http://www.nola.com/newsflash/entertain ... ertainment
The Question: Does politics belong at the Oscars?
The Associated Press
3/1/04 5:10 AM
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- The Academy Awards featured disapproving references to the war in Iraq from Oscar winners Sean Penn and filmmaker Errol Morris, and several barbs directed at politicians by host Billy Crystal.
In anticipation, The Associated Press asked arriving celebrities "The Question": Does politics belong at the Oscars?
( Extract)
"They're contained in all of us, aren't they? I suppose it's up to the conscience of the individual whether they take the moment of attention to say something other than 'Thank you.' It celebrates free speech. I don't think it should be suppressed and I certainly don't think there should be any delay on the broadcast because it invites censorship, which is not healthy." -- Elvis Costello, original song nominee.
------
Associated Press writer Beth Harris compiled this report.
Does politics belong at the Oscars? Elvis answers
Films are often a statement of life. In the case of Michael Moore last year, he won for a film that was essentially talking about how screwed up politics is. So obviously he should be allowed to talk politics.
This year I was surprised that people like Tim Robbins did not make any comments, though Sean Penn made a point of briefly commenting that actors knew that there were no WMDs.
This year I was surprised that people like Tim Robbins did not make any comments, though Sean Penn made a point of briefly commenting that actors knew that there were no WMDs.
This morning you've got time for a hot, home-cooked breakfast! Delicious and piping hot in only 3 microwave minutes.
-
crash8_durham
- Posts: 524
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:55 pm
- Location: VA
- Contact:
I really like Tim Robbins but I was very happy he kept his politics to himself. I can't stand Micheal Moore and wish he would have just shut up last year. I don't watch the Oscars, or concerts or anything else entertainment related to hear about anyone's political or religoius preferences even if they are the same as mine. I say keep it to yourself or go tell it on Larry King or some other political forum. I never see anyone plugging there new hit single on Bill Maher.
What Michael Moore did at last years Oscars was totally acceptable. He made, and was recognized, for a film that showed the truths (even if many of them were exagerrated truths) about the people running the country. Truths that were especially important considering the Oscars were occuring while the US was fighting a war based upon lies.crash8_durham wrote:I really like Tim Robbins but I was very happy he kept his politics to himself. I can't stand Micheal Moore and wish he would have just shut up last year. I don't watch the Oscars, or concerts or anything else entertainment related to hear about anyone's political or religoius preferences even if they are the same as mine. I say keep it to yourself or go tell it on Larry King or some other political forum. I never see anyone plugging there new hit single on Bill Maher.
It's one thing in Tim Robbins case, where his performance in Mystic River had nothing to do with politics, but in Moore's case he had every right to speak his mind. Too many people are frightened to speak their mind in today's Orwellian climate.
The problem with a lot of today's popular culture, whether it be film or music is its focus on escapism. And while I think it's important to be able to escape while watching a film with a lot of fantasy elements, I think it's also a key tool in social awareness, especially in the case of the documentary.
This morning you've got time for a hot, home-cooked breakfast! Delicious and piping hot in only 3 microwave minutes.
The Oscars, and the like, are AWARDS ceremonies to acknowledge and celebrate the art of film making. Those creations speak for themselves. The Oscars isn't [the appropriate] forum for personal commentary on the [political] state of the world. The art itself does that, and whether it be relevent or not to the subject matter, has no bearing on the award itself.
These recalcitrant "stars" are annoying to me because they actually seem to believe (and expect!) that they are of THE righteous point of view and that the masses shall heed their warning cries and fall into line. You're not Mother Theresa. This isn't the United Nations. It's just not good enough to have an opinion. ( I love just about every movie Sean Penn has done! And Shawshank Redemption is one of my all time favorite films.)
But like it was said by someone previously, I don't watch these types of events because I agree or disagree with a certain artists point of view. I don't usually watch awards shows and stuff like that at all (I ONLY watched because of EC.)
But the point being, that it's just not the appropriate place for all that. Go on O'Reilly if you want to save the world.
