Posted on 12/03/2004 9:08:22 PM PST by AmericanMade
Just viewed the movie Closer. It was nothing short of graphic pornagraphy. The audience could be heard almost gasping at the internet sex language. It included graphic descriptions. The film contained graphic pictures and strip scenes with many unbelievable direct sexual references.
I regret that some youth will see this movie. It was shocking to say the least.
Julia? Is that you?
<><
From what I've heard, yes, she does.
I'm sure it's rated "R" which means it is not intended for those under 17.
First off, I'd appreciate it if you didn't send any more ridiculously condescending personal messages to me. If YOU have anything to say to me say it out in the open.
A Quick little primer on me, since you seemed to want to know so much in the private messages (and it seems that I have somehow become the issue on this board rather than the content of Closer):
I attended Christian Elementary School and a secular Private High School. I work in Construction (building my life with my hands and all that good stuff). I don't have a wife or child yet; I do have a "pretty regular girl", as my old gramps would say. I am a Christian, but not a personal lifestyle moralist. I believe in Christ's unending love for us, but I DON'T believe he intended any of our most basic, wonderful sexual emotions and attractions to be "sinful" or "evil". I have no malice towards those with differing opinions, unless they attempt to use those opinions to obtain restriction of my personal activities through heinous actions like banning books from schools and libraries, banning movies, etc. I'm a Republican by registration; libertarian by practice (except for abortion, which I think is an ugly and vicious practice whatever party you belong to).
Is that enough personal information for you? If you want more just say the word.
Now On with the show.
"Cultural embarrassment" and "shock theater" are blatantly subjective, naive, and almost juvenile terms you've fallen back upon as a crutch against this movie. Can you think for yourself, or are you always riding that hypocritical "think of the children.." mantra? I'm not joking; I'd really like to know.
By approaching this particular movie from a "party-line" viewpoint, you've missed the entire point of the movies in general-- (1) to tell the story it wants to tell, and (2) to do it well. You've criticized Closer without providing a single concrete reason for doing so. Was it a technical failure? Emotional? Did it fail at what it was trying to do? Was it's message confused and cloudy? Or delivered awkwardly? Was it badly acted, written, or plotted? Just what is the reason for Closer's failure in your opinion?
You chose to see an R-Rated Drama with a strongly sexual nature (nobody forced you to see it), and a mature adult such as yourself should probably already know that Potentially objectionable content alone is hardly an excuse for condemming the film in it's entirety.
P.S.= Weren't you on another thread yesterday trying to get the Catcher of the Rye thrown out of schools for it's "vulgar" content? You would deny an entire generation of High School students an absolute classic like "Catcher" (and no book a public school could give a kid is more appropriate or realistic) because of a few swear words and sexual inferences?
Your tunnelvision apparently knows no boundaries.
RE: "I agree about the holier than thou brigade but there is just no way I could bring myself to watch a Julia Roberts movie, even if Natalie Portman is in it."
That's the single most reasonable criticism of the movie I've seen so far on this thread. Yeah, I never thought Julia Roberts was much of an actress (or a looker either). She always seems to be playing the same character in each of her movies, and that character is unusually dour and joyless considering the ammount of close-ups she gets for her famous smile.
Natalie is a far more effective actress (and far more beautiful, of course).
Yeah, us reptiles don't care to see any of Julia Roberts' idiotic movies.
The last time I saw a mouth like Julia's it had a hook in it.
I have no problem with people who wish to see these movies, they know what they are getting. What I object to is being exposed to smut (like the Desparate Housewives skit on Monday Night Football, the Super Bowl 'wardrobe malfunction') where you shouldn't expect to see it.
Dude, Tinky Winky was gay. I was living in Boston when the whole Falwell thing came up. I was bored waiting in South Station for an Amtrak, and I saw a book. Having heard the uproar, being quite unfamiliar with the show, and seeing Tinky Winky with a handbag on the cover of the book, I peeked to see whether the book would tip off if Tinky-winky was gay. (I had seen just enough of the show to know TW had a guy's voice.)
The book turned out to be about how TW was forcing the other, smaller, younger male teletubby (forgot his name) to wear a tutu. The little guy protested, but TW pressured him and even bullied him, until he wore the tutu. TW was "delighted," and the illustration showed TW leering at the smaller one, who was plainly very upset.
I later read where the actor who played TW was fired for romping around the studio naked, as was his habit, but also drunk, insisting crewmembers salute his Winky. He's now a gay-bar stripper.
How many times can I say it? Boycott hollywierd!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.