Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    	Without question, American movie audiences want action, drama,
    a bit of skin, and when necessary violence, blood, gore, and graphic
    other items that tittilate. People want something that adds some
    excitement to an already dreary life that consists of waking up,
    driving to work, working through 8-9 hour of repetitive tasks and
    assignments, driving home, watching television that is milktoast.
    	Not everyone is into the Elm st., and Halloween gore, not everyone
    is into Stallone's stuff. But alot of people enjoy seeing Arnie
    flex his 23" biceps around a bare breasted female, while he's
    separating some "child kidnappers" from their earthly ties. They get
    just a bit frustrated with modern police methods of prosecution
    of individuals who kill children and slaughter young women. They
    like to see the 'bad guys' get the same as they doled out rather
    than 30 days of psychotherapy and evaluation before being committed
    to a state institution for 3-5 years before being allowed out again.
    	Many people enjoy "artistic" films. Many people like Woody Allen
    and others that try to achieve what they believe to be a higher
    plane of film making. What a dull world if we all like the same
    thing.
    
    Ken
    
    BTW when I was a youngster, "artistic films" came in plain wrappers
    because it was illegal to send them through the mail. People also
    hid behind coat collars and pulled down hats when they went to 'Art'
    films.

    I think reply .1 hit it squarely on the head. When Death Wish I
    came out, I say it in NYC. The audience, which was made up of mostly
    well dressed people, CHEERED when a mugger or thug got blown away.
    There is a frustration, especially in the cities, that the police
    can't or won't protect its citizens. With certain types of movies,
    the audience loves out a fantasy of what they would "like" to do
    (although it is doubtful that many would if they had the opportunity).
    As .2 said, there is enough reality around us every day. Action
    movies can excite us, or scare the s*^t out of us, but everything
    is fine in 1� hours when we leave. These movies let us vent emotions
    which we may hold in.
    
    Eric

    Re: .0

    Well, I have to agree with your taste in films, at least in this case,
    since I was the person who wrote the original review for BAGDAD CAFE in
    MOVIES.  However, I must admit that I enjoy mindless movies from time
    to time.  The problem that I see with movies like Rambo and Dirty Harry
    is that they are not merely bad art; to me they are utterly offensive,
    since they play on the worst sorts of anti-values, such as vigilantism
    and jingoism.  However, this being a free country, people have every
    right to watch and enjoy that type of film if they want to. 
    
    -- Mike

    Interesting questions, rik.
        
    �	is there something wrong?
    �	can someone explain the american attraction to bloody, gore films
    �	and their apparent disdain for artistic experiences?
    
    I suspect that many people view movies containing a lot of 
    bloodshed as "o.k." for lots of different reasons.  Some, for
    example, see a "Rambo" or "Dirty Harry" not as a blood bath
    but a story about a "hero" or a kind of morality play.  The 
    "bad" guys are so absolutely evil that the most horrid demise
    of these individuals is almost too good for them and, by contrast,
    the "good" guy is that rugged non-conformist who's "obviously"
    in the "right".  With the "Rambo" movies, I think there's 
    an added dimension of "America-is-o.k."ness.  In the post-Viet
    nam era and with the concurrent conservative swing of the
    political pendulum, I don't find that particularly surprising.
    
    Whether or not one thinks that this indicates a "wrongness" or
    not will, I suspect, often reflect the individuals overall
    political and/or philosophical views.  Personally, I'm not 
    tremendously thrilled by any movie that portrays one side
    in a war as all good or all bad; the reality that I know
    about tells me that there is always courage and cowardice,
    on both sides of the battle line.  I didn't like the late
    '60's view of the Viet vet as "evil killer of women and
    children" nor do I like the more recent notion that we
    were *all* "heros" who were badly mistreated by our country.
    I think the truth lies in between the extremes; there were
    a lot of kids pressed into fighting in a war that was morally
    questionable to many - sometimes they acted nobly and heroically
    and sometimes they committed atrocities like My Lai.  So did
    the other side.
    
    But it seems to me that many movie-goers are looking for "light"
    entertainment, simple "issues" and a more or less black-and-white
    view of the world.  And I think it's rare that complex issues 
    involving multi-dimensional characters translates easily into
    "light" entertainment.  Is this "wrong"?  I guess I'd worry
    more if *all* movies were of the "Rambo"/"Harry" ilk.  But it
    seems to me that there are enough examples which temper that
    concern; if the "Kramer vs. Kramer"s were *never* successful,
    I'd worry a lot more.  Again, from a personal perspective, there
    are times I want to watch "junk" tv or a "Rambo" type movie; other
    times I prefer "heavier" stuff.
    
    �	(i guess i'm *assuming* that bloody films are NOT artistic but
    �	that's probably not fair of me....art IS in the eye of the viewer...)
    
    How about Hitchcock, many of whose films are considered "art". 
    "Psycho" was bloody (for its day), yet it's a "classic".  One
    difference about it and say, the "Halloween" series is the 
    sophistication of technical effects.  Another is the difference
    in what is allowed to be graphically portrayed.  I tend to 
    separate the Halloween "slasher" type flicks from a "Jaws".
    
    To me, the first is a "shocker" but not particularly suspenseful
    and, at best, an over-simplified morality piece; the latter
    is far more suspenseful, pays a lot more attention to character
    development, and the "issues" are a bit less clear cut.  In any
    case, it seems to me that that "horror" movies have been around
    almost as long as movies themselves; if this indicates "wrongness",
    it's certainly not a new phenomenon.
    
