See, e.g., Favela Rising.

For there to be that many options, and NONE of them mention snakes or planes, well...it just feels kind of wrong.

-----------------------------
http://talestosuffice.com/
@kennykeil

I know that particular film will be life changing.

and the elite already run everything anyway

nm

http://www.timothypaulmoore.com
http://www.lettertojane.com

because if you did and you didn't vote yellow (as we know that you did not), then you must have voted that art can have political impact. I thought you just said in the World Trade Center thread that art does NOT have political ramifications. I thought your rationale for why the film is appropriate and timely is that no matter how many jingo-istic emotions it stirs up, that won't have any effect on whether we kill more people in Middle Eastern countries?

>because if you did and you didn't vote yellow (as we know
>that you did not), then you must have voted that art can have
>political impact. I thought you just said in the World Trade
>Center thread that art does NOT have political ramifications.

I never said that. My beef with people complaining about that film was the assumption that Stone was simply trying to capitalize on a emotional event in recent history.

>I thought your rationale for why the film is appropriate and
>timely is that no matter how many jingo-istic emotions it
>stirs up, that won't have any effect on whether we kill more
>people in Middle Eastern countries?

My rationale is simple. He's a story teller and this is an amazing story. Period. If dumb ass Americans leave the theater ready to support the bombing of more towel heads, that's not Oliver Stone's fault. It's the fault of this country's mind-boggling stupidity.

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.

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.

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?

>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.

How do you think he's able to make such popular "controversial" films, if he is so dumb that he can't gauge the reaction of his intended audience at the outset?

As a general statement, if you as a film director can't anticipate the reaction to your film, particularly in a volatile political climate in which anything stirs up emotions, then you don't deserve the budget you're awarded.

Come on.

>How do you think he's able to make such popular
>"controversial" films, if he is so dumb that he can't gauge
>the reaction of his intended audience at the outset?

You're missing the point if you REALLY think his intention is 2 have everyone @ the end of this film to be all up in arms & ready 2 beat down the next cat they see on the street wearing a turban.

>As a general statement, if you as a film director can't
>anticipate the reaction to your film, particularly in a
>volatile political climate in which anything stirs up
>emotions, then you don't deserve the budget you're awarded.
>
>Come on.

Or perhaps you've got your own seperate idea of what a majority of the peoples reaction is going to be to this film. I left the film w/ nothing but thoughts about honor, respect, & paying tribute to those involved in a stressful, tragic, trying situation. And I think many others will as well. If you'd clear your mind from all your preconceived notions & actually see the movie, you might also do the same. I repeat. This is not your typical Oliver Stone film.

He may have the stated intention of telling a "great story." He may also know that his film will revive the same patriotic impulses that caused so many to rush to join the military after the terrorist attacks which are the subject of the film.

He may not be making the film specifically to stir up those impulses, but he may also be aware that his film will have that effect.

Where does his responsibility lie?

There are lots of double effect examples.

Catholicism allows that a morally grave wrong is permissible as a secondary effect given the following:

1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.

2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.

3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.

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 innocents.

Unless you're saying that Karl Rove is waaaaay smarter than Oliver Stone -- which he may indeed be -- I think we have to assume that at some point during the making of the film Stone must have considered the possible/probable effects of upsetting people all over again about the terrorist attacks.

>He may have the stated intention of telling a "great story."
>He may also know that his film will revive the same patriotic
>impulses that caused so many to rush to join the military
>after the terrorist attacks which are the subject of the
>film.
>
>He may not be making the film specifically to stir up those
>impulses, but he may also be aware that his film will have
>that effect.
>
>Where does his responsibility lie?
>
>There are lots of double effect examples.
>
>Catholicism allows that a morally grave wrong is permissible
>as a secondary effect given the following:
>
>1. The act itself must be morally good or at least
>indifferent.
>
>2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may
>permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad
>effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be
>indirectly voluntary.
>
>3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as
>immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily
>in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the
>good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by
>the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means
>to a good end, which is never allowed.
>
>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
>innocents.