Just like Janet's breast bearing had no business being in the SuperBowl. It's not censorship! That's a cop~out. I'm not against breast bearing or Bush bashing or the word fuck. It's about being APROPOS!!
I say this as a mother and as a human being....think of the children, so impressionable, so eager. Little sponges soaking it all up. Doesn't anybody have the guts to give a damn about that? Why must everything be a free~for~all all the time? It makes my job of being a good and responsible parent a lot harder, I can tell you that.
Having said all that, there are also artists, like the Beastie Boys and Bono and Elizabeth Taylor, for example, who use their position and their voice to work to further causes that they believe in without trying to jam it down some poor unsuspecting bystanders throat. That's the cool way to do it.
These recalcitrant "stars" are annoying to me because they actually seem to believe (and expect!) that they are of THE righteous point of view and that the masses shall heed their warning cries and fall into line. You're not Mother Theresa. This isn't the United Nations. It's just not good enough to have an opinion. ( I love just about every movie Sean Penn has done! And Shawshank Redemption is one of my all time favorite films.)
But like it was said by someone previously, I don't watch these types of events because I agree or disagree with a certain artists point of view. I don't usually watch awards shows and stuff like that at all (I ONLY watched because of EC.)
But the point being, that it's just not the appropriate place for all that. Go on O'Reilly if you want to save the world.
Just like Janet's breast bearing had no business being in the SuperBowl. It's not censorship! That's a cop~out. I'm not against breast bearing or Bush bashing or the word fuck. It's about being APROPOS!!
I say this as a mother and as a human being....think of the children, so impressionable, so eager. Little sponges soaking it all up. Doesn't anybody have the guts to give a damn about that? Why must everything be a free~for~all all the time? It makes my job of being a good and responsible parent a lot harder, I can tell you that.
Having said all that, there are also artists, like the Beastie Boys and Bono and Elizabeth Taylor, for example, who use their position and their voice to work to further causes that they believe in without trying to jam it down some poor unsuspecting bystanders throat. That's the cool way to do it.
Last edited by SweetPear on Tue Mar 02, 2004 12:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'm not angry anymore....
Really, I could care less who chooses to use an opportunity given to them to voice their opinion about whatever at the Oscars or anywhere else.
Who cares? Turn it off if you don't like it. I was just excersizing my opinion.
(But the SuperBowl boob thing was something different.)
Who cares? Turn it off if you don't like it. I was just excersizing my opinion.
(But the SuperBowl boob thing was something different.)
I'm not angry anymore....
-
laughingcrow
- Posts: 2476
- Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 8:35 am
-
crash8_durham
- Posts: 524
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:55 pm
- Location: VA
- Contact:
So next year when Passion of Christ wins 100 Oscars, Mel Gibson will have the right to shove his beliefs down my throat on stage?
I'm sorry but if I turn on the Oscars or any other non political or non religious show I don't care to have anyone push their thoughts or beliefs on me even if I am 100% in agreement with them.
If I go to a concert I don't want to hear about it. I think that anyone who passionately believes in something is fine and dandy but I don't need to be converted to anything from my political ideas to what kind of milk I buy.
So they can all just shut up and thank the Acadamy.
I'm sorry but if I turn on the Oscars or any other non political or non religious show I don't care to have anyone push their thoughts or beliefs on me even if I am 100% in agreement with them.
If I go to a concert I don't want to hear about it. I think that anyone who passionately believes in something is fine and dandy but I don't need to be converted to anything from my political ideas to what kind of milk I buy.
So they can all just shut up and thank the Acadamy.
-
noiseradio
- Posts: 2295
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Contact:
What Michael Moore did at last year's Oscars was make an ass of himself. And I thought it was glorious that he was allowed to do so. He shook his metaphorically tiny fist at the camera and called the most powerful man in the world a liar (and implied that he was guilty of war crimes). And Moore was not nor will he be arrested for that. He gets to say it. And the audience gets to boo. Or cheer. Whatever. And over a billion people get to see free speech, warts and all. Some people liked what he said so much they went out and bought 2 copies of Bowling For Columbine. Some people will never see one of his movies or read one of his books again out of protest. Eveyone gets to express their opinions, and what harm is really done?
