Ripley's Game is hilarious, perhaps unintentionally so. Malkovitch is
great as Ripley who devotes all his time to fine living. This review
discusses his performance:
http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Critic_Review/Guardian_Film_of_the
_week/0,4267,966434,00.html
Ripley is an interesting case for theories about what counts as an
ethical flaw in a work of art. Does anyone have any suggestions for
what counts as an ethical flaw or what makes an artwork ethically
flawed?
There are many good examples of something similar in Hitchcock. For
instance in psycho, don't you find yourself hoping that the car will
sink?
Shaw's review of Carroll's Philosophy of Horror is relevant to the
initial query:
http://www.film-philosophy.com/vol1-1997/n4shaw
Aaron
> -----Original Message-----
|