And I think that the problem is that you're assuming this movie is going to lead to the death of innocents. It's like blaming gangsta rap music 4 any acts of gang violence. No one just started randomly started rappin about drive by shootings & then all of a sudden they started happening in real life. They're only talked about cuz they already existed. This movie was made because of an incident that already happened. Anyone who sees this movie & leaves w/ the idea of, "Nice flick, I think I'll go out & kill some innocent people now" well then they deserve the full blame & not Oliver Stone.

>Unless you're saying that Karl Rove is waaaaay smarter than
>Oliver Stone -- which he may indeed be -- I think we have to
>assume that at some point during the making of the film Stone
>must have considered the possible/probable effects of
>upsetting people all over again about the terrorist attacks.

He certainly might've. And if he considered that, I'd say he also considered @ the same time that this is certainly still a story that deserves & needs to be told & those upset over it are not being forced to see it. Furthermore, those that do or dont see it but still feel the need to go out & kill innocent people because of it, have some serious mental problems that Stone is not responsible for & shouldn't be held accountable for while he was trying to pay tribute to the actual heroes involved with this story.

>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
>innocents.


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.

-----------------------------
http://talestosuffice.com/
@kennykeil

>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.

First of all, you're assuming that World Trade Center is going to effect US foreign policy. Which is kinda silly. Second, you're assuming that Oliver Stone made the movie with that in mind. You're making two huge leaps and then beginning your whole argument there.


>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 a great story and all, but it has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about.

>That's what I mean about the double effect.
>
>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?

My point is that he doesn't KNOW any of that. I'm not going to judge any one--nor should a reasonably intelligent human being--based on what some misguided morons MIGHT do as a result of their art.
Period.

If I am so far off with my idea that stirring up emotions a la Fox News and other media outlets did not contribute strongly to the pass given by the country as a whole to waging a war of aggression, why are so many people on these boards alone in agreement with me?

That story does have a illustrative value, if you would be willing to read it for those purposes.

Why don't you tell me YOUR theory of responsibility for double effect.

Not saying Stone is absolved, but it's a 2 way street here.

What about the audience, and their ability to digest and process the information being given to them, regardless of how sappy the background music might be?

-----------------------------
http://talestosuffice.com/
@kennykeil

given the nature of film, the audience is far more likely to be overwhelmed and is much more easily manipulated than in any other medium -- stage, written word, music, etc.

You know that.

I'm not saying that the audience is without responsibility. Not at all. But the director is the creator of the film. You seem to be saying that he bears no responsibility.

Here is one of three reasons that I said I don't want to see World Trade Center, which is more or less what sparked this thread. Note first that it is ONE of THREE reasons. Note exactly what I say in this paragraph. It's really easy on message boards to try to argue a specific point and instead get caught up in side issues and generalizations.

"Third, while I understand that this topic has lots and lots of dramatic possibilities, I *still* don't think it is in good taste or in any way appropriate to capitalize on people's emotions surrounding the actual events. Think about this: The emotions that were stirred up by the event itself led to war on Afghanistan and war on Iraq. Let's just note that the war on Iraq was begun under VERY false pretences, and the only reason that the US citizenry has given this fucking government a pass and reelected Bush is because of the marketing of fear and the manipulation of the public's anger that Bush & Co. have engaged in. I just can't get behind a dramatization of the events that one could say set this chain in motion. I think there is too high a possibility of negative repurcussions."

In fact, I've already said at least twice that he does

I'm not saying it's all on the audience's shoulders, or that it's even 50/50 all the time.

And I will concede that film has that very power you described, over people as well as other mediums - except for maybe comic books, which is even more of a 'director's medium' than film : )


I mean, like I said over in the WTC post, I share your apprehension. I think your questions and concerns are very valid, and I would hope that EVERYONE would ask these very same questions you're presenting here (we won't all come up with the same answer necessarily, but at least we'd be asking). I wish more of us had been asking these kinds of questions 5 years ago.

