in response to don larsson's query about "relevant" responses to tuesday's events [as opposed to the ideologcial rants that have taken over some related lists] let me offer a thought . . . it's been a theme song of our civilization for some time that there is a great deal of violence represented in our media--and of course in our movies . . . whether this is a good or bad or netural thing i leave alone for now, noting only that it is often defended on the grounds of being "cartoon " violence - - and i suppose it's true that the audiences for SPEED or CRASH or SCREAM or CYBORG SHARKS FROM THE PLANET OF DEATH know, even as they watch the carnage, that the actors all get up and brush themselves off after the camera stops rolling . . . but it occurs to me that we as a culture were able to stomach such images of destruction, dismemberment, and death because we had not in recent memory seen very much of the real thing up close . . . i supect the last generation to register images of violence as repellant was the viet nam war generation for members of which such goodies as body bags, and body counts, and my-lai, and napalm, were all too familiar . . . but for today's main movie audience violence has ALWAYS been faked and never even approached them where they live, either literally or metaphorically . . . so i find myself wondering whether the kids who today are six or eight or eleven years old will find that this trauma hits so close to a raw nerve that images of extreme violence may becomes less palatable . . . in short might this week's events actually shape a generation of movies well beyond the elimination of a narrow range of excessively touchy references?? mike ---- Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu