Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

"HIGH NOON" - Anti-American Schlock

racist
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2011 10:38:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I saw the film in 1954. I was an impressionable teenage kid and I went nuts for it. Google up High Noon and the site is wall papered with the most glowing reviews any film has ever received. It scores a Nobel Prize from everyone. Except me. I watched an old interview with Michael Parkinson. He was speaking with an old actor, Marion Morrison - gregarious and democratically sociable more than most movie stars of his stature, often spending time on location drinking a beer with local blue-collar workers. When he saw High Noon, Morrison could not believe Americans would write such a screenplay. As he maintained, "Four guys come into town to gun down the sheriff. The sheriff is refused help everywhere so [Gary] Cooper goes out alone. It's the most un-American thing I've ever seen in my whole life! The last thing in the picture is ole Coop putting the U.S. Marshall's badge under his foot and stepping on it! I'll never regret having helped Foreman [the screenwriter] out of this country,"

As soon as I viewed the DVD after this interview, the whole thing clicked into place. The townspeople are depicted not as the real, toiling, gregarious, sociable and let's help anyone in trouble' folk. There is no mention of the get-togethers, especially their music and storytelling and companionship. They 're depicted as bitter, isolated, selfish suburbanites afraid of their own shadows, the men on one side of the church and the women on the other. A psychological division revealing of the intent of the director. In the towns of the real west, the folk who endured the ordeals of Indian attacks, war, flood, drought, tornado and any amount of natural and social disasters and catastrophes, would hardly have been intimidated and cowered by a handful of criminal punk thugs from the city arriving on a single puffer billy train. In their world the train would never have made it into town. They would have attended to such an irritation - minor inconvenience - hooligan louts daring to threaten their Sheriff - as casually and deftly as they would have built a grain shed or buried their dead. No theatrics, no overblown acts of selfish cowardice.

The Americans of that period were a tough and decent lot. Not perfect, but by no means the demonized 'oicks' and hayseeds depicted by Foreman and his socialist cronies. High Noon was an early attack on the authority of law and order and an erosion of the respect deserved of such institutions. As Morrison says, the town marshal drops his badge in the dirt and grinds his boot into it. The star represents the American flag. As close to flag burning and desecration as you might want. If it was my call, Foreman would have paid with 20 years of his miserable life in a cosy little penitentiary. If that movie is not un-American, then turn the lights out now. It can't get much darker.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 10:15:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
John Wayne was originally offered the lead role in High Noon ultimately given to Gary Cooper. Wayne refused on the grounds, essentially, that it was un-American. It's not a subtle theme.

Author Louis Lamour writes popular novels about the Old West, and he has done a lot of research on the history. An interviewer asked Lamour what the greatest misconception about the West is. He said that it was the notion that a gang of outlaws could terrorize a town. The West was populated by Civil War veterans who had guns and were fully accustomed to shooting people. When the James gang invaded a town, only one of the gang lived to tell about it, and doctors were picking buckshot out of him for a week. High Noon reflecting reality would have been a ten minute short.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 10:50:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/1/2011 10:38:53 PM, racist wrote:
I saw the film in 1954. I was an impressionable teenage kid and I went nuts for it. Google up High Noon and the site is wall papered with the most glowing reviews any film has ever received. It scores a Nobel Prize from everyone. Except me. I watched an old interview with Michael Parkinson. He was speaking with an old actor, Marion Morrison - gregarious and democratically sociable more than most movie stars of his stature, often spending time on location drinking a beer with local blue-collar workers. When he saw High Noon, Morrison could not believe Americans would write such a screenplay. As he maintained, "Four guys come into town to gun down the sheriff. The sheriff is refused help everywhere so [Gary] Cooper goes out alone. It's the most un-American thing I've ever seen in my whole life! The last thing in the picture is ole Coop putting the U.S. Marshall's badge under his foot and stepping on it! I'll never regret having helped Foreman [the screenwriter] out of this country,"

As soon as I viewed the DVD after this interview, the whole thing clicked into place. The townspeople are depicted not as the real, toiling, gregarious, sociable and let's help anyone in trouble' folk. There is no mention of the get-togethers, especially their music and storytelling and companionship. They 're depicted as bitter, isolated, selfish suburbanites afraid of their own shadows, the men on one side of the church and the women on the other. A psychological division revealing of the intent of the director. In the towns of the real west, the folk who endured the ordeals of Indian attacks, war, flood, drought, tornado and any amount of natural and social disasters and catastrophes, would hardly have been intimidated and cowered by a handful of criminal punk thugs from the city arriving on a single puffer billy train. In their world the train would never have made it into town. They would have attended to such an irritation - minor inconvenience - hooligan louts daring to threaten their Sheriff - as casually and deftly as they would have built a grain shed or buried their dead. No theatrics, no overblown acts of selfish cowardice.

The Americans of that period were a tough and decent lot. Not perfect, but by no means the demonized 'oicks' and hayseeds depicted by Foreman and his socialist cronies. High Noon was an early attack on the authority of law and order and an erosion of the respect deserved of such institutions. As Morrison says, the town marshal drops his badge in the dirt and grinds his boot into it. The star represents the American flag. As close to flag burning and desecration as you might want. If it was my call, Foreman would have paid with 20 years of his miserable life in a cosy little penitentiary. If that movie is not un-American, then turn the lights out now. It can't get much darker.


Well, why shouldn't it be praiseworthy just because it's not true?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 12:00:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well, it's praiseworthy in some respects, but not in others. Well-executed propaganda is praiseworthy for it's engaging nature and dramatic effect. Hitler wrote "Propaganda works on the general public from the standpoint of an idea and makes them ripe for the victory of this idea." Early Nazi propaganda was remarkably good from that standpoint. It modern times we have very good propaganda from Michael Moore and Al Gore. It isn't true, but the execution is excellent.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 12:46:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 12:00:41 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Well, it's praiseworthy in some respects, but not in others. Well-executed propaganda is praiseworthy for it's engaging nature and dramatic effect. Hitler wrote "Propaganda works on the general public from the standpoint of an idea and makes them ripe for the victory of this idea." Early Nazi propaganda was remarkably good from that standpoint. It modern times we have very good propaganda from Michael Moore and Al Gore. It isn't true, but the execution is excellent.

Yes. But what separates propaganda from movies is that movies tell upfront that it is fiction. If people still are brainwashed by it, it only reflects poorly on them. Documentaries can be propaganda, but movies cannot be. I doubt Hitler put in an arbitrary "This is a work of fiction" before showing his propaganda material.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 1:45:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 12:46:29 PM, Indophile wrote:
Yes. But what separates propaganda from movies is that movies tell upfront that it is fiction. If people still are brainwashed by it, it only reflects poorly on them. Documentaries can be propaganda, but movies cannot be. I doubt Hitler put in an arbitrary "This is a work of fiction" before showing his propaganda material.