The only place you and I really diverged was that I wasn't seeing where you were putting any faith in the audience to make up their own minds at some point. Which registered to me as dangerous thinking. I respect your faith in the power of stories, but if it's at the expense of your faith in the power of the people, well then, I dunno...

But you've acknowledged the audience bears at least some responsibility, and I'm hopefully making it clear that I feel Stone bears some as well. So um, I guess we're cool?

-----------------------------
http://talestosuffice.com/
@kennykeil

message boards are for argumentation among friends


~~~~~

Breathe and know you're breathing

An Oliver Stone movie isn't gonna push into invading Iran.

All it says is this:

"No, because only people who have already formed opinions see art in the first place"

What people DON'T have already formed opinions? Babies? When's the last time you saw a bunch of babies running around by themselves in an art gallery?




Exactly.

-----------------------------
http://talestosuffice.com/
@kennykeil

"Yes, a well made film, well written book, well staged play can give people a theretofore unseen look at the experience of others and can teach and elevate."

I'd like to say that art can also give peoplea theretofore unseen look at their OWN experiences as well.

Which in the grand scheme of things is all kind of the same thing, but you know, I just thought I'd throw that out there.

-----------------------------
http://talestosuffice.com/
@kennykeil

I might have rambled more in red given the chance, lol

I voted for, "No, because only people who have already formed opinions see art in the first place," but that's not exactly my opinion. I believe art is any creative form of personal expression and it's up to the individual to create their own criterion to what they value. With that mindset I almost voted for the propaganda choice because I believe some of the best art is propaganda. The thing is that I spent most of the year studying multi-cultural and political art, and the majority of the art only wanted to preach to the choir. There are many works of art I see that are supposed to change minds but the people who already agree with the artist are the ones looking at the art, and the rest don't care or have a bias that artists are just shallow liberals (the cliche is not that untrue). The message isn't getting to the people that maybe need to hear and the followers false sense of enlightenment only grows. However, I really do believe art can change people's minds, I just think that the art world in general would like to be a snob more than change minds, and with that said, people with already similar views go to see political or socially conscious art, and the rest stay at home and watch CSI.

http://www.timothypaulmoore.com
http://www.lettertojane.com

There's also the whole question of whether art with an agenda is art in the first place. I think the first question regarding art has to be whether it can be judged independent of its message. Then if a message also exists, and is an effective message, super.

But you're absolutely right about preaching to the choir. That's kind of what I was trying to get at but I didn't have the right words for it.

The examples brought up most of the time to defend political film making tend to be focused on specific, concrete injustices too. "The Thin Blue Line" almost always comes up as a prime example. I don't think any recent politically motiated films--and there have been some great ones--have done much good at all.
Except maybe "An Inconvenient Truth". But I think the film itself served more as a lightning rod for media attention with its provoking right-wing commentators to admit the validity of global warming.

Everyone with a TV can watch Frontline and become more aware of the world for free, and they don't bother to. So how can we expect movies to do anything?

_
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4TztqYaemt0
http://preptimeposse.blogspot.com/

> I don't think any recent politically motiated
>films--and there have been some great ones--have done much
>good at all.

Art doesn't have to "do good."

>Everyone with a TV can watch Frontline and become more aware
>of the world for free, and they don't bother to.

Right. Nobody in the world watches Frontline. I guess I imagined watching The Dark Side or The Secret History of Credit Cards.

>So how can we
>expect movies to do anything?

If one person watches Backdraft and decides to become a fire fighter, yellow is wrong.

>Art doesn't have to "do good."


I don't wanna get into the 'what is art' debate. But at the very least we need to overcome the intrinsic warm fuzziness some of us attribute to the term.

Art can be crude, and hateful, and obscene and mean and dangerous. Art can be evil.

Like, I'm incredibly passionate about the medium of comics. And by and large, my feelings are very positive about the form. I think they are art. Chick Tracts (these little gems, for the uninitiated: http://www.chick.com/default.asp) are some of the most ignorant, intolerant, and downright hateful little things I've ever seen. They're absolute garbage. But they're still comics, and they're still art. Whether I like that or not.

EDIT: And that's not even to say art has to be good OR evil. Even that would be limiting. I'm not so sure it has to do anything, to be honest with you.

-----------------------------
http://talestosuffice.com/
@kennykeil

>> I don't think any recent politically motiated
>>films--and there have been some great ones--have done much
>>good at all.
>
>Art doesn't have to "do good."

I'll replace "do good" with "do anything on an observable scale" then.

>>Everyone with a TV can watch Frontline and become more aware
>>of the world for free, and they don't bother to.
>
>Right. Nobody in the world watches Frontline. I guess I
>imagined watching The Dark Side or The Secret History of
>Credit Cards.

But didn't you already have a distrust of Dick Cheney? Did it give you more grounds or did it actually change your outlook? If it had taken a more positive view of him would you have opened yourself to it? If Frontline was popular and a sizable portion of the population watched it wouldn't the networks attempt to adopt its standards?

