Hey all,
Apparently a transformer exploded in the vicinity of our webhost and some important transmitter-type stuff was burned to a crisp, so FFC and its attendant e-mail server will be down until further notice.
This blog will remain unaffected.
UPDATE (06/02/08): Back in business.
38 comments:
My money's on Brett Ratner as the guilty party.
Brett Ratner, Troy Duffy, Neil LaBute, Sally Potter, Thom Fitzgerald; our list of enemies is legendary!
Sucks pretty bad though, for once I actually had a review coming up to be published.
I doubt Troy Duffy knows anything about computers.
I don't know -- I think Spielberg's getting revenge for us dissing some of his films.
OK, you win, Stevie Boy -- I think 1941 is a goo.., excelle..., aweso.... uh...ah, hell with it! Go to your longtime brown-noser Armond White if you want myopic complacency, bud.
BTW all, you can still access a cached version of the site (I think), but it will be an indefinite while before I can update content.
My money's on the anti-abortionists in anticipation of Alex's review.
Or George Lucas.
Alex is reviewing Inside?
Anyone seen The Good Son, the Culkin horror film from 1993? Seemed to have an adverse effect on Ebert, I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on it..
Alex is reviewing Inside?
Uh no. Lake of Fire.
Big fan of The Good Son. Hella creepy stuff, along with Party Monster it makes you wonder how Culkin was ever a child star. Mission accomplished, Mac!
If you haven't seen it, you should. Very cold nasty film. It really delivers the goods.
I don't think much of The Good Son, but it does give me the excuse to heap praise on its director, Joseph Ruben, who's always been one of my top-5 directors. In the '80s he had back-to-back-to-back successes with Dreamscape, The Stepfather, and True Believer. Whenever I see a film that fails at being a thriller, I always think of how Ruben could've bettered it -- for instance, Red Dragon. Overall, he's criminally underrated.
As for The Good Son, it's a botch but has more suspense and tautness than it has any right to. Culkin, of course, was inadequate, but Elijah Wood (whose performances in the Lord of the Ring films make hurl) displayed some solidity for one of the few times in his career.
Your response to The Good Son may very depend on how you respond to Culkin. I find him to be a very beautiful, very bland, non-actor. I don't think he's talented, but I do think that he's absolutely perfect for The Good Son.
In 1993, when I saw the film, I remember that I was eleven or twelve years and living very unhappilly in Dingman's Ferry, Pennsylvania where I didn't have television and where it was very cold. So this might just be a matter of me being in the right place at the right time.
I dragged a group of friends out to see The Good Son on opening day, despite their protests that we should see the college football drama The Program instead. When the movie was over, my friend Alex threw his coat at me and the film was never spoken of again.
Apropos of nothing in particular, I watched The Taking of Pelham 123 on TV the other night and damned if it isn't the Die Hard of it's day. I always think that the best action movie villains are icy European intellectuals and Robert Shaw in this film is very much in that Alan Rickman/Jeremy Irons league, so the movie pretty much had me right there. Not to mention, it's quite hilarious seeing Hector Elizondo and Wilson from Home Improvement playing baddies. Alas, Tony Scott's upcoming remake has Denzel Washington and John Travolta in the Matthau/Shaw roles.
Troy Duffy knows overalls with no shirt.
Alex,
I've never had much respect for Tony Kaye, despite that I apparently liked his American History X more than you. Remember back when that film came out he publically badmouthed both New Line and star Edward Norton for taking artistic control away from him in the editing room? Quite a gutsy thing to do to a major studio in your feature-film directorial debut, eh? Well, he was having trouble finding work after that, and about 1 or 2 years later he took out a $10,000 full-page ad in Variety basically kissing up to New Line by apologizing and stuff and letting them know he wants to work with them again -- let bygones be bygones, natch. What was amusing was New Line's response: That all Kaye had to do was simply pick up the phone and call if he were wanting to work there again.
What a spineless douchbag.
