1

By your description, the movie sounds quite disturbing.

Of couse, you know as Christians, we just don't want anybody to have fun.

2

One of the conservatives everyone loves to hate, Dr. Laura, has been talking about this problem for years. She has been screaming that the American Psychological Association has been trying to normalize pedophilia. Bill O'Reilly, whom many conservatives and all liberals love to hate, has also made this an issue with his campaign against the ACLU. The ACLU has consistently defended NAMBLA (something like North American Man-Boy Love Association). Someone please explain how Christian beliefs and decency are not under attack in the US.

Roger Ebert has consistently been disgustingly left-wing in his ideology, and has been for years simply disgusting in his love for any form of entertainment which trashes accepted norms. He and Tom Shales are almost identical in their hatred of all things conservative.

Ebert had a hand in writing some trashy X-rated fare like Myra Breckenridge or some such thing. Maybe it was one of Russ Meyer's movies like Vixen or Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. I can't remember. Anyway, his attitude toward a film like "Everyone we Know" is nothing new and shouldn't be surprising.

You need only look at how homosexuality has been normalized to see how it will be done with pedophilia.

3

Overall, fine post. But I think you're missing some essential points. I want to comment on the "art" and its reviewers separately.

The "art"

Let me begin several years ago...

Working in a laboratory during the seventies and eighties, I was privileged to have access to ARPAnet, the military packet-switched network that has morphed into the internet (yes, Virginia, the US military gave us the internet to bash it with). Early on, there were these wonderful discussion boards that eventually became Usenet with public access. Once public access was available and discovered, what had been a wonderful environment to hold serious online discussion with other professionals spawned the troll. Although there are many definitions of "troll", my personal one is a person who verbally hocks a loogie into a discussion. Unfortunately, people being what they are, outrage rises to the top and the discussion is hijacked and becomes an endless discussion of the troll's "point". The troll can then sit back and make evermore outrageous commentary and wreck the discussion entirely until the last outraged person realizes that he's been taken for a ride. Trolls do this to get attention. And, people being what they are, it almost inevitably works even in groups that have been hijacked many times, even by the same troll.

So, here's the scenario: troll finds an symphony of players playing well together, raises his arms with baton (loogie), brings down baton (hocks loogie), symphony rises to the command and one has a Stravinsky-esque abandonment of the original score to a cacophony of objections and moral outrage.

Performance artists are trolls.

Critics

The really amusing part is the "intellectual", critical response. At least since Freud's absurd "theory" of mental life (based on the hydraulic technology of the Viennese sewer system) became popular, it has been important for intellectuals to prize absurd ideas and concepts. For example, only the very intelligent, after all, could see that the utterly counterintuitive notion of rewarding people for not marrying and working would result in an improved social order (I find this most interesting in the light of the popularity of Skinner's Walden Two in the same intellectual community). Most recently, this was illustrated in spades during the '04 election, when Bush's college grades and SAT scores, versus Kerry's academic record, were fodder for much discussion. Kerry was the intellectual critic of the war, you see. Bush was simply less intelligent and less able to make the "nuanced" (i.e., absurd and counterintuitive) judgments of the brilliant Kerry. Of course, now we know that Kerry's vaunted academic prowess was nothing more than a foolish myth, Bush is President, and Kerry is back to his default position painting US soldiers as terrorists. Jenn-jis-kahn, indeed.

So, no matter how idiotic "art" may be, there will be a cadre of highly intelligent people that will "see" its social value. These people can get intellectual stimulation from watching someone smear themselves with melted chocolate or viewing an "artist's" body waste. Need more be said?

4

"There are ideas so completely stupid that only an Intellectual could possibly believe them."
-- George Orwell (paraphrased from memory)

"You don't need any intellect to be an intellectual."
-- G.K.Chesterton, in one of the Father Brown mysteries

5

Media minds continually seek to find the "edge" of societal acceptability. The media of today is vastly more explicit, crude & perverse as compared to just 20 years ago. Americans have become shockingly desensitized and jaded towards violence, sex, perversion & immorality in general.

The question is: What's next? This movie describes the currently evolving battleground (pedophilia) combined with a more and more evident sub-culture (Copophilia, Urophilia, etc...). What's next? Think of the most shocking, disturbing thing you can and you'll see it at Cannes & Sundance next year and on primetime a few years later.

6

It sounds like this is something I'd really have to see to comment on accurately. Nonetheless, I'll just point out a few things:

An early scene includes two boys, 14 year old Peter and his 7 year old brother Robby, engaged with an older woman in an online sex chat. Doe-eyed Robby's addition to the conversation is a suggestion of a disgusting (and impossible) act of coprophilia that would make Sigmund Freud squirm. While most women would find such talk repugnant, in the twisted logic that has unfortunately become a staple in American indie film, the woman finds it highly arousing.