>>So how can we
>>expect movies to do anything?
>
>If one person watches Backdraft and decides to become a fire
>fighter, yellow is wrong.

What kind of scale are you talking about? I'm considering this on the level of changing mass public political attitudes. Of course it can change individuals outlooks but usually withing limits they've already established for themselves. I know that firsthand. I've become more knowledgeable about and modified my outlook on the world through art but it's remained the same at the core. Maybe that smaller scale is as far as this poll was meant to go, but where's the debate there really? That's just a given.

Bah arguing this kind of shit on here isn't much fun. I don't really have an quarrel with you on any worthwhile points.

_
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4TztqYaemt0
http://preptimeposse.blogspot.com/

>However, I really do believe art can change
>people's minds,

It seems that you actually voted against your beliefs.

>I just think that the art world in general
>would like to be a snob more than change minds,

The intent of why the art was created isn't really the question here. This makes it sound like you're just voting this way out of some animosity toward what you perceive to be the snobbish art world.

>and with that
>said, people with already similar views go to see political or
>socially conscious art, and the rest stay at home and watch
>CSI.

And this is just patently untrue and wrong for a few different reasons. Sure, there are some people who only watch movies or read books that they think will mesh with their world view. But there are also millions of people who read books, watch movies, go see photography exhibitions in order to learn more about whatever the subject matter is. Along those lines, there are a lot of different examples of art actually changing people's opinions and outlooks on issues.

Second, you're assuming that the people who stay at home and watch CSI don't also check out stuff like Band of Brothers or The Wire. All that stuff is art--like it or not Janey--and it can definitely change people's minds.

Example: In my book I talked briefly about Sebastian Telfair's decision to make the leap from high school to the NBA. One of my wife's cousins read the book and because of that she and her husband watched the excellent documentary, Through the Fire which details his decision and the process around it. Before watching the movie she was of the rather ill-formed opinion that these kids were just being selfish and greedy and they should just go to college.
Art changed her mind.

I didn't really vote against my beliefs because I said I don't have a definitive view on the subject. You added to what I was going to just write about how other forms of art get to people since my first reply was mainly focused on political art. However, nothing you that you presented makes my statement "absolutely ridiculous." I didn't just assume that millions of people don't read or watch something to learn about an issue, but the majority is going to a source that they already have a predisposition towards. You're not wrong with what you say, but it doesn't discredit what I said.

EDIT: I didn't see the part you wrote about intent the first time and I do disagree with that. The intent of the artist cannot be stripped away from the work when discussing it. No matter how general the intent of something is, it is still at the center of why every artistic choice was made in the work, and to say intent is not an issue makes the original question meaningless because there is no art without intent.

http://www.timothypaulmoore.com
http://www.lettertojane.com

You're forgetting that sometimes art is made without any other intent than to simply create.

>EDIT: I didn't see the part you wrote about intent the first
>time and I do disagree with that. The intent of the artist
>cannot be stripped away from the work when discussing it. No
>matter how general the intent of something is, it is still at
>the center of why every artistic choice was made in the work,
>and to say intent is not an issue makes the original question
>meaningless because there is no art without intent.

.

_
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4TztqYaemt0
http://preptimeposse.blogspot.com/

It's like when me & my boys used 2 get treated back in high school & college & start freestylin about nothing in general. We weren't trying 2 change the world or sway anyones opinion. We were just clownin around. It's still art. When your in pre-school or kidnegarten & the teacher gives you some play dough or clay. You've created something & it's art. There might not have been any initial intent to create anything specific but then all of a sudden wha-la & looky here. You've got an uh ash tray or som'n. Regardless of merit, it's still art.

still art.
______________________________________________________________________
"But if you brought in the beat, that's all you did, was brought in the beat. You didn't produce this record.
This song says 'Produced by,' not 'Brought in the beat by...'"
-Snoop Dogg

Cause I know I read "Cat's Cradle" when I was feeling unsure about my faith and that pushed me over the edge.

I do have two notes though:
I don't know if propaganda shows the point, because we said change minds, and I think propaganda shapes minds because we take it as truth instead of a piece of art.

Also, what I don't think this post has addressed yet is the impact that art has in more intrinsic aspects. I will give you an example: "Astral Weeks" by Van Morrison changed my life. It completely changed the way that I look at art and it changed my expectations for not only art, but for people and life in general as well. Would I say that it made me think about world issues or things like that? No, but it did make me examine myself. And aint nothing wrong with that.

- Dub

I give rappers the biz for being m-izza-a-archaic.

But the poll question simply says 'change minds'

Change minds, change the world I suppose.

-----------------------------
http://talestosuffice.com/
@kennykeil

lol, the personal is the political


