Zettel, my comments are really meant to be in a more general context than a personal reaction to your views. Of course, you are right, though one wonders if the mobile phone thing could've happened back then had mobiles been around.

Do you think the gratuitous enjoyment of violence in film is meant to disgust or excite? I've often wondered this, and must confess I don't have the answer. It has always puzzled me that, in life, a criminal say, an embezzler or assassain is feared and hated, generally thought of as wrong and unnaceptable in society. In movies , however, a lot of these 'criminals' are actually portrayed as heroes.

We love the gangsters in Pulp Fiction and the like. It's a strange inversion, isn't it?

JB

James

I didn't take it personally. I agree it is a very strange inversion and there can much ambiguity - which is right because film at its best is an art form.

Tarantino is a good case in point. Sadly, he has never made a movie about the real world - and why should he when he persistently overpraised for endlessly movie self-referential stuff? Even his gangsters are film references - he just lets them do things the directors of the referents wouldn't have been able to or even wanted to.

As with any work of the imagination a movie should be judged on its own merits. The ethical issues of substance and form get more, not less complicated as time goes on I guess.

Thanks for the discussion. For all film is a popular art it receivees less than its fair share of serious, not arsy, discussion.

Regards

Z

Dearest Zettel –

If you don’t already, you are gonna HATE me in about 5 minutes, you know that?

While thinking the world is ruined by kids in gangs (wot you never had the Teddy Boys, Mods, Rockers, Punks, Mods again, Goths, ravers, rude boys, junglists…um, whatever. Kids always stick in groups, what are you talking about?) I shouldn’t use the Sun, Mail, Evening Standard, or perhaps any tabloid as a reference point for what is happening. The Sun has a happy slapping story everyday, now it is happy gang raping, we should bring back national service eh? I know in the old days, kids never hit each other, and only have since the invention of mobile phones, its just sommik you have to get used to. You could blame movie violence, just like Mary Whitehouse, or you could always get a grip.

Anyway, soz, my real problem is with your review, but it’s all inter-related isn’t it, so thought that may be a good place to start.

By the way, don’t take this too badly coz it’s not just your review I have a problem with, and we’ve fallen out over the West Wing before, so I know we all have our own opinions and stuff, but I am in a bad mood at the mo, and you had a pop at the film, so I’m stickin up for it!!

It’s just that I hate the way journo’s feel it is their opinion that is important, not the work of art itself. So so self-important, doesn’t matter if it is film, TV, book or music, its always the same:

"My opinion is above the people who make this film, I can see thru what they are doin, it is like this this and this.
I may be given shit for sayin this because the filmmakers/fans think like this this and this, but being intellectually inferior, they can’t see it is really like this…"

Even if the journo likes it, they seem to think it is BECAUSE they like it that others should buy it.

Fuck ‘em…

Anyway, coz your review wound me up as much as yer average Cosmo Landesman bullshit, even though yours is clearly better written and more intelligent, I’m gonna rebuke it! So here goes, get ready to hate me…

Considering Rodrieguez has been shoving filmmaking forward since 1991, when he was in his early 20’s, and was married then, your digs at him needing to grow up and get a girlfriend are lame. I bet he’d really give a fuck. He’s made films about the real world, he’s just loads better at stories. He makes films for kids, teenagers, adults, whoever – the guy is one of the most important directors of the past 40 years.

Taratino’s personality crossed with his unhealthy obsession with violence is nauseating I know. I detested Kill Bill, tho I don’t know anyone else who did!

Miller doesn’t make films, he’s a fantastic comic strip writer. Graphic novels are a great form of art, and anyone who thinks they are for kids just does not know what they are on about. I’m not being deliberately arsy, but its true. Read Hellboy, the Dark Knight Returns, A Killing Joke…whatever, you’d soon see what I mean. Maybe its aimed at early adulthood, but they aren’t the frickin Beano, and kids love them – I did when I was 12, 13, 14…and I still do over 10 years later, only I don’t go out of my way, I’m not “into” them, but I do know Sin City is fuckin remarkable.

A graphic novel maybe beneath you, but it isn’t just a comic, it is what it says, a novel told through art.

Who tries to sell porn to children through computer games? Let me know, I want that game.

What you are essentially saying, Zettel, is that by me saying this I am a “cool person, movie-in-my-garage person”? What the fuck does that mean? That you are above me, except I think I’m above you but secretly you laugh coz you are sooooooo above me?

