From: cal@gsbux1.uchicago.edu (Cal Lott)
Subject: Re: Coppola's DRACULA
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 05:45:22 GMT

egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:

>In article <1ihh4cINNeti@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
>>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

	"Primimg us?" Just because he used the same actor in two films?
I don't think so. If there were obvious similarities between the two,
or if one film made allusions to the other one, I could see your point.
I don't think that "priming" was Coppola's intent at all.

>as a brave and effective officer, who did not flinch at incoming fire.

	Exactly. As an idiotic, chauvinistic buffoon.

>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.)

	Again, I fail to see your argument. (I'm beginning to doubt
that there is one amid all the confusion.)

>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.

	That is merely one interpretation. Your mish-mash of culture,
history, and politics is shallow and unconvincing, Edward. You are
attempting to criticize Coppola's entire oeuvre, but it is a mistake
to interpret one film in terms of another, unless there is a clear
indication that the two are supposed to be related.

	It does not take a "decadent liberal panty-waste" to recognize
that the main characters in Coppola's films have both repulsive and
sympathetic qualities. This contradiction is one element that makes
those characters and films interesting. (And no, Edward, there is no
law that says films are magically noncondradictive.)

>In short, it's high time to put to rest any notion that the media elite
>in this country is "liberal."

	Ok, Edward-- whatever. Your argument ceased to make sense
a few paragraphs ago, and this final insipid sentence is a fitting
conclusion.

	If you are going to try to cover so much ground in one post,
please substantiate your argument and make your points follow each
other in a sensible manner. I realize that this is Usenet, Edward,
and I don't think that anyone expects a rhetorical paragon, but this
was just unforgivably simple and sloppy.

						-Cal
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cal Lott          "Oh, I see-- I thought 'no' meant 'spoon'!" --Dan
Email me, baby!   cal@gsbux1.uchicago.edu   cjl1@midway.uchicago.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies