From: s1mbm@isuvax.iastate.edu (michael bruce mcdonald)
Subject: Re: Coppola's DRACULA
Reply-To: s1mbm@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 07:41:59 GMT

In article <P2H2wB1w165w@student.business.uwo.ca>, pkedrosk@student.business.uwo.ca (Paul S. Kedrosky) writes:
>egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
>
>> In article <1ihh4cINNeti@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.co
>> >In article <1993Jan7.144844.16689@Princeton.EDU>  
>> >egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
>> >> I KNOW that I don't love the smell of napalm in the morning, and to  
>> >me
>> >> it's not the smell of victory.  Coppola needs to grow up.
>> >> 
>> >
>> >Are you confusing the point of view of a character in the movie
>> >with that of the writer/director?  The character was obviously
>> >portrayed as a buffoon for saying things like that.
>> 
>> NOT!  The officer was portrayed by Robert Duvall, who played Vito
>> Corleone's consiglieri, no buffoon at all; Coppola was thus priming us
>> to take the officer character seriously.  Furthermore, he was portrayed
>> as a brave and effective officer, who did not flinch at incoming fire.
>> The confusion was resident in Coppola's mind, who at one and the same
>> time looks at the Duvall officer as beneath his "liberal" outlook AND
>> above it (films, any more than dreams, are not subject to a law of
>> noncontradiction.)
>> 
>> Indeed, this confusion has informed our entire society since the
>> Seventies.  Men will mouth liberal platitudes and cut funding for inner
>> city schools on the same day; Clinton was elected on a liberal platform,
>> but he's put Chelsea in a private school.  Coppola's films at one and
>> the same time say, how limited a man Vito Corleone or the Duvall officer
>> was, but how much a man should be admired by us decadent liberal
>> panty-wastes.
>> 
>> In short, it's high time to put to rest any notion that the media elite
>> in this country is "liberal."
>
>For a little while all of your (I'm sure well intentioned)
>deconstructionist blather was very sweet. And I thought "Gee,
>but isn't it nice to see such a fine intellectual conversation up on the
>ol' Usenet?" Then you start posting the above mumbo-jumbo that sounds
>uncomfortably like someone who has been spending too much time inside
>the dryer at the local laundromat: "Set it to fluff once I'm in, ok?"
>
>I feel much better now though; the signal-to-noise ratio just fell
>back through the floor. Dorothy, we're back in Usenet.
>
>p
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
>     Paul S. Kedrosky              __/ "In a certain village in La Mancha,
>    pkedrosk@business.uwo.ca      __/ which I do not wish to name, there
>   University of Western Ontario __/ lived not long ago a gentleman..."
>  (519) 679-2111 x5174          __/  


Look man, I'm not sure that I agree with everything that Ed says in his post,
but he took the time to try to communicate his views about the movie,
whereas all you do is attack his post without explaining *why* you disagree
with it, or *why* you think that it's mere blather.  Thus, if anyone is
wasting bandwidth, tis you, my man.

michael mcdonald
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies