I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!

[yendi]

Folks, if you're one of the folks who sits and bitches about lack of quality tv (like I do), or (even worse), one of the folks who watched things like Everybody Loves Raymond and The King of Queens, you owe it to yourself to see Network over and over. It doesn't matter that it was written back in the days when there were only three channels to watch. It's still the best damned insight into the fucked up (yet still capable of brilliance) industry that so many of us rely on to either feed or anesthetize our brains.

Speaking of anesthetizing brains, Jeepers Creepers 2 managed to set a record as the highest-grossing Labor Day weekend film ever. That means that roughly 2,846,154 folks (at an average of $6.50 a ticket) plunked down money to support a movie that A) is a sequel to an incredibly lame horror movie, and B) is directed and written by a child molester (don't click on that link if you don't want to know what that asshole director has done -- potential trigger issues). Fuck all 2,846,154 of you with a chainsaw and/or your signed copy of the DVD of Powder.

Comments

[unwilly.livejournal.com]

See what happens when you ignore lame sequels to crappy movies? I didn't even know the Powder director had found work again.

One more reason to never see JC2.

Un

[piratejenny.livejournal.com]

You know, I had no idea about all of this. I never heard anything about it when Powder came out. I didn't really have much of a desire to see Jeepers Creepers 2 anyway. Now I'm definitely not.

Thanks for the link.

[ex-ilk.livejournal.com]

Network is a must see.


And THAT film did THAT? The only thing I've heard is that is't lame, unoriginal and completely conventional ! Why would that many peo.....

oh.

[melintur.livejournal.com]

I loved powder; this didn't change when I learned the director's past.

Of course, I also don't hold his past against him (especially when it has no relation to his skills, good or bad, as a director).

Compassion and understanding means everyone.

[melintur.livejournal.com]

(didn't mean this as a lecture and/or judgement, just bringing up a differing viewpoint)

[yendi]

Fair enough, but there are things for which I simply find myself unable to offer compassion.

I can look at the art of someone who does something like that (Roman Polanski being a better example, as I haven't seen Powder, but I have seen and enjoyed a number of Polanski's films), but I can't always forget what they've done (rape and child molestation are crimes that fit solidly into my "unforgivable" book), and I certainly can't every justify spending my hard-earned cash on their stuff.

[melintur.livejournal.com]

Which is certainly your perogative; to counterpoint, the Idea that I could remove my compassion from an individual based on that indivdual's membership in a group (even the agreed horrible crime of rape), is an abyss I prefer not to engage in.

For my rational comfort, there are far too many "I don't believe in the death penalty, except for XY case." and "I don't promote violence but I'd love to see XY get lynched." It seems incongruous and bigoted to me to allow these kinds of emotional responses overweigh the idea (and practice) of compassion. It is difficult to forgive heinous crimes, and in my opinion, even the more important TO forgive.

[yendi]

That seems to completely undermine the purpose of forgiveness. If it can't be freely given, but instead is required to be given, it no longer has any meaning whatsoever (aside -- neither you nor I could actually forgive Salva, as we were not his victims).

I'm not sure how it's either incongruous (if I'm contradicting something else I've said, which I've been known to do, I'm more than amenable to clarify that position), or bigoted, as I'm basing my opinion on actions, not a state of being (if Salva was a pedophile who managed to never act on his inclinations, I could see the argument).

[melintur.livejournal.com]

I don't agree that forgiveness loses it's meaning in being applied universally, as it is a practice to keep up: one will have failings in forgiveness. As well, I didn't mean to imply it should be required or forced.
I'm not saying "everyone must be forgiven." I'm saying "everyone is worthy of forgiveness." It is a slight semantic difference and quite a difference in meaning.

The incongruity thing was a comment about my own philosopy, not yours - to me it would seem incongruous with my base life philosophies. To me, it is similar to allowing KKK to march as upholding free speech. I.e. "I support free speech, but those KKK guys take it too far."

And Salva served his time (whether or not the sentance is viewed as appropriate), he should be clear-and-free (probation/counselling nonewithstanding).

I don't see the difference of actions vs. state of being on judgement. I don't think there is a line there. You assume through this individuals actions that he is in the same group that you are judging (since you don't know the particulars of the case, nor the man, nor the victim): Criminal Child Sex Offenders. You judge the group on their actions and purport that to be OK. I disagree, I consider that very simillar to bigotry (to me). It is thus that I try to purge these group-judgements from my own philosophies and actions.