I don't know how many women hang out in sex chat rooms but I suspect it is probably fewer than the # of men but hardly a tiny minority. I also know that incidents such as this have probably happened in real life.

What is the “scatological humor” that brings a smile to Manson’s face? When Robbie says, “"I'll poop in your butthole and then you will poop it back into my butt and we will keep doing it back and forth with the same poop forever.”

Small children do indeed like to joke about poop. Living with five nephew-in-laws I'll tell you few dinners go by where the ill disciplined kids do not pull off a 'poop joke' of one sort or another and they laugh as if it was the first joke ever told on earth. I never heard them say something quite like that but if they did I have to honestly say I wouldn't be shocked nor horrified beyond belief.

For example, in another narrative thread, a skeezy older man is afraid to “talk dirty” to two teenage girls for fear of getting in trouble. So instead of being verbally explicit with them in person, he does what any reasonable pervert would do: he writes his p)rnographic suggestions on a card and post them his front window—in print large enough to read from the street!

I'm not sure if its funny or not in the movie but I do find it ironic that someone who would go thru great lengths to avoid being exposed would end up exposing himself to everyone walking by his window!

Bill O'Reilly, whom many conservatives and all liberals love to hate, has also made this an issue with his campaign against the ACLU. The ACLU has consistently defended NAMBLA (something like North American Man-Boy Love Association). Someone please explain how Christian beliefs and decency are not under attack in the US.

What exactly is the beef withthe ACLU defending NAMBLA? The ACLU has been very clear that they believe speech should be given nearly unlimited protection but not actions. Hence they also famously defend Nazi groups, the KKK etc. as well as the poor guy who gets hauled into municiple court because his "Vote for Mr. X" sign violates some zoning ordinence. I hope you're not trying to inflict another round of "only evil lawyers defend evil people" on us? This isn't talk radio my friend. No applause for saying something jingoistic but stupid.

Regarding Joe's mystical sense of the power of movies:

Film is, by its very nature, highly propagandistic. That is, when you read a book, if you detect you're being lied to or manipulated, you can always stop reading, close the book momentarily and say, "Wait just a minute, there's something wrong here!" You can't do that in a film: You're bombarded with sound and images, all expertly crafted to give you selected information and to stimulate certain feelings, and you can't stop the barrage, not in a theater anyway. The visuals and sound and music – and along with them, the underlying agenda of the filmmakers – pursue you relentlessly, overwhelming your emotions and senses.

Nonesense. Haven't you ever seen a bad movie? There's nothing more devestating when the audience doesn't buy the movie. Then it quickly descends into camp (at best). Why do you think one of the Sci-Fi's best shows was MST-3000.

I think this quote is itself very elitist. Yes good movies can overwhelm someone but not because the person is turned into a mindless zombie to be directed by the movie's whim. Rather a good movie works as a good book does, it enlightens the person. I doubt the power of movies to override free will (something I might add thiests consider a matter of faith, how ironic that an anti-materialist would so quickly embrace an idea that is basically materialism to almost absurd levels....feed the mind the right 'sounds and colors' and you can control it as you would a computer you're installing a new operating system on!).

7

Also I find it interesting that Joe would comment as he did about this movie considering the praise he has lavished on Frank Miller of "Sin City" fame. Watching the movie for the first time over the Holiday break it featured:

1. Attempted child rape.
2. A serial killer who eats his victims (not original I know).
3. A serial killer who mounts the victims heads on walls like trophies.
4. No less than three castrations (two happen to the exact same character)
5. Tacit approval of prostitution.
6. Implied approval of revenge killing & torture.
7. The only religious figure is a Bishop who actively aids the canablistic serial killer.

Not for nothing I wonder how many people here clapping for Joe's take down of 'cutting edge' movies felt the same about Sin City? A movie I enjoyed myself (needless to say my fiance hated it and it confirmed for her family that my movie tastes are hopelessly wacky).

8

The beef with the ACLU is that they are aiding and abetting normalization of pedophilia. And don't give me that crap about how they defend free speech. They only defend certain kinds of free speech. They were nowhere to be found during the campaign finance debate. Their defense of KKK and Nazi groups is good press for them. The more outrageous the better. And I don't know how they would act any differently if they were blatantly trying to subvert all religion and decency.

9

And don't give me that crap about how they defend free speech. They only defend certain kinds of free speech. They were nowhere to be found during the campaign finance debate.

Googling the terms "campaign finance ACLU" turns up the ACLU position statement on campaign finance reform as the second hit, and the rest of the hits on the first page all seem to be ACLU statements about campaign finance reform.

Care to clarify your statement that they were "nowhere to be found?"

10

Indeed, they often do take on quite a few 'pro-religion' cases....usually not a type of thing that gets a lot of publicity. Say some kid in a public school getting told he can't wear a t-shirt that says 'I love Jesus' and things like that.