~~~~~

Breathe and know you're breathing

That's putting it a bit generously, don't you think?

-----------------------------
http://talestosuffice.com/
@kennykeil

lol

___________________

Mar-A-Lago delenda est

& perhaps more importantly its not always the intent to do so.

It's not a 180, but it's still altering the course of things

-----------------------------
http://talestosuffice.com/
@kennykeil

___________________

Mar-A-Lago delenda est

I'm putting this here in part because of the above Oliver Stone conversation. I voted red, btw. This is from the L.A. Weekly:


Q: And did you talk with the producers about politics — if there would be a political viewpoint that informed the story?

A: There was no room for it, because John McLoughlin and Will Jimeno were not interested in politics, per se. They don’t talk about politics like you and I do. Their lives are not determined by it; they live according to what is given them. So it never entered into the equation. I loved the script as it was. I loved the inspiration of the story. So I vowed to stay inside those parameters.


Q: New York is probably the most liberal city in America, and yet the 9/11 attack has been so politicized, its imagery considered so proprietary, that right-wing skepticism has been mounting steadily against you since this project was announced. A story in The New York Timessaid the film is being strategically marketed to right-wing opinion leaders using the PR firm that advised the Swift Boat Veterans group. It even quoted the conservative National Review Web site as saying, “God Bless Oliver Stone.”

A: I knew (Paramount) was doing grassroots marketing to everybody — Hispanics, cops, firemen, teachers, church groups. I didn’t know that they had hired a specific firm; I found out that day. I’m pleased they like it, because it goes beyond politics.


Q: Could you foresee a left-wing backlash against the film?

A: If people on the right are responding with their hearts, I’m all for it. But if they’re making it into a political statement, it’s wrong. Those on the left might say, “Oh, this is a simplified context, and these are simplistic working-class values. You’re not showing a wider political context.” Or secondly, that we’re sentimentalizing the event — which would be unfair, because I think there’s a lot of grit there. But this is a populist film. We’ve said that from the beginning. In our hearts, it was a Frank Capra type of movie. And he didn’t necessarily get great notices.


Q: There’s one line in World Trade Center — I think we hear it on a TV monitor in an office at the Port Authority — where the announcer says, “. . . the shock of the explosion that was coincidental with the two towers coming down,” and then you move on to something else. Was the suggestion that an unexplained explosion might have accompanied the towers’ demise the one seed of doubt you intentionally planted in an otherwise apolitical movie?

