Monday Afternoon Link Dump
et’s see — what’s going on out in the big, wide world today? First up, we’ve got an article on the LA Times about Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. The article is only nominally about the Fantastic Four — the movie is being used as an example of “family fare”. Apparently, even though the FF involved a plot about the evil American military capturing an alien, taking him out of the country, and torturing information out of him, it’s better “family fare” than, for example, Pirates of the Caribbean III (opens with the hanging of a young boy), Shrek the Third (cross-dressing), and Nancy Drew and Ratatouille (out-of-wedlock pregnancies).
Meanwhile, Google’s news page doesn’t seem to think that there’s much going on today, despite the mess in the Gaza, the news about North Korea’s reactor, the US military accidentally killing some kids, Micheal Nifong getting disbarred, and Mitt Romney leading polls in New Hampshire and Iowa. (Also, Paris Hilton is still in jail, finding Jesus.)
Here’s a little something, via Crooks&Liars about separation of Church and State. The “Wall of Separation” is one of the more important tenets of our country, and one that should be rigorously upheld. It’s the idea that keeps the local churches from legislating their beliefs on the rest of us poor schmucks. By way of example, it’s the idea that keeps illegal in this country (ideally) the practice of some Muslims castrating their daughters. It’s the idea that, in theory, keeps abortion legal, as the anti-legal-abortion crew is very largely a religious crew. It’s the idea that keeps Intelligent Design and other forms of “creation science” from being taught in science classes. It’s important. And, it’s under attack, constantly.
There’s a class of religious folk in this country who would love nothing better than to be rid of the Wall of Separation, so that their religious beliefs could be made law, and all of us, whether we agreed or not, believed or not, could be made to live by another’s religious laws. (That would be part of what we object to in Muslim states in the Mid-East, by the way — their religious law.)
These kind of people right here, as a matter of fact, are the kind that want the Wall of Separation abolished. Tell me honestly, now: are these really the kind of folks you want writing our laws? Seriously.
(Photo from CinematicWallpaper.com.)
(Edited on 07-09-07 @ 1:16am.)
Upon further reading of her movie reviews, it seems I owe Nell Minnow an apology. The comment directed at her was unfair. I apologize, and I removed the comment from the post. (Although, I’m saving it below, just so I don’t turn into one of those bloggers who just deletes inflammatory entries whenever they get called on them.)
(Methinks that someone — someone named Nell Minow — hasn’t been paying attention. A story is a story. Good stories often involve plots which makes us uncomfortable, or show life as it is. It is a fact that life involves things like cross-dressing, unwed mothers, and the US military taking people out of our country to torture them. Not every story is “PG”, and wanking about a few minor things in a PG movie is just that — wanking.)
July 8th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Thanks for the mention. But I have indeed been paying attention, and one thing I have noticed is that parents want to have some sense of what is in a movie to help them decide whether it is right for their values and their children. If “Nancy Drew” included any kind of thoughtful portrayal of different kinds of families, I’d cheer for it. But it awkwardly combined faux innocence (Nancy is at least 16 but looks 14 and acts 12) with a plot line that presents the material about the secret unwed pregnancy in a manner that is jarring and confusing. I am well aware that not every story is PG — that’s why we have the rating system (ineffective as it is). But when a movie is rated PG and marketed to 8 year olds, parents have a right to expect that it will be appropriate for that age group. I’m all for stories that make us uncomfortable and show us life as it is, as you can see if you read my reviews. If you see “Nancy Drew,” I think you’ll agree with me that it doesn’t qualify and that within the context of its own aspirations it does not succeed as well as “Fantastic Four.”
JavaElemental Reply:
July 9th, 2007 at 12:14 am
Well, I must say, the last thing I expected to find tonight was an email from somebody I briefly mentioned almost a month ago. Thanks for stopping by to leave the comment.
I went back and reread the article at the L.A. Times, which quoted you. They don’t give you much room to explain yourself, and I walked away from the article with an unfavorable impression. I admit, I only scanned the first couple of reviews at your site, certainly not enough to get a real feel for them. At the time, I believe I walked away from the news article with the impression that you were one of the many family-movie-reviewers who damns every movie out of the gate for every little thing. I didn’t look through your site well enough to get a different opinion. That was unfair, and I apologize.
I probably won’t see Nancy Drew, as it looked like typical Disney-style tripe in the previews, but you’re probably right — Fantastic Four is probably the better family movie. The article makes it sound as though Fantastic Four is okay for family viewing (torture and all), but that the rest is unacceptable due to some fairly minor things (single mothers, cross dressing), and insinuates that all of that your opinion. After rereading the article a few times, and looking through your site for the last hour or so, I see that this isn’t the case. It doesn’t appear that you’ve even reviewed Fantastic Four II.
Again, my apologies, and thanks for stopping in to correct me.