Now, in terms of ettiquette, is that the best time to make that sort of statement? Probably not. So he has bad manners. He almost certainly won't get the chance to make that type of statement again at the Oscars. That, by the way, is free speech on the part of the Academy. It's their party, and they can nominate if they want to.
Does anyone really think Mel Gibson is going to win Oscars for the Passion? Still haven't seen it, but it seems highly unlikely to me. If he did win, he's as welcome to use that minute or two to say what's on his mind as anyone else. If you don't like it, don't watch. I stopped watching the Grammys years ago.
I disagree with Elvis ever so slightly on the issue of the delay. A few seconds delay allows the network to make sure that they are within their own standards content-wise. They have the right to free expression as well, which includes the right NOT to express certain ideas. Again, it's their show. Anyone who speaks on it is on their time.
Now, in terms of ettiquette, is that the best time to make that sort of statement? Probably not. So he has bad manners. He almost certainly won't get the chance to make that type of statement again at the Oscars. That, by the way, is free speech on the part of the Academy. It's their party, and they can nominate if they want to.
Does anyone really think Mel Gibson is going to win Oscars for the Passion? Still haven't seen it, but it seems highly unlikely to me. If he did win, he's as welcome to use that minute or two to say what's on his mind as anyone else. If you don't like it, don't watch. I stopped watching the Grammys years ago.
I disagree with Elvis ever so slightly on the issue of the delay. A few seconds delay allows the network to make sure that they are within their own standards content-wise. They have the right to free expression as well, which includes the right NOT to express certain ideas. Again, it's their show. Anyone who speaks on it is on their time.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
--William Shakespeare
--William Shakespeare
I don't really think that not nominating somebody is free speech, nor is not choosing him to win. That's more like censorship in my opinion. If he makes the best film and they refuse to acknowledge it because it's controversial or anti-american, then it's definitely censorship.
I do usually keep one eye on the Oscars, but always change the channel or mute during the speeches as they really all get on my tit, no matter what they're saying, be it pacifistic rhetoric or thanking their childhood hairdressers.
I do usually keep one eye on the Oscars, but always change the channel or mute during the speeches as they really all get on my tit, no matter what they're saying, be it pacifistic rhetoric or thanking their childhood hairdressers.
A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. Do you think when Jesus comes back he ever wants to see a fuckin' cross? It's kind of like going up to Jackie Onassis with a rifle pendant on.
-
noiseradio
- Posts: 2295
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Contact:
It does NOT censor a movie to not award it. Censoring a movie requires forbidding the movie to be made and/or distributed. To say that someone made the "best" movie in a year is to be subjective. A politically charged feature that you love with all your heart isn't nominated, but 5 other films are, and you assume that's censorship on the part of the Academy? The problem with that is that politicallyy charged films win Oscars all the time. Michael Moore gave his speech...accepting an Oscar for Best Documentary. They gave acting Oscars to Sean Penn (who went to Iraq to protest the war) and Tim Robbins (who's very outspoken against the war). So even if voting against someone could be censorship, how is the Academy guilty of censorship in any of these scenarios? If they refuse to acknowledge a film because thay don't like its politics, then that's politics, not censorship.
Now let's get down to it. If voting against someone because you disagree with their politics and don't want them to talk anymore is censorship, then a lot of people here are guilty of censorship against George Bush. See? It's a vote. You cast it for whom you like (or you cast it for the opponent of whomever you don't like). But still, it's a vote. Every year, the Academy Awards gives statues to moviemakers, and sometimes they deserve it. Who votes? Other movie makers. Scores of them. If they all hate a person on a personal level, that person probably won't get Oscars. Is that censorship? If so then all politics is censorship.