Look, no-one I know that has seen and loved this movie thinks its fun. It’s not supposed to be, read the GRAPHIC NOVEL and you’ll see. It’s supposed to be a dark, horrid, fucked up place, a nightmare vision of the future. Its not just about dark male fantasies hidden in the psyche, though I’m sure you’d love to think it is, so you can self-righteously proclaim it immoral. Do you see? It is SUPPOSED to be dark and fucked up and, yes, full of those twisted male psyches, tho some of the female characters are tough enough to survive the City, as are some of the male characters.

I like the clever word play, but the thing is, I dunno if irony is what Miller and Rodrieguez are getting at, I don’t think Sin City is ironic, a lot of Miller’s work isn’t. It’s dark, twisted, fucked up. Without Miller, Batman would still be prancing around in grey tights with Robin using moronic turns of phrase every two seconds. And why shouldn’t Batman have a black assistant by the way whoever said that?

So it’s just the content you have a problem with – fair play, but sentimental fascist? What, you have to think sentimentally about it, or it goes from being sentimental to expousing fascist values? I don’t get that…

The fact is the film is immoral? So you’d rather ban it than see it made, essentially (tho you say you wouldn't censor)? Who is the fascist now, in that case? I dunno, you said it’s a serious debate. I agree, it’s fucking fundamental, especially if you are a writer, or filmmaker! You say you wouldn’t ban it, but what then, ban graphic novels? Mobile phones? Gangs? Re-educate the world to think the same as you and ignore it? What???

The thing is, and adult, grown up people often forget this (even with Dr Who fer christ's sake) which always surprises me...is the stuff you see, it's not actually REAL!

I know, amazing isn't it, but none of that violence actually happened, the girls in that film, guess what, they weren't really abused!

I know, I have a grand plan; maybe woman shouldn't be allowed to participate in such films, or theatre, or any visual arts, so we can protect them and their delicate rose like souls and hide the horrible world of "man" from their jewel like eyes...

Are you the worst kind of sexist Zett? I sincerely doubt it, but sometimes I wonder.

I do think you’re spot on about one thing; that you don’t get it. You clearly know nothing about Robert Rodrieguez, what he’s done and what he stands for, if you think “…it's a very savvy, deeply cynical commercial enterprise to make big bucks out of a gullible market for whom the ultimate sin is to appear uncool.”

Rodrieguez, Tarantino are comic book freaks, it doesn’t mean they think they’re cool, in fact they are more like the anti-cool. The fact they have used their cash, heads, talent and time to such brilliant effect should be an inspiration to us all. The fact Rodrieguez smashed the Hollywood revolving door in, and brought his mates with him, the fact he showed people you can anything, if you have the drive, the vision, the ambition, the passion and the belief to pull it off, that is something I hold onto everyday of my life – it’s a real life inspiration.

Else you could just write reviews for the rest of your life, slagging people you’ve never met, never talked to about their aims and ambitions for a particular project, and just rip their work apart.

Much easier to do, really, isn’t it?

The soon to be hated and slated DS
June 2005

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I don't think you need to be hated for expressing your views.

I enjoyed watching 'House of Wax' the other day and, to tell the truth, the attempt to give a context, to account for the extreme sadism and general mayhem created by the freaky villains was much the most unconvincing,even most boring, part of the plot. The audience were there to revel in this dark backwoods world where gruesome deeds were the order of the day, not to learn some moral lessons.

Sheila

These are valid points on the whole, and what I was getting at, though more ambiguosly and with far less expletives.

We seem to be living in a time of overblown 'moral values' and lily white sensitivities. It's almost as if the so-called liberation of the sixties is slowly being repealed. Why not? People with freedom of expression are harder to control.

America has led the way in introducing this fear culture. We now live in terror of non-existant weapons and dubious terrorist threats. We live in terror of chemical attacks and happy slapping. We live in terror, so the government have an easier job of controlling the masses, and that is all.

Let's not allow this culture to filter in to art, stifling our creativity, muting our expressions. Let's become a people who can accept critisism with a pinch of salt, and accept that there will always be those who disagree. And that's ok. In a world of free expression, one has to accept that.

I think Sin City and the like are aiming to reflect these dangerous times, rather than promote it. Darkness has always been necessary to show what is light, and without going all Star Wars on you guys, this balance is way out of control right now. What else was Lucas getting at with Episode 3, than to show people what is slowly but surely happening? Government is stripping away the power of the individual, hungry for more power. The idea of military western government and Hatred bills would have been unthinkable in the early nineties.