I don't think that distinction is valid. It gets down to what aspects of a movie make an implicit claim to being real, even though the work as a whole is announced as fiction. In High Noon there is an implicit claim that the behavior was the way people might have acted, even though everyone knows that Gary Cooper and a camera crew were not in the Old West. An important element of fiction is selling the point that what is going on could be real, because that is how those people would behave in those circumstances.

I don't want to make too much of one movie. John Wayne War movies were propaganda too, and widely recognized as such. Everyone knew that ol' John really didn't win the War by himself, but they nonetheless the movies helped shaped attitudes.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 2:42:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 1:45:28 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 5/3/2011 12:46:29 PM, Indophile wrote:
Yes. But what separates propaganda from movies is that movies tell upfront that it is fiction. If people still are brainwashed by it, it only reflects poorly on them. Documentaries can be propaganda, but movies cannot be. I doubt Hitler put in an arbitrary "This is a work of fiction" before showing his propaganda material.

I don't think that distinction is valid. It gets down to what aspects of a movie make an implicit claim to being real, even though the work as a whole is announced as fiction. In High Noon there is an implicit claim that the behavior was the way people might have acted, even though everyone knows that Gary Cooper and a camera crew were not in the Old West. An important element of fiction is selling the point that what is going on could be real, because that is how those people would behave in those circumstances.
I would think putting a big disclaimer that it's a work of fiction would absolve me from any claim, implicit or explicit, that I might be making in my work. Everybody is free to make a movie that "implicitly" states what they want to tell, aren't they? Do movies have a condition wherein they have to depict things exactly how they happened? I agree fiction is "selling a point". But those who buy it are fully aware, or should be, that it's only a figment of my imagination. I'm not responsible for their stupidity if they swallow it whole.

I don't want to make too much of one movie. John Wayne War movies were propaganda too, and widely recognized as such. Everyone knew that ol' John really didn't win the War by himself, but they nonetheless the movies helped shaped attitudes.
Yes, this is just one movie and not too much needs to be made of it. I agree about John Wayne too. (He himself had Rio Bravo made to negate High Noon, but was totally wrong about the depiction of Indians in his movies)

But 90%, if not all of the movies depict a happy ending, when we all know life's not at all like that. Is that implicitly stating that life will be happy for all those who are watching movies? People should understand that it's just a movie.

Currently, people are getting all het up by the depiction of minority races in movies. They say such races are stereotyped, don't get much to do, etc. etc. Would you then say this is a valid point? Aren't all those people who say these things free to make their own movie, where such races are not stereotyped?

And how about the OP? He was going on and on about how the movie itself was unworthy of "scoring a Nobel prize" from anyone, let alone everyone, just because it could not have happened as shown in the movie. How is that relevant at all? By that logic, every work of fiction should be "not worthy of winning anything".
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
racist
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 4:13:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 10:15:37 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
John Wayne was originally offered the lead role in High Noon ultimately given to Gary Cooper. Wayne refused on the grounds, essentially, that it was un-American. It's not a subtle theme.

Author Louis Lamour writes popular novels about the Old West, and he has done a lot of research on the history. An interviewer asked Lamour what the greatest misconception about the West is. He said that it was the notion that a gang of outlaws could terrorize a town. The West was populated by Civil War veterans who had guns and were fully accustomed to shooting people. When the James gang invaded a town, only one of the gang lived to tell about it, and doctors were picking buckshot out of him for a week. High Noon reflecting reality would have been a ten minute short.

This is priceless material and I can't thank you enough. As a dyed in the wool Steinbeck fan and having grown up with High Noon in my bloodstream, I was amazed when I saw the Parkinson interview with Wayne. It was a very tough fact for me to recognize but such insights are pure gold if you're serious about your life and its meaning. Cheers!
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 4:33:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 2:42:45 PM, Indophile wrote:
I would think putting a big disclaimer that it's a work of fiction would absolve me from any claim, implicit or explicit, that I might be making in my work. Everybody is free to make a movie that "implicitly" states what they want to tell, aren't they? Do movies have a condition wherein they have to depict things exactly how they happened?

No, putting in a disclaimer does not absolve a person from a charge of propaganda. Propaganda is self-evident. But I agree that anyone should be completely free to portray the world anyway they want, without any disclaimers. The rest of us are in turn free to say whether we think they are making a valid point or not.

The demands for political correctness in media are horsepucky. That's a demand for self-censorship in the furtherance of a quasi-religious vision of society. Hard-boiled mobsters of the 30s should not be shown smoking, although, of course, they can kill people amid fountains of blood. But you are supposed to draw the line at smoking. That's nuts.
racist
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 5:09:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 2:42:45 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 5/3/2011 1:45:28 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 5/3/2011 12:46:29 PM, Indophile wrote:


People should understand that it's just a movie.

People are no forced to understand anything. They will 'get' what they want to get and that's how it should be. Every movie one way or another is selling something - an idea, an ideology, a political position - they're all sales pitches for something. Art and literature are just another room in a large media mansion. People will buy (understand) what suits them.

Currently, people are getting all het up by the depiction of minority races in movies. They say such races are stereotyped, don't get much to do, etc.

Oldest selling job in the world. But if you're basing your comment on the assumption that only America makes movies, you'll need to widen the door a little. The American movie industry is the strongest in the world and it fights for its place and fights hard. Minority groups can be just as ruthless as anyone else once they get an opening.

And how about the OP? He was going on and on about how the movie itself was unworthy of "scoring a Nobel prize" from anyone, let alone everyone, just because it could not have happened as shown in the movie. How is that relevant at all? By that logic, every work of fiction should be "not worthy of winning anything".

It might help if you read what I actually wrote. I said "It scores a Nobel Prize from everyone. Except me." - therefore, let me make it really crystal clear for your benefit. It was my stylistic shorthand way of saying that I had never read or heard a word of criticism about 'High Noon' from anyone. It seemed it was a done deal that no one could find any fault with it. I never once read an adverse review of it. I never heard nor expected to hear anyone dare look sideways at it. I was myself one of its greatest fans. The Parkinson interview was my epiphany. Wayne's words cut into my heart. I had to admit I was sucker punched and reeled in like a fish from my teenage yes onward. I had been betrayed. I had swallowed the socialist fairy tale and it was like waking up after a serious session on the operating table. I have woken up and am now in recovery. All I ask of you is that since I've just learned how to handle an imperfect world - please don't bugger it up for me now. Cheers!
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 5:27:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 5:09:30 PM, racist wrote:
At 5/3/2011 2:42:45 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 5/3/2011 1:45:28 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 5/3/2011 12:46:29 PM, Indophile wrote:


People should understand that it's just a movie.