Notice that jd didn't really answer the question. He said they are "aiding and abetting normalization of pedophilia". What does this mean? If you support free speech you are automatically a supporter of any and all causes that use speech to advocate themselves?

As far as I know the ACLU has never argued that laws against child molestation are unconstitutional. I imagine they might have taken a position on child pornography that might be more extreme than I would (since they do have a pretty strong free speech philosophy) but it's amusing to see how jd, despite having watched O'Reilly a lot, has so little information on what he claims is a very important issue to him.

11

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/cfr/ lists various cases that the ACLU has weighed in on regarding campaign finance. For example,

PROVIDENCE, RI--The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island today filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey's lawsuit seeking an order allowing him to continue to host a radio talk show on WPRO. The lawsuit was filed after the Board of Elections' ruled that the radio show constituted an illegal campaign contribution under state election law.

or

ACLU Marks Start of General Election Campaign Ad "Black Out" Period; Renews Call To Repeal First Amendment Threats in Campaign Finance Law (09/08/2004) WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today joined with lawmakers in marking the start of the 60-day "black out" period before the November general election during which "electioneering communication" advertisements by labor unions, advocacy groups and corporations are forbidden.

I suspect that jd is critical of campaign finance laws that limit spending on ads or donations and such because he feels they violate free speech. It would seem the ACLU is at least partially sympathetic to his position & has not been silent about it at all (note the headline which says the call to repeal certain provisions is being made 'again').

Speaking of which, one of the best Ebert shows is the one at the beginning of each year. Not when Ebert and his co-host review the best movies but when they review the previous years worst movies. Sometimes stupid nonsense is really funny. JD making a fool of himself here is almost as good.

12

If memory serves, Joe also praised Pulp Fiction with its forced male sodomy. So consensual teen experimentation being fictionally depicted is detestable whereas nonconsensual adult gay anal rape being fictionally depicted is permissible. Right...

Also, it's telling that Joe left out the next sentence of Ebert's review (though he did post a link, the omission here helped to inaccurately and superficially strengthen his point). Here is the entire quote:

"I know this sounds perverse and explicit, and yet the fact is, these scenes play with an innocence and tact that is beyond all explaining. They are about what an embarrassment and curiosity sex is when you're old enough to know it exists, but too young to know how it's done and what it's for."

Give us a break, Joe.

13

Boonton Also I find it interesting that Joe would comment as he did about this movie considering the praise he has lavished on Frank Miller of "Sin City" fame. Watching the movie for the first time over the Holiday break it featured:

When did I ever praise Frank Miller or Sin City? My biggest complaint about the movie is that it was an almost word-for-word/image-for-image presentation of the worthless, despicable, juvenile series of graphic novels.

Ed If memory serves, Joe also praised Pulp Fiction with its forced male sodomy. So consensual teen experimentation being fictionally depicted is detestable whereas nonconsensual adult gay anal rape being fictionally depicted is permissible. Right...

I had to read that statement three times to ensure that I read it right. I didn’t think anyone could top Larry or Mumon in the ability to making absurd comparisons. But you’ve managed to top it.

As for Pulp Fiction (and Tarantino’s work in general), you can find my thoughts here. But in order to clarify your point (so I’m not accused of knocking down a strawman), are you saying that portraying teen sex on film is not “detestable?”

Also, it's telling that Joe left out the next sentence of Ebert's review (though he did post a link, the omission here helped to inaccurately and superficially strengthen his point). Here is the entire quote:

Have you seen the movie, Ed? Contrary to Ebert’s statement, the scene is not about the “embarrassment and curiosity” of sex. No one in the scene is embarrassed. And the “curiosity” is about who would do a better job of fellating a would-be pedophile.

Give us a break, Joe.

I have to say, Ed, I'm rather surprised to see you rush to defend child porn and pedophilia.

14

"are you saying that portraying teen sex on film is not “detestable?”"

Confirm (which you implicitly do by not denouncing Tarantino as you do this film) or deny with explanation my inference (So consensual teen experimentation being fictionally depicted is detestable whereas nonconsensual adult gay anal rape being fictionally depicted is permissible.) and I'll answer your question.

"Have you seen the movie, Ed?"

No. However, whether Ebert's position is accurate or not, you do in fact misrepresent his position in the way I described.

"And the “curiosity” is about who would do a better job of fellating a would-be pedophile."

So the context of the scene rather than the act depicted (presumably off-camera) is what bothered you?

"I have to say, Ed, I'm rather surprised to see you rush to defend child porn and pedophilia."

Need I explain why, in reference to my comment, this borders on slander?

15

Ed Confirm (which you implicitly do by not denouncing Tarantino as you do this film) or deny with explanation my inference (So consensual teen experimentation being fictionally depicted is detestable whereas nonconsensual adult gay anal rape being fictionally depicted is permissible.) and I'll answer your question.