The fact is, evey time an Academy member casts a vote for whom they want to win, they're expressing their free speech. That's if they're voring for what they really think is the best work, or whether they're voting for their cousin's film, or whether they're voting for anything else but that bastard Woody Allen (or whoever that individual hates). The winner is picked by a plurality of individuals expressing their opinion for myriad motivation. That's all free speech.
And why is it censorship to screen content of the Oscars, but it's not censorship to screen content on any other show? The actors on Friends don't decide what words they get to say. That's the directors/producers/network's call. No one cries censorship if David Schwimmer doean't get to adlib the f-word in an episode. The Oscars is a show. It has producers and directors. And it has players of sorts. The presenters and honorees are helping the producers put on the show. They know what words they're not supposed to say on live television, and it's not their show to alter. If the producers and directors decide to break in with music or push the dump button because someone drops an f-bomb, then they're making a production decision. It's their show, and it's their call. The guy giving the speech isn't in a public forum or at a lecture everyone has come to to be educated on a particular topic. The winner can say what they want, but it's not censorship if the producers decide not to air it.
It's like Wal-Mart. They won't carry certain records if they have explicit content. People yell "censorship!" But Wal-Mart can sell (and not sell) whatever they want. No one is stopping the artist from recording. THAT would be censorship.
Now let's get down to it. If voting against someone because you disagree with their politics and don't want them to talk anymore is censorship, then a lot of people here are guilty of censorship against George Bush. See? It's a vote. You cast it for whom you like (or you cast it for the opponent of whomever you don't like). But still, it's a vote. Every year, the Academy Awards gives statues to moviemakers, and sometimes they deserve it. Who votes? Other movie makers. Scores of them. If they all hate a person on a personal level, that person probably won't get Oscars. Is that censorship? If so then all politics is censorship.
The fact is, evey time an Academy member casts a vote for whom they want to win, they're expressing their free speech. That's if they're voring for what they really think is the best work, or whether they're voting for their cousin's film, or whether they're voting for anything else but that bastard Woody Allen (or whoever that individual hates). The winner is picked by a plurality of individuals expressing their opinion for myriad motivation. That's all free speech.
And why is it censorship to screen content of the Oscars, but it's not censorship to screen content on any other show? The actors on Friends don't decide what words they get to say. That's the directors/producers/network's call. No one cries censorship if David Schwimmer doean't get to adlib the f-word in an episode. The Oscars is a show. It has producers and directors. And it has players of sorts. The presenters and honorees are helping the producers put on the show. They know what words they're not supposed to say on live television, and it's not their show to alter. If the producers and directors decide to break in with music or push the dump button because someone drops an f-bomb, then they're making a production decision. It's their show, and it's their call. The guy giving the speech isn't in a public forum or at a lecture everyone has come to to be educated on a particular topic. The winner can say what they want, but it's not censorship if the producers decide not to air it.
It's like Wal-Mart. They won't carry certain records if they have explicit content. People yell "censorship!" But Wal-Mart can sell (and not sell) whatever they want. No one is stopping the artist from recording. THAT would be censorship.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
--William Shakespeare
--William Shakespeare
-
Mr. Average
- Posts: 2031
- Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2003 12:22 pm
- Location: Orange County, Californication
Actually, WalMart does carry most records with curse words. Except they only carry the 'clean' versions. Except they don't advertise that in the store. So when you buy Ryan Adams 'Love Is Hell', the second song has a big bleep in it. Even if you were not aware the album had a curse word to begin with. Except you CAN buy R rated movies at WalMart that have the F word and nudity and everything. Reason #261 that WalMart is a hypocritical pile of S***.
-
noiseradio
- Posts: 2295
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Contact:
The sticker on the top of CDs at Wal-Mart gives the name of the Artist and the name of the Album. If it's an edited album, it says "edited" right there. But whether you buy cds from Wal-Mart or not, they have the right to refuse to sell unedited discs. They don't have to sell pink lamps or plaid trousers, either. If one of those things offends you, you can buy from another retailer.
