On 1/10/06 1:09 PM, "John Bleasdale" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Finally, I forgot in my examples one of the most
> important torture films of recent years. The Passion
> of The Christ.
Amen.
There's a tendency to turn a blind eye to stigmatized activities in
otherwise cherished settings.
This couldn't be Gibson's otherwise pellucid masochism being played out.
It's in the Bible and it's in Aramaic.
Likewise, all those classic nudes in paintings with noble or biblical
themes couldn't be about sex, could they? It says it's about the Virgin,
for heaven's sake. Those are sacred breasts. How can you be aroused by
that?
Was I the only kid titillated by having "bosom" show up so much in
liturgical stuff? I doubt it.
But I regress.
Henry wrote this, which mystified me:
>3. Media violence - torture being one particular expression thereof - must
>be seen, in my opinion, as corresponding 1:1 in its reality with the
>IMAGINARY - i.e. with what takes place (for instance in fantasy) IN PEOPLE'S
>HEADS:
I'm not arguing. I just don't get it.
Are you saying that every act onscreen has been imagined? Or that the
same amount of violence, 1:1, takes place onscreen as people fantasize
about?
These are provocative thoughts, but I'm not receiving you clearly.
Cordially,
Dv
Doug vanderHoof
Producer/Owner
Modern Media
Bucktown, Chicago
(773)394-0029
*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
**
|