie(s) are you describing here?
'I start looking for a line to draw'
And how do you draw that line? Would you like to see government intervention into which films can be shown? Or do you have a different mechanism in mind? Which body or organisation should be awarded with the power to decide whether the context justifies the material and whether some sort of ban should be imposed?
So would you also considering banning, say, the films of Quentin Tarantino or Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan? I think a case could be made that those films also contain gore, cruelty and - undoubtedly - violence. Or do you believe there is something specific to the horror genre that is likely to feed fantasies and desensitive some of the audience?
'I'm not sure they should be shown at all'
Why not? And what steps do you believe should be taken to prevent this material being shown?
We don't get most of them over here. But I've seen clips.
I used to quite like Letterman. Letterman was, um, a complicated and strange little man whose idiosyncrasies used to poke through the surface quite a bit. There was a tension in him that was sort of interesting. Despite doing the gig for, like, 400 years or whatever, Letterman was never quite 'show biz'. He kept his comedy club roots.
From what I've seen, the current crop are all very show biz. The Jimmy who doubles up in laughter at the drop of a hat is probably the worst. But Corden is up there too. Show biz. Stage school kids. Pathologically desperate for your admiration. Completely disingenuous. Terrified that this is the day audiences are going to see through them, finally figure out what charlatans they are, turn their backs. Nothing wrong with wanting to be liked - especially when you're on TV - but when it becomes as cloying and upfront as it is in Jimmy #1 and Corden, you can't be naturally funny. You can't take a risk with not being liked.
But the other Jimmy and Colbert are only a shade better. They're smarter guys - but that's only made them more supercillious.
The Law of Attraction doesn't have roots in Satanism. It has roots in Theosophy and the 19th Century New Thought Movement, which itself has its roots in Eastern philosophy. Similar ideas can be found in the Vedic traditions. There are schools of Mahayana Buddhism in particular that have ideas quite similar to The Law of Attraction, although usually with a more complex basis in karmic law and dharma - which seems to be lacking in the New Age, Western version.
You're right that - in whatever form - it's untrue though.
Me.