The first time I heard about Wal-Mart's policy was when Nirvana's In Utero came out. If you'll recall, there was a collage on the back that included, among other things, a fetus or two. Also, one of the tracks was called "Rape Me." Wal-Mart refused to carry the album with the song title showing or with the fetuses (feti?). So the band reluctantly changed the title on Wal-Mart cds to "Waif Me," and they replaced each fetus with a butterfly. Wal-Mart sold hundreds of thousands of copies of this version.
Now then, the actual musical content was exactly the same. When a Wal-Mart shopper went to the track called "Waif Me," Kurt still sang "Rape Me." So Wal-Mart's policy seemed arbitrary and confusing to say the least. Hypocritical, even. "We'll sell it, but only in another cover."
The thing is, Wal-Mart can make that demand all it wants. The band and the label DON'T HAVE TO COMPLY. Kurt went on and on about censorship and his rights being violated. But at the end of the day, Nirvana wanted Wal-Mart to carry their record, and all that anti-corporate posturing went out the window. No one censored Nirvana. They had the right to make the product they wanted. The label might have pressured them to change the cover. Maybe nirvana's contract even gave that decision to the label. If so, the band willingly signed the contract. If the government stepped in and said "You can't write this song. You can't record it or package it the way you want," THAT would be censorship. For the label to decide to change the cover art or for Wal-Mart to have strict, arbitrary policies about what it will or won't sell is not a 1st Amendment violation. They have the right to establish their business however they want, Nirvana can record what they want (well, make that past tense, but you get the idea), and pophead2k can buy a cd from Amazon or some other outlet instead. If enough people refused to buy discs at Wal-Mart, they might change their policies. Or not. Either way, the 1st Amendment is in good shape all around.
(PS, Pophead2k, this post isn't really a response to yours. You just got me thinking along these lines. I think Wal-Mart's policies are kind of goofy, too. But the edited versions come in handy for me. As a teacher, I like to play music in the classroom when possible. The Wal-Mart version of Outkast's album gets played in class a lot. I wouldn't be able to play the regular version without endangering my job.)
The first time I heard about Wal-Mart's policy was when Nirvana's In Utero came out. If you'll recall, there was a collage on the back that included, among other things, a fetus or two. Also, one of the tracks was called "Rape Me." Wal-Mart refused to carry the album with the song title showing or with the fetuses (feti?). So the band reluctantly changed the title on Wal-Mart cds to "Waif Me," and they replaced each fetus with a butterfly. Wal-Mart sold hundreds of thousands of copies of this version.
Now then, the actual musical content was exactly the same. When a Wal-Mart shopper went to the track called "Waif Me," Kurt still sang "Rape Me." So Wal-Mart's policy seemed arbitrary and confusing to say the least. Hypocritical, even. "We'll sell it, but only in another cover."
The thing is, Wal-Mart can make that demand all it wants. The band and the label DON'T HAVE TO COMPLY. Kurt went on and on about censorship and his rights being violated. But at the end of the day, Nirvana wanted Wal-Mart to carry their record, and all that anti-corporate posturing went out the window. No one censored Nirvana. They had the right to make the product they wanted. The label might have pressured them to change the cover. Maybe nirvana's contract even gave that decision to the label. If so, the band willingly signed the contract. If the government stepped in and said "You can't write this song. You can't record it or package it the way you want," THAT would be censorship. For the label to decide to change the cover art or for Wal-Mart to have strict, arbitrary policies about what it will or won't sell is not a 1st Amendment violation. They have the right to establish their business however they want, Nirvana can record what they want (well, make that past tense, but you get the idea), and pophead2k can buy a cd from Amazon or some other outlet instead. If enough people refused to buy discs at Wal-Mart, they might change their policies. Or not. Either way, the 1st Amendment is in good shape all around.
(PS, Pophead2k, this post isn't really a response to yours. You just got me thinking along these lines. I think Wal-Mart's policies are kind of goofy, too. But the edited versions come in handy for me. As a teacher, I like to play music in the classroom when possible. The Wal-Mart version of Outkast's album gets played in class a lot. I wouldn't be able to play the regular version without endangering my job.)