    �	does this mean something?
    �	should we worry about this phenomenon?
    
    Danged if *I* know, but I know how Bobby McFerrin would answer
    that last question. . .(and I'd then sic Jaws on 'im. . .)
    
    Steve
    

    re: .0
    
    rik,
    
         You might be interested in reading two essays by Harlan Ellison
    in his book "An Edge In My Voice".  He has some interesting comments
    on slasher movies and the reasons for their popularity.  I'd give
    a synopsis here, but it's been a while since I've read them, and
    I lost the book amongst the unpacked from my move.
    
    ASP

    re: .7
    
    On the lighter side, George Carlan uses this topic in one of his
    skits (about movies of lovemaking vrs killing), commenting that
    he would rather have his kids watch a film of two people making
    love rather than two people killing each other.  But, he says, "let's
    take this further.  Let's substitute the word 'f__k' for the word
    'k__l' in all those old movie cliches we're so used to..."
    
    "Alright sheriff, we're gonna f__k ya now, but we're gonna f__k ya
    ssssllllooooowwwww..."
    
    ;-)
    jim
    

    Re .5...
    
    Hitchcock was a master craftsman...he provides a complicated framework
    in his movies, allowing the audience to get involved in the plot.
    
    Movies of the Halloween, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Elm Street ilk
    contain no such craftsmanship.  There are few, if any subtelties,
    and the directors go for the sensationalism and action, rather than
    any kind of suspense.
    
    Is there any audience info available on the modern horror movies?
    I'd be curious to find out the average viewer age.
    
    Judi
    

.7>    Shall we bring back the gladiators and watch it for real? 
    
I think we "watch it for real" every day!  Did you ever see what happens 
to traffic when there is an accident on the highway?  People slow down 
and crane their necks to see if they could get a glimpse of someone 
lying crushed and bleeding.  I believe that this is their way of 
thumbing their noses at the Big D (Death!)  When they see someone else's 
twisted, broken body they say "Oh, Poor guy!  But I'm alive and well!  
You won't get me!"

I believe this same morbid preoccupation is what makes movies like 
Halloween LXVIII popular.  People want some kind of reassurance that 
they are still alive.  If people were to come to terms with their own 
mortality, the quality of cinema (not to mention other aspects of life!) 
would improve dramatically!

This response represents my own opinion, and is not meant to insult or 
offend anyone - so No Flames Puleez!

Jack

	 I think that a lot of people love to be scared...i sure
	 do.... Nightmare on Elm Street is one of my favorite movies
	 because it scares me to death!  I don't enjoy all the blood
	 and guts and stuff...but being scared like that is something
	 that I can't get in everyday life....a love scene..well, that
         is something that can be sorta common in a lot of people's
         lives...(well, some people's lives!)

	 k

    re: .11
    
    � . . .being scared like that is something that I can't get in 
    � everyday life. . ."
    
    What??!  You never heard of "The Attack of the Omnivorous
    Meeting Monster"?  Watch it as it devours departmental
    schedules at a swallow!  Hear the shrieks of horror as
    employees scream, "An emergency staff meeting from 7:30 to 
    noon??!!
    
    Not to mention "Nightmare on the Highway", a show that is
    particularly scarey to watch in Massachusetts. . .
    
    Steve
    

         Mallett....
         
         You're meeting schedule has finally gotten to you!!!!
         
         [grin]
         
         Melinda

    Re .0, it seems as though the average American has lousy taste in
    movies.  What can you expect of a culture that enjoys bowling,
    wrestling, game shows, and the Enquirer?  (As one of the characters
    said in "My Beautiful Laundrette", "The working class is such a
    disapointment," or something to that effect.)
    
    You can give'm an engineering degree and pay'em $40K a year but
    you can't make'm want to watch "Room With A View", read "Beloved"
    or spend a day at the art museum.  
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .15, or perhaps some people like to occasionally put their brain
    into neutral for a while and just have gut reactions. After a day
    in front of the terminal, I sometimes like to mentally coast along,
    without a touch of culture. Not everyone likes art films or museums
    as a way of relaxing. I enjoy construction projects around the house
    (as my current fiberglass insulation itching can attest to), so
    not everyone who doesn't meet your standard of "cultured" is a
    "disappointment" ! Taste is in the mind of the beholder, and excapism
    is often an excellent way to bleed (no pun intended) some of the
    tension of potential burnout off.
    
    Eric

    Re .16, well, let me just say that *I* am disapointed that so many
    intelligent Americans find watching their fellow humans suffer,
    die and bleed to be a form of relaxation :-).
    
    I find it very relaxing to wander through an art museum.  It doesn't
    tax my brain to enjoy beauty.  However, my "gut reaction" to Rambo
    movies and Friday the 13th type stuff, is to throw-up.
    
    I have a right to set my own "standards" and to be quietly disapointed when
    others don't measure up as long as I don't try to force you to live
    my way (and I don't).
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .18, I don't think you know nuthin about culture :-)!
    (I'm just kidding.  I don't know what you know.)  I really don't
    consider computers to be culture in the sense that art, music and
    literature are.
    
    Why are you insulted?  We both have a right to different tastes.
     I just wanted to say that I, too, have always wondered why more
    people want to see Rambo than Bagdad Cafe, or Friday the 13th instead
    of Hope and Glory.
    
    Why should my saying what I like insult you just because it isn't
    what you like?  Or what I don't like is what you like?  Why do you
    personally take offense for what I consider to be some of the low
    points of an entire culture?  I don't blame you!
    