I could go on and on, but I won't, because I suspect you already know these things. But I do agree with Dav - don't be too hasty to censor someone's right to express, even if you don't personally like it.

I believe this issue is going to represent one of the greatest battles of our generation.

JB

Exactly Sheila - thank you! Thank you very much. That's what I mean, that's the beauty of the visual medium we call movies, you can experience these nasty parts of life (or not, if you prefer) without leaving the comfort of your real world. Or, if you want to pretend the world is a lovely place full of magical nannies and flying cars, you can do that too. Hell, you can even get a series which depicts the American government as nice, honest people (if not a bit cocky, but then who am I to talk?). Now that is fuckin unbelievable. Eh Zett? Soz, just a mood lightening, gentle, play around remark...

It always baffles me that anyone can think that something being acted out, essentially on a stage, can be more suggestive to an audience than say, a newspaper that continually pushes an agenda, daily, to the masses, pushing lies as truth. Or replace that paper with a certain grinning government. That is the problem with this world, not violent movies. In fact, violent movies are part of the solution...

Maybe come back to that one another day tho!

Fuck me, I'm off to start a new screenplay idea. It's gonna be sick, twisted and rough.




<Added>

Yeah, I'm with you there waxy, and preparing for the fight!

The greatest danger is for the population to be scared into willingly giving up its protective human rights, or civil rights if you like.

I think the way "They" will acheive this is to infiltrate the left, especially the liberal left, and use this as a device to hoodwink people. Thus the term "woolly liberal" or the idea that liberals are wishy washy and always caught in the middle, is pushed and pushed, until the trust in the liberal ideals that have mushroom clouded since the 1960's has disappated. Then they start to use the term as derogatory, like Commie in the 50's/60's (though Commies are far more deserving of being scorned than a liberal), which they began to do in the American elections last year. Then they will bring in things like National I.D. cards, using terrorist attacks and the like to perpetutae the process, which will end with us all having chips in our heads, no freedom, our kids drafted, but an illusion of security.

Now, the more we defy the censors, and inspire others to, the more chance we have.

Some may say I'm a paranoid freak. They'd probably be right.

But remember - just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you!

Davey

Glad you got that off your chest. I feel blessed that you felt you could share your bad day with me.

As your diatribe attacks many views and attitudes I don’t hold, and arguments I didn’t run, seems a bit daft to respond.

Just on the superiority thing: for clarification, I belong to writewords because I want to improve my writing, across genres. Posting reviews to WW provides a motivation to discipline myself to write regularly and to a deadline. If people didn’t read them I’d learn something I needed to know.

As to hating you, my sense of reality is such that to hate someone I don’t know, would seem a bit weird to me, even virtual cyber-hate. I might hate opinions but not usually, the people who express them. And I have no wish to censor anyone.

Here’s to a shared love of movies.

Z

Oh you know Zettel I just like to spread the love.

I don't wanna argue with anyone, especially you, but as Mr Rodrieguez taught me so much, I consider him kind of like a friend, so if attacked, with no-one to defend him, I felt obliged.

I know you don't want to censor, I may be a bit of an arrogant mouthy wanker sometimes, but I'm not stupid and am well aware of the kind of stuff you write and say and I respect you greatly.

I was just a bit surprised at some of the stuff you were sayin in this thread, coming from you, so thought I'd challenge it, because if no one does, we maybe tend to get lazy, and then...oh I dunno really, just keeping things vibrant.

Anyway, mutual love of movies, yeah, of course. For what its worth, I think you're a great writer and clearly a very intellectual and interesting bloke...

...but the condescending nature of your rebuke has not been lost on me.

I was responding to what you wrote, or else why did I write my "diatribe"? Sorry man, but its true. I can go and read through it again if you like, but notions of happy slapping being inspired by a culture inspired by sad old men like Rodrieguez and Tarantino making violent films, when I was young kids didn't have gangs coz you could stand up for yourself, violence and abusing women in movies being immoral, graphic novels being comics for kids, not adults. All that stuff, I'm sure you wrote it.

Didn't you?

Am I going insane?

Who knows?

Who cares?

DS

I may be a bit of an arrogant mouthy wanker sometimes

Who? You? Davey?.

Never!

Have a good sunshiney day one and all. We'll soon be shipped off to the death camps.

JB