Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (34061)	8/5/1999 4:39:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 71178

I am not sure what the point is to showing ugliness or sordidness in movies. The same points made in Eyes Wide Shut could have made any number of ways- why choose to shock, to repel, to exploit? I think film makers who choose to shock us with the aberrant, and bizarre take the easy path. It is MUCH harder to make a movie about people who are NOT shocking and still get a point across. It is infinitely more difficult to elevate the ordinary and make it interesting than to exploit our baser desires to see freakish situations and nightmare landscapes. It is the path of least resistance to pander to the baser instincts, and I do not like it. It is irresponsible. Of course film makers have a right to keep pushing the edge of the envelope and to BE irresponsible, to show us brutish behavior, endless scenes of violent or empty sex, but it is detrimental to our collective psyches.

To: Rambi who wrote (34061)	8/5/1999 4:45:00 PM
From: Ish	Respond to of 71178

<<Do you think Kubrick was intentionally alienating the audience then? >> There was a good article on Kubrick in last months Playboy. Look under Ammo's bed, he may still have it.