    Lorna
      

	 There are horror/action movies with good plots and terror
	 instead of just pure violence.  Rambo and Friday the 13th are
	 not (in my book) those kind of movies but there are a lot
	 that are...

	 I, for one, am not interesting in a lot of the "art" films
	 and the "realistic" type films like Platoon and others.  I go
	 to movies to relax, to see something totally off the
	 wall--something that could never possibly happen in real
	 life--or something I, as a normal citizen, will never
	 experience.  Roger Rabbit, for example...totally off the wall
	 and funny...I was very relaxed and entertained....

	 Elm Street...this kind of thing is never going to happen in
	 the typical neighborhood!  I was entertained!  But seeing how
	 it "really was" (platoon) or recounting someone's life story
	 (Amadeus) I find tediously boring....

	 I guess its all a matter DIFFERENT tastes...not lousy taste
	 as someone stated before.

	 I think you'll find that most people that go to things like
	 Friday the 13th, go to be humored...(scared outta their
	 pants, but still humored!)

	 kath

    Some possible questions to kick around in relation to the
    topic:
    
    Is the motivation for watching a "Nightmare. . ." or "Halloween"
    the same as it was for seeing a "Frankenstein" or "Wolfman"
    years ago?
    
    One clear difference between the two eras is the explicitness
    of portrayals of violence.  Do today's graphic depictions of
    violence have an effect on audiences (adults or childrens)?
    
    In discussing these, I think it would help to keep Kathy's words
    (.20) in mind:
    
    �	 I guess its all a matter DIFFERENT tastes...not lousy taste
    �	 as someone stated before.
    
    And, from the replies so far, it appears that there are different
    motivations as well and they seem to bear directly on one's tastes.
    
    Steve
    
    

>>>	 Do today's graphic depictions of violence have an effect on
>>>	 audiences (adults or childrens)? 

	 only speaking from its effect on my and those I know around
	 me, no, at least not on me personally.  But I can see how, on
	 an emotionally impressionable person, it could.  Truthfully
	 some of the arty-type movies really effect me and depress me
	 so therefore I don't watch them.
	 
	 I see a totally different kind of "violence" in movies like
	 Elm Street as compared to movies like Rambo....(for those
	 that have not seen Elm Street, I don't think you would
	 understand what I'm talking about).  Maybe the
	 difference I see is terror as opposed to violence.  I don't
	 know... terror to me is exhilarating...violence is not, its a
	 bore....
	 
	 the old SciFi movies have a lot of what I'm talking about...
	 (terror that is...)


	 I can just imagine what I will be saying in 15-20 years when
	 I'm my parent's age...  8^)  (i'm still a "kid" so you're
	 definately getting a "kid's" view!!)

	 kath

>>>what seems to be the problem in making intelligent, thought provoking
>>>entertainment enjoyable. 


	 and, conversely....what seems to be the problem in making
	 mindless, humorous, gut-wrenching entertainment enjoyable?


	 my brain is in overload for MORE than 8 hours everyday...why
	 would I want to stress it more while I'm trying to relax?
	 See....not everyone is alike and therefore, people are not
	 going to get the same satisfaction out of the same things...

	 

    Re .20, perhaps "lousy" was an ill-chosen word. :-)  People certainly
    do have *different* tastes in movies.  I found both "Platoon" (it's
    history-maybe somebody can learn something from it) and "Amadaeus"
    to be very enjoyable.  I don't find terror exhilarating, I find
    it scary and depressing.  I get very depressed when I'm reminded
    of what a scary world this can be and of how cruel people are capable
    of being to each other, and so I don't like to see violence.  I
    enjoy seeing movies that lift my mind up to loftier heights.  My
    current all-time favorite movies (in order) are:
    
    "A Room With A View" (finding true love on a beautiful hillside in
    Italy while dressed in a gorgeous Edwardian gown is *pretty romantic*
    in my book!:-) to say nothing of the inspiring message that it's
    better to be an individual and question society than to just do
    as you're told)
    
    "Hope and Glory" (it's too late to spend WWII in London and I love
    the way it shows the complexities of everyday human relationships)
    
    "Housekeeping" (independent women don't have to be businesswomen
    or engineers, sometimes they can be eccentrics)
    
    "Hannah and Her Sisters" (so my philosophy and humor all thrown
    into one story-I *love* Woody)
    
    I can't get anything out of Rambo (be tough and you can always win
    if you're an American Capitalist with a handsome face and big muscles, 
    that is-the bullets will whiz right by you! as you grunt righteously)
    
    As far as gore and blood and guts it just makes me sick.  I can't
    take it as a joke.  I always think what if that happened to me or
    people I care about?  What if it was on the front page of the paper
    would it be funny then?  Pain and suffering and death are just not
    entertaining to me - especially when it has no serious message behind
    it - such as Platoon did.
    
    So, we all have different tastes in movies.  Who knows what makes
    us like what we like??  I don't.
    
    My two current least favorite movies of all time are "Goonies" and
    "Spaceballs".  Totally boring, done a million times over nonsense.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    It is all Demand and Supply.
    
