On Thu, 1 Sep 1994, Riccardo De Los Rios wrote: > Technically, NBK is the story of a man and a woman who conquer their way to > happiness going on a murder spree in the process of which they purify their > souls from the stains of a corrupted society. As mad as they are, they are > WAY better than anybody else in the film. Everybody else is corrupted and/or > driven by greed/perversion or other similarly sleazy motives. M&M are the > only PURE creatures in the story: they are naturally born to do what they do, > and in this sense, they fulfill their nature in carnage. Therefore, for its > face value, the film reminds of Nietsche more than anything else. > Of course, this is just the face value. I can see how it could be said that > the film as a WHOLE, including the sympathetic approach to its murderous > heroes, could be interpreted as a strong social commentary. But Stone is not > Kubrick. In Shining, just to make an example, the style is such to remind us > at all times that, even if JN is the PROTAGONIST, we are NOT supposed to side > with him, but we should look at him like the scientist looks at the guinea > pig he's studying. In NBK, Stone goes to great lengths to make sure that we > identify with M&M from the beginning: we're sucked deep into their point of > view, and as horrified as we are with their crimes (but are we?) we can't > help but 'stay with them' all > As for the audience's reception of the supposed social commentary: I saw the > film twice, once at a DGA (Directors' Guild of America) screening, where the > middle-aged audience was more or less disturbed at what they saw, and > remained silent throughout the film. Then I saw it again in a suburban > multiplex just outside SanDiego: the audience, mostly male teenagers alone or > in small groups, cheered vehemently at every single murder, and quickly > started to incite the main characters to more killing. They didn't seem too > aware of any possible social implications of the film. > > NB: I'm saying this not to deny the presence of a social commentary in the > film, but to show how SOME audiences could and WILL see the film as a > glorification of mass murder. > PS: Isn't that what the film is about, anyway? .... Just kidding!! At the risk of being literal here, what Riccardo just told us is that Oliver Stone made a movie glorifying mass murder. Glorification = promotion, right? So Ollie wants us to all go out on killing sprees. I really hate to be simple about things like this, but I think Riccardo has overstated his point. Whatever Ollie has a history of, violence-mongering is not it. From the beginning he has used violence as an indictment of violence - was PLATOON a glorification of the Vietnam War? And at a very practical level, it's darned hard to do a movie which is critical of violence without depicting some violence. \//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\ Samuel Random Smith Center for Mass Media Research 303.543.8610 (voice) University of Colorado [log in to unmask] =================================================== But only one moon, fair as pearl dust, trails her sable skirts across the night sky, and what is the ocean besides his faith in gravity? -- dreaming the day wanderchild falls, when fire makes peace with earth and sky with restless sea. - SRS \//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\