The last, extraordinary sentences of Walter's Juno review:
"The picture's dated already in the way that things trying this hard to be hip are always perceived, correctly, to be the old guy at the college bar--looking to pick up whiffs of some imagined former glory by assuming the hipster leather of big topics and shock-pronouncements. Cunt, faggot, nigger, the Holocaust, Captain Kangaroo, decoder rings, "Gilligan's Island", and a Milton Berle cross-dressing joke--boy, that's actually kind of easy. All right, Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up."
You want to read that, Alex, the next time you trot out "Comparisons of my utilitarianism to the eugenic practices of Nazi Germany are hardly unwarranted." That line sniffed so hard it clogged up my nose.
The last, extraordinary sentences of Walter's Juno review:
"The picture's dated already in the way that things trying this hard to be hip are always perceived, correctly, to be the old guy at the college bar--looking to pick up whiffs of some imagined former glory by assuming the hipster leather of big topics and shock-pronouncements. Cunt, faggot, nigger, the Holocaust, Captain Kangaroo, decoder rings, "Gilligan's Island", and a Milton Berle cross-dressing joke--boy, that's actually kind of easy. All right, Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up."
You want to read that, Alex, the next time you trot out "Comparisons of my utilitarianism to the eugenic practices of Nazi Germany are hardly unwarranted." That line sniffed so hard it clogged up my nose.
Sure. Particularly out of context it sounds like I'm bragging or trying to provoke. But could you believe that I was honestly trying to take an ethical position while acknowledging the validity of a what otherwise would have been interpreted as a reductio ad Nazium counter-argument?
I read your post several times now and I'm getting exhausted. Suggesting that I watch what I say lest I come off as trying too hard to be hip IN ITSELF suggests that I should work hard to look like I'm not working hard to be hip. Since there is nothing less hip than looking like you are working hard to be hip, not looking like you are trying to be hip must be what makes you look hip.
Bugger that, omahawade. I imagine such rhetoric will be near the top of the list hatemailers use when sending their vitrolic, idiotic response to Alex's fantastic review, regardless of how overused and immature comparisons to Hitler/Nazism are in this day and age.
Alex, love the review.
Yes, human beings are free agents, but so much of our future behaviour is pre-determined by our environment.
Superb, articulate writing.
Alex,
In your completely misguided review of Lake of Fire you basically take the elite position, that because you have seen through a problem, there is no problem. You declare as much in the first paragraph. Now what a fool this Tony Kaye is, that he doesn’t outright support the right (your) conclusion.
Well, I feel that he does. The film is pro-choice, although not in the Michael Moore rhetoric, but rather in a more poetic, more deliberate, and sadder way. It shows the arguments why tensions are running high, and significantly, how high they run. It doesn’t condescend to the opinions of the fundamentalists, and by doing that we can see their twisted logic. You have in your review a whole paragraph tearing through the reason behind the claim that aborted babies go to hell, as if that does anything to strengthen your argument instead of stating the obvious.
Also, where are the data for your grandiose assumptions of “killing a million to let a billion live”. It that a correlation from the 1.3 million abortions which, if not carried out, apparently would grow up to be criminals and maniacs? Besides the crazies we have in this film such a wide array of informed opinion - my favorite source of reason being Noam Chomsky – that your superficial analysis just does not hold up.
Artistically speaking, I feel it is important that Lake Of Fire was made on B/W film, because it tears off the sensationalistic impulses of the viewer. The contemplation of human fallacy in this film is just heartbreaking, and through the film’s style also very compassionate. Somehow I had to repeatedly think of Wings Of Desire while watching it.
It’s with No Country For Old Men the other masterpiece of 2007 and would also make a great companion piece.
You see, I'm pro-choice even when operating under the assumption that abortion is killing human life. If you have to kill a million people to save a billion, it's always immoral to simply let the billion to die. This is honestly not something with which I struggle.
That great humanitarian Chairman Mao expressed a similar sentiment; I'm sure a smart lad like you know which statement I mean, Alex.
I find your casual amorality repugnant which is why I seldom read your reviews -- I probably should've skipped this one as well.
LAKE OF FIRE really is an extraordinary documentary and one of the best films I saw this year.
- Ogami Itto
I think Omaha was arguing that your prose is bad, Alex.
Also, where are the data for your grandiose assumptions of “killing a million to let a billion live”. It that a correlation from the 1.3 million abortions which, if not carried out, apparently would grow up to be criminals and maniacs?