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
--William Shakespeare
--William Shakespeare
-
bambooneedle
- Posts: 4533
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:02 pm
- Location: a few thousand miles south east of Zanzibar
Mr Average, you took the words right out of my mouth!Mr. Average wrote:May I say that I think it is quite refreshing to have NoiseRadio back among us, posting away. Noise, you never leave us without something to ponder...
I appreciate it.
NoiseRadio is a pleasure to read. He expresses himself so much better than I do.
Thanks Noise.
Last edited by SweetPear on Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'm not angry anymore....
Noise, that is the exact situation for me. My daughter (11yrs old) was begging us to get the new Outkast disc, so the compromise was to go to Walmart. She was satisfied. She didn't seem to catch on to what was missing. She likes the Andre 3000 video and loves the disc we got from Walmart.
I'll sometimes do that (buy an edited disc) if I want to hear it and the kids are around, like in the car and it's totally cool. I think it's a great option and it's selling more discs with less flack to a whole bunch of kids who wouldn't be able to buy the unedited version.
I think it's a smart option and for a lot of good reasons.
I'll sometimes do that (buy an edited disc) if I want to hear it and the kids are around, like in the car and it's totally cool. I think it's a great option and it's selling more discs with less flack to a whole bunch of kids who wouldn't be able to buy the unedited version.
I think it's a smart option and for a lot of good reasons.
I'm not angry anymore....
-
bambooneedle
- Posts: 4533
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:02 pm
- Location: a few thousand miles south east of Zanzibar
Kids should know about the real deal, imo. And either have that or have nothing, rather than some edited crap. Better that than to pretend it's not there. But whatever is supposed to be so offensive somewhere can be explained, right?(..whether you decide to have it or not). If not, it would show you don't have much influence anyway. Also, if YOU (the school, whatever)have a problem with something, that should be clear. Otherwise it's modelling an object lesson in conformity - "You'd better go to Wall-mart or you'll get in trouble."
-
laughingcrow
- Posts: 2476
- Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 8:35 am
Wow, I never knew about that Walmart thing! Hey, I bet those albums will be really collectable in a few years time...especially the Nirvana ones!
It does seem a bit bizarre though that a supermarket feels it has a moral responsibility toward the sensibilities of it's patrons (or is it just a cunning marketing ploy...hmm, ''the FAMILY supermarket, I might shop there because in not selling records with naughty words in I'll make my life more wholesome'')
Im sure most of the shoppers couldn't give two hoots whether or not someone said 'bitch' or 'f**k' in a song...I guess there lies that big supermoral politically correct standard that America keeps trying to set for itself, the fallacy being that it's only a small percentage of the population actually feel its viable in society today (they're the ones that try and sue when they see Janet Jackson's breast on TV, or hear someone say that they don't like George Bush).
It does seem a bit bizarre though that a supermarket feels it has a moral responsibility toward the sensibilities of it's patrons (or is it just a cunning marketing ploy...hmm, ''the FAMILY supermarket, I might shop there because in not selling records with naughty words in I'll make my life more wholesome'')
Im sure most of the shoppers couldn't give two hoots whether or not someone said 'bitch' or 'f**k' in a song...I guess there lies that big supermoral politically correct standard that America keeps trying to set for itself, the fallacy being that it's only a small percentage of the population actually feel its viable in society today (they're the ones that try and sue when they see Janet Jackson's breast on TV, or hear someone say that they don't like George Bush).
-
A rope leash
- Posts: 1835
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 6:47 pm
- Location: southern misery, USA
America's future
Exactly how do you pronounce f**k?
If Wal-Mart does not want to offend, then they should not sell an offending artists work. They want it both ways, though. They still want the money.
...and, I suppose the artist needs the Wal-Mart outlet, because they control so much of the retail world, especially in rural areas. It's too bad they have to compromise their art in order to appease the giant.
Frank Zappa warned us of this. He would have never put up with it.
