204878, that's one HELL of a can of worms though|
Posted by buckshot defunct, Thu Aug-10-06 06:24 PM
>4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to
>compensate for the allowing of the bad effect.
>I think that the problem with World Trade Center is that it
>fails #4. If you tell a good story and as a result many
>people are killed, I don't think that the good storytelling is
>sufficiently desirable to compensate for the death of
I think some crucial steps have been left out between 'tell a good story' and 'as a result many people are killed'. And I think those logic leaps are hurting your argument a bit. The Bush administration 'told a good story' (WMD's in Iraq) that resulted in 'many people are killed'. I don't think what Stone is doing here is *quite* on that level. I mean, I see where you're coming from in general, but there's a big gaping hole in this thinking. As per Jigga's comment, where DO you stand on 'gangsta rap', anyway?
What it comes down to, I think, is the invisible contract that comes with any work of art. There's the artist and his intent, and then you have the viewer and his interpretation. When the two don't line up, who is responsible?
I agree that Stone has a responsibility here, and that he more than likely considered a ramification or two before completing this film. Having not yet seen the film, I can't really make much comment beyond that.
But what I don't see is you making much mention of the audience's responsibility. Which to me, seems somewhat condescending. The movie going public are not helpless victims here. We ARE capable of making up our own minds, regardless of how little we actually use this ability.