Marley’s contract with Straight Dope promises I’ll satisfy her?
I think I would have noticed it if S.D.'s registration process advised of any such obligations.
As a guest I can’t even view her profile!
Well, yes it is, if you calm down for a sec and reflect on what a demand for “proof” would entail.
That doesn’t mean anyone’s entitled to make any wild claim. But mine is more than plausible – it’s just obvious common sense. If you were objective about it, you might see it. But I suspect you have a great fondness for popcorn.
Not that I’d ever counter-accuse you of laziness, but I greatly doubt you’ve verified that. (As for myself, I grant I’m making an educated guess; anyway, Eastwood used it.)
Long ago, when people here said politics (real-world consequences) should be irrelevant in judging “art.”
I’d say “art” these days is most often a cover for vulgar, boring, cynical pandering. I mean, come on, most of this stuff is anything but art – it’s mindless pulp. Most people have zero time for real art. Notice the difference in response between my post on MDB and the one previous topic I raised here, re the new version of Merchant of Venice.
Or maybe it’s not popcorn you love. Maybe what hits close to home is my criticism of people who love to pile on and join any baseless denigration and hostility they see.
“Certain kinds” featuring sex with kids. Yes. Sorry to shock you.
Absolutely marvelous film. And it got into quite a bit of trouble a few years back because of its portrayal of a nanny having sex with her charge. It gets complicated, but see the film for an example of an amazing artistic film which will be absolutely anathema to the WalMart shopping demographic.
(I disliked MDB, but not because of its portrayal of a the mother. BUT, as a certified Elitist Old Fart, I am accustomed to not liking the films the Academy likes.)
Him. You said I should “pay up” if I wanted you to answer a simple question you’ve tried so hard to avoid.
I know what it would entail. So you’re admitting you can’t prove what you say, yes?
No, it’s obvious to you. You’ve failed to make it obvious to anybody else posting here. That ought to tell you something about the effectiveness of your arguing.
Never touch the stuff actually, and only because you don’t know anything about me can you accuse me of liking dumb movies.
Wrong again. “A lacerating account of a courageous, deeply endearing hillbilly woman fighter and her sad fate, “Million $$$ Baby,” is arguably the best story in the book.” (The author’s real surname was actually Boyd, I mistyped.) Accusing me of laziness doesn’t mean I was wrong about who wrote the story.
We already know how much you look down on movies and on people who don’t agree with your interpretation of movies. Got anything else?
Not sure art has anything to do with that. Merchant (which I saw, before you go down that road) had a much smaller release and was seen by far fewer people as a result.
No, the problem is that “No time to check I.D.” meant the killers just wanted to get revenge and weren’t going to worry about details, like if they were shooting the wrong person. Nobody believed what you said about MDB. Your attempts to characterize everyone who disagrees with you as mean and stupid are annoying but pathetic.
Thinking about it a little more, I don’t know if the mother appears in the short story or if she was added as it was fleshed out in to a movie. (The character would still have been created by screenwriter Paul Haggis and not director Eastwood.) Anyway, I think the point remains that the film is not a work of propaganda, and Eastwood is not Leni Riefenstahl.
Don’t apologize for shocking me – I think shock is an important part of life. I just had such a vehemently visceral reaction to the idea that my post was rather unintelligible.
Stereotypes exist for a reason. They aren’t born out of thin air. However, I’m not defending stereotypes or saying they are completely accurate.
I’ve known the kind of trash depicted in MDB, and while I won’t sit here and say every poverty stricken white person who happens to live in a trailer is trash, I will say there are quite a few who fit that profile to a T.
I think it’s really a stretch to be offended by the depiction of Maggie’s mother. It rang true to me because I’ve been exposed to those exact types of people. They do exist.
Sure. Do you come from some planet where people only say things they can prove?
Can you prove that?
