I concur wholeheartedly with K.

Oh, and if Joseph assumes I was referring to him, I wasn't, I was making a general statement that applies to anyone and no-one in particular.

josephk wrote on 18. Apr 2010 at 18:07:


Nope. Don't do it Quantum. I hope you don't resist the impulse to post and get involved in the discussions josephk. Your information and insights are of value to many of us here regardless of some of the disagreements and petty bickering that goes on here although it shouldn't. After all we are all playing on the same team. Or so I thought. 

pseudo-intellectual me?  No, intellectual. 

As to the original question, it really wouldn't be much difference if it were a boy because those that criticize language are for the most part those that want to preserve the image of the innocent child.  (Which there is a great photography book about that one topic.)

I went to this movie with a friend and I can't base any of my comments based on the audience reaction because there were only three people in the whole theater.  It was a middle of the week early showing.  My friend wanted to see it just because of the controversy and he likes young actresses.

Now my opinion of this film is that it was a waste of money to make if you want something to stimulate your mind.  It plays to the baser levels of instinct more than making you think.  A comment from my friend as I pointed out some of the flaws is that I was over thinking the movie.  Just to let you know, he picked it apart because he is an intellectual too. 

I think this paraphrase is from Gladiator but if not forgive me.  In the movie one Roman senator said 'the mob is Rome' meaning that if you keep them entertained then you control the empire.  I see our 'entertainment' industry putting out gladiator type movies to entertain the mob because they don't want them to dwell on the inequities of their lives.  Give them American football, violent movies, and mindless comedies and they shell out their hard earn money to escape from their lives.

The sad part is that it must be working because the movies make money and that is what the industry will churn out since they don't care about art or evoking emotion.  They just care about making them to make money.  That is why you have the independent films and festivals to promote the lost art of making movies that matter to some.

I tend to look outside of the US for movies that aren't mindless.  My feeling of the US movie industry is that if it takes more effort to think about the movie than raising your drink to your lips then it is not worth making.  I know that is an over exaggeration or gross generality to use the pedantic term but I rather see 'I am David' or 'Close to Leo' than what I've seen released by Hollywood recently.

Stubborn Mule

To answer the question posted by gee, I would have been very happy to see a boy playing the role. I also think that Nathan Gamble and Jimmy Bennett would be good choices. But here's the thing. I would pick Nathan Gamble on looks only. No offense to Jimmy or Nathan, but I really can't see Nathan playing a violent kid with a foul mouth. Jimmy would fit the role perfectly. Like I said, no offense intended but I could picture Jimmy in that role better than I could picture Nathan in it.    

Methinks it would be nice if people stayed rather than left.

St Mule it would surely be nice to have you post a bit more regularly. There aren't many left that go back as far as you.