I disagree. Historical accuracy is the least important thing to strive for in any work of art. Movies are not history lessons. They cannot, by their nature, give a full and accurate account of the event in question. Moreover, accuracy is not a useful yardstick to judge the quality of any work of art. If I were to make a WWII picture every bit as faithful to history as SPR, but with the message that Hitler was right and the defeat of Germany a great tragedy, would the accuracy alone still make it a good movie?
Alternatively, look at Picasso’s Guernica. To my eye, it does far more to communicate the barbarity of war than SPR, and it is deliberatively non-representational. It doesn’t look anything like the real Guernica did, and yet it is one of the foremost works of art of the 20th century.
In addition, wether or not SPR makes people realize “the horror of war and the sacrifice given” is an entirely subjective judgement. The fact that I feel it failed to communicate that message does not mean that I disagree with the message. It just means that I felt it was inexpertly delivered.
Likewise, I apolgize for going off on you in return. Being called an asshole because I didn’t like a popular movie is something that gets my knee jerking.
Hey, you ever seen Band of Brothers? Now that’s a fucking amazing World War II epic. Makes SPR look like kids playing with cap guns.
Well, one has to buy a TV and usually has to pay for basic cable to get decent reception of even broadcast channels. Oh, and you actually have to turn on the TV too. So that can’t be it.
My NPR station was talking about the hubbub this evening, and mentioned a twist I wasn’t previously aware of. Even though the FCC is fully cognizant of the language and violence depicted in SPR, they won’t take a stand and make things clear for ABC, because no one has bitched, yet.
Because the FCC won’t take a stand ahead of time, ABC is left to roll the dice. Apparently they (the FCC) decide to effect a smackdown if there is sufficient outcry, as was the case after SuperTit I.
The other aspect of this is a group called the American Family Alliance, who claims to oppose not the graphic aspect of the movie, but the frequency of f-bombs, and “taking the Lord’s name in vain”. They have a form style bitch letter so that persons don’t even have to compose a good rant on their own, but need only add their name, address, and click ‘Send’ to complain to the FCC, and appear poised to complain en masse if the film is aired.
This is fucked twelve ways for Tuesday, IMHO. No, I wouldn’t let my 8 year old daughter watch it, but when she’s 14 or 15, that’s a different matter. I just wish these special interest groups would let me decide what I see, hear, and do, and let me be a parent in my own fucking house without their help.
Apparently, the conservative right (and the almighty FCC) are deciding that a movie previously aired is (maybe) not acceptable in this day and time. Doesn’t anyone understand the concept of the “off” button on the remote? I hope the controversy leads to clear FCC guidelines, but I’m not holding my breath. As for the concept that voters were concerned about moral values this time around, I’d like to remind them that Cheyney is extremely familiar with the F word. It’s really pathetic that the FCC can’t take a stance and give radio and TV stations a simple “yes” or “no”.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t remember hearing about anyone bitching when NBC aired Schindler’s List, which features full frontal nudity (admittedly in a non-erotic manner). So why the sudden change?
Oh yeah, I’m with Miller on SPR, technically a great movie, but storywise, it was sorely lacking.
Two years ago, when ABC first aired SPR, there was no outcry. Last year when they rebroadcast it, there was no noise either. If there was, the FCC basically ignored the complaints.
What’s different this year that the mere mention of the FCC causes genuflecting and the aversion of direct eye contact?
It ought to be noted that this is the way the FCC always works. It doesn’t monitor broadcasts- it waits for complaints regarding specific broadcasts. If complaints come in sufficient volume (see Wardrobe Malfunction) it investigates.
Thus, toe-dragging is official FCC policy, though I imagine someone there has suggested to ABC’s affiliates whether or not action would likely be taken.
Worse yet is the slasher-movie convention parodied in the “We’ve Seen Your Breasts; Now You Must Die!” card from Grave Robbers From Outer Space. :rolleyes:
Well, since the FCC’s usurped functions (as opposed to its legitimate function of adjudicating disputes over interference when two people are broadcasting on the same frequency to close to one another) are based on the invention that “the airwaves belong collectively to The People”, how about “Commie”?
They showed the movie here in Denver, so I watched it for the first time. I wasn’t overly impressed - kinda blah. But I’m not a big fan of war movies anyway.
I’m repeating earlier posts here: the violence in that movie! I’ll tell you, any child that can handle that can certainly handle a ‘fuck’ or two.
[QUOTE=tdn]
Quick question for all those opposed to censorship: Would it be OK if, during airings of Sesame Street, a few scenes of hardcore porn were cut in? Should the Disney Channel randomly show (real life) decapitations?
[QUOTE]
Puh-leeze. These are examples of deception (offering one thing and delivering another), and may be legitimately sanctioned as such.
If honestly labeled as such, I don’t see why not. That said, I doubt that there are enough executions, even in Texas, to support such a show.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Everyone exercises some sort of “selectivity”. This is not synonymous with “censorship”. The former is an individual choice; the latter is a government mandate.
I wouldn’t call the FCC’s obscenity and indecency enforcement “usurped”. That responsibility was given to them by Congress, the same way that their interference enforcement was.