Anyway, Marley, I know you have no real interest in proof. You just want to use ad hominem attacks and any other dirty trick that’s at hand – in fact, a bit like the character who cripples Maggie. Here’s how one strand of our argument has played out:
I say (above) “It was enormously lazy of the MDB moviemakers [to use] the abysmal cliche that the ugly trailer park mom represents.”
You respond: “Actually, that’d be the work of the late Jerry Burns, a.k.a. F.X. Toole, who wrote the story on which the movie was based.”
I respond: “I greatly doubt you’ve verified that.” Of course I was referring to the claim, which you’re clearly asserting, that **the cliche came from the written story **which the movie is to some extent or other based on; I was not questioning the unimportant detail of the story author’s name.
You respond by proving the irrelevant proposition that MDB is based on some written story. Since by then you’ve noticed that you got the author’s name wrong, you add that you merely “mistyped” it and nevertheless knew who wrote the story.
In a followup, you seize my actual point and acknowledge precisely what I guessed: You have no idea whether the cliche comes from the story. Then you blow smoke by adding a tedious quibble about screenwriters vs. directors, and try diverting attention from your failed attack on me by attacking straw men: “Anyway, I think the point remains that the film is not a work of propaganda, and Eastwood is not Leni Riefenstahl.”
Marley, Marley – consistent only in his wrongness.
That would be my time limitations (plus I don’t know Foxworthy).
Somebody said simulated sex with children in movies is legal. Is that true in most U.S. jurisdictions? I really don’t think so, but am not sure. Anyway, there’s certainly a concept of obscenity, and that’s illegal. Maybe you should start getting used to the idea of less than total freedom.
Well that’s a relief.
Obviously existence is not the question.
I really didn’t expect such a big debate. My beef with MDB is based not only on “politics” but also on artistic grounds. The mother is a crude, 2-dimensional stereotype, reflecting a gross absence of artistic sensibility on Eastwood’s part. Eastwood is comparable to the abusive brute who puts on entertainments for low-brow villagers in Fellini’s La Strada.
Call me a cynic but … is it conceivable she has an interest in promoting this thing?
You said it was harmful and all the rest of it. If it was harmful and you can’t show it caused any harm, what’ve you got? Your definition of ‘common sense’ doesn’t seem to match everybody else’s.
Look at all the replies you’ve gotten.
Uh… didn’t you just say something about ad hominems? You know an awful lot about me for someone who’s exchanged half a dozen posts with me on the 'net. It’s all wrong, but ho hum…
You’ve made a ton of comments about Clint Eastwood personally. I was pointing out that he’s not the only one responsible for the movie. This is turning into your Toronto Star episode all over again.
Already explained, though I’ve noticed you don’t do well with explanations.
Yes, I intentionally overstated things a bit. You’re the one who brought propaganda into this, however, and the fact remains that this isn’t a propaganda film.
For someone who’s arguing entirely by herself, your snottiness is amazing.
You’ve admitted you can’t prove what you’re saying, so whatever else you want to say about it seems irrelevant to me.
It’s not terribly hard to look that up. You make it sound like I claimed to have extraordinary knowledge here. I do know who wrote the story. The author’s name is Boyd, the book’s title was Rope Burns. (Which is where my mistake came in.) Moving along:
Nor do you, but I didn’t call you lazy.
I’m not blowing smoke, although I’m sorry if this is hard for you to follow. You’ve made a number of personal attacks on Clint Eastwood for the movie (and only Clint Eastwood, nobody else involved). My point was simple: it’s highly unlikely that Eastwood is in any way responsible for the characters that offend you so. They were either created by the author of the original story or the screenwriter. It’s not an argument against your main point, which I thought was that MDB doesn’t deserve Oscars because you think it’s mean.
I think it’s possible to discuss more than one point without blowing smoke. I raised the subject only as a response to your many attacks on Clint Eastwood.
You make it sound like I claimed to have extraordinary knowledge here. I do know who wrote the story. The author’s name is Boyd, the book’s title was Rope Burns. (Which is where my mistake came in.) Moving along: