Posted on 03/02/2005 7:59:07 AM PST by Mr. Silverback
I know for sure I'll have a great day :~D
Yes, exactly.
Michael Meved(sp?) wrote a book proving that in the '90s.
The highest grossing films have been family movies.
Thank you so much for posting that link.
As Christian film critic Barbara Nicolosi acerbically put it, Hollywood’s choices affirm, once again, “just how very, very sick America’s storytellers have become.”
This made me think. Why have we delegated all story telling to Hollywood? When was the last time we told a story? Takes a little time, but people still like to hear stories.
SWL...Many thanks for the link. I had no idea that Sorokin's book has been republished. The copy I own is a wellworn hardback published in 1943...(I like the look and smell of old books). Best Regards, T_J
Sorry, Chuck, but these accusations won't wash. The point of the first movie was not "euthanasia," and the second was not a celebration of syphillus.
Colson's underlying point is correct, but by misrepresenting the movies as he has, he has marginalized himself yet again.
A daily Catholic communicant would never be involved with killing a woman because she didn't wish to live.
His job was to give her a reason to live and to let her know that her life had value even though she was physically impaired.
If I may interrupt, maybe you should just relax and take a time out.
Your posts remind me of the man who, after accused of having gone mad, screams out, "Mad? You call me mad? You say I am insane. Well, you all are crazy. I am not mad. I am perfectly calm (by this time his blood pressure is way over the top, his face is red, and he wishes he had something to punch in the face.)
Think about it. Go back and read the posts between you and others. Remember that other posters have a very hard time discerning between SARCASM, ANGER, FRUSTRATION, and CONFUSION. Much 'communication' between people is done with body language, and tone of voice.
We do not have the benefit of that. Find out what you can do to inform others, instead of accusing others. Find out the intended effect of their reply, before jumping to outrageous conclusions.
We are all humans. Most posters on FR do their best to maintain civility, and try to avoid being misunderstood.
It would seem that in your HASTE to respond to the poster who remarked on the attitude coming out in your posts, (also known as trying to get revenge because 'they' don't swallow every word you post) that you posted to the wrong POST NUMBER and PERSON.
Could you please address why the film doesn't acknowledge that Hillary Swank's character could ask to be extubated at any time?
I have not seen the movie, but two women who have pointed this out. One of them is a hospital chaplain who has been present at five such extubations over the course of her career.
That depends on your definition of family movies.
In my experience, Disney movies are usually atypical of family movies.
Tell me what family movies means to you and then I can tell you whether I support or deny your above statement.
I don't know a lot about you. I just know this one thing. You haven't seen the movie, you want to make public statements about you, and when someone calls you on it, you can't find it within in you to say something like, "You're right, I'll see it, then we'll talk." You're also free to never to go the movies again, I don't give a damn, but I hope not to come across your "judgements" of things you haven't seen.
I don't know that I have a bad attitude, but you have hit a nerve with me. I was hugely offended when the Left attacked Passion before it was even released--in effect, dismissing it as propaganda before they even saw it.
Million Dollar Baby is NOT about euthanasia.
From what I understand, it depends on your definition of "promote." Clint Eastwood's character spends a lot of time trying to convince Swank's character that she has reason to live on, but he does eventually sneak into her room and shut her respirator down. The finish (and this is one reason commentator Terri O'Brien believes it crosses the line into promotion) is Morgan Freeman's character writing to Eastwood's estranged daughter, telling her about the incident "so you'll know what kind of man your father is."
A big question for me is why (according to O'Brien ad an NPR radio commentator who's a hospital chaplain) there's no acknowledgement that Swank's character could refuse treatment if she wished and be extubated. That may not be promotion, and it may be done for story purposes, but making it look like she's trapped on a respiratior when she has no desire to be on one certainly could make assisted suicide laws look more attractive to uninformed viewers.
They did a similar thing on CSI recently, where the whole plot depended on a young man being forced to have a kidney transplant...but the young man was 23, and could have refused the treatment. Interestingly, that plot also hinged on Catholic views of life/death/medical ethics.
Now THIS is the kind of thing that bothers me here on FR. Posters who, upon being angered, ACT LIKE THEY OWN THIS WEBSITE.
The BEST THING TO DO when another poster is irrational, is trolling, trying to start a fight, deluded, uninformed, and insistent everyone else is wrong....
Is to ignore their replies. Do not answer them. They seem to thrive on attention. Any kind of attention.
Now, when a poster is arguing with you on an emotional subject and tempers flare, remember that is may just be due to a lack of being able to use our other GOD GIVEN SENSES to properly communicate. As stated before, printed words do not convey things as well as the spoken word accompanied by tone of voice, inflection, and body language.
Slow down, ask the other poster to clarify. Be prepared to find out you just may not KNOW IT ALL.
I did use the word loser, but I think you missed my context. I did not mean that one course of action made him a "winner," and that another made him a "loser." I meant that either decision was a losing proposition for him. Each decision had reasons for doing it, and reasons for not doing it. It's a movie, a story, and it's about what his character chose to do.
Always see as many movies as possible and decide what you think about them for yourself.
You're right. Let's talk after you've seen the movie. And after you've checked your dictionary for the proper meaning of histrionic.
Before I respond to this, did you read my original post to John Robertson? Or his posts early in the thread? I suspect you didn't.
Actually, I meant to address you both with the previous post of mine. Since I am backtracking, I also would like to say that both of you have calmed down, and are trying to be civil and re-establish communication. I am acknowledging you both for this, since it is the kind of posting that needs to be encouraged.
John, your comment that Mr S 'hit a nerve' is a wonderful technique to more fully communicate, and, in my experience, enables the other poster to relax a defensive posture and accept the points of the issue.
Ya never know. You may find out that you two are more alike and in agreement on many issues.
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.