A: Well, I think that all reality is questionable, as you know. Frankly, I’m not an expert on that at all. And I haven’t pursued it, because I think the consequences of where we are now are far worse. But even if there was a conspiracy, it wouldn’t change where we are now. We’re into another place, where there’s more war, more terror, more bankruptcy, more debt, above all more constitutional breakdown and more fear than ever before. That’s very serious. And we’re on the edge of possibly something bigger and very dangerous. Richard Clarke’s book , at least, is about a true conspiracy that we know existed, of a small group who took over the government and did it their way — manipulated, created the war. It’s 30 or 40 people, right?


Q: Sy Hersh says it’s 11 guys.

A: It was a conspiracy, and it was basically at the top. It’s Cheney and Rumsfeld influencing Bush. Cheney and Rumsfeld go back to the Ford administration, and when they got their way, they kicked butt. That’s a great story. But that’s not even all of it. When you’ve got a guy like Representative Pete Hoekstra from Michigan, who was a friend of the Bush administration — who had approved of the Patriot Act, the eavesdropping, the taxes, the bank records, all of it — saying in the press that there’s something worse that he’s pissed off about, because they hadn’t consulted him. Something worse? I mean, all the cards are not on the table, right? This is a big story. And we’re living it. How can you write about it? We’re fucking rocking in the boat. It’s like trying to write a great war novel when you might be going into World War II.
______________________________________________________________________
"But if you brought in the beat, that's all you did, was brought in the beat. You didn't produce this record.
This song says 'Produced by,' not 'Brought in the beat by...'"
-Snoop Dogg

I feel like he's evading the issue.

You know I have to represent.

Seriously tho, art for the sake of art does not change minds IMO. It's the relationship between art (the media message) and the viewer.

For this post I am "retextualizing" the article "Texts and Constructed Meaning" by Daniel Chandler:

Art cannot speak for itself: it needs a viewer as well as the artist who makes the work.

Individuals can either accept, modify, ignore or reject the work, according to their experience, attitudes and purposes. This whole attitudinal spectrum towards meaning- making with art parallels that relating to the nature of reality: ranging from objectivism, via intersubjectivity, to subjectivism.

<--- Blame this lady for Nutty.

