Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Sun, 16 Sep 2001 14:15:46 -0400 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
>> Far from being repellant films like
>>Bonnie & Clyde, The Godfather, MASH,
>>Catch-22 and The Dirty Dozen were big
>>hits.
lang is clearly right, and my wishful attempt to find
some bit of silver lining in all these clouds seems
futile . . . still, could one reasonably claim that
the violence in those films [i'm thinking especially
of the violence in CATCH-22--both movie and book]
DID feel awful and repellant, even if the films them-
selves were successful? . . . to put it differently,
could one argue that the violence in those films
aimed at playing a role in a rhetoric of anti-
violence, unlike the violence of schwarzenneger,
stallone, bronson, van damme, et. al. which is
meant to be enjoyed, celebrated and applauded?
i'm not sure about this, and i guess that DIRTY
DOZEN shoots that theory in the foot [or in the
head] cause as i remeber it all these years later
it hardly harbored a pacifist sensibility [as CATCH-
22 in fact did]
what do people think??
mike
----
For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
|
|
|