Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Oscar Revulsion/ Greg
From: f67709317@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin)
Date: 9 Apr 92 13:19:31 MST
Distribution: na,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-User: f67709317

In article <1992Apr06.165052.15651@cs.cmu.edu>, kji+@SPEECH1.CS.CMU.EDU (Kathi Iannamico) writes:
> First of all, this film (SL) was not good enough to be read as an "allegory".
> And don't compare Conrad's masterpiece with this piece of unblievable dribble.

There you go again, using the word "unbelievable."  Everyone has their hangups
regarding movies.  I think "believability" is one of yours.  It's your right
to rate movies on that scale, but it's not the only scale.

And allegory in movies isn't dependent on how good the flick is.  If I want
to make a cheesy Biblical epic starring me as Jesus, I still want it to
be allegorical.

> I can't think of any argument I can give that supports my point more
> than the statement you posted: "There might be a Lector-type out there;
> you never know.."
> 
> I do know, and this is the point.  Life came first; learn from it, not from
> second-rate pop movies.

Me learn from second-rate pop movies?  Perish the thought!  P.S. You say
"you do know".  Know what?  The psychology of killers?  How easy to 
generalize the psychology of killers, when every one is different.  I have
never seen a intellectual cannibal killer.   I have seen Dahmer, Bundy,
Charlie Manson.  They were one of a kind.  I simply saw the character of
Lector as (a) allegory for our darkest fears, and (b) a fun character to
listen to in his own right.  Life is a whole different ball of wax.

(Besides, why couldn't a Lector-type exist at some place, at some time?
How do you know?)

> Also, you quote "A movie must be realistic, or else it's ridiculous
> and doesn't deserve respect."
> 
> You do not put in quotes, statements that were never made.  Learn some simple
> grammar rules. 

Augh!  And I thought it was obvious I was paraphrasing your overlengthy post
to get to the essence of your point.  Guess not.

> And it is absolutely pointless to argue comparisons of musicals 
> and slasher movies with what was supposed to have been a realistic study of a 
> serial killer.  Your making the comparison clearly illustrates you cannot make
> valid distinctions between them.

How do you know SL was a realistic study?  I.e., who told you it?  Jonathan
Demme?  Anthony Hopkins?  I think you're reading the reality-ometer a little
too feveredly.  Most modern literature (a la Gabriel Garcia Marquez) uses
"magical realism" in which things like humans transforming into fish is a
part of the plot.  It's neither allegorical nor believable, yet such
occurrences are a central part of the story.  My guess is you would damn it
because "I'm a scientist, and that part about people living to 200 years old
was just too damn unbelievable."

I see neither slasher flicks nor SL as big-R Realistic.  They're just horror.

> The last thing:
> I am not called an idiot by anyone, especially a microcephalic computer geek
> with the social graces and analytical skills of a corpse.  It's perhaps a good
> thing you called me an idiot through the net, rather than in person, or you'd be 
> choking on the balls that I kicked up to your throat.

<sigh>  An empty flame.  I respect your right to not like SL on your
principles, but I don't believe in those principles.  P.S. get a humor
transplant sometime, or else I'll be forced to drag you into Peevetown
(alt.peeves) to be tarred, feathered, and run outa town on a rail.
Consider yourself warned.
-- 
Greg Franklin                             "Death is everywhere,
f67709317@ccit.arizona.edu          there are fries on the windscreen."