that's a big part of the question that's being debated here

by the way, I really liked that thing you posted in the other thread. Sometimes I think I'm the only person who questions Stone's motives and protestations of innocence.


~~~~~

Breathe and know you're breathing

...it's hard to know what, if anything, has a real effect on the viewer. For example, one of my paintings, Liberation Dance (http://nettrice.us/liberationdance2.jpg) seems to affect people in all kinds of ways. One person, a white lady over age 60 saw monkeys and offended everyone, including the artist (me). Some Black guys saw something overtly sexual in the piece while the women could not even when they tried to point it out. Did any of them see exactly my vision for the work or understand what I experienced when making the work? No. They related based on their own prior experience, knowledge and viewpoint.

Me and my best friend disagree that La Haine is a good film. She hates it while I find it inspiring. We agree on lots of things but not on films.

>by the way, I really liked that thing you posted in the other
>thread. Sometimes I think I'm the only person who questions
>Stone's motives and protestations of innocence.

You're not the only one.

<--- Blame this lady for Nutty.

--------------------
Why do you choose to mimic these wack MCs?
Why do you choose to listen to R&B?

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to." Leela

*puts emceeing in a box*

but its skeptical in some ways. Art induces your (sub)conscious on a lot of levels so its already there - it can motivate change but not necessarily change you or your thoughts/ideals.

However, at the same time, its very influential in creating consciousness but that's not some immediate I watch, I see, I read to I am. Its all learning.

An album like What's Going on or Innervisions.

A movie like The Matrix.

i mean hell, even the bible cna be considered a work of
art if you really break it down. the bible never did it
for me, but if it;s your thing, run with it.



short answer, if the person is open to it,
yes. absolutely. a movie can change the world.

__________________________
"There is no spoon." -The orphan

That's just b.s.

<--- Blame this lady for Nutty.

Sorry...I figured you'd have a problem with that

-----------------------------
http://talestosuffice.com/
@kennykeil

Change is a constant variable of the human experience. Art may influence change but Art itself is not responsible for it.

Wouldn't change be a constant of the human experience?

And isn't an influence a change in and of itself?

-----------------------------
http://talestosuffice.com/
@kennykeil

>Wouldn't change be a constant of the human experience?
Yes, I thought that was what I said.

>And isn't an influence a change in and of itself?
No. Being that I am a metaphysician I think changes occur first on an inner(unseen level) and then it is reflected in the outer(physical) world.

Change that occurs the other way around is manipulation. Media manipulation of art is called popular culture.

>>And isn't an influence a change in and of itself?
>No. Being that I am a metaphysician

I'm sorry, I have to ask- what do metaphysicians do?

>I think changes occur
>first on an inner(unseen level) and then it is reflected
> in the outer(physical) world.

I was wondering when the 'art imitates life' card was gonna be played, and this might be the closest we get. While I agree with the sentiment here, I think the 'reflecting' goes both ways. The inner affects the outer and vice versa.

But I'd be interested to know where you think those unseen inner changes come from.

>Change that occurs the other way around is
>manipulation. Media manipulation of art is called popular
>culture.

Well, 'manipulation' is kind of a loaded word. And beyond that I'm not sure what you're saying here. Do you feel that all pop art is a form of propaganda? Do you see propoganda as art?

-----------------------------
http://talestosuffice.com/
@kennykeil

>>>And isn't an influence a change in and of itself?
>>No. Being that I am a metaphysician
>
>I'm sorry, I have to ask- what do metaphysicians do?

lol, We spend way too much time pondering abstract subject matter specifically the relationship between mind and matter.
Yes, it is self-indulgent behavior.lol

>
>>I think changes occur
>>first on an inner(unseen level) and then it is
>reflected
>> in the outer(physical) world.
>
>I was wondering when the 'art imitates life' card was gonna be
>played, and this might be the closest we get. While I agree
>with the sentiment here, I think the 'reflecting' goes both
>ways. The inner affects the outer and vice versa.
>
>But I'd be interested to know where you think those unseen
>inner changes come from.
>
>>Change that occurs the other way around is
>>manipulation. Media manipulation of art is called popular
>
>>culture.
>
>Well, 'manipulation' is kind of a loaded word. And beyond that
>I'm not sure what you're saying here. Do you feel that all pop
>art is a form of propaganda?
Yes, IMO all pop culture whether it is music, movies, literature, fashion etc. is propaganda designed for a specific audience. It does not make a difference whether it is a coporate conglomerate product or an underground project. I did not say it was all bad. All of it is designed to fit a neatly packaged worldview.

Do you see propoganda as art?
Yes.

No matter which of those choices you believe, as long as it's a "yes", I'll listen to your argument.

Do you all know how many navy guys I know who said they joined due to watching Top Gun as a kid? That's a VERY VERY slight example. There are a bajillion others.

Whether you call it art or propaganda, subversive or no, it DOES change minds. The rest is worthy of an argument.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

Or 'what kind of change'

That's where the cynic and the dreamer in me have trouble. But otherwise, yeah, it's kind of a no brainer as far as I'm concerned.

-----------------------------
http://talestosuffice.com/
@kennykeil

*goes to sohh*

http://nahright.com/news/wp-content/images/seanp_killwhitey_s.jpg

*ignores Ice Kareem*

I voted red, but this has given me tons to think about.

*waves*

And that's almost ironic because I'm an art major. But I do believe that visual art is the only type of art that doesn't quite reach the masses in the same way that a film or an album might. You don't hear people refer to a painting the way they'd refer to a classic film or album or even a play.

I think some people in the visual art field simply give their craft too much credit. I think they could reach that level but they're not there right now. Some people will always see your interpretive drawings as "something a five-year-old can do" simply because they can't relate.


"Being the bigger man is overrated." -- Huey (The Boondocks)

myspace.com/dozingoff