First of all, if you’ve seen Pulp Fiction you’d know that the rape scene is almost entirely off-camera and is implied, more than shown. Even Tarantino knows there are certain actions that have no place on film. Second, the context is the key. Is the rape scene key to the movie and presented in a way that neither glorifies rape nor excuses the behavior? I find the point debatable but I don’t think it is completely out of place in the movie.

No. However, whether Ebert's position is accurate or not, you do in fact misrepresent his position in the way I described.

No, I don’t. Ebert’s position is that the “scenes play with an innocence and tact that is beyond all explaining.” Leaving out his rationalizations for making that claim is not a misrepresentation of his position. The point with which I disagreed was with his contention that it was possible for the scene to be done with “innocence and tact.”

So the context of the scene rather than the act depicted (presumably off-camera) is what bothered you?

Actually, it’s both. The context of the scene is primary. There might be a context in which the scene could have been non-exploitive – but it was not possible in this movie. The director includes the scene as if the act were no different than kissing. But I also have a problem with the act depicted: two young girls using a young boy as a sexual object.

Need I explain why, in reference to my comment, this borders on slander?

You rushed to defend a movie that you haven’t seen based on nothing more than the fact that I panned it. Either you felt the need to defend the actions portrayed in the movie or you were blindly disagring with my point simply because I was the one making it. I went with the first option because—assuming you had a rational reason for defending the film-- I wanted to give you credit for actually thinking for yourself.

I assume that some people do not have a problem with teen sex and, even though I consider it child porn, they would have no problem with its context in a film. Also, some people might defend sexual relations between older men and younger girls, even though I consider that to border on pedophilia. Presuming that you might defend those positions in no way implies that you personally condone them. While I might have been questioning your motives, the comment was not intended to be slanderous.

16

Boonton writes;

"What exactly is the beef withthe ACLU defending NAMBLA? The ACLU has been very clear that they believe speech should be given nearly unlimited protection but not actions. Hence they also famously defend Nazi groups, the KKK etc. as well as the poor guy who gets hauled into municiple court because his "Vote for Mr. X" sign violates some zoning ordinence. I hope you're not trying to inflict another round of "only evil lawyers defend evil people" on us? This isn't talk radio my friend. No applause for saying something jingoistic but stupid."

I think the ACLU's motivations are highly suspect.

They support groups like NAMBLA but they "watch" or "observe" groups like the minutemen. Perhaps if they switched that up and supported groups like the minutemen and watched or observed groups like NAMBLA, then i'd have more respect for them.

17

If you support free speech you are automatically a supporter of any and all causes that use speech to advocate themselves?

But speech that advocates illegal activity is more questionable. NAMBLA advocates pedophilia, which is is illegal, so why does speech advocating it deserve such vigorous protection? Moreover, as O'Reilly has pointed out, actual crimes can be traced to NAMBLA's activities and speech.

Does the ACLU go to such lengths to protect those who advocate the legalization of drugs? (That's not a rhetorical question; I simply don't know. The difference being, of course, that they're at least advocating legal means to do so--change the law.) If the KKK marched through a city shouting "Kill all the n--ggers" instead of "white power," would the ACLU defend them?

18

"First of all, if you’ve seen Pulp Fiction you’d know that the rape scene is almost entirely off-camera and is implied, more than shown."

Are you telling me that the oral scene in this film is not almost entirely off-camera? Unless it's real, on-camera, and the actors are children, I don't see how you can call it child porn.

"The point with which I disagreed was with his contention that it was possible for the scene to be done with “innocence and tact.”

You are entitled to your opinion. However, Ebert's "rationalization" is not unfathomable and I maintain that it is unfair to call his position inexplicable while making no reference to his explanation. However, I see now that the absoluteness of your position that no amount of artistic pretense can justify such a scene makes up for your treatment of his explanation. However, if no amount of artistic pretense can justify depicting off-camera consensual teenage experimentation, then how can any amount of artistic pretense justify depicting off-camera nonconsensual adult gay anal rape? That is inconsistent as can be.

"The director includes the scene as if the act were no different than kissing."

Well, what are you getting at? Are you saying it should not be legal for such casual attitudes to be exhibited in art?

"I also have a problem with the act depicted: two young girls using a young boy as a sexual object."

Well, I have a confession to make: At 14 I was every bit as eager to be used by girls as a sexual object as 99% of other straight 14 year old boys. I assume you at least had moments where you felt the same way. This strikes me as classic American moral hypocrisy. Even if that doesn't in fact apply to you, that doesn't change the fact that it applies to the overwhelming majority.

"Either you felt the need to defend the actions portrayed in the movie or you were blindly disagring with my point simply because I was the one making it."