People are no forced to understand anything. They will 'get' what they want to get and that's how it should be. Every movie one way or another is selling something - an idea, an ideology, a political position - they're all sales pitches for something. Art and literature are just another room in a large media mansion. People will buy (understand) what suits them.
Right.

Currently, people are getting all het up by the depiction of minority races in movies. They say such races are stereotyped, don't get much to do, etc.

Oldest selling job in the world. But if you're basing your comment on the assumption that only America makes movies, you'll need to widen the door a little. The American movie industry is the strongest in the world and it fights for its place and fights hard. Minority groups can be just as ruthless as anyone else once they get an opening.
I was just saying that minority groups being offended by their portrayal on screen makes no sense at all. Anything shown on screen is fiction, and is hardly real. It's not limited to Hollywood. No matter who makes movies, it's the movie-maker's decision as to how he/she wants to portray the characters making up the movie. This is how it sounds like when you say High Noon is un-American, as Americans could not have lived as portrayed. What?

And how about the OP? He was going on and on about how the movie itself was unworthy of "scoring a Nobel prize" from anyone, let alone everyone, just because it could not have happened as shown in the movie. How is that relevant at all? By that logic, every work of fiction should be "not worthy of winning anything".

It might help if you read what I actually wrote. I said "It scores a Nobel Prize from everyone. Except me." - therefore, let me make it really crystal clear for your benefit. It was my stylistic shorthand way of saying that I had never read or heard a word of criticism about 'High Noon' from anyone. It seemed it was a done deal that no one could find any fault with it. I never once read an adverse review of it. I never heard nor expected to hear anyone dare look sideways at it. I was myself one of its greatest fans. The Parkinson interview was my epiphany. Wayne's words cut into my heart. I had to admit I was sucker punched and reeled in like a fish from my teenage yes onward. I had been betrayed. I had swallowed the socialist fairy tale and it was like waking up after a serious session on the operating table. I have woken up and am now in recovery. All I ask of you is that since I've just learned how to handle an imperfect world - please don't bugger it up for me now. Cheers!

How do you know it's a done deal that no one could find any fault with it? I myself found it to be a bit on the boring side. All that build up, and in the end those four gangsters just get shot without much ado.

If you let movies decide the nature of the world you are living in for you, there's not much to be done. Your talk of betrayal, epiphany, recovery all point to some misguided sense of reality :)

Movies are not reality. Just so we are clear.

Lots of people are fans of something or the other during their childhood. Doesn't mean trauma time once you realize how silly/retarded/wrong/socialist/un-American it was and grow out of it.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
racist
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 6:09:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 5:27:20 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 5/3/2011 5:09:30 PM, racist wrote:
At 5/3/2011 2:42:45 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 5/3/2011 1:45:28 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 5/3/2011 12:46:29 PM, Indophile wrote:




How do you know it's a done deal that no one could find any fault with it? I myself found it to be a bit on the boring side. All that build up, and in the end those four gangsters just get shot without much ado.

If that's as much depth and meaning as you got from it, then nothing I could say would be worth listing. It's a shallow view for me, but I accept it. I can't force you to accept a higher quality.

If you let movies decide the nature of the world you are living in for you, there's not much to be done. Your talk of betrayal, epiphany, recovery all point to some misguided sense of reality :)

If you're assuming things about which you have no knowledge or experience, then you're right. I have no idea how you established what I was thinking about anything, but perhaps you have the latest model of the "Acme" 'Telepathon'. Mine's due for a service soon. Spark plug keeps missing.

Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 7:03:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 6:09:00 PM, racist wrote:
At 5/3/2011 5:27:20 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 5/3/2011 5:09:30 PM, racist wrote:
At 5/3/2011 2:42:45 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 5/3/2011 1:45:28 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 5/3/2011 12:46:29 PM, Indophile wrote:




How do you know it's a done deal that no one could find any fault with it? I myself found it to be a bit on the boring side. All that build up, and in the end those four gangsters just get shot without much ado.

If that's as much depth and meaning as you got from it, then nothing I could say would be worth listing. It's a shallow view for me, but I accept it. I can't force you to accept a higher quality.
I didn't want to go on and on about the "depth and meaning" of that movie, otherwise I could be accused of giving it a "Nobel Prize" too. Just saying.

If as you say, you got the higher quality, then you should know why it's got the glowing reviews. Just put aside the fact that the movie is set in the Old West and take the story in isolation. None of your worries about socialism and un-Americanism need apply, right? Is that taking a shallow view?

What about the world audience? How would they know about the way people lived in the Old West? Would they be worried about the improbability of the story? How will they relate to it? Is there a human interest angle to it that translates across cultures? Why diss on the movie?

If you let movies decide the nature of the world you are living in for you, there's not much to be done. Your talk of betrayal, epiphany, recovery all point to some misguided sense of reality :)

If you're assuming things about which you have no knowledge or experience, then you're right. I have no idea how you established what I was thinking about anything, but perhaps you have the latest model of the "Acme" 'Telepathon'. Mine's due for a service soon. Spark plug keeps missing.


I'm assuming nothing. You were the one who talked about betrayal. As if one could get betrayed by a childhood favorite. Just imagine me saying, I am trying to recover from the sense of betrayal when I found out that the story being sold in my favorite superhero comic was actually not what I thought it was.

Or even better. Santa Claus doesn't exist??? Clear the operation room, I need someone to perform brain surgery on me.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
racist
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 8:44:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 7:03:42 PM, Indophile wrote:

If as you say, you got the higher quality, then you should know why it's got the glowing reviews. Just put aside the fact that the movie is set in the Old West and take the story in isolation. None of your worries about socialism and un-Americanism need apply, right? Is that taking a shallow view?

It's actually taking a super shallow view. Putting the Old West into the story was its political function in the first place. Your diversion is like setting "All Quiet on the Western Front" in a Canadian national park. Meaningless. The best quality cinematic technology was used to make High Noon, but the message was as old as the hills - socialist propaganda. No other language will explain it more fully, nor should it.

What about the world audience? How would they know about the way people lived in the Old West? Would they be worried about the improbability of the story? How will they relate to it? Is there a human interest angle to it that translates across cultures? Why diss on the movie?