Janet's breast barely raised an eybrow in places like Europe and South America. The USA is really uptight.
This is where we are headed:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le5646.htm
If Wal-Mart does not want to offend, then they should not sell an offending artists work. They want it both ways, though. They still want the money.
...and, I suppose the artist needs the Wal-Mart outlet, because they control so much of the retail world, especially in rural areas. It's too bad they have to compromise their art in order to appease the giant.
Frank Zappa warned us of this. He would have never put up with it.
Janet's breast barely raised an eybrow in places like Europe and South America. The USA is really uptight.
This is where we are headed:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le5646.htm
-
Mr. Average
- Posts: 2031
- Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2003 12:22 pm
- Location: Orange County, Californication
BambooNeedle wrote:
"Kids should know about the real deal, imo. And either have that or have nothing, rather than some edited crap."
The perfect ideology UNTIL you have kids. In my opinion.
Why is it reflexive that a parent will cover the eyes of their young when encountering a gruesome accident scene? It isn't preplanned, and thoughtful parents certainly want their children to understand the consequences of carelessness. But an instinctual response follows. And it is very often the same when surprised by something overtly and gratuitously sexual in a film or on an evening TV program.
I love the edgy humour of Larry David and Quentin Tarentino. Thus, I allow my 11 year old daughter to watch movies like Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill (and even the Passion of Christ!) and television shows like Curb Your Enthusiasm. BUT...
She only see's the edited version. First, I screen it (yes, I censor it, God forbid!). Then, when we watch it together, I control the remotes' Mute and channel switch buttons with remarkable dexterity and timing. Thus, she is able to form an opinion about differnt styles of film-making, and different styles of humour, and different expressions of violence (gratuitous or pivotal to the plot).
Editing is part of parenting. Inherent in parenting is the role of the censor. Progressive and ultra liberal types celebrate that they expose their children to everything without censorship. Some actually pull it off, in spite of the fact that it betrays a very primal, very instinctual response of the parent.
Until the developing brain has an experience pool and a cognitive substrate to handle certain extremes, it simply deals with things in a maladaptive way. This is not pop-psychology or ideology. It is science. And the science of repression, and projection, and the myriad of cognitive distortions is very real. I am considered to be a liberal parent for allowing my daughter to gain 'select' experiences to enrich her development, her experience pool. The only reason it works is that we TALK about it. We discuss the reasons for the selective viewing. We have an exchange, but I, as the Dad, will win the argument MOST of the time. Not all the time, lest their be no real exchange, just parental autocracy.
Amzingly, my daughter now sets certain personal limits to what she will watch with her friends. In situations where I am nowhere to be seen, and I cannot intervene (sleep-overs at friends, ect). She imposes the limits. By her standards. And she is always eager to tell me why.
To discuss why.
In closing, I appreciate that this is, and will never be, a black and white issue. It is a subject-specific issue. It involves facts, the same facts that David Byrne has so aptly described by the excerpt below:
"facts are simple and facts are straight,
facts are lazy and facts are late.
facts all come with points of view,
facts don't do what I want them to...
facts just twist the truth around,
facts are living turned inside out."
(from "Crosseyed and Painless", Talking Heads)
[/quote]
"Kids should know about the real deal, imo. And either have that or have nothing, rather than some edited crap."
The perfect ideology UNTIL you have kids. In my opinion.
Why is it reflexive that a parent will cover the eyes of their young when encountering a gruesome accident scene? It isn't preplanned, and thoughtful parents certainly want their children to understand the consequences of carelessness. But an instinctual response follows. And it is very often the same when surprised by something overtly and gratuitously sexual in a film or on an evening TV program.
I love the edgy humour of Larry David and Quentin Tarentino. Thus, I allow my 11 year old daughter to watch movies like Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill (and even the Passion of Christ!) and television shows like Curb Your Enthusiasm. BUT...
