Posts by Keir Leslie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
But the pertinent thing, that rape was socially acceptable in certain circumstances and here and now isn't, and that that has very similar implications for historic depictions as any other change in social acceptability is, I think, sound.
-
This side of town (Riccarton) seems to have got off quite lightly. Chimneys are about the worst of it. Eastern Christchurch seems a lot worse.
Radio NZ was v. good.
-
Really? Smoking is on par with rape in terms of what's morally acceptable?
Obviously not. It is however a thing that has been a lot more socially acceptable in other places than it is now (thank god).
-
Okay, but if you make a modern film set in a time when those attitudes existed, are you going to erase them from the script because it's unacceptable? There's a difference between depiction and endorsement. There is a difference between a racist film and a film which depicts racism. It's an important one.
Well. It depends. Suppose you make a film set in Berlin in mid April 1945. You can't erase the rapes; they happened. The Red Army was the fiery sword of an angry god; and the god was the kind that rapes women for the sins of their menfolk. Is it reasonable to portray that rape (even disapprovingly) and expect to show at 7.30 on a Saturday?
Is it okay to make a film where rape is an entirely normal aspect of war, something about as remarkable as bad rations and danger, and expect that it screen early on a weekend? It is, after all, entirely historically accurate.
I think the problem (that is to say, I made this mistake) is confusing `morally acceptable to show' and `morally acceptable to show at a given time'. I think both the above hypothetical films are entirely respectable films, but I wouldn't expect them to get anything but a very sharp rating.
It is a rather dramatic analogy, but I think it is fair.
-
But here's the thing. People do shit that is bad for them. Whether that's smoking, eating too much, drinking too much, shagging inappropriate people, or getting into fights. Blowing shit up or taking illegal drugs. Or whatever your harmful behaviour of choice is.
A bunch of those would get you a stiff rating as well, it ought be noted.
Surely it only normalises smoking if you see more of it in movies than you do wandering around the streets. Otherwise it's just showing something people actually do.
Obviously not; movies create norms in a very strong sense, where wandering around the streets doesn't.
I don't particularly like the idea of R-rating smoking (mainly because I don't much like the idea of R-rating very much at all), but I don't think that the `what about historical truth' argument is much of a goer. In terms of films made when smoking was acceptable, well, yes, they do become unacceptable. I think that's quite defensible --- racist films remain racist, no matter if when they were made they expressed acceptable social attitudes. In terms of representations of historical truth, again, there are a great many historic truths we nowadays won't have on the television.
-
I had wondered about that. But if Jim gets the mayoral chains and leaves parliament, does the JAPP disappear with him? And is he ok with gay people, or are they Evil, like drugs?
I think that Jim's staying in Parliament until the next election, no matter what. After that, I'm pretty sure the Progressive Party is going away. And, well, if Jim Anderton thinks gay people are Evil, somebody better let him know about Tony Milne.
-
And the perpetrators of the Rainbow Warrior Bombing were standing by their principles too -- that the interests of the French state security apparatus trumped everything else, not least the life of the man they killed. I'm an old-fashioned girl, but there's some things that don't earn you a gold star for effort.
Except those aren't really the principles of the Republique Francaise, are they? I mean, the French make this one easy: liberte, egalite, fraternite.
-
But Eagle vs Shark wasn't funded so that Waititi could learn from it. It was funded because it was a good film to make.
-
I'm just suggesting that sometimes a modest investment in a go-nowhere digital test run might prepare a talented newcomer to really kick arse when they've got a real budget.
But then the Film Commission is essentially paying for education, which is really not something I think that the Film Commission should be doing.
I also don't particularly like the idea of handing out public money based on `educated people with hunches'. Attractive as the idea of the heroic funder picking the talent and backing them to the hilt is, it is an idea I am really rather suspicious of. It seems to scream `jobs for the boys'. Yes art-by-committee isn't always a good thing, but on the other hand, film is very very expensive, and we have a right to expect accountability when that money gets spent.
-
Minor point: Fifa doesn't write the Laws of the Game; that's done by IFAB. Fifa have four seats on IFAB, and the Home Nations one each. Fifa do set the suspension that Suarez gets, but.