You really need to open the flap in your cave, chum .There was a fortune made with actors like Clint Eastwood and a swag of others about the Old West. Except they weren't made by Americans. They were made - yes - by ITALIANS! They were very popular. They were called SPAGHETTI WESTERNS! Not to mention the French, German, Spanish and even Rumanian Western makers. I usually charge fees for this information that you're getting for 'Not A Dollar More!".


I'm assuming nothing. You were the one who talked about betrayal. As if one could get betrayed by a childhood favorite. Just imagine me saying, I am trying to recover from the sense of betrayal when I found out that the story being sold in my favorite superhero comic was actually not what I thought it was.

I appreciate the not so deep sentiment yet again. Pure saccharine. The propaganda masters are not idiots. They know what they're doing. My point is, that the sort of lies peddled in High Noon were the type of lies which got soldiers recruited into the wars that no one needed. The Russian Revolution was essentially a propaganda war. If it was just about a cowboy movie, it wouldn't be worth a minute's discussion. There are plenty of Westerns I didn't don't give a rats about. You might as well say George Orwell's "1984" was no more than an English thriller. Maybe it just was. Supertoogood. Cheers!
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 10:37:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 8:44:37 PM, racist wrote:
At 5/3/2011 7:03:42 PM, Indophile wrote:

If as you say, you got the higher quality, then you should know why it's got the glowing reviews. Just put aside the fact that the movie is set in the Old West and take the story in isolation. None of your worries about socialism and un-Americanism need apply, right? Is that taking a shallow view?

It's actually taking a super shallow view. Putting the Old West into the story was its political function in the first place. Your diversion is like setting "All Quiet on the Western Front" in a Canadian national park. Meaningless. The best quality cinematic technology was used to make High Noon, but the message was as old as the hills - socialist propaganda. No other language will explain it more fully, nor should it.

There was a very popular quintessential American movie called American Graffiti. You try selling that to other alien cultures.

The setting hardly matters for a world audience. They should only be able to relate to the characters. All Quiet on the Western Front could have been about any war. (name me a war that is not soul destroying for soldiers from at least one side) You don't need absolute knowledge about WW1 to appreciate it. So, yes, you could put it in a Canadian National park, only you'd have to tweak the tactics a bit to suit that terrain and assume a war was going on in that park and Canadian youth from schools were recruited to fight in it.

Name me a movie that works worldwide BECAUSE of the setting and not because of the universal human interest story told by relatable characters.

It could very well be propaganda (any movie is propaganda perpetrated by the movie maker, according to Roy) but does that mean it's not a good movie?

What about the world audience? How would they know about the way people lived in the Old West? Would they be worried about the improbability of the story? How will they relate to it? Is there a human interest angle to it that translates across cultures? Why diss on the movie?

You really need to open the flap in your cave, chum .There was a fortune made with actors like Clint Eastwood and a swag of others about the Old West. Except they weren't made by Americans. They were made - yes - by ITALIANS! They were very popular. They were called SPAGHETTI WESTERNS! Not to mention the French, German, Spanish and even Rumanian Western makers. I usually charge fees for this information that you're getting for 'Not A Dollar More!".

You didn't get my point at all, sir. Are these movies famous BECAUSE they were set in the Old West? Do I need prior knowledge about the Old West to appreciate them? (Also, you forgot Indian movie makers, from India. They call it the CURRY WESTERN)

I'm assuming nothing. You were the one who talked about betrayal. As if one could get betrayed by a childhood favorite. Just imagine me saying, I am trying to recover from the sense of betrayal when I found out that the story being sold in my favorite superhero comic was actually not what I thought it was.

I appreciate the not so deep sentiment yet again. Pure saccharine. The propaganda masters are not idiots. They know what they're doing. My point is, that the sort of lies peddled in High Noon were the type of lies which got soldiers recruited into the wars that no one needed. The Russian Revolution was essentially a propaganda war. If it was just about a cowboy movie, it wouldn't be worth a minute's discussion. There are plenty of Westerns I didn't don't give a rats about. You might as well say George Orwell's "1984" was no more than an English thriller. Maybe it just was. Supertoogood. Cheers!

By saying the propaganda masters are not idiots, you are saying the audience are idiots. You can take this anywhere you want. Every war has to be "sold" to the populace first. Maybe they failed with Vietnam. What? Propaganda masters lost their mojo?

Even if it was just about a cowboy movie, it would be worth the discussion, as a movie. Don't tell me there are no movie discussions ever held?

Also, for every lie peddled by movies like High Noon, I'm sure you could find an equal number of movies peddling "the truth"? So why give "credit" only to High Noon?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
racist
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 11:40:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 10:37:21 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 5/3/2011 8:44:37 PM, racist wrote:
At 5/3/2011 7:03:42 PM, Indophile wrote:

There was a very popular quintessential American movie called American Graffiti. You try selling that to other alien cultures.

Irrelevant to this thread. What's your point?

Name me a movie that works worldwide BECAUSE of the setting and not because of the universal human interest story told by relatable characters.

Irrelevant. Sound of Music?

It could very well be propaganda (any movie is propaganda perpetrated by the movie maker, according to Roy) but does that mean it's not a good movie?

Quality is not the core. Quality rubbish, maybe.

By saying the propaganda masters are not idiots, you are saying the audience are idiots.

Other way around. Propaganda people are trained professionals. Lawyers, psychologists, bureaucrats - all working a scam to suck in the public composed of essentially decent and honest people. Check the financial rip offs executed by polished professional financial 'advisers'.

Also, for every lie peddled by movies like High Noon, I'm sure you could find an equal number of movies peddling "the truth"? So why give "credit" only to High Noon?

Because of the position and status it occupies in the history of entertainment and politics. Can't compel you to see the obvious. Cheers!
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 12:22:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 11:40:46 PM, racist wrote:
At 5/3/2011 10:37:21 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 5/3/2011 8:44:37 PM, racist wrote:
At 5/3/2011 7:03:42 PM, Indophile wrote:

There was a very popular quintessential American movie called American Graffiti. You try selling that to other alien cultures.

Irrelevant to this thread. What's your point?
My point is, if the setting for High Noon was the whole point of the movie as you say, it would not work so well in other cultures (which it obviously does). That's why I gave the example of American Graffiti. It works just because of the setting, and hence is not such a huge hit overseas.

Name me a movie that works worldwide BECAUSE of the setting and not because of the universal human interest story told by relatable characters.

Irrelevant. Sound of Music?
It's not irrelevant. High Noon works so well not because of the setting, as you seem to say. Sound of Music? No. It works because of the human story in it (and the music). Not the setting. Otherwise it would not be a worldwide hit.