Well, obviously there is no such data; I was using a pure hypothetical to better illustrate my ethical position.
That was not meant to be a direct correlative to the 1.3 million abortions performed every year either. Blame that shitty prose for the confusion.
In fact, the notion that the unaborted would grow up to be criminals was based largely in the Levitt/Donohue paper and in my review I wrote that THEY concluded:
If you think of a fetus as even a small fraction of a human being, more lives will be lost than saved in permitting the legalization of abortion.
So yes, we aren't saving a "billion" lives by killing the 1.3 million. I think that a small proportion of the 1.3 million will grow up to become functioning adults that contribute to society and the vast majority will become a burden and will cost us more than they will benefit us.
Of course, I have no way of proving this. Just the reasonable presumptions that people who have abortions don't want their children, that the surplus of unwanted children will outweigh the demand, and that the already overtaxed foster care system will bend and break under the excessive weight.
It doesn’t condescend to the opinions of the fundamentalists, and by doing that we can see their twisted logic. You have in your review a whole paragraph tearing through the reason behind the claim that aborted babies go to hell, as if that does anything to strengthen your argument instead of stating the obvious.
So by not condescending to the fundamentalists it enables you, the viewer, to completely dismiss them? Even analyzing their point of view on even the most rudimentary level earns me condemnation for merely "stating the obvious". Of course I'm shooting fish in the barrel here. I don't even have an argument. There IS NO ARGUMENT!
Yes, you're right though. I think the film is pro-choice and Kaye gives the fundamentalists more than enough space to say what they want and doesn't use any cheap Michael Moore tactics to make them look stupid. Nonetheless, I don't know how you can be so blithe about the fact that not only are these people running the country but they aren't even willing to engage in the dialogue.
Did you read the part in the review about ethics and theology being specialized professions only discussed within academia? This enrages me.
What was it, BTW, that Chomsky said that keeps my "superficial analysis" from holding up?
I am having a hard time thinking up how condescension would look like if applied in Lake Of Fire, but one of the ways could have been to cut the fundamentalist argument short. Or just to point fingers at their religious delusion. But you know what? These people think of themselves as being righteous and kind; and their logic makes sense, if you accept the Bible as the literal truth, and an embryo as a full person. I think it’s important to see what supposed values their opinions represent. There’s a word for it, I think it’s insight.
Honestly, I think that foetuses look like babies, and that it is life, and that the preservation of life should be of value in a humane society. The question might be, how much does a foetus suffer? But then again, how much does the woman suffer if she carries the unwanted baby out? Chomsky says in the trailer (unfortunately I don’t have a copy of the film with me): “We’re talking about ambiguous issues of a complicated kind where you have to balance conflicting interests and concerns, as is generally the case in human life.” And that’s what it comes down to. That’s what the drama of the film is.
And ethics and theology are not only discussed in academia. Here is a film. It’s in the popular culture. That those whose opinion is set in stone are not willing to engage in the discussion, is really not the film’s fault.
Bill,
In light of your DVD review of The Recruit, I'm curious why director Donaldson also went the theatrical-2.35:1/DVD-1.77:1 route with his two latest films, The World's Fastest Indian and The Bank Job as well. How does the DVD image benefit from this to the great extent that warrants this kind of treatment?
Not entirely sure, Jack, though Robert Rodriguez has also done the same a time or two and I think for him it's a desire to maximize the real estate available to him in either venue. Technical benefits? Well, you do get more scan lines with 1.77:1, natch, but it's not like 2.35:1 looks 'worse.'
So, let me get this straight... you accept the possibility that fetuses do count as human life, but you don't think it matters because it would cost a lot to deal with the problems those unwanted babies would provide.
This is sociopathic. We keep governments around to protect our human rights whether or not it's CONVENIENT for them to do so; if human rights don't matter when they start to become expensive, well, golly, I can think of lots more things we can cut to free up some cash. Don't be surprised when your argument fails to become a rallying cry of the pro-choice lobby, you callow dipshit. By the way, I doubt it matters much that you get the warm fuzzies when a pregnant woman chooses life.
