[Closed] Recent Viewing Part III

D read the time article and then tell me how faithful it is to his life

So sad.

-Erik-

I'm sorry you didn't get anything out of it. Like I said I think it's a well made, well told, and extremely well acted film with an interesting story to tell.

-Erik-

Low blow Thomas. I'm sure Erik knows how his wife feels.

I haven't seen the film, so I cannot comment on how (dis)tastefully women or any sexual excesses or exploits were portrayed, but it's a general point worth discussing, I think.
I would not agree that the argument 'it's out there anyway, so why not show it' (apologies for any potential simplification, Michael and D.) is in itself enough to warrant any blatant exploitative titillation.
Surely the difference in showing such behaviour is in its intention and approach: is it a statement on the hollow and meaningless pursuits of kids with too much time and money and too little sense? Or is it simply to give the male geek movie goer a glimpse of adolescent flesh?

While the actual scene may very well play out exactly the same in both scenarios, the intent to me is what leaves the emotional aftertaste.

My point (or question, rather) was whether it was meaningful in the film, and hence needed to be shown. That boys like a bit of skin, or that wild, meaningless sex goes on in our younger years (well, some people's younger years. Obviously i've been missing out again. I should have gone to an American college, evidently. I knew this ever since I saw that eminent real-life docudrama Animal House...) seems pretty self evident.

You're so far off base I want to throw up. It doesn't have to be shown like it did in the film. I sure wouldn't have wanted my daughter to have seen this film at 13. In fact the film The King's Speech got a R rating but I would have taken my daughter to it. It shows the stupidity of the system. Someday you might be a father and your attitude will change a bit. What I would like you to do 'D' which you won't do is send your statement to the presidents of Harvard, Stanford, Baylor, Northwestern, and UCSD. I'll shut up if you get one to agree with you, which they won't of course. Read the Time magazine article. He had and still has a girlfriend and this nonsense had nothing to do with him. It was put in to sell tickets. That is Hollywood and always will be the way they operate. Zuckerberg's story has a lot of merit and could have made for an interesting film.
Thomas

Tom, read Franz' reply above yours.
The scene(s) apparently had a (social) statement to make in the context of the film.
Whetehr or not you personally approve of what is depicted honestly is irrelevant.
I am not a keen proponent of genocide, yet I found Hotel Rwanda and Schindler's List to make very valid contributions to awareness and debate even if they contained scenes that made me sick. I am not really big on rape, yet The Accused made an extremely powerful statement that was worth hearing, even if the pivotal event made my stomach churn.

Way bigger examples (emotionally, historically and judicially, though socially -in the context of how we define our surroundings and civilisations- arguably not), I grant you. But my point is that the film makers apparently tried to tell us something.
Convey a message to make us think and evaluate our choices.

Not just tittilate, providing eye candy in the given and accepted context of a male-oriented society, for us to take as a confirmation of our (lack of) morals and beliefs.
It's supposed to set the context, and make you question the validity.

That said, I'm probably the last person to argue that contextual freedom, as I have railed and ranted time and again (and continue to do so) against the mean-spiritedness, myopically nasty Se7en. The film is generally revered, yet I find it a deeply sad waste of celluloid, containing a message that is utterly pointless. Worse than that, mean.

It's a ugly film for sure... but I love it! The good guys don't always win and there are sickos all around us.

-Erik-

Tom these things happen in real life. Some of what's portrayed in that film is too mild in comparison to what really goes on. Closing our eyes and turning the other way doesn't make it disappear. You can ignore the giant elephant on the table next to you (or was it the giant squid?) all you like but he's still there

Tom, you live in your own world buddy. Of course they won't admit these things are going on, especially for such well known (internationally) institutions. Did you expect them to? Would you admit it publically if you were in their shoes, even if you know it's true? What does that have to do with the reality? I see the american media system is working pretty good on you though, that's very sad. Open your eyes. Read, compare sources, be informed, talk to people. Form your own opinion. Don't blindly follow the one shoved up our asses by the media. Each and everyone serves their own interests and the facebook owner and founder is a friggin billionaire, what did you expect them to say?

No, as I said: I haven't, which makes this conversation pretty interesting.

Seriously (and as I said earlier): I find the principle of the thing interesting. Not the particulars.
And based on Franz' comment (and now yours as well) , it's pretty clear those scene(s) had a clear purpose and meaning that enhances understanding and/or empathy with the story. I'm perfectly happy with that (as much as mere exploitation annoys and bores me).

Ah-HAH! Cultural relativism! Gotta love it!

(This is confusing the discussion though: it's not about the ACT, it's about the creative choices of SHOWING the act, which would be a way easier discuission -true- if the act was morally unambiguous!)

Fair enough.