It could very well be propaganda (any movie is propaganda perpetrated by the movie maker, according to Roy) but does that mean it's not a good movie?

Quality is not the core. Quality rubbish, maybe.
Rubbish now, is it? What's Star Wars? Jaws? Rubbish? Okay. What's 12 Angry Men? To Kill a Mockingbird? Rubbish too, right? How do you decide what's rubbish, what's valuable, if you throw out quality?

Is there any propaganda that has lasting value? Without the propagandist continuously pushing the propaganda? Heck, sensational news dies out in a week, and you are arguing that a piece of art about 60 years old is propaganda. How does rubbish survive without anyone pushing for its survival? Has it been forced down your throat, for instance? You can't seem to escape mentions of it?

By saying the propaganda masters are not idiots, you are saying the audience are idiots.

Other way around. Propaganda people are trained professionals. Lawyers, psychologists, bureaucrats - all working a scam to suck in the public composed of essentially decent and honest people. Check the financial rip offs executed by polished professional financial 'advisers'.
It's hard to con an honest man :)
Also, what you describe sounds like a huge conspiracy theory, and to be frank, you come off as a victim of propaganda yourself. (Oh wait, you admitted as much. My bad.)

Also, for every lie peddled by movies like High Noon, I'm sure you could find an equal number of movies peddling "the truth"? So why give "credit" only to High Noon?

Because of the position and status it occupies in the history of entertainment and politics. Can't compel you to see the obvious. Cheers!

So it should not? Which movie should, according to you? Which is unflinchingly, unreservedly, truly American?

(As an aside, look at how the reception was when it was released, especially in the Soviet Union. http://en.wikipedia.org...)
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
racist
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2011 5:44:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 12:22:11 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 5/3/2011 11:40:46 PM, racist wrote:

I've come to the point where the thrill of responding to kilometers of turgid, nit picking text is waning. You obviously have little else to do than grind every speck into gruel. I'm not the accountant type. It's getting really boring. How about we get some yes/no questions going? You obviously thrive on keeping the dramas and the differences going, whereas I prefer to get us singing from the same page. I'll critique this particular diatribe, but I'd appreciate a 1 or 2 point exchange from here forward. OK with you? If I'm made to work too hard, I start charging. Let's go.

My point is, if the setting for High Noon was the whole point of the movie as you say, it would not work so well in other cultures (which it obviously does). That's why I gave the example of American Graffiti. It works just because of the setting, and hence is not such a huge hit overseas.

Nice structure, but lacking in specifics. Need more practice in parsing. Well intentioned, but try to insert some sort of meaning.

It's not irrelevant. High Noon works so well not because of the setting, as you seem to say. Sound of Music? No. It works because of the human story in it (and the music). Not the setting. Otherwise it would not be a worldwide hit.

Confusing popularity (irrelevant) with political intent. Watch those non-sequiturs. Might be worth starting your own thread on this.

It could very well be propaganda (any movie is propaganda perpetrated by the movie maker, according to Roy) but does that mean it's not a good movie?

Not good manners to ignore OP. Try addressing issue. Rude not to.

Rubbish now, is it? What's Star Wars? Jaws? Rubbish? Okay. What's 12 Angry Men? To Kill a Mockingbird? Rubbish too, right? How do you decide what's rubbish, what's valuable, if you throw out quality?

Excellent mock emotive outburst! Good to throw in passion. Now we know how you FEEL!

Is there any propaganda that has lasting value? Without the propagandist continuously pushing the propaganda? Heck, sensational news dies out in a week, and you are arguing that a piece of art about 60 years old is propaganda. How does rubbish survive without anyone pushing for its survival? Has it been forced down your throat, for instance? You can't seem to escape mentions of it?

Rhetorical questions are good, but like spice in food, you've over excited the dish. Make a succinct point, then retire gracefully. Try a more neutral tone. A bit screechy.

It's hard to con an honest man :)
Also, what you describe sounds like a huge conspiracy theory, and to be frank, you come off as a victim of propaganda yourself. (Oh wait, you admitted as much. My bad.)

Nice touch. Amateur California pop psychology. Don't over do it though, you love getting excited, don't you. What a chameleon you are! You know what a chameleon is, don't you? - It's a reptile.

So it should not? Which movie should, according to you? Which is unflinchingly, unreservedly, truly American?

Bambi.

(As an aside, look at how the reception was when it was released, especially in the Soviet Union. http://en.wikipedia.org......)

As an aside it's cute, but not really all that earth shattering. I have other asides that REALLY have no relevance. Cheers!

Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2011 6:43:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/5/2011 5:44:31 PM, racist wrote:
At 5/4/2011 12:22:11 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 5/3/2011 11:40:46 PM, racist wrote:

I've come to the point where the thrill of responding to kilometers of turgid, nit picking text is waning. You obviously have little else to do than grind every speck into gruel. I'm not the accountant type. It's getting really boring. How about we get some yes/no questions going? You obviously thrive on keeping the dramas and the differences going, whereas I prefer to get us singing from the same page. I'll critique this particular diatribe, but I'd appreciate a 1 or 2 point exchange from here forward. OK with you? If I'm made to work too hard, I start charging. Let's go.
Ok.

My point is, if the setting for High Noon was the whole point of the movie as you say, it would not work so well in other cultures (which it obviously does). That's why I gave the example of American Graffiti. It works just because of the setting, and hence is not such a huge hit overseas.

Nice structure, but lacking in specifics. Need more practice in parsing. Well intentioned, but try to insert some sort of meaning.


It's not irrelevant. High Noon works so well not because of the setting, as you seem to say. Sound of Music? No. It works because of the human story in it (and the music). Not the setting. Otherwise it would not be a worldwide hit.

Confusing popularity (irrelevant) with political intent. Watch those non-sequiturs. Might be worth starting your own thread on this.

It could very well be propaganda (any movie is propaganda perpetrated by the movie maker, according to Roy) but does that mean it's not a good movie?

Not good manners to ignore OP. Try addressing issue. Rude not to.

Rubbish now, is it? What's Star Wars? Jaws? Rubbish? Okay. What's 12 Angry Men? To Kill a Mockingbird? Rubbish too, right? How do you decide what's rubbish, what's valuable, if you throw out quality?

Excellent mock emotive outburst! Good to throw in passion. Now we know how you FEEL!

Is there any propaganda that has lasting value? Without the propagandist continuously pushing the propaganda? Heck, sensational news dies out in a week, and you are arguing that a piece of art about 60 years old is propaganda. How does rubbish survive without anyone pushing for its survival? Has it been forced down your throat, for instance? You can't seem to escape mentions of it?

