I don't think Oliver Stone directed People v Larry Flynt. I believe it was Milos Forman, the guy that did Amadeus.
I'm not sure how glamorous the depiction of "evil" was in that flick, either. I know they portrayed some elements of fundamentalist Christianity in a poor light, and not subtly.
But surely even a devout Christian has to admit the televangelist wing can be pretty cartoonish: Benny Hinn laying hands, the gal w spraypainted makeup and the huge wig sitting on a big chair laquered-up gold.
They showed Flynt as a real degenerate w the drugs and all. Though they definitely made the 1st ammendment stuff more idealistic, and less publicity-driven, than I suspect it was.
Not a great flick or anything. But typical Hollywood bioflick Oscar bait.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Are you talking about the review posted on 8/20 titled "World Trade Center,Step Up, Doyle, and Sheldon"? Or is there a new one that I can't find? I just read through it and I didn't see a mention of The People vs. Larry Flint.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, there is a mistake here: "But, like a dog dancing the samba, some thing simply have to be seen."
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
Yeah, caught those mistakes but apparently the version put up online didn't include my corrections. Thanks for pointing it out, we'll get the corrected version up asap. Stone WAS a producer on Flynt. And I'm sorry if you think of Flynt as a hero and I think of him as evil. But the man has made his living creating putrescence and celebrating it, while exploiting everyone around him. And the movie reveled in it, and by simply existing declares that his life matters somehow.
Odd how the televangelist wing's cartoonishness is used as an excuse for tarring all Christians who take the commandments seriously. It's ridiculous to object to cheapening the public perception of sex, but not ridiculous to regard a pornographer as a crusader.
(Oh, wait - maybe the correction was already put up between one post and another. I'll try to remember to check tomorrow when I'm awake.)
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
I'm all for freedom of speech. I'm fully against the objectification of women (or anyone, really) for the sake of someone else’s pleasure. Christian, Muslim, Hasidic, Buddhist, Atheist, Whateverist - a person's body is not a thing to be demeaned. IMHO when you're simply selling the use of said body, it's trivializing all that we've been given. Our bodies are a means to an end... an instrument to use to achieve our higher potential. This does not include photos/videos/etc to be used for meaningless pleasure.
*steps off soap-box and acknowledges she doesn't know where the original topic stems from*
Posted by Cutler (Member # 8162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: Odd how the televangelist wing's cartoonishness is used as an excuse for tarring all Christians who take the commandments seriously.
Kind of like most English departments' cartoonishness is used as an excuse for tarring all of Academia.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Or like how the cartoonishness of Oreos is used as an excuse for tarring all cookies.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I'm sick and tired of how my cartoonishness is used as an excuse for tarring all of hatrack.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Isn't it unfortunate how hatrack's cartoonishness is used as an excuse for tarring all of the internet?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Hewlitt Packard's cartoonishness is used as an excuse for tarring all computer and computer accessory manufacturers.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Okay I'm done. I was just looking around naming things.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
By the way, I believe that Oliver Stone is one of our best and most interesting filmmakers. The qualities that he displays in World Trade Center (fairness, honesty) are not, as Orson Scott Card (who is as at least as good a writer as Oliver Stone is a filmmaker) supposes in his most recent column, new. What's new is that Oliver Stone and Orson Scott Card are in agreement about a particular issue. Which is nice to see. But Oliver Stone hasn't changed. As far as I can tell Oliver Stone has been trying to pursue fairness and honesty all along. What puts him at odds with somebody like OSC is not that he's being vicious, it's that he looks at the same world and reaches very different conclusions; probably comes from a whole different value-set.
I also don't agree about Oliver Stone glorifying evil, by the way. I believe that was said in regard to Natural Born Killers, which I thought was pretty clearly a satire of the media and a rather *strong* criticism AGAINST the glorification of that kind of evil.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
There's an edit button. See where it says the date and time posted, then there is the info link and the email link, and then the edit button. You can use that to add to posts or delete... I don't know... excess posts. Just sayin', is all.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Thank you. I wasn't able to figure that between May 2005 and 965 posts and now. Your comment is both relevant and helpful.
Posted by EpicanthicFold87 (Member # 9631) on :
TL,
What you said about Oliver Stone was spot-on.
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
I clearly have missed something... TL - is the tone of your posts upset/annoyed/angry? I'm just trying to understand.
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
TL - No need to go all sarcastically rude on me. I was asking a simple question. Seeing as I am someone, not anyone could see that. Thanks for the explaination, even though you didn't answer my question.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Huh?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Okay, I'm surprised you even saw that. I deleted it pretty much immediately, just in case it might *sound* wrong. But by the way, I wasn't trying to be sarcastically rude at all. I was trying to answer your question in a humorous way that wouldn't *quite* require me to fully explain myself. It was supposed to be a good-natured kind of thing. I'm sorry if it sounded sarcastic.
I *was* being sarcastic with pooka, because I don't think I need to be told to delete my posts. For better or worse, I was having fun.
The tone of my posts about cartoonishness, there... I was not angry or annoyed. I was just lampooning Cutler a little bit, because I read *his* post as a criticism of Orson Scott Card's views towards Academia. Which, to me, came out of left field.
So I thought I was being clever in a fun way. If we were all in a room, talking face-to-face, it might've come off properly.
The internet has failed me again.
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
Do you want me to delete my post? I will if you want. I don't think I've deleted one since my first time on the site when I felt like an idiot cause I had no clue what was going on here...
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
No, not at all. All is well.
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
I'm like lightening, TL, with cat-like reflexes... ; )
Cool...
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
ps - TL - apology accepted and I'm sorry as well for not reading you the way you meant it.