If you'll look back, I was pointing out the inconsistency in your views on Pulp Fiction and this film (which still stands). I also pointed out that omitting the next sentence of Ebert's review artificially strengthened your point. That's it. I defended nothing. You turned that into my defending child porn and pedophilia. Hence my sentiment that you were practically smearing me with false accusations. Now, onto those accusations:

Unless the film shows actual children performing actual sexual acts (which I assume it does not), it isn't child porn in my book. I would indeed defend the director's right to make non-child-porn. Second, judging from your post, no pedophilia is actually even depicted. I further assume that no pedophilia took place on the set. As with your accusation regarding child porn, your accusation that I defend pedophilia is baseless.

As to your question (that had nothing to do with my original post) of whether I find depicted teen sex detestable, I'm not sure why I should. Assuming "depicted" means "not real," what is even questionable?

19

"The visuals and sound and music – and along with them, the underlying agenda of the filmmakers – pursue you relentlessly, overwhelming your emotions and senses."

Sounds like that devil-worshipping Negro music we saw on Ed Sullivan last night.

Thelma! Search under Bobby's bed to see if he's hidin' any more of them record disks or whatever you call them.

20

"Does the ACLU go to such lengths to protect those who advocate the legalization of drugs?"

I assume they would if those who advocated the legalization of drugs were being illegally silenced or discriminated against.

"If the KKK marched through a city shouting "Kill all the n--ggers" instead of "white power," would the ACLU defend them?"

I doubt it. I kind of wish the KKK would try that sometime. Perhaps in Milwaukee. I think KKK membership would, uh, "decline" if that were to happen.

21

First, for those posting on the ACLU, here is the story people are referring to about the ACLU's defense of NAMBLA: http://johncoleman.typepad.com/ex_nihilo/2004/04/nambla_and_the_.html

Complemented by their defense of teenage nudist camps:
http://johncoleman.typepad.com/ex_nihilo/2004/07/aclu_fighting_f.html

Come to your own conclusions. I wobble between support for the ACLU and opposition to it. I supported the efforts of the ACLU to protect immigrants after 9/11, to protect flag-burning, etc; but their protection of activities that endanger children pushed me over the "opposition" edge.

Second, I do find it telling that most of the folks contradicting Joe's take on the film haven't seen it (disclaimer: neither have I), and thus have resorted to the "well, he says he hated this film but look how hypocritical he is for liking Pulp Fiction!" line of argumentation rather than a direct refutation of the facts he has presented (e.g. content seemingly confirmed by other sources).

I don't encourage others to see the film--even for the sake of arguing with Joe (I certainly won't see it now thanks to his review). But let's review the facts as Joe has presented them (if another reviewer contradicts those facts, please post a link):

-Teenage boys are engaged in graphic online sex
-Young girls practice oral sex on a young boy while a ten year old girl watches
-An old man posts dirty messages to young girls in his window
-etc., etc.

And Joe makes an excellent point that this is the meat of the film, not some incidental perversity; and it is not, seemingly, portrayed in a negative light.

I wonder first if anyone would contradict his factual portrayal of the movie.

Second, would anyone leap to defend the action portrayed, e.g. is this acceptable behavior for children of that age, healthy for mind and body?

Third, is this acceptable fare for adults to watch? Does this explicitly cater to the tastes of pedophiles for no redeeming reason?

Fourth, is there any real reason to shoot this film? If this happened in your childhood, then relive your own memories. If this does not happen in normal childhood, then why convince kids it does and simultaneously give adults who take pleasure in these images and stories a reward for their fantasies?

Maybe Joe is wrong about his support for Pulp fiction (though not necessarily hypocritical). And no one is suggesting we legally restrict the distribution of this film. That said, is there anything wrong with saying that this film is disgusting? Would Joe be incorrect to object to the themes and challenge the idea that this is "art", rather than just another attempt by an unskilled writer to use shock value as a substitute for real art?

Come on folks, would it kill you to agree with him on an easy call like this occassionally--it would help your credibility to display some measure of even-handedness.

22

Incidentally, the KKK doesn't have to march screaming "Kill all N------!" They have a long history in which they maimed, tortured, murdered and harassed enough innocent black people to incite a justified rage wherever they go even in the absenc of such filthy rhetoric. Members of the KKK are ignorant, spiteful, dirty human beings. And the ACLU still defends them when they are just marching and talking--and I would hope they would not take the case if the KKK started posting the names and addresses of black families and giving detailed plans to assault them on the website.

Just as I wish they would show the same restraint in defending organizations when they publish materials designed to give explicit instructions on child rape--but they don't, do they? And therein lies the hesitancy many of us feel in supporting the organization. I'd rather give my money to IJ or Defenders of Property Rights.

23

Joe

When did I ever praise Frank Miller or Sin City? My biggest complaint about the movie is that it was an almost word-for-word/image-for-image presentation of the worthless, despicable, juvenile series of graphic novels.

1. Try http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/001437.html where Frank Miller is listed as one of your top twelve graphic novelists.