Markus, if you liked Lake of Fire, I'd give Articles Of Faith: A Frontline History of the Abortion Wars by Cynthia Gorney a read.
But you know what? These people think of themselves as being righteous and kind; and their logic makes sense, if you accept the Bible as the literal truth, and an embryo as a full person. I think it’s important to see what supposed values their opinions represent. There’s a word for it, I think it’s insight.
Huh? You just got finished telling me that my paragraph about whether or not aborted fetuses go to hell was simply stating the obvious.
And isn't a good deal of the Bible based on the assumption that the faithful are differentiated by the rest of society. Again, and I repeated this constantly throughout the review, there is a difference between the morality that we conduct our every day lives under and that which determines public policy. That abortion is "wrong", that taking human life is "wrong", doesn't mean it should be made illegal.
I honestly am completely unable to see where the logic behind the fundamentalists' platform is. Unless they want to perpetuate the existence of an underclass. I guess I can understand that.
Chomsky says in the trailer (unfortunately I don’t have a copy of the film with me): “We’re talking about ambiguous issues of a complicated kind where you have to balance conflicting interests and concerns, as is generally the case in human life.”
Brilliant. So he pretty much said nothing at all. If you guys haven't seen the movie, pretty much all the academics talk like this. All very careful to walk down the middle, their intention is to reposition the question so you can get to looking at in different ways and come to your own conclusions. They don't exactly offer any positive insight or make or respond to any actual arguments.
I wish there was just some hint at what exactly the pro-life movement's argument is. At it's very strongest it basically amounts to: fetuses look like babies and babies are cute and human life besides, so we shouldn't kill them.
Believe it or not, the debate about just when life begins doesn't even really come up in the film. The one pro-life intellectual basically relies on that "babies look human" rationale. There isn't one person who says, "I'm pro-life and believe that life begins at this junction because of this and this and we should preserve all human life because of this and this". There isn't a single sound intellectual argument among them.
I wish there was just some hint at what exactly the pro-life movement's argument is. At it's very strongest it basically amounts to: fetuses look like babies and babies are cute and human life besides, so we shouldn't kill them.
Believe it or not, the debate about just when life begins doesn't even really come up in the film. The one pro-life intellectual basically relies on that "babies look human" rationale. There isn't one person who says, "I'm pro-life and believe that life begins at this junction because of this and this and we should preserve all human life because of this and this". There isn't a single sound intellectual argument among them.
Okay, wait, your review made it seem like you thought there was no reason or rhyme at all behind the pro-life movement. At least that's the impression I got; were you saying that that's just how it seems in the movie, and that you would have liked to see the reasoning that does exist? If so, it doesn't really come across.
--Kim
Walter,
Do you suppose the makers of "Stuck" were afraid to have a black woman painted in such a negative light in the lead role? After all, the real-life character who Suvari plays is black, and the filmmakers try to make Suvari as "black" as they can by her wearing cornrolls and having a black boyfriend.
I was living in Texas when this crime happened in the state, and I followed the story very closely. I don't know if the film touches on this or not -- probably not, would be my guess -- but the woman pathetically tried to use her church to try to convince the jurors that she was special and didn't warrant a stiff sentence. Thank goodness this didn't pass mustard with the jury.
Okay, wait, your review made it seem like you thought there was no reason or rhyme at all behind the pro-life movement. At least that's the impression I got; were you saying that that's just how it seems in the movie, and that you would have liked to see the reasoning that does exist? If so, it doesn't really come across.
Well, no I don't think that there is any rhyme or reason behind the pro-life movement. I don't think an intelligent person can take that position.
However, I am humble enough to imagine that I could have been wrong which is why I just wish there existed somebody willing to take on the discussion. You know, explain to me why human life is intrinsically valuable, why the fetus makes that classification, and be able to assure me that the sky won't fall if abortion is made illegal. (And again by "pro-life" I mean those who want to make abortion illegal, not those who are just against abortion).
If there is rhyme or reason to the pro-life movement, I don't know what it is and you certainly won't see it in the movie.
Walter Murch discovers what may be the world's first movie review.