    If there is a market for gross films, there will be producers who
    would produce such movies.
    
    the movie industry is an important culture in this country.
    
    peter
    
    

    Movies will be produced, to cater to whatever audience is willing
    to pay for it. If Haloween MCLXII still grosses millions, then MCLXII
    + I will also be made. Tastes, just like people, differ, and so
    do what they go to see. In general, there is no right or wrong in
    an absolute term, just what the viewer enjoys. So it isn't really
    fair to downgrade someone's taste because its different from yours.
    Criticize the movie if you wish, that's your opinion, but leave
    the viewer's alone (although they might view you as elitist, which
    is just as wrong). If I was producing films with the aim of earning
    big bucks, I'd also cater to the mass audience. If tastes change,
    and "adventure" films are no longer in, they will disappear on their
    own because of supply and demand.
    
    Eric

    RE: .7
    
>    ... George Carlan ... commenting that he would rather have his kids
>    watch a film of two people making love rather than two people killing
>    each other.  
    
    I can confidently say that very very few people actually would act
    this way.  My sample is Digital Noting Community.

- Vikas

    I think I have to "align with" Lorna's view.
    The only message I get (collectively) from the other noters is that
    there is no such thing as "tasteless" movies.  That is interesting
    food for thought...
    

    A basic problem in how one views various films is why does the viewer
    go. Do they want to be entertained, forced to think, to laugh, to
    cry or to be scared. Each reason is satisfied by a different type
    of film. Some "dumb" comedies just make me laugh hysterically, with
    no basic content, and at times, that's what I need. Other films
    make me think and ponder, because that's what I needed. So one can
    not make a blanket statement about taste of the audience, because
    the needs of the audience are not an absolute.
    
    Eric
    

    re: .31
    
    I think the collective sound is more along the lines of "I can
    easily declare what is "tasteless" for me, but to try to do so
    for others is, by definition, impossible.  It seems to me that
    when enough individuals make such a declaration, it begins to
    become a yardstick in general.  I suspect, however, that there
    has never been a film made which every single person would find
    tasteless.
    
    Steve

    
    re. lorna....
    my beautiful laundrette...
    the quote was closer to...
    	" the masses have always been such a disappointment"
    
    and...
    i agree
    

	 well, just because of this note, I rented "A Room with a
	 View" last night....

	 I must say, at least I TRIED to appreciate the film, but it
	 got to the point where I was predicting the plot and even
	 predicting what the characters would say next and I was
	 RIGHT!  *THAT* exact reason is one of the major factors for
	 me not liking this kind of film....

	 sorry...at least I TRIED to appreciate it...

	 c'est la vie....

	 kath

RE: .36

>	 ... I rented "A Room with a View" last night....
>
>	 I must say, at least I TRIED to appreciate the film, but it
>	 got to the point where I was predicting the plot and even
>	 predicting what the characters would say next and I was
>	 RIGHT!

I'm afraid you missed the point, my dear. It's not what the
characters say, it's how it's phrased and how they say it. 'A Room
with a View' is like vintage champagne; if you drink moonshine
whiskey, you won't like it. It's like artichoke hearts in sauce
Bearnaise; if you crave pizza, you won't like it.

>	 c'est la vie....

Exactemondo!

-- Ron

RE: .37

>>I'm afraid you missed the point, my dear. It's not what the
>>characters say, it's how it's phrased and how they say it. 'A Room
>>with a View' is like vintage champagne; if you drink moonshine
>>whiskey, you won't like it. It's like artichoke hearts in sauce
>>Bearnaise; if you crave pizza, you won't like it.

	 so, in other words, your telling me that I have no hope of
	 ever enjoying a movie like this one... I'm offended...who are
	 YOU to imply that someone who "drinks moonshine whiskey"
	 won't appreciate "vintage champagne."  That's like telling me
	 since I VERY much enjoy R&B and jazz music, I will never be able to
	 enjoy hard rock....you're wrong...*some people* have just
	 learned how to be more open and responsive to experiencing
	 new things....have you?
	 

         the acting was terrible, the plot was predictable and overall
         it was boring.....I will say, though, that it has the
         "flavor" of a harlequin romance....if you like that stuff.
	 Kiss the guy once, think you hate him for the whole story
	 then realize you're madly in love with him...

	 the plots been done TOO many times....but....to each his own,
	 right?  I'm sure there are many other "arty" movies that I
	 will like!  I won't know till I try, though, right?

	 k

RE: .38

>	 ... I'm offended...who are YOU to imply that someone who
>	 "drinks moonshine whiskey" won't appreciate "vintage champagne."

Whoaa... Take it easy. You got the words of my reply, but missed the
music. Sorry, I should have appended a bunch of smiley faces. 

In my experience, people who drink whiskey --on the whole-- indeed
do not enjoy champagne. No offense intended to either the champagne
or the whiskey drinkers. 


>         the acting was terrible, the plot was predictable and overall
>         it was boring...

Here's where we differ. I thought the acting was very fine (I wonder
what other noters' opinion is on that point). 

The plot does not stand on it's own? Of course not! It's not
supposed to. It's there to support the delicate, exquisite
embroidery of well turned out phrases. Yes, once you remove the
language, you **are** left with a Harlequin story. The same is true
of much of Oscar Wilde (not to mention 'Macbeth'). 

In all, it's a somewhat trivialized love story, in the Somerset
Maugham style. I've seen worse. This does not detract from enjoyment
of the people who do enjoy it. Sorry you didn't. 


>	 ...but....to each his own, right? 

Oh, to be sure. 

I hope I have managed to mollify you. I don't mind exchanging
scorching repartees, but I'd hate to do it over a movie...

Have a good week. 

-- Ron 

RE:  -< mollify?  had to look that one up ... >-

	so did I....




	language does not a movie make....at least to me...

	but I'll try some more of these movies...got any suggestions?


	kath

> RE:  -< mollify?  had to look that one up ... >-
>
>	so did I...

