Posted on 01/22/2007 12:52:23 PM PST by .cnI redruM
“It Happens. So it’s Part of What We Are.” Said Robinson Devor on behalf of his new film about bestiality inflicted by men upon horses.
Now, I’ve heard every miserable and pathetic excuse in the book. We have successfully defined deviancy down to the bedrock and don’t have a sharp enough drill bit to sink it any lower. Daniel Patrick Moynihan would turn over in his grave, but not if Robinson Devor, the director of the movie “Zoo,” were anywhere near his final resting place.
Devor’s decent into the depths of human depravity was unveiled at this year’s Sundance Film Festival. Devor’s new “masterpiece” examines the aesthetic aspects of man-on-horse sexual relationships. No, I’m not exaggerating or making this up. Cine d’Arte now features aesthetic discussions of man-on-horse sexuality.
I’m not reacting angrily to the fact that Robinson Devor decided to make a movie about bestiality. I’m angry that he acts as if bestiality involves never having to say that you’re sorry. I’m even more thoroughly angry that this movie got a glowing review from Kenneth Turin of The Los Angeles Times.
"I aestheticized the sleaze right out of it." Devor claims proudly. I’m sure the creative geniuses that brought us “Laughing Tongues” also felt proud of the money shots. However, there are some things you can’t “aestheticize” the sleaze right out of. Getting your rocks off on a defenseless animal would have to belong on that list.
Twenty-five American soldiers dying in Iraq makes me sad, but I believe we can persevere through that. We made it past The Death March of Bataan and the landscape turned red at Anteitam. America can accept pain and suffering and still survive.
Yet, if this is what our nation’s artistic avant-garde admires, can we remain long on this earth as a nation? Isn’t our cultural heritage something we fight for? If this is the America the world sees at the movies, who can blame Osauma if he hates us. This cannot be what we are letting ourselves become.
The Sundance Film Festival propaganda describes the film as follows:
“The cinematic language invented for the film permits us to examine where we draw the line, how much perversity we can tolerate in others. In a broader sense, Zoo is really about thresholds. What can we stand to know, and, more importantly, what can we stand to accept?”
These guys get their enjoyment from sexually molesting horses. Should I really have to examine whether I’d find this beyond the pale of acceptable human desires? Are there people sitting near my cube in the office thinking? “Gosh, why do we get so bent out of shape over guys who molest the livestock?” Not if our society is any way worth approving.
On most moral issues, I’d probably aggravate a healthy plurality of the modern Conservative Movement. I really don’t care what two human beings above any reasonable age of consent do to one another by mutual agreement and in the privacy of their own homes. It's just that there has to be a limit to the level of acceptable behavior somewhere. A grate has to be installed above the sewer.
“It Happens. So it’s Part of What We Are.” Devor pontificates.
"I aestheticized the sleaze right out of it." Devor brags.
Devor cannot be right in either assertion. He cannot be deemed logical if we are to remain civilized. A line has to be drawn somewhere to arrest this appalling moral decay. It has gotten bad enough that I’m thinking that maybe mean old Reverend Cotton Mather legitimately had a point.
Sinners in the hands of an angry God? No, I think that was Jonathan Edwards. Goofy as those Puritans were, they did get some things right. Nothing is more disgusting than bestiality.
So was this guy a top or a bottom?
Coton Mather had many, many things right. So did William Ames, William Ames, Anthony Burgess (the real one, not the 20th Century writer), Wilelm Teelink, and the rest of the Puritans/Dutch divines. They are a large reason behind the large but dwindling reserves of grace on which we've feasted the past fifty years, taking for granted God's unmerited protection in the face of our increasing depravity.
Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God was preached by Edwards. It is by far one of the best sermons ever preached. If you are reading it for the first or the fiftieth time it should be a blessing to you.
http://www.ccel.org/e/edwards/sermons/sinners.html
I love that sermon. From a better time, a better era, a time when the Spirit moved mightily in the hearts of people to produce true revival in the Great Awakening, a time when God was pleased to call many back to Himself through true repentence, true sorrow, and receive true and lasting redemption.
Pretty soon we all will be accused by the liberals as being Horseaphobic!
"Compared to this, Brokeback Mountain would be considered a wholesome movie for the whole family."
And that, of course, is precisely their objective...to make two men having anal sex appear no longer shocking, but normal by comparison.
I think the Democrats call it"incrementalism".
Another analogy is the gun control issue.They don't REALLY want to take our guns but just the really DANGEROUS ones.
Thats till they end up deciding that ALL guns are dangerous.
Which was their intention from the very beginning.
"...to make two men having anal sex appear no longer shocking, but normal by comparison."
Frankly, I don't see much difference. If one did a study of what homos really do outside the Will and Grace show, both are about equally disgusting.
Hollywoods next show: The Will and Trigger Show.
Something like that happened up here a couple of years ago. Name and pic ended up in the local paper, because it wasn't the first time he was caught assaulting Sugarfoot. I'll bet his family was mortified : (
I'm trying to figure out where Cotton Mather comes into this.
I know that Cotton Mather was an a one of the most influential Puritan ministers in Colonial America, I've read some of his writings but it was so long ago I don't remember specifics. However, I doubt he, or any other priest, minister or rabbi prior to about ten or twenty years ago, ever imagined that a groups promoting homosexuality and bestiality would ever be accepted by even the smallest segment of the American public.
Thanks for that. Other posters also commented on Mathers. I recognized the name, but not the details.
I don't think religious leaders from back in the day, would be able to process what has happened to our society.
I don't think religious leaders from the 1950s would be able to process it!
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.