Rhetorical questions are good, but like spice in food, you've over excited the dish. Make a succinct point, then retire gracefully. Try a more neutral tone. A bit screechy.

It's hard to con an honest man :)
Also, what you describe sounds like a huge conspiracy theory, and to be frank, you come off as a victim of propaganda yourself. (Oh wait, you admitted as much. My bad.)

Nice touch. Amateur California pop psychology. Don't over do it though, you love getting excited, don't you. What a chameleon you are! You know what a chameleon is, don't you? - It's a reptile.

So it should not? Which movie should, according to you? Which is unflinchingly, unreservedly, truly American?

Bambi.

(As an aside, look at how the reception was when it was released, especially in the Soviet Union. http://en.wikipedia.org......)

As an aside it's cute, but not really all that earth shattering. I have other asides that REALLY have no relevance. Cheers!



By using the word schlock in the OP (which has only negative connotations), you have painted the movie in a, well, bad way.

I just wanted to reinforce the point that, a movie's charm lies mainly in the human interest story and the setting (on the assumption that the setting might be unknown to a lot of the audience) is rendered irrelevant.

For an example, a Dances with Wolves works well even if the story is set in the Civil War period, or Imperial Japan (The Last Samurai), or some alien moon called Pandora (Avatar).

If your grouse is with the position held by the movie, then it could be the case with any movie (if that movie is held in the same position or esteem). Isn't art supposed to polarize views?

P.S. - As an aside (can't let that slide now, could I?), why I reply in the manner that I've done is so that I can address each separate argument you made. Once I find an adequate response, I take back my opposition to that particular point (by acknowledging the validity of your point), or I might even manage to make you take back THAT particular point from your argument.

The intention is not to grind every speck into gruel, as you eloquently put it. I also assure you I'm neither screechy, emotive nor a chameleon!

Also the fact that you write your sentences in BOLD lettering comes over as shouting. (at least that's what it means on the internet)

But I didn't make such value judgements about your personality over that, did I now?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
racist
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2011 8:22:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 12:22:11 AM, Indophile wrote:

By using the word schlock in the OP (which has only negative connotations), you have painted the movie in a, well, bad way.

That's exactly the purpose. I said what I meant. I suggested the movie was bad for the deceptive and sleazy political agenda being invoked. The quality of movie making was first rate, but not its essence. I was making it crystal clear and unambiguous. Clarity is still not a crime. I don't mind disagreement, why should you? I was conned the same way the Hitler Jugend were. I now read Bob Ellis, my favorite creepy socialist. He's as deep as you are. Now, see, I'm responding with more kilometers of useless text when I said I wouldn't. I'm a bad boy.

I just wanted to reinforce the point that, a movie's charm lies mainly in the human interest story and the setting (on the assumption that the setting might be unknown to a lot of the audience) is rendered irrelevant.

Reinforce? Try 'nag'. I'm the drum machine, not the drummer. I only need the info punched in ONCE! The charm is not the issue. What part of 'political' are we struggling with here?

For an example, a Dances with Wolves works well even if the story is set in the Civil War period, or Imperial Japan (The Last Samurai), or some alien moon called Pandora (Avatar).

You can't have it both ways. 'Dances With Wolves' was made as a political propaganda piece. It was selling the agenda that Indians are the best, wisest and most wonderful people on earth. There is no effort made to show balance. The location was critical. It painted a very pretty picture and never hinted at any squalor. It was quintessentially 'politically correct'.

If your grouse is with the position held by the movie, then it could be the case with any movie (if that movie is held in the same position or esteem). Isn't art supposed to polarize views?

ANY movie? I'm glad you don't go to extremes. The 3 Stooges style of humor is politically kaput these days. Comedies don't push politics as far as I know. What's your point? How did you measure the audience's "coefficient of polarisation" at your last popcorn fest?

P.S. - As an aside (can't let that slide now, could I?), why I reply in the manner that I've done is so that I can address each separate argument you made. Once I find an adequate response, I take back my opposition to that particular point (by acknowledging the validity of your point), or I might even manage to make you take back THAT particular point from your argument.

So, if you don't agree with someone's genuine opinion, you'll do pretty much anything to force them to recant? There's a name for that sort of thing. Not sure if it's even legal. Not hard to identify the nature of such folk though. Wouldn't want them walking down MY dark alley - day or night.

The intention is not to grind every speck into gruel, as you eloquently put it. I also assure you I'm neither screechy, emotive nor a chameleon!

Sounds a bit screechy ad teary to me. Can't see the hand wringing.

Also the fact that you write your sentences in BOLD lettering comes over as shouting. (at least that's what it means on the internet)

So, you're the world spokesman for what things mean on the whole internet, eh? Or as the Russians might put it - the INTERNYET! Actually, the options here are quite limited. The bold simply separates my stuff from yours. Show me an artier way and I'll consider it. Other sites have colors and sizes & such, but it's very black & white here.

But I didn't make such value judgements about your personality over that, did I now?

Of course not - it takes talent, cheek, wit and style to do that. But, you're doing what you can with what you've got - count your blessings for even the little that you have. There are the starving in Bangladesh who would kill to have your talent for the inane and banal. But say your prayers & you can't tell what Santa might drop down your chimney. Cheers!
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2011 10:44:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/5/2011 8:22:38 PM, racist wrote:
At 5/4/2011 12:22:11 AM, Indophile wrote:

By using the word schlock in the OP (which has only negative connotations), you have painted the movie in a, well, bad way.

That's exactly the purpose. I said what I meant. I suggested the movie was bad for the deceptive and sleazy political agenda being invoked. The quality of movie making was first rate, but not its essence. I was making it crystal clear and unambiguous. Clarity is still not a crime. I don't mind disagreement, why should you? I was conned the same way the Hitler Jugend were. I now read Bob Ellis, my favorite creepy socialist. He's as deep as you are. Now, see, I'm responding with more kilometers of useless text when I said I wouldn't. I'm a bad boy.

I just wanted to reinforce the point that, a movie's charm lies mainly in the human interest story and the setting (on the assumption that the setting might be unknown to a lot of the audience) is rendered irrelevant.

Reinforce? Try 'nag'. I'm the drum machine, not the drummer. I only need the info punched in ONCE! The charm is not the issue. What part of 'political' are we struggling with here?

For an example, a Dances with Wolves works well even if the story is set in the Civil War period, or Imperial Japan (The Last Samurai), or some alien moon called Pandora (Avatar).

You can't have it both ways. 'Dances With Wolves' was made as a political propaganda piece. It was selling the agenda that Indians are the best, wisest and most wonderful people on earth. There is no effort made to show balance. The location was critical. It painted a very pretty picture and never hinted at any squalor. It was quintessentially 'politically correct'.