She only see's the edited version. First, I screen it (yes, I censor it, God forbid!). Then, when we watch it together, I control the remotes' Mute and channel switch buttons with remarkable dexterity and timing. Thus, she is able to form an opinion about differnt styles of film-making, and different styles of humour, and different expressions of violence (gratuitous or pivotal to the plot).
Editing is part of parenting. Inherent in parenting is the role of the censor. Progressive and ultra liberal types celebrate that they expose their children to everything without censorship. Some actually pull it off, in spite of the fact that it betrays a very primal, very instinctual response of the parent.
Until the developing brain has an experience pool and a cognitive substrate to handle certain extremes, it simply deals with things in a maladaptive way. This is not pop-psychology or ideology. It is science. And the science of repression, and projection, and the myriad of cognitive distortions is very real. I am considered to be a liberal parent for allowing my daughter to gain 'select' experiences to enrich her development, her experience pool. The only reason it works is that we TALK about it. We discuss the reasons for the selective viewing. We have an exchange, but I, as the Dad, will win the argument MOST of the time. Not all the time, lest their be no real exchange, just parental autocracy.
Amzingly, my daughter now sets certain personal limits to what she will watch with her friends. In situations where I am nowhere to be seen, and I cannot intervene (sleep-overs at friends, ect). She imposes the limits. By her standards. And she is always eager to tell me why.
To discuss why.
In closing, I appreciate that this is, and will never be, a black and white issue. It is a subject-specific issue. It involves facts, the same facts that David Byrne has so aptly described by the excerpt below:
"facts are simple and facts are straight,
facts are lazy and facts are late.
facts all come with points of view,
facts don't do what I want them to...
facts just twist the truth around,
facts are living turned inside out."
(from "Crosseyed and Painless", Talking Heads)
[/quote]
"The smarter mysteries are hidden in the light" - Jean Giono (1895-1970)
-
noiseradio
- Posts: 2295
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Contact:
Is it just me, or did bambooneedle call me an asswipe?
Bamboo,
I just gave a perfectly good reason to buy an edited version. When you watch the video for a song on MTV, it's edited (assuming some of the lyrics contain profanity). If you hear it on the radio, it's edited. As a teacher, I've got a few choices with music. I can try to incorporate as much from different aspects of our culture as possible, and use the edited versions of hip hop or rock songs in class, or I can not play them at all and only use tunes that contain no profanity as originally recorded. If I do the latter, I get to basically avoid using hip hop in class, for the most part. And that would be a big shame. Hip hop is a vital part of our culture. I teach History (20th century) as well as History of Film and US Pop culture. How can I do an intellectually honest class of US pop culture without looking at hip hop and its massive influence? So I use the exact same versions of the songs they would hear on MTV or the radio. That's what the masses hear on a regular basis, and that's what the culture is listening to. Along with the school having its policies and me wanting to keep my job, I think the students can get an appreciation for the music without hearing every profane word.
Of course, you don't happen to agree, and that's fine. I don't even think you're an asswipe for disagreeing.
Bamboo,
I just gave a perfectly good reason to buy an edited version. When you watch the video for a song on MTV, it's edited (assuming some of the lyrics contain profanity). If you hear it on the radio, it's edited. As a teacher, I've got a few choices with music. I can try to incorporate as much from different aspects of our culture as possible, and use the edited versions of hip hop or rock songs in class, or I can not play them at all and only use tunes that contain no profanity as originally recorded. If I do the latter, I get to basically avoid using hip hop in class, for the most part. And that would be a big shame. Hip hop is a vital part of our culture. I teach History (20th century) as well as History of Film and US Pop culture. How can I do an intellectually honest class of US pop culture without looking at hip hop and its massive influence? So I use the exact same versions of the songs they would hear on MTV or the radio. That's what the masses hear on a regular basis, and that's what the culture is listening to. Along with the school having its policies and me wanting to keep my job, I think the students can get an appreciation for the music without hearing every profane word.
Of course, you don't happen to agree, and that's fine. I don't even think you're an asswipe for disagreeing.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
--William Shakespeare
--William Shakespeare