i have to disagree with greg day, et. al. with regard to the audience. to say
that viewers--even those who cheer or applaud or demonstrate approval--don't
"get it" seems to miss another point, which is that the film doesn't
preclude enjoyment (of various kinds) while doing the cynical thing. this is
not desnensitization, as i understand it--is there anything here that we
haven't seen before? i don't think so--but elaboration and extrapolation.
what stone says, well, really who cares. he's a showman, good at what he does.
what is "handling properly"? if anyone has "handled" the media in the past
few years, it's been stone: jfk is mostly a resurrection of good white father-
dom. what i like abt nbk is that it takes some risks, and doesn't club us overe
the head with "message-making" (granted, the russell means iconographyis
hard to miss, as is the rodney king image, etc.; however--these are also
slightly slippery, more on that if it comes up....).
 
gotta run.
 
cindy