Perhaps that is why I react emotionally to these posts: It is a part of my emotional responses that I find to be in conflict with my personal moral code and find them distasteful. When I witness them in others, I am reminded of my own and react accordingly?

[yendi]

I don't agree that forgiveness loses it's meaning in being applied universally, as it is a practice to keep up: one will have failings in forgiveness. As well, I didn't mean to imply it should be required or forced.
I'm not saying "everyone must be forgiven." I'm saying "everyone is worthy of forgiveness." It is a slight semantic difference and quite a difference in meaning.

Fair enough. I think if you adjusted that slightly to read "everything is worthy of being considered for forgiveness" (which is a lot clunkier, admittedly), I could see it. Although I admit I can't look at certain actions (rape, child molestation, writing "The Bridges of Madison County") and see obvious routes to forgiveness, I also can see that someone might find the ability to do so.

The incongruity thing was a comment about my own philosopy, not yours - to me it would seem incongruous with my base life philosophies. To me, it is similar to allowing KKK to march as upholding free speech. I.e. "I support free speech, but those KKK guys take it too far."

Fair enough for the first part. I've always seen my thoughts on this as essentially, "I support free speech, but those KKK guys are still assholes."

And Salva served his time (whether or not the sentance is viewed as appropriate), he should be clear-and-free (probation/counselling nonewithstanding).

See, this is where I think we really disagree. He should be clear and free from a legal standpoint, fine. But we are all the products of our actions, and I don't see judging him based on what he's done (without denying him legal rights) as being wrong. To repeat the example I use in another reply -- no way in hell am I letting Michael Milken manage my finances, even he has paid his debt to society.

I don't see the difference of actions vs. state of being on judgement. I don't think there is a line there. You assume through this individuals actions that he is in the same group that you are judging (since you don't know the particulars of the case, nor the man, nor the victim): Criminal Child Sex Offenders. You judge the group on their actions and purport that to be OK. I disagree, I consider that very simillar to bigotry (to me). It is thus that I try to purge these group-judgements from my own philosophies and actions.

It sounds, as much as anything else, like a matter of differing interpretations of the concept of bigotry. I've yet to see any indication that child molestation is the sort of crime that can have pure "Les Miz" style motivations behind it. That said, if the worst thing that can ever be said about me is that I was bigoted against child molesters, I suspect I'll have led a much better life than I ever dreamed of.

Perhaps that is why I react emotionally to these posts: It is a part of my emotional responses that I find to be in conflict with my personal moral code and find them distasteful. When I witness them in others, I am reminded of my own and react accordingly?

I wouldn't presume to psychoanalyze you. :-) But I think we all have our hot buttons in terms of the types of comments that can set us off.

Re: Salva

[scarcrest.livejournal.com]

Yup.

[astelspirals.livejournal.com]

(at an average of $6.50 a ticket)

...i want to pay $6.50 for a movie ticket...

[demetria23.livejournal.com]

I like being a student. $6.75 for Atlanta tickets, max (unless you go to Lennox).

[astelspirals.livejournal.com]

$7 for matinee/student and $9 for regular price here in California. ~_~ though i do hear that's not as bad as in New York.

[demetria23.livejournal.com]

I like being a student. $6.75 for Atlanta tickets, max (unless you go to Lennox).

[yendi]

Actually, they closed the Lenox theatre this summer. :-)

[shawnj.livejournal.com]

Of course, the guy did pay the time for what he did. Maybe not as long as you wanted to, but that then becomes a problem with the judicial system. I always thought that when a man serves his time for a crime, he is then given a second chance on life. If that's not the case any more, we might as well be living in the third world.

[yendi]

Um, no. He's given a chance to rejoin society. There's nothing, anywhere, that says we can't continue to apply our own judgements, even after the law claims he has served his time. If you really believe what you just wrote, have you considered investing your money with the paroled Michael Milken?

[shawnj.livejournal.com]

Bad analogy. In the case of Michael Milken, investing money with him is forgetting that he is a bad place to invest with given his track record. With Salva, going to see one of his movies isn't going to cause him to rape another child. Want a better analogy? The better anology would be to ask whether or not someone would hire an ex-felon on a job interview. I would say that if he has the skills to do the job, it should be no problem since he has served the time that society deems necessary for the crime that he committed.

And you see, the attitude that you have is the exact reason why people who have served their time often fall back on their crimes. They're not even given a chance to prove themselves despite having been punished by our compacted legal system.