If your grouse is with the position held by the movie, then it could be the case with any movie (if that movie is held in the same position or esteem). Isn't art supposed to polarize views?

ANY movie? I'm glad you don't go to extremes. The 3 Stooges style of humor is politically kaput these days. Comedies don't push politics as far as I know. What's your point? How did you measure the audience's "coefficient of polarisation" at your last popcorn fest?

P.S. - As an aside (can't let that slide now, could I?), why I reply in the manner that I've done is so that I can address each separate argument you made. Once I find an adequate response, I take back my opposition to that particular point (by acknowledging the validity of your point), or I might even manage to make you take back THAT particular point from your argument.

So, if you don't agree with someone's genuine opinion, you'll do pretty much anything to force them to recant? There's a name for that sort of thing. Not sure if it's even legal. Not hard to identify the nature of such folk though. Wouldn't want them walking down MY dark alley - day or night.

The intention is not to grind every speck into gruel, as you eloquently put it. I also assure you I'm neither screechy, emotive nor a chameleon!

Sounds a bit screechy ad teary to me. Can't see the hand wringing.

Also the fact that you write your sentences in BOLD lettering comes over as shouting. (at least that's what it means on the internet)

So, you're the world spokesman for what things mean on the whole internet, eh? Or as the Russians might put it - the INTERNYET! Actually, the options here are quite limited. The bold simply separates my stuff from yours. Show me an artier way and I'll consider it. Other sites have colors and sizes & such, but it's very black & white here.

But I didn't make such value judgements about your personality over that, did I now?

Of course not - it takes talent, cheek, wit and style to do that. But, you're doing what you can with what you've got - count your blessings for even the little that you have. There are the starving in Bangladesh who would kill to have your talent for the inane and banal. But say your prayers & you can't tell what Santa might drop down your chimney. Cheers!

Uh-uh. I'll summarize.

High Noon:
The movie - Good (Because it works for the audience)
The content - Schlock

I can live with that.

I actually don't care about the content and will watch any movie if it interests me. I don't feel conned by a movie if I find out I liked it for reasons other than what it was actually pushing. (If you'll indulge me, The Godfather was rooting for the mafia, of all things, so I don't know what you will call that. I mean, as far as content goes, that's not only un-American, it's illegal anywhere)

When I said ANY movie will have polarizing views, I specifically mentioned any movie that is held in the same position and esteem as High Noon is. How is that going to extremes, I don't know.

My example of Dances with Wolves was regarding the setting being incidental to the story and I was not saying that it was not a propaganda piece. It's really obvious what it was.

If I don't agree with somebody's opinion, I don't force them to recant. I try to engage in a conversation where I'm perfectly willing to change my opinion, if I'm satisfied by their explanations. You may not believe this, but I've had such conversations here where I've been convinced by others.

You must at least give me the benefit of doubt, seeing we are not talking face to face, and it's really hard to have a conversation over a period of days. That's all I'm asking.

I'm also perfectly willing to concede that I may not have the talent, wit, cheek or style worth mentioning, but I don't care. No need to paint the whole country of Bangladesh in a bad light over it.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
racist
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2011 11:05:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/5/2011 10:44:26 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 5/5/2011 8:22:38 PM, racist wrote:

Uh-uh. I'll summarize.
High Noon: The movie - Good (Because it works for the audience)
The content - Schlock. I can live with that.

Ya get a lolly on a stick fer that, Pilgrim. Nice woik.

I actually don't care about the content and will watch any movie if it interests me. I don't feel conned by a movie if I find out I liked it for reasons other than what it was actually pushing. (If you'll indulge me, The Godfather was rooting for the mafia, of all things, so I don't know what you will call that. I mean, as far as content goes, that's not only un-American, it's illegal anywhere)

I can live with that. Nixon was the right guy for the job in my book. The real Godfather.

When I said ANY movie will have polarizing views, I specifically mentioned any movie that is held in the same position and esteem as High Noon is. How is that going to extremes, I don't know.

Glad to help. Either you mean ANY movie without exceptions or reservations, OR you specify and pull aside one for special mention. Just give me a definite 'maybe' on which one here?

My example of Dances with Wolves was regarding the setting being incidental to the story and I was not saying that it was not a propaganda piece. It's really obvious what it was.

Now we're cruising. Movies as hidden commercials is what I'm getting at. Pure entertainment is about money. Agenda driven stuff is about politics. I get down in the mouth about one posing as the other. Case in point, Uri Geller passing himself off as the 'real' magician, when all his fellow stage magicians knew he was going out of camp.

If I don't agree with somebody's opinion, I don't force them to recant. I try to engage in a conversation where I'm perfectly willing to change my opinion, if I'm satisfied by their explanations. You may not believe this, but I've had such conversations here where I've been convinced by others.

In that case, I'll vote for you too.

You must at least give me the benefit of doubt, seeing we are not talking face to face, and it's really hard to have a conversation over a period of days. That's all I'm asking. I'm also perfectly willing to concede that I may not have the talent, wit, cheek or style worth mentioning, but I don't care. No need to paint the whole country of Bangladesh in a bad light over it.

A bit 'touchy-feelie' for me, but I can always watch TV afterward. Bangladesh has already done a grand job of misplacing the portrait spotlight. For me, they can yell "Unfair!" 'till they're black in the face(did I really say that)? - just like the Pakistanis. Cheers!
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2011 12:01:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/5/2011 10:44:26 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 5/5/2011 8:22:38 PM, racist wrote:


When I said ANY movie will have polarizing views, I specifically mentioned any movie that is held in the same position and esteem as High Noon is. How is that going to extremes, I don't know.

Glad to help. Either you mean ANY movie without exceptions or reservations, OR you specify and pull aside one for special mention. Just give me a definite 'maybe' on which one here?

Fight Club will work for now. Even though it's not that old. I would've put Birth of a Nation, but I'm not really familiar with it.


Now we're cruising. Movies as hidden commercials is what I'm getting at. Pure entertainment is about money. Agenda driven stuff is about politics. I get down in the mouth about one posing as the other.

Phooey. There's nothing that says movies have to be pure entertainment. They can be anything they want to be. You are confusing movies with documentaries, good sir. You can put some of your professed talents to use in separating the two. Or is it the case that you can't take it when an opposing ideologist makes a really good case for his ideology?


Bangladesh has already done a grand job of misplacing the portrait spotlight. For me, they can yell "Unfair!" 'till they're black in the face(did I really say that)? - just like the Pakistanis. Cheers!