That's what comes from taking 'English as a Second Language'. One 
tends to exude those not so ubiquitous words extemporaneously.


>	language does not a movie make....at least to me...
>
>	but I'll try some more of these movies...got any suggestions?

If you prefer more substance... 'My life as a Dog' is a small 
masterpiece.

-- Ron

       I think one has to develop a taste for drawing room drama. I
       didn't catch it till I saw "Pride and Prejudice". I then became
       totally addicted. The turn of a phrase and witty repartee can
       from an age where more bluntly spoken words were inappropriate.
       It also got me to visit Bath and read everything Jane Austin
       wrote.

       In a techno-modren way some of our notes conversations come
       close. (not so close I'd mistake the two but the potential is
       there) liesl

RE violence = escapism

The reason that people with culture do not appreciate violence as an escape is
that violence is all *too* *real* to them...  maybe they know too much about
violence firsthand, or maybe they sense all too much that the violence that they
are watching really *does* happen someplace, sometime.  For them violence is not
escapism. 

Perhaps, since they know too well how bad life can get, "culture" is escapism?

It's interesting that during the war, when violence, or at least the loss of
loved ones, was commonplace is when there was a run on musicals of happier times
and places.  In that time and place, that was escapism. 

So, does that mean that as our 'world' gets better and better that our movies
will get grosser and grosser in our attempts at escapism?  I would hope that the
need for escapism would grow less, and that movies of 'realism' with all the
dirty little problems of life and their solutions would be as popular as any
other type.  You would never have heard a comment such as 'not once in 800 pages
and 3 months does the hero go to the bathroom' back in the 50's, yet, apperently
some flavor of this sort of realism has a place in some of today's movies. 

Jim.

>>The reason that people with culture do not appreciate violence as an escape is
>>that violence is all *too* *real* to them...


	 since I like terror, not violence, does this mean that I,
	 too, can be cultured?  Or am I still considered an uncultured
	 barbarian?


	 8^)

	 

    re Kathy, in regard to the acting in "Room With A View", the British
    actor, Daniel Day Lewis, did a wonderful job of playing the snobbish
    fiancee.  The same actor played the character of Johnny in "My
    Beautiful Laundrette"  and, if you didn't *know*, you would never
    believe it was the same man.  In "My Beautiful Laundrette" he is
    sexy and attractive in a punk way.  BTW, I'm not the only one who
    thinks he is one of the best new actors on the scene.  He's been
    getting some great reviews by critics.
    
    There were also two oscar nominations for best supporting from this
    film - Maggie (what's her face) for the cousin who accompanies the
    heroine on her trip, and the actor (whose name escapes me but he's
    a well-known British character actor) who played the father of the
    blonde guy she marries at the end.
    
    It is true that the heroine marries the guy who loves her at the
    end.  But, there was a lot more to this story than just the romance.
     There was the attention of detail to the Edwardian era that was
    just perfect.  There was the humor in the conversations.  I laughed
    so much at the conversations.  I still do and I've seen it 4 times.
     It is my all-time favorite movie so far.  There is also the message
    to live your own life, march to whatever drum you hear to paraphrase
    Thoreau (who is mentioned in the movie), etc.
    
    I can accept that we have different tastes and that it bored you,
    but, for the type of movie it is, it is excellently done.  FWIW,
    my boyfriend, who is a big fan of action movies watched it through
    to the end and laughed a few times, and my 14 yr. old daughter loved
    it.  My ex-boyfriend (who wrote this basenote) liked it, too, although
    not as much as I did.
    
    Try "Hope & Glory" :-) - life in London during WWII seen through
    the eyes of a little boy - very 40's in atmosphere.
    
    Lorna
    
    

    re: .46
    
    Was it Maggie Smith and Denholm Elliott (the Oscar nominations)?
    
    I thoroughly enjoyed "Room With a View" (also liked "The Bostonians"
    and "The Europeans" and other "drawing room" flicks).  But then again,
    my wife, who's not into them as much as I am, has been known to
    object to some of my movie choices as too violent.  Guess it just
    depends on what kind of day I've had...   8^)
    
    If the acting, cinematography, and writing are good, even violence
    can be handled creatively, and *should* be.  I think we need to
    understand violence and our capacity for it before we can know what
    to do about it.
    
    Ron

    Re:  Turning your mind off to enjoy something...
    
    Please help me with this one.  I really want to understand.
    I find television dribble to much to take even for my tired
    eyes and well used brain.  Sexual cracks and stupid jokes which
    are followed by hoards of laughter incredibly insulting.  If 
    something is funny you don't need someone to prompt you to
    laugh.
    
    The topic was blood art attraction.  The movie industry knows
    what sells. Blood and sex in that order!  If the blood doesn't
    make you turn green, go to an emergency room in a Boston
    hospital and it will then.  And what you see on the screen
    is sex, then no wonder we are all so frustrated.
    
    I don't see the necessity to sit in from of a screen and feel 
    like I need to have a lobotomy to sit through the whole show.
    If working for eight hours exhausts the mind that badly then I 
    would hate to think if someone had to work overtime.
    
    If we only use a small percentage of our brain and creativity in
    our life, and reduce it to eight hours, add a little violence 
    and sophmoric sex, the future looks pretty grim.
    
