>If you do something and you know that it will have a given
>effect, even if that given effect was not your *main* purpose
>in doing the thing, you can't be said to be entirely innocence
>of the second effect.

The problem w/ this statement is your assumption that this movie is going to have that said effect. & that if it does, that Stone was also aware of this. It's easy 2 make all kinds of assumptions about the film & what effect its going to have on certain people. But until you see it you're just guessing. And sure, w/ Stone's penchant 4 stirring up controversy, it's an easy assumption 2 make. But once again, having seen WTC I can tell you that more than likely you'd be surprised @ the absence of the typical Stone manifesto in this film. It's not a political film @ all. It's simply about the rescue mission & it's a helluva film.

>My downstairs neighbor played her music at top volume at times
>ranging from 1 to 3 AM on weeknights. I *finally* got her to
>turn it down some, and at one point she said to me very
>haughtily, "I never intended to disturb you."
>
>Well, obviously, she wasn't playing the music so loudly that
>it would wake me up and vibrate my floors ONLY in order to
>wake me up and vibrate my floors. Obviously she was doing it
>in order to have a more thorough experience of the music
>herself. But since she knew that it would wake me up and
>vibrate my floors, didn't she have a responsibility to
>moderate the volume?
>
>That's what I mean about the double effect.

But she doesnt really know how loud it is unless she's down there listening 2 it w/ you. I worry about blasting my surround system when I'm watching DVD after so-called quiet hours in my condo association. I still do it tho cuz I havent had any complaints as of yet. Once/if I do, then I know & I will adjust accordingly.

>If Stone knows that jingoistic emotions will be roused by his
>film, and if he knows that the result of those emotions has in
>the past been a war of aggression on people not involved in
>the events of September 2001, how much responsibility does he
>bear if his film has the effect that I (and doubtless others)
>expect? How much innocence can he claim or can you claim on
>his behalf, if enquiring minds can already connect the dots?

Enquiring minds should probably see the film 1st before they make such expectations & start connecting dots. Big Nick is absolutely right when he says that Stone is not @ fault if this movie suddenly causes certain stupid Americans to start wars of aggression upon anyone they see wearing a turban.

It's like that scene in Inside Man when they send that turbaned up hostage out of the bank & that 1 cop automatically assumes he's Arab & has a bomb. People already have their own prejudices. If a movie touches upon certain issues that causes those preconceived notions to escalate into a war of aggression upon certain individuals, then I blame the individulas & not the director of the movie who clearly had a different intent in mind.