Considering that neither are black (Bangladeshis are brown and Pakistanis are well, a bit fair) and that my interest really lies in the country between those two, you can do the yelling yourself, so long as the portrait spotlight is not on you.

Disclaimer - In case it didn't come out as intended, that was supposed to be witty.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
racist
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2011 6:12:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/6/2011 12:01:37 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 5/5/2011 10:44:26 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 5/5/2011 8:22:38 PM, racist wrote:

When I said ANY movie will have polarizing views, I specifically mentioned any movie that is held in the same position and esteem as High Noon is. How is that going to extremes, I don't know.

Glad to help. Either you mean ANY movie without exceptions or reservations, OR you specify and pull aside one for special mention. Just give me a definite 'maybe' on which one here?

Fight Club will work for now. Even though it's not that old. I would've put Birth of a Nation, but I'm not really familiar with it.

Now we're cruising. Movies as hidden commercials is what I'm getting at. Pure entertainment is about money. Agenda driven stuff is about politics. I get down in the mouth about one posing as the other.

Phooey. There's nothing that says movies have to be pure entertainment. They can be anything they want to be. You are confusing movies with documentaries, good sir. You can put some of your professed talents to use in separating the two. Or is it the case that you can't take it when an opposing ideologist makes a really good case for his ideology?

Which Ideologist did you have in mind? The one who can read and write? Sounds good. As for movies and entertainment, no one suggested they HAVE to be anything. Wandering mind? I reckon everyone should be compelled to make documentaries. They don't even pretend to be entertaining. Why do I need to suffer alone?

Bangladesh has already done a grand job of misplacing the portrait spotlight. For me, they can yell "Unfair!" 'till they're black in the face(did I really say that)? - just like the Pakistanis. Cheers!

Considering that neither are black (Bangladeshis are brown and Pakistanis are well, a bit fair) and that my interest really lies in the country between those two, you can do the yelling yourself, so long as the portrait spotlight is not on you.

Sorry about that. It actually was a cheap shot at humor. Forgot about your charisma bypass. Well, not all anaesthetics work equally.

Disclaimer - In case it didn't come out as intended, that was supposed to be witty.

I got it all right - 50% talent & 50% wit - that maketh the half wit, no? Cheers!
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2011 9:25:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/6/2011 6:12:01 AM, racist wrote:
At 5/6/2011 12:01:37 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 5/5/2011 10:44:26 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 5/5/2011 8:22:38 PM, racist wrote:

When I said ANY movie will have polarizing views, I specifically mentioned any movie that is held in the same position and esteem as High Noon is. How is that going to extremes, I don't know.

Glad to help. Either you mean ANY movie without exceptions or reservations, OR you specify and pull aside one for special mention. Just give me a definite 'maybe' on which one here?

Fight Club will work for now. Even though it's not that old. I would've put Birth of a Nation, but I'm not really familiar with it.

Now we're cruising. Movies as hidden commercials is what I'm getting at. Pure entertainment is about money. Agenda driven stuff is about politics. I get down in the mouth about one posing as the other.

Phooey. There's nothing that says movies have to be pure entertainment. They can be anything they want to be. You are confusing movies with documentaries, good sir. You can put some of your professed talents to use in separating the two. Or is it the case that you can't take it when an opposing ideologist makes a really good case for his ideology?

Which Ideologist did you have in mind? The one who can read and write? Sounds good. As for movies and entertainment, no one suggested they HAVE to be anything. Wandering mind? I reckon everyone should be compelled to make documentaries. They don't even pretend to be entertaining. Why do I need to suffer alone?

Bangladesh has already done a grand job of misplacing the portrait spotlight. For me, they can yell "Unfair!" 'till they're black in the face(did I really say that)? - just like the Pakistanis. Cheers!

Considering that neither are black (Bangladeshis are brown and Pakistanis are well, a bit fair) and that my interest really lies in the country between those two, you can do the yelling yourself, so long as the portrait spotlight is not on you.

Sorry about that. It actually was a cheap shot at humor. Forgot about your charisma bypass. Well, not all anaesthetics work equally.

Disclaimer - In case it didn't come out as intended, that was supposed to be witty.

I got it all right - 50% talent & 50% wit - that maketh the half wit, no? Cheers!
No.

"Movies as hidden commercials is what I'm getting at. Pure entertainment is about money. Agenda driven stuff is about politics. I get down in the mouth about one posing as the other."

Would you care to debate that, seeing as you get down in the mouth about it? You could argue pro for the resolution, Movies should not have sleazy political agendas? Or something to that effect.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
racist
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2011 3:08:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/6/2011 9:25:19 AM, Indophile wrote:

Would you care to debate that, seeing as you get down in the mouth about it? You could argue pro for the resolution, Movies should not have sleazy political agendas? Or something to that effect.

Sounds okay.This is what I've got so far. Want to try for more chili in the guacamole? Cheers!

"Movie Theater Or Ballot Box?
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2011 10:42:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/7/2011 3:08:36 AM, racist wrote:
At 5/6/2011 9:25:19 AM, Indophile wrote:

Would you care to debate that, seeing as you get down in the mouth about it? You could argue pro for the resolution, Movies should not have sleazy political agendas? Or something to that effect.

Sounds okay.This is what I've got so far. Want to try for more chili in the guacamole? Cheers!

"Movie Theater Or Ballot Box?

The title sounds a bit ambiguous. I'm sure a ballot box is not meant to persuade voters to vote for somebody. It's just a device.

Maybe, Movie Theater or Campaign Platform?

Otherwise, Political Agendas masquerading as Movies also sounds .... er... catchy?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
racist
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 6:53:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/7/2011 10:42:04 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 5/7/2011 3:08:36 AM, racist wrote:


Maybe, Movie Theater or Campaign Platform?

Otherwise, Political Agendas masquerading as Movies also sounds .... er... catchy?

Catchy? - maybe if you're baiting a hook. Let's try for something really offensive. I'm sure we can ruffle some feathers soon. Cheers!
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 11:17:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I saw this movie a while ago, and I didn't think it was anti-American. The first thing that struck me was Gary Cooper's character and the power of the individual. I'd say this film promoted individualism, and Cooper's character, if I remember correctly, held a strong sense of law, duty, and morality. I think this movie is a favorite among a number of former American presidents.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 11:34:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 11:17:03 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I saw this movie a while ago, and I didn't think it was anti-American. The first thing that struck me was Gary Cooper's character and the power of the individual. I'd say this film promoted individualism, and Cooper's character, if I remember correctly, held a strong sense of law, duty, and morality. I think this movie is a favorite among a number of former American presidents.

I didn't know Justin Bieber knew how to type...
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.