"I am humble enough to imagine that I could have been wrong"
Oh no, please, don't be so hard on yourself. Why imagine that morons could provide you with any information that twenty-something college pseudo-intellectual like yourself has solved with ease? By the way, why am I surprised that you haven't responded to me? (I'm the one a few posts up that begins "So let me get this straight.")
I realize that talking religion and God with you would be a waste of time, so let me try this tack. You know how we used to have an anti-slavery movement in this country? Well, that led pretty directly to the Civil War, a catastrophic time in American history that could be adequately described as the sky falling. Clearly, in this scenario, the abolitionists were "morons" who hadn't thought things out. Slavery was obviously just too much trouble to do anything about.
That's just one example of how your logic fails. There are other examples, too, such as... EVERYTHING. We wouldn't have to waste money prosecuting bank robberies if we legalized bank robberies! And people have a right to an attorney, yes, but those cost money, so let's just cut those out too. Oh, and please forgive me for thinking that "an increased need for social services and foster care" is not really some kind of insurmountable problem that will transform the country into a lawless wasteland. (You know, like the '40s and '50s, when abortion was illegal.) I mean, I realize that you're terrified of poor people, and abortion is a more efficient way of thinning their numbers than issuing them all loaded flamethrowers. And yeah, increased social services means more taxes... a truly horrible thought. God, that's almost as bad as that proposal for universal health care... and I know NO ONE here would even think of supporting that money pit.
Look, I've heard the rationalizations of the pro-choice movement and yes, if I accepted the premises (that life does not begin at conception, that women have a right to choose), then I would be all for legal abortion. Yay abortion. But the idea that it's just too much trouble to deal with... this isn't pragmatism, it's moral cowardice and cynicism disguised as such. I honestly think I'm hard to offend, but this... this is just awful. Repugnant. And terrifying -- far more terrifying than the crime-ridden, Mad Max-sytle apocalypse that you feverishly imagine a world without abortion bans is. I know there are other writers on this site; you guys are associated with this too. Are you comfortable with that? Really?
Well, I think the social costs related to legalizing bank robbery or taking away one's right to an attorney significantly outweigh the social benefit. Again, I don't see the social benefit in eliminating abortion.
Though perhaps I do differentiate myself from a fetus. A fetus is life, perhaps human life, but not one that's equivalent to my own. I would feel that my own self-interests would be threatened if bank robbery were made legal, but I don't feel that way with the illegalization of abortion. If I was aborted as a fetus, I guess I would see it not as me being killed but as me never having existed since I would not even really understand what being alive means. You know?
Consider that a concession of sorts. I mean, I guess I can understand if you feel that life, the same life you and I have, begins at conception that no pro-choice argument could hold any water.
My way of sneaking out of many of the implications of all this is to stress that I support the right to choose. If poor women were forced to abort simply for being poor, I do feel that that would somehow threaten my self-interests. I think we would be going down a very slippery slope there.
And of course, there would be considerably fewer pro-lifers if the correlation between higher taxes and the criminalization of abortion were underlined. I say that with tongue only partially in cheek, I think you underestimate just how much Americans despise higher taxes.
It's not that abortion is more efficient than a flame thrower in thinning out the poor, it's that it's more efficient than social services.
Social services have actually improved since the 1940s and the 1950s, but they have become more expensive as well. Foster care yields better results than an orphanage, but it takes more time and uses up many more resources. And still we are oftentimes merely rearranging chairs on the Titanic. Do I even need to mention that the sufficiency of the working class has dwindled significantly since before Roe vs. Wade? That there are considerably fewer jobs in manufacturing and industry?
Obviously sexual mores have become considerably more liberal since the 40s and 50s as well, but anybody expecting to close up that Pandora's Box (especially by making abortion illegal) is at best Pollyanish.
It probably goes without saying that the 40s and 50s weren't all milkshakes and poodle skirts, but yes, I believe that the criminalization of abortion will have a considerably heavier impact today than it did then.
A person's autonomy (the right to choose in this case) is more important than a maybe life of a being that has no autonomy.
It's perfectly within the rights of any autonomous being to disagree with my previous statement, but what I think Alex is saying is that to make abortion illegal not only creates huge social costs, but violates autonomy, which is the basis of any democratic society. It's the harm principle, your freedoms only go as far as the freedoms of another.
