General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Heroizing a mass murderer, exploring his poignant psychological depths, check.
Totally kills hundreds of enemy, check.
Enemy stupid, heartless, uses babies as human shields, check.
The big difference between Eastwood and Tarantino's fictionalized Goebbels is that the U.S. empire doesn't need no stinking propaganda ministry. We have a glorious multi-billion-dollar film industry.
2naSalit
(86,824 posts)eventually people might stop wanting to do/be that way. At least a vast majority of "thinking" people. So maybe we should start shunning these films for starters. If we refuse to give them our money to see these (box office losers) maybe they will stop making them. The intent for making such a movie may have been to expose the fallacy of the glory we afford this type of heinous practice but it seems to be serving as a rallying cry for Grand Theft Auto armchair heroes/thugs instead. So if we reject such "entertainment" maybe we can start to correct our problem.
Money talks, apparently, so if we starve the movie makers of cash for glorifying this POS, we make a loud statement. This can work both ways, rather than throwing money at something we can also withhold it, which is also considered free speech. In theory that is.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)If we don't like it, then it must be stamped out by withholding money.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)People get to spend their money as they like, and if they choose to boycott a movie, or to use their own speech rights to call for a boycott, that is not "stamping out" free speech. Free speech rights refer to freedom from government censorship, or at least freedom from force generally. Not paying for something is not force! By your logic, should we all be taxed to pay for Eastwood's movie, so as to protect his free speech rights?
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)The other poster suggested that if people didn't pay to see any type of XYZ movie, then none of those kinds would be made any more.
I still stand by it.
frylock
(34,825 posts)jmowreader
(50,566 posts)This is the film-within-a-film from Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds.
frylock
(34,825 posts)on Facebook.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)I sincerely thought I was the first to notice.
Hero sniper killing 100+ enemy, check.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)The war isn't really the question, we must judge it independently as a work of art!!!
(I think that's the first DU smiley I've used in years.)