    Good entertainment doesn't have to be super intellectual either.
    But if we create garbage for selling to audiences just for now
    we are ignoring what is needed for tomorrow.  I don't see where
    my mind was overtaxed watching Hitchcock's "Vertigo" or "Rear
    Window."  But I know my son will get the same entertainment
    value when he sees it.  What value does blood art movies
    project?  
    
    Appreciation of the arts including films doesn't means even liking
    what you see.  Although your appreciation may change your taste.
    When I first viewed "Guernica" at the Metropolitan Museum of Art
    I hated it. But the more I learned about it, studied, looked again,
    I began to appreciate it.  "Room With A View" is a film which
    requires appreciation not liking.  That is the difference between
    films and movies. My personal preference is to enjoy brilliant acting,
    innovative camera techniques, dialogue that doesn't insult my 
    intelligence  if it doesn't want to test it, and a story that I
    can remember adding something to my pitiful small list of life 
    experiences.
    
    I may be an exception, and I (re: Kathy Gallup) don't expect people
    to like what I like, but violent movies for mass audiences are very
    scarey.  There is no difference them and the Roman Circus where thousands
    of people were butchered in front of cheering crowds, or the crowds
    that gathered around the guillotine.                      
    
    And what is incredible is that we are so prudish and say we're so 
    puritanical that sensuous films should be rated X.
    
      
                                             

RE: .49
	>>Sexual cracks and stupid jokes which
	>>are followed by hoards of laughter incredibly insulting.

True.....I rarely watch TV anymore because its so stupid...(except for
UofAz basketball games!!) 8^)
    
Well, I'm glad to know that I have one redeeming quality when it comes
to movies...I absolutely LOVE Hitchcock!  And the old Agatha Christie movies
too!

You mentioned something about what value violent movies project.
You've missed my point....I don't want value from any of these movies...
I want pure ENTERTAINMENT.....(don't forget...I enjoy TERROR not VIOLENCE...
the two words are being used synonymously in this note and they should not
be....)  If you asked me four hours after a movie what it was about--I plain
and simply COULD NOT TELL YOU the whole plot....  I have no desire to
remember and mull over in my mind what "message" a movie is trying to
project...I'm the same way with books...as soon as I put a book
down...its completely forgotten....characters, story-line, and all...

	>>I may be an exception, and I (re: Kathy Gallup) don't expect people
    to like what I like,

correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying here that I expect people to like
what I like?  or did I read this wrong?  I have never once said, nor implied
that...and I would really hate for you to be that far off base....don't read
things into my notes that aren't there...

Movies....are purely entertainment for me...I don't expect, not necessarily
want to get any value from a movie....guess that just makes me different, eh?

kath

    
      
                                             

    How come the assertion that, in general, people (at least in this
    part of world) seems to condone blood but x-rates sex, goes always
    unanswered?
    
- Vikas

    RE: .50
    
    My reference was to your declaration that you were not me. And that
    people are different.  
    
    Fine. I am just trying to understand why someone would want to 
    see blood and gut spilled out on the screen.  It is difficult when
    the first thing I do is head for the door in disgust.  I have at
    times though watched people smile as I was leaving.  I wondered
    what was going through their brain. 
    
    Terror is defined as overpowering or intense fear. A terrifying
    object or occurrence or violent acts committed by one on another.
    
    I don't find much difference in the words.  You can be terrified
    without some razor blade artist or greasy looking monster chewing
    an arm with all the gory details.
    
    
    RE: 51.  This country is hiding under prudishness that continually
    gets handed down from generation to generation.  Yet the only thing
    sex has gotten more of in the past several years is violent.  No
    wonder why.  Our kids can see someone get raped and slashed easier
    than loved and explored.
    
                     

RE: .52

    >>blood and guts spilled on the screen

	violence like this has no appeal to me, but to others it
	may have immense appeal...I don't know, i can't speak for them...
    
    >>Terror is defined as overpowering or intense fear. A terrifying
    >>object or occurrence or violent acts committed by one on another.
    >>I don't find much difference in the words.  You can be terrified
    >>without some razor blade artist or greasy looking monster chewing
    >>an arm with all the gory details.

	 I, myself, would not define the word terror with the word
	 violence.   You say you don't find much difference in the
	 words, then you go on to say you can be terrified without
	 razor blades/monsters...  I think you've finally kinda seen
	 my point...  There needs to be VERY little violence to make a
	 movie terrifying....what about the classic Sci-Fi's from the
	 50s and 60s?  Some were terrifying...

	 About sex/love on the screen....I would like to see more of
	 it instead of violence, but I want a story line to go along
	 with it....(ie, no x-rated skin flick)  Its too bad that love
	 story movies don't go over too well these days...

	 About violence....have any of you adults with children sat
	 down and watched some of the cartoons your children are
	 watching?  Just because they are animated, doesn't mean they
	 aren't extremely violent...(ie, Road Runner, Transformers,
	 Superman, etc, etc)  Maybe the children of this world are
	 being brought up on violence, hence the big appeal of blood
	 movies when they are teenagers/adults....  Could it be that
	 some parents these days are developing these attitudes in
	 their own children without realizing it?  Sit down and watch
	 some cartoons with your children...see which ones they are
	 attracted to...I'd be curious to know which ones (since I
	 don't/won't have children of my own....)

	 kath
                     

    
    RE: .53  I apologize if I assumed. But it appeared that you in
            some defense of the topic title.
    
    And yes, I agree we start out children young.  I threw away a
    transformer toy my son got for Christmas from a relative and told
    him we'll go out and buy something else.  As far as the Road
    Runner, etc.: the message has always been how futile violence is
    in settling disputes.  I can't think of when Wilie Coyote didn't
    have something backfire on him.
    