2. Granted you were praising him for his Batman series but this is what you wrote:

Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns" is the most influential comic miniseries ever done. It has spawned two movies, and reset the character firmly back into the night from which he sprang. I'll be honest, I don't love Miller's art -- it's ugly, but it's purposefully ugly. He writes about the darkest and ugliest our world has to offer, and the art reflects that. His "Sin City" series (and the incredibly faithful movie) reflect that even more than his Batman stuff.

Sorry, I didn't realize you really held his Sin City series in such disdain.

Have you seen the movie, Ed?

Can't answer for Ed but I haven't. The question is can I trust your judgement on it when you write such things as:

I have to say, Ed, I'm rather surprised to see you rush to defend child porn and pedophilia.

Considering the way you've conducted yourself, Joe, the honest answer is that I can't.

24

First of all, if you’ve seen Pulp Fiction you’d know that the rape scene is almost entirely off-camera and is implied, more than shown. Even Tarantino knows there are certain actions that have no place on film. Second, the context is the key. Is the rape scene key to the movie and presented in a way that neither glorifies rape nor excuses the behavior? I find the point debatable but I don’t think it is completely out of place in the movie.

Note Joe's requirements for a good movie, bad behavior cannot be 'glorified'. What does that mean exactly? While the rapist and his buddy were not presented as good people, the fact remains that Pulp Fiction did not have the victims exercise Christian forgiveness. Instead once Bruce Willis had used necessary violence to stop the rape the victim famously declared that the remaining rapist would be slowly tortured to death. Hardly model behavior but most good movies are not 1950's style propaganda depicting the right way to behave. Many good movies accurately depict the way real humans behave (BTW, this is not the same thing as realism....Pulp Fiction clearly had some fantastic moments in it and the Kill Bill movies even more so...but the fantastic elements illustrated interesting aspects of the human condition).

The scenes Joe recounts here sound like accurate depictions of the human condition. Do people do stupid things for illicit sex like exposing themselves to the whole wide world? Yes. Do young teens experiment with sex, sometimes in the presence of even younger children? Yes. Does the drive for sex lead adults (like the woman Joe complained about) to behave like children? Yes. Does the attempt to find intimacy, especially in today's world of anonymous chat rooms, lead to bizaar mistaken identity sceneros such as the older woman who thought her online lover was an adult man rather than a child? Yes.

John
Second, I do find it telling that most of the folks contradicting Joe's take on the film haven't seen it (disclaimer: neither have I), and thus have resorted to the "well, he says he hated this film but look how hypocritical he is for liking Pulp Fiction!" line of argumentation rather than a direct refutation of the facts he has presented (e.g. content seemingly confirmed by other sources).

1. Like you I think most of Joe's critics have been very up front and honest about not seeing the movie. This isn't a book club, we don't have to do 'required reading' before we can join the discussion. I also think Joe hardly wants us to all go out and buy tickets to the movie before we comment on his comments.

2. I agree that you shouldn't give the ACLU a blanket endorsement of every position they have ever taken. No organization is ever 100% right. I do find it important, though, to have an organization that isn't afraid to challenge conventional wisdom & take unpopular positions. Certainly we agree that the majority isn't always right so even if the majority's challenger is wrong 50% of the time it still has the potential to correct 50% of the errors the majority may make.

3. There's a difference between law and policy. Something may be very bad...like marching down the street shouting "N**** should be killed" but per the law it is an easy case of free speech. A 50% income tax may be horrible policy but constitutionally it is permitted. Likewise a nudist camp that has teenagers may be a really bad idea but legally it might be defensable. Conservatives especially have pointed out that judges should not be upholding or overturning laws based on whether they are good laws but based soley on whether they are Constitutional. If a law is bad the legislature must be lobbied to change it. If the law is good but unconstitutional then one should lobby to change the constitution. Needless to say, do not take this as a blanket endorsement of the ACLU's legal reasoning on every one of the thousands of cases they have worked on!

Just as I wish they would show the same restraint in defending organizations when they publish materials designed to give explicit instructions on child rape--but they don't, do they?

Well first of all I'm not sure what use 'instructions' are for child rape. I imagine those inclined towards that know how to do it without the need for instructions. But this goes to a more fundamental legal problem of publishing instructions in general. Back in the 70's and 80's there were cases where radical publications published instructions for how to make bombs, even nuclear weapons. The courts generally held that there is a free speech right to do this as long as you cannot demonstrate the speech was *immediately* inciting criminal behavior {and immediate means immediate...you can say "abortionists should be killed" but if you're at a rally and you point to the abortionist accross the street and yell "that abortionist should be killed" you can fairly be charged with incitement}

25

Try http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/001437.html where Frank Miller is listed as one of your top twelve graphic novelists.

Boonton--The post in question was written by John Schroeder, not Joe. It was part of Joe's Expert Witness series where he invites others to comment on specific topics. Joe did not even comment on the string.

