Randy A. Riddle wrote:
>It was much more disturbing to hear the
giggles and guffaws of the teenagers in the cinemall audience in all the
wrong places than what was happening on-screen.
 
I totally agree.  The biggest problem I have with NBK is this point exactly.
 I've been reading analysis after analysis about the imagery, the messages,
the satire that Stone brings us in the film.  The problem is, this analysis
comes from people exposed to film and higher learning and overall educated
viewpoints.  Unfortunately, the target audience (15-22 white males, judging
soley from the trailers and print advertising) isn't going to be this
educated, aware of symbolism and satire; they are going to see glorified,
gratuitous, and glamourised violence.  The violence in the film only
desensitises the viewer.  I seriously doubt the average high-school kid is
going to get most of Stone's "satirical" attack on the media.  If this film
was meant to be seen only by people who study film, satire, tragedy, drama,
whatever - fine.  But marketing the film directly to those who are still
learning and need to see violence for what it really is is a dangerous move.
I know I've made some broad generalisations, but I'm disturbed by the seeming
lack of caring and awareness by teens in regards to violence that seems to
only be growing worse (just read the headlines in our fair state of WA - 12
year olds brutally murder a homeless man, 14 & 15 year old beat another kid
to death, etc.)
I'm sorry to rant but I'm tired of "filmmakers" saying they have important
messages to deliver who then turn it around to simply make a buck without any
regards to the social consequences.
I'm all for art for the sake of art - but we must be careful who we target
with these messages.  And please don't accuse me of being for censorship -
that is far from the point.  As one who works in the media, I can see first
hand how powereful a tool it can be and should be when handled properly.
 
Greg Day
Editor, Bill Nye The Science Guy Show
Seattle, WA
[log in to unmask]