    Believe it or not there are some very good X-rated movies but you
    will never be able to tell.  They are buried in the mire of porno-
    graphy and aren't differentiated because X is X.  "Camille 2000"
    is one which comes to mind, and "Burning Bridges" is another.
    
    Terror Vs Violence. Not my definition.  Webster's.  Better words
    maybe tension, thrilling.  But I am being picky...
    

    RE: .54   True.  Difference messages may be a matter of interpretation.
    I guess the only way to tell is sum the entire experience and look
    at the results.  The sum of what I see the Transformers doing on
    TV is destruction.  The sum of a cartoon such as Road Runner is
    futility.  And that is the perception of my six year old not me.
    
    I would think it prudent of parents to assess a reaction of a child
    to anything before acting --- and if I didn't mention that, it was
    my ignorance.  My child seemed more pertified than entertained when
    he saw "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" especially when the villain was
    flattened by the steamroller at the end.  But more interestingly,
    with the exception of the first five minute cartoon sequence of
    the baby going for the jar of cookies on the refrigerator, I didn't
    hear the movie audience in slapstick laughter.  Much of it was very
    nervous laughter. Many of the small children looked terrified by
    much of the action. Some of them even hiding their eyes as several
    cartoon characters were offered to an acid solution.   
    
    So I guess I agree, that even the cartoons of generations ago 
    were very violent.  But they seemed to have matured into very gory
    affairs.
          
    Now if I can only get him to stop his "Pee Wee Herman" routine!

    I'm not interested in horror in any media other than film (same goes
    for war stories, westerns, spy thrillers, adventures, porn, and
    tearjerker romance - I'm just extremely tolerant of film!).  But,
    within those limits, I can try to define the attraction.
    
    Most movies (like most art) directly justify the status quo by showing
    people who follow the right rules and are rewarded accordingly. 
    
    Sometimes I feel too pessimistic or too misanthropic to deal with such
    stories.  That's where horror movies are useful.  My favorites seem to
    say that salvation does not rest in the "family unit", in playing the
    game, in being a brave macho hero, in mysticism  - in short, that
    YOU CAN'T WIN.  They present this extremely dark view with style and
    humor (gallows humor, to be sure, but gallows humor seems an
    appropriate response).
    
    In my eyes, George Romero (probably the best indie director in America)
    works with the same issues as Bergman, Antonioni, and "La Dolce Vita",
    but in the vernacular and with a lot less whining.  (Those other fellas
    certainly have their own charms, but sometimes I'm not in the mood for
    them.)  The original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "Hills Have Eyes"
    are crude and manipulative, but I get a kick out of the energy with
    which they blow off traditional family values.  "Halloween" is just a
    well-crafted thriller, but John Carpenter's "The Thing" is like Romero
    with a big budget and his "Christine" is one of my favorite rock'n'roll
    films.
    
    As for the gory scenes, the only effect that they seem to have had is
    to make me less freaked out by gory scenes in movies.  Real life
    violence bothers me just as much.  (The early Frankenstein movies
    scared me as a kid - now I appreciate them as tragicomedy.  I don't see
    that much was lost by the change.)  It's just a way for the film to
    yell "WAKE UP!" and for the audience to work off aggressions.
    
    Remember that Greek tragedy had some element of Grand Guignol (and
    their comedy had some element of Benny Hill); Roman tragedy even more
    so.  The Elizabethan and Jacobean stage was also fond of bloody
    effects.  It's hardly a new event in popular culture.

    >my favorites seem to say...that YOU CAN'T WIN
    
    Which exactly sums up my contempt for such movies.

RE. .58

> >my favorites seem to say...that YOU CAN'T WIN

> Which exactly sums up my contempt for such movies.


	Life is not always a bowl of cherries and not everything has a 
	happy ending....

	I agree totally with the "you can't win" attraction...  because 
	sometimes, even if you win, you lose.....

	No....everything can't aways turn out perfect, can it....but most
	of Hollywood would like us to think it does.


	/kath

    The interesting message that I'm reading between the lines here
    is that there are two kinds of people in this world: (1) those
    who like ROOM WITH A VIEW and (2) those who like FRIDAY THE 13TH.
    And never the twain shall meet.
    
    But such is not the case. There are those of us who can sit in
    awe of an Andrei Tarkovsky film, and then gleefully sit through
    two hours of Arnie mowing down the godless heathen with his
    state-of-the-art machine gun. I enjoy *all* kinds of films,
    whether they be art or trash, depending partly on what I'm in
    the mood for, but mostly whether I think it'll succeed on some
    artistic level.
    
    I generally don't bother with most of the slasher films, because
    most of the ones I've seen are simply not well-made. I watched
    the first two Friday the 13th films on cable, objectively admired
    the quality of the special effects, but was otherwise bored out
    of my gourd. What bothered me later on was happening to catch one
    of the later entries in that series and noticing that there was
    no attempt to even keep up the quality of the special effects.
    
    Action/adventure films I can get into, but again, it depends on
    whether I think them well made or not. Experience has shown me that
    a Chuck Norris film has a low probability of being worthwhile,
    but that an Arnold Schwartzenegger film has a high probability.
    So, I make some effort to see the latter, but not the former.
    
    You can take a look at my video library and see HALLOWEEN there,
    but you'll also see THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. You'll see PREDATOR,
    but also LOCAL HERO. And so on.
    