26

Ahhhh my mistake then, apologies to you Joe. I should have read the post more carefully. I breezed through it too quickly and simply assumed you were talking about John Schroeder rather than giving Schroeder his own post on your site.

27

And Joe makes an excellent point that this is the meat of the film, not some incidental perversity; and it is not, seemingly, portrayed in a negative light.

What exactly do you mean by 'negative light'? Was the decision by the mobster to torture the rapist to death in Pulp Fiction presented in a 'negative light'? What the hell is a negative light anyway? Should a voice come out of the heavens yelling bad teenagers? Should any character who took part in the activities be killed by a serial killer while the one that didn't escape with her life?

I wonder first if anyone would contradict his factual portrayal of the movie.

The argument doesn't seem to be about the facts as Joe presented them. No doubt if such events didn't happen in the movie I'd hope that someone who has seen it besides Joe will let us know. Otherwise I'm willing to grant Joe the benefit of the doubt that such scenes did happen in the movie.

Second, would anyone leap to defend the action portrayed, e.g. is this acceptable behavior for children of that age, healthy for mind and body?

So what? Is it healthy for young children to trek miles through the woods to see a dead body? Would you let your kids do this if they asked your permission? Does that mean Stand By Me was a bad film? Would it have been redeemed if it ended with a 'negative light' shining horror upon the kids?

Third, is this acceptable fare for adults to watch? Does this explicitly cater to the tastes of pedophiles for no redeeming reason?

I don't know if pedophiles will find this movie to their tastes or if they would rather look at a clothing catalog featuring kids in swimwear. I don't really see a redeeming reason to spend my time asking myself "would I be sexually aroused by this if I was a pedophile". If you are asking me if maybe it is a good idea for pedophiles who are in therapy to stay away from this movie because it might lead to temptation and bad ideas I'd say sure...better safe than sorry. Since only a very small portion of the population are pedophiles and only a small portion of them are making a serious effort to control their inclinations I don't see that as justification for keeping kids out of movies.

Fourth, is there any real reason to shoot this film? If this happened in your childhood, then relive your own memories. If this does not happen in normal childhood, then why convince kids it does and simultaneously give adults who take pleasure in these images and stories a reward for their fantasies?

Whether it happens in a 'normal childhood' is irrelevant. You seem to think movies are viewed and understood to be "how to manuals". In reality those of us (adult and not) who live in the reality centered community are nowhere near as simple as you think we are.

Would Joe be incorrect to object to the themes and challenge the idea that this is "art", rather than just another attempt by an unskilled writer to use shock value as a substitute for real art?

Strange. Joe seems to have said that the writer was very skilled, hence the supposedly hypnotic power of this evil movie to alter our minds. As for shock value, Joe quoted several reviewers who said the movie is surprisingly not shocking despite the fact that it would sound like it is when given the textual descriptions of what happens in it. As for whether or not it is good art, I don't think you can really say without seeing the movie. I think it is a pretty hard case to simply assert a blanket declaration that any movie that has teen sex in it must be de facto bad art...hell even to declare no work about a pedophile can be good art is a bit much (i.e. Lolita). Since I haven't seen the movie I cannot say it is good art but I can tell you bad art is not made by the failure to include 'negative light' on characters or because they violate blanket delcarations that some topics are automatically off limits.

28

Y'know, the cannibalism, pedophilia, etc., in SIN CITY were the actions of the BAD GUYS. The aforementioned double castration (it grew back thanx to medical technology) was performed on a rapist who repeatedly used his organ to hurt children before killing them and relied on his well-connected family's influence to keep his crimes hidden. The violence visited upon him was justice the corrupt political establishment of Basin City repeatedly denied his victims.

Likewise the evil priest and bishop were clearly depicted as hypocrits who clothed themselves in apparent righteousness but in reality were obsessed with the most sordid aspects of human nature. And again, the violence visited upon them was justice that the entrenched legal system would have denied.

Yeah, the hookers were hookers, but they were independent agents, not under the authority of some procuror or criminal gang. To that degree they were certainly ethically -- though perhaps not morally -- superior to the villains.

29

True, the bad guys were quite bad in Sin City and the good guys were relativly good. (Thank you for not trying to say Bruce Willis's character was a Christ figure, although I suppose you could make that argument if we were in an English Lit. class).

I still think that of all the movies we talked about Sin City falls into the category of trying to use pure shock as at least part of its appeal & I don't really see evidence that this movie does that...just because shocking things happen in a movie doesn't make the movie itself shocking.

30

Boonton:

I admit I was wrong about the ACLU and campaign finance reform. I will watch them more closely. However, I suspect that watching them more closely will not improve my attitude towards them.

I don't appreciate being called a fool because I was wrong about something. Being wrong about some fact is nothing new for me, nor anyone else here I imagine. If I continue in my mistake, then I deserve the title in this forum. In addition to calling me a fool, you suggested that I was ignorant for someone who cared so much about a topic. Just how knowledgeable about pedophilia does one have to be to care deeply about an organization that might indirectly be promoting it?

