I saw Argo with a bunch of people and no one walked out thinking what a great guy Carter was. It wasn’t part of the film’s effect. All drama based on actual events exaggerate and add events and situations. That’s the way drama works. Do you think those old Biopics of scientists and composers were historically accurate? Do you think Shakespeare’s History plays are accurate? (they aren’t). You could say that all Art markets an idea. Books, paintings. It’s a meaningless standard. That E.T. thing is something else. Sorry to break it to you but boys that age talk that way. Most of them do. It wasn’t promoting sodomy. I saw it as a child and didn’t walk out thinking about that line. That is a hilarious way to look at it though.
You are completely MISSING my point. I repeat: There is an underlying “agenda” in Hollywood. What wins Oscars, etc. You will be blackballed if you go off the allowed “script” like a Mel Gibson. It is proven over and over.
I know how “drama” works....and I have an art degree. I understand “artistic license”. Do you actually “think” movies like Michael Moore’s is deserving of accolades when it actually consists of Lies/misinformation? Agitprop that makes Goebbels proud? Same with “An Inconvenient Truth”????? Lies!!!!!
Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying Argo is even close to a Michael Moore movie. It was actually a movie I thought worth watching (although I will never watch it again). I actually liked Affleck’s acting in this, unlike in Pearl Harbor—a completely dismal portrayal of that event with horrible acting to boot.
I just hated the “spin” they put on Jimmy Carter in the end-—that’s all. I didn’t really know about the Canadian snub. It was JC who practically ruined the whole movie for me-—and I will never watch it again. Much like it did for this guy....http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=34598
Why are you bringing up Shakespeare????? LOL. That is rather irrational.
Nothing in movies is by “accident” (which is my point). Every placement of a cigarette or coke bottle or vulgar word, like in ET, is intentional and “for the children”/Worldview. You have obviously not read about Edward Bernays-—he is the nephew of Freud, and the first “public relations” person who was essential in making women smoke cigarettes-—literally. By pictures, news stories, etc. He was hired by cigarette companies, to make it attractive for women to smoke. It worked so well-—Hollywood took note (and so did the billionaires.)
You obviously don’t know the difference in having little boys talking and joking with each other and adults putting vulgar words into their mouths on big screens with millions of dollars. You don’t understand how music with pictures produces artificial emotions, which tie worldview to concepts and have tremendous impact on children’s “Reality” although artificial. It is a very powerful medium, particularly to shape how children “think” and “feel”. When promoting Virtue, it is great, but in promoting vulgarity...it is very corrupting to normalcy.
It isn’t a “miracle” that there is no morality in most children any more. STDs, abortions, unwed sex, sex under age 17, divorce, all used to be extremely rare in Leave it to Beaver days (along with sodomy) until after the destruction of obscenity laws and “Deep Throat” promotion, and other laws which made ET possible. —unlike prior to ET. Think again how seeing things on a Big Screen is not the same as children playing in the back yard.
You haven’t studied the Weimar Republic—or you wouldn’t think intentional vulgarization and sexualization of children by adults, no matter how slight, is “hilarious”. Innocence in childhood is required for emotionally healthy mature adults.