    So what do I like about blood'n'guts? Nothing. The point is that
    I don't dislike it, either. It's just "there". Some movies have
    it, some don't. It absence or presence doesn't affect my assessment
    of the artistic value of a film.
    
    On a slight tangent to something else brought up by Rik back in
    .0 -- he was upset that no one wanted to talk about BAGHDAD CAFE,
    while they wanted to talk about the "trash" movies. Well, sometimes,
    people just don't have much to say about something "good", but
    plenty to say about something "not so good". I just finished one
    of the best books I've read in a long time -- Gabriel Garcia Marquez's
    LOVE IN THE TIME OF CHOLERA -- went into the BOOKS conference,
    found only a dozen notes on it, and when I tried to think of comments
    to make, I was at a loss for words. I couldn't think of anything
    to say about it much more than "gosh, wow, this was terrific". Often,
    I would rather saying nothing than something insubstantial like
    that.
    
    Now for my pet peeve (moo hah hah): I wish to hell that people
    would stop using HALLOWEEN as an example of the gore-movie genre.
    That film has almost no blood, absolutely no gore, and its suspense
    depends on atmosphere and tension, not grisly effects. I can't
    defend its sequels, but that first film is, in my humble opinion,
    in a class with PSYCHO.
    
    --- jerry

	I have to agree with Jerry on at least one thing.  I used to be 35mm
projectionist in another life, and I saw my share of slasher movies.  I never
was a big fan of slasher films.

	I loved Halloween.  I happened to see it sitting in the crowd (which
was fairly unusual for me at that time) and I was scared out of my wits, not
grossed out by blood spraying everywhere.

	When I mention slasher films, I use Friday the 13th parts 1-n as
examples.

							--D

    Actually, I liked "Room with a View" and all of Tarkovsky's films (and
    have seen most of them several times). 
    
�    So what do I like about blood'n'guts? Nothing. The point is that
�    I don't dislike it, either. It's just "there". Some movies have
�    it, some don't. It absence or presence doesn't affect my assessment
�    of the artistic value of a film.
    
    I am in full accord.  Left to my own devices, I probably wouldn't make
    any distinction between genres at all.
    
    However, non-film-fanatics that I like and respect have had very
    negative things to say about certain genres (horror, porn, and
    blaxploitation, for example).  I find it hard to ignore their
    discomfort, so I've tried to figure out what the appeal is and why I
    don't feel the discomfort.
    
    But I admit that, given the immense variety that you'll find within a
    living genre, any attempt to "explain the appeal" oversimplifies. 
    Genres describe marketing tactics, not films.
    
    (Going by my earlier note, BTW, I would have to consider "Psycho" a
    horror movie and "Halloween" not.  It's hard to get more life-denying
    than "Psycho" - when the star of a film disappears a third of the way
    through, you're left in a world without any center.  But that would
    also make "L'Avventura" a horror movie.  (: >,)
    
    Ray

.62>	blaxploitation
    
    	I've never seen this word before.  What does it mean?
    
    							Carla
    

    re:.63
    
    "Blaxploitation" (short for "black exploitation") is a term coined
    for a type of film prevalent in the 70's designed and marketed to
    appeal to a specifically black audience (though, in reality, its
    fans aren't limited to blacks). Blaxploitation films are generally
    "genre" films (crime dramas, horror films, etc.). Mainstream films
    about black characters -- for example, SOUNDER -- are not considered
    to be blaxploitation films.
    
    The most well-known examples of blaxploitation films are perhaps
    SHAFT and its sequels. But probably the ultimate examples would be
    the horror blaxploitation films, if for no other reason than the
    memorable titles: BLACULA (and its sequel SCREAM, BLACULA, SCREAM),
    BLACKENSTEIN, DR. BLACK AND MISTER HYDE, and so on.
    
    An aura of patronization surrounds this whole genre, mostly likely
    due to the connotations of the word "exploit", and this made many
    people uncomfortable with them. But these films grew out of the
    attitude of black pride that developed as a result of the Civil
    Rights Movement of the late 60's. The idea was to give black
    audiences role models and characters they could identify with, just
    as whites had enjoyed for decades. 
    
    --- jerry

    I have to disagree about one film, Jerry -- Shaft -- at least the
    original (the sequels, no argument).
    
    It wasn't a blaxploitation film, just a film about a black detective,
    directed by a black, scored by a black (Isaac Hayes won an Academy
    Award for the score).
    
    It was the prototype for all the blaxploitation films that followed.
    I really liked Shaft, and feel that it's too good a film (a genre film,
    granted, but a *good* genre film) to be lumped in with all the blatant
    exploitation films that followed.
    
    					andrew

    re:.65
    
    The problem is with the term including the word "exploitation".
    You're assuming that this means that if it's a blaxploitation
    film, that it has to be bad, and if it's good, it can't be a
    blaxploitation film. I don't think it's necessarily so. I can
    think of some other blaxploitation films that are quite good,
    as well. BLACK BELT JONES is a very well done actioner, and
    despite its title, BLACULA is actually quite good (even Leonard
    Maltin's book gives it three stars out of four).
    
    --- jerry

    Okay -- I'll go along with that.  The problem is, most 
    <mumble>ploitation films *are* stinkeroos...
    
    					andrew

    Most <mumble>*anything* films are stinkeroos...  (: >,)

    �Most <mumble>*anything* films are stinkeroos...  (: >,)
    
    A further generalization, stated thusly by Theodore Sturgeon:
    
    		90% of *everything* is crap.
    
    					andrew