Finally, the message that I meant to write a couple of days ago but didn't!
I agree with the response to Jonna Roos.  I would like to add that I thought
that the movie used the rather well-discussed subject of capital punishment
to bring in another that is of general concern: that of redemption.
Actually, I cannot see the film as anything but a very well presented and
developed approach to the theme of redemption.  That, indeed, does appeal to
all classes, races, sexes, nationalities, and religious persuasions.
 
        Thank you for moving the discussion from the obligatory political
angle into something that is everyone's concern.  Susana Conde.
 
>
> >But I think that the movie did wrong to so many people in death row and
> >in prisons by overlooking the race and class issue. And this is why I
> >didn't like the movie. In my mind the movie (and also the film industry)
> >is diminishing and underestimating the whole issue by portraying just the
> >white side of the "problem". The movie doesn't even ask why there are so
> >many people in prisons and death row? Why so many African Americans and
> >Latinos? Why so many uneducated, drop outs, working class people? Why?
> >Why to put money on prisons and police force? Why not to schools and
> >education?
> >
> >Jonna Roos
> >[log in to unmask]
>
> If I read your critique correctly, you didn't like the film because you
> felt it wasn't political enough - it did what it did perfectly, but it
> wasn't what you wanted it to do.  Given this position, how can you like any
> film?  This is probably the most politically engaged film that's come out
> of Hollywood this year (or longer) - the only film I saw this year that
> comes close was the British film Priest.  Would you rather see a film that
> doesn't try to engage politically than one that does but doesn't meet your
> standards of defining the issue?
>
> Any film (or TV program, etc.) must make choices as to what aspects of any
> issue to present.  You seem to be calling for a political polemic to be
> filmed - personally, while I agree with the political position you hold, I
> can't imagine that a film that dealt with those issues could be anything
> but heavyhanded and preaching-to-the-converted.  Robbins, who I'm sure
> believes in a similar political position as well, chose to make a complex,
> nuanced, non-preachy film that didn't simplify the issues.  This choice is
> admirable, as the film forces people to engage with and confront the issues
> emotionally; a polemic wouldn't require or encourage that type of
> participation.
>
> My disagreement here is not just with you, but with the general position
> your critique seems to represent, which is very common within the "left"
> (whatever that means these days): if someone tries to make a fairly
> progressive political film, it gets knocked for not doing it all.  Look at
> the response to Philadelphia for another example.  The end result seems to
> be more films that are politically disengaged or underlyingly conservative
> (maybe those are the same things).
>
> -j
>
> ----
> To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
> in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]
>
 
 
--
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]