31

jd,

If you care deeply about an organization enough to make a charge like "blatantly trying to subvert all religion and decency" is it too much to ask that you back it up.

And I'm sorry, sometimes mistakes are just mistakes and sometimes they are amusing. It is pretty amusing to see you trot out here passing yourself off as an O'Reilly Factor student and blurt out things that are 100% wrong. As for suggesting you are ignorant, well quite frankly if you care about a topic shouldn't you be able to at least demonstrate a command of it beyond talking points from Fox? Shouldn't you at least be able to make intelligent responses when people demand that you clarify your position?

32

I wonder if images can be more manipulative than text. I’ve seen the claim before and an example given was a commercial in which, just by consuming a particular brand of beer, guys would attract a bevy of buxom blonde beauties. Of course, no one really believes it. If men saw such a claim in text, it would be totally absurd and ineffective, I think. But might the imagery possibly influence the decision of what brand of beer to buy, by somewhat bypassing our reasonableness filter?

33

True however what brand of beer to buy isn't exactly a very important decision unless you happen to care a great bit about beer. No doubt a beer expert who lives and breaths the subject will not be swayed very much by a superficial image (perhaps he might even be more skeptical of the product). But the market for serious beer drinkers is small compared to the unserious market so marketers know what they are doing.

So yea maybe you started wearing sun glasses more often after seeing Tom Cruise in Risky Business but it's unlikely to have caused you to call a prostitute while your parents were out of town.

34

The lack of any magnanimity, common decency, or class on this thread (from a certain apologist for this pedophilic film), is shameful.

35

An exploration of youthful interest in sex is not pedophilia just because it is not censorious. But the lack of magnanimity charge is accurate, regrettably. It costs nothing to be gracious to someone who has admitted an error, Boonton. An exchange of opinions can be done more comfortably and freely if people politely provide and accept correction.

36

Hey look, Terry's back!

Don,

Indeed there is nothing wrong with admitting an error. I did that on this very thread when it was pointed out that Joe did not author the post praising Sin City. (Hi Terry! Does that strike a chord with you?) Nonetheless, I don't object to jd making an error. I object to jd tossing around very harsh judgements when it is clear he hasn't the slightest idea what he is talking about & feels no need to even have done the slightest amount of study to toss out the harshest of charges.

37

I agree with your second premise, but the first sounds like what might be used as a trailer for the film. If the events described in the film involved a man and a little girl, or boy, there would be no question of its flagrant pedophilla. But because it flips the psycho-sexual fantasies around, and "explores" new areas, then it is euphemized into something innocent, which clearly it is not. It is kiddie porn. I have been involved in the film and TV industry for 25 years. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . . you can be certain that the ACLU will be hearlding whatever it is, no matter how adversely it affects children in the future, as freedom of expression.

Personally, I have no interest in discussing this any further but just felt it needed to be said.

38

Here are just a few of many "contributions" that the ACLU has made to society:

In 1945 the ACLU opposed laws requiring prostitutes to submit to examinations or vaccinations, saying these violated the women's rights to "medical liberty."

In 1988 the ACLU barred a doctor from telling a Kansas man's former wife that her ex-husband had tested positive for AIDS. In the words of the director of the ACLU's Privacy and Technology Project, "The benefits of confidentiality outweigh the possibility that somebody may be injured."

In 1997 the ACLU successfully beseeched the Supreme Court to protect the rights of pornographers on the Internet - including the right to show their images to children.

April 2002 - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit struck down a Colorado law requiring parents be notified when their underage daughters sought abortions. The ACLU supported the suit to have the law struck down.

April 2002 - The U.S. Supreme Court struck down major portions of the Child Pornography Protection Act, which prohibited Internet porn hawkers from making "virtual" child pornography. The ACLU immediately declared victory, calling it a triumph for "free speech."

39

Hey look, Terry's still back. Hi Terry!

I would respond to Terry's post regarding the movie but it is obvious that not only has he not seen it but he hasn't even read the reviews cited by Joe. It's one thing to write a book report when you just read the Cliff Notes instead of the book but don't you think it's pushing it to write the report by just reading the back cover of the Cliff Notes?

Terry, though, has great difficulty researching stuff but that doesn't stop him from tossing around accusations either on this thread or others.

40

Have you seen this movie, Boonton?

41

Not yet. A point I've been very up front about since my first post. I probably won't see it till it hits cable and even then there's a good chance I'll miss it. I only see a few movies, all of December the only new movies I saw were Sin City & Batman Begins. The last big movie I saw was War of the Worlds a few nights ago.

42

Boonton,

marching down the street shouting "N**** should be killed" but per the law it is an easy case of free speech.

That is simply not an accurate statement of the law.