On Thu, 1 Sep 1994, Riccardo De Los Rios wrote:
 
> Technically, NBK is the story of a man and a woman who conquer their way to
> happiness going on a murder spree in the process of which they purify their
> souls from the stains of a corrupted society. As mad as they are, they are
> WAY better than anybody else in the film. Everybody else is corrupted and/or
> driven by greed/perversion or other similarly sleazy motives. M&M are the
> only PURE creatures in the story: they are naturally born to do what they do,
> and in this sense, they fulfill their nature in carnage. Therefore, for its
> face value, the film reminds of Nietsche more than anything else.
> Of course, this is just the face value. I can see how it could be said that
> the film as a WHOLE, including the sympathetic approach to its murderous
> heroes, could be interpreted as a strong social commentary. But Stone is not
> Kubrick. In Shining, just to make an example, the style is such to remind us
> at all times that, even if JN is the PROTAGONIST, we are NOT supposed to side
> with him, but we should look at him like the scientist looks at the guinea
> pig he's studying. In NBK, Stone goes to great lengths to make sure that we
> identify with M&M from the beginning: we're sucked deep into their point of
> view, and as horrified as we are with their crimes (but are we?) we can't
> help but 'stay with them' all
> As for the audience's reception of the supposed social commentary: I saw the
> film twice, once at a DGA (Directors' Guild of America) screening, where the
> middle-aged audience was more or less disturbed at what they saw, and
> remained silent throughout the film. Then I saw it again in a suburban
> multiplex just outside SanDiego: the audience, mostly male teenagers alone or
> in small groups, cheered vehemently at every single murder, and quickly
> started to incite the main characters to more killing. They didn't seem too
> aware of any possible social implications of the film.
>
> NB: I'm saying this not to deny the presence of a social commentary in the
> film, but to show how SOME audiences could and WILL see the film as a
> glorification of mass murder.
> PS: Isn't that what the film is about, anyway? .... Just kidding!!
 
At the risk of being literal here, what Riccardo just told us is that
Oliver Stone made a movie glorifying mass murder.  Glorification =
promotion, right?  So Ollie wants us to all go out on killing sprees.
 
I really hate to be simple about things like this, but I think Riccardo
has overstated his point.  Whatever Ollie has a history of,
violence-mongering is not it.  From the beginning he has used violence as
an indictment of violence - was PLATOON a glorification of the Vietnam War?
 
And at a very practical level, it's darned hard to do a movie which is
critical of violence without depicting some violence.
 
\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\
 
Samuel Random Smith
Center for Mass Media Research                  303.543.8610 (voice)
University of Colorado                          [log in to unmask]
 
===================================================
 
But only one moon, fair as pearl dust,
trails her sable skirts across the night
sky, and what is the ocean
besides his faith in gravity? --
 
dreaming the day wanderchild falls,
when fire makes peace with earth
and sky with restless sea.
                                         - SRS
\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\