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