-Genericcactus
Yeah, yeah, I know Americans are big whiners about taxes, that the '60s changed things, and that the '50s weren't perfect. (My original, accidentally deleted post had a line pretty similar to yours, only it used "apple pie and Howdy Doody.") This is an abstract argument anyway, since I highly doubt anything is going to change within my lifetime. But seriously: abortion is murder or it isn't, and if it is then we as a society can't condone it. And if we ban abortion, then we as a society also have to accept and deal with the consequences, and while I don't doubt the veracity of your analysis of the ramifications, I feel it's just something that has to be dealt with. Your "social consequences" argument is much weaker than you think it is; the "not really alive" thing or the women's rights argument has to come first.
The above Mao comment is quite misleading and disingenuous. The idea of sacrificing the few for the needs of the many is prevalent Chinese culture in general (and Vulcan culture as well).
I don't understand how "morality" could play an important role in the abortion debate. The debate is one over legislature: should abortion be permitted in the infrastructure of our society? Laws and morality have little to do with one another. Law concerns the protection of personal property (in this case, the property of one's womb), and should be made without sentimentality.
I think we know enough about ecology in our civilization to understand that abortion is necessary...anybody familiar with the term "carrying capacity" should not bat an eye at widespread fetuscide, or should admit that they don't give a fuck about the future of the human race.
Alex wrote - "Well, no I don't think that there is any rhyme or reason behind the pro-life movement. I don't think an intelligent person can take that position."
Google {Nat Hentoff Abortion} to be proven wrong. Very, very wrong. Here's someone who has done more for civil rights, civil liberties, abolition of slavery/mass genocide, who has, in short, done more with his pen than everyone who has written for or commented on this site combined. But yet he's not intelligent?
Alex - "If I was aborted as a fetus, I guess I would see it not as me being killed but as me never having existed since I would not even really understand what being alive means. You know?"
What about at one year? Two? Three? I mean, you're around 26 now, right, and one could argue that you don't know what being alive means at this late stage either. Ok, that was cheap, but, c'mon, what exactly does being alive mean? If you can't sum it up in a blog post, then I'm not interested...
And, btw, I'm pro-choice, pro "late abortion" to boot. And I mean very late...'cept when it comes to the death penalty...that's too late.
Google {Nat Hentoff Abortion} to be proven wrong. Very, very wrong. Here's someone who has done more for civil rights, civil liberties, abolition of slavery/mass genocide, who has, in short, done more with his pen than everyone who has written for or commented on this site combined. But yet he's not intelligent?
No. He actually was in Lake of Fire. I don't think his "argument" is very sophisticated. Again he seems to be confusing morality with social policy. What makes something wrong and what makes something necessarilly illegal are two entirely different things.
That's the principle problem here, I think that you can have lengthy intelligent discussions on the morality of abortion, but not on the necessity of its legality.
Alex - "If I was aborted as a fetus, I guess I would see it not as me being killed but as me never having existed since I would not even really understand what being alive means. You know?"
What about at one year? Two? Three? I mean, you're around 26 now, right, and one could argue that you don't know what being alive means at this late stage either. Ok, that was cheap, but, c'mon, what exactly does being alive mean? If you can't sum it up in a blog post, then I'm not interested...
What I was talking about, of course, wasn't necessarily if you could "define alive" but if you were a conscious entity. If you can even reflect though on the nature of life and could understand what it means to be dead, I believe that you are clearly a conscious being.
But you know, I'm just starting Tom Regan's "The Case for Animal Rights". He talks about Descartes, and his "grades of sensation" and how animals are essentially "mindless brutes" who respond mechanically to external stimulus. Of course, the author goes at great pains to expose why Descartes' reasoning is inadequate. And I don't know, made me realize that my foundation on this premise is hardly rock solid.
Help me out though, Max, why are you pro-choice? Let's put some one new on the hot seat.
And, btw, I'm pro-choice, pro "late abortion" to boot. And I mean very late...'cept when it comes to the death penalty...that's too late.
Ah, finally someone who may support the parents' decision from the Mr Show "What's a Gagortion?" sketch.
Post a Comment