[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

FW: Good flicks?



----------
From: chelsea kay <chelsea at joshuahouse_org>
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 09:44:59 -0500
To: Kelvin T Bailey <kelvinbailey at juno_com>
Subject: Re: Good flicks?

Hey. Thanks for your response. I was hoping that someone would respond. I
may be pretty touchy about that whole subject because I once knew someone
(a good friends husband) who went down that path but chose the other
direction. He destroyed his wife, daughter, and the girls life.  And I once
worked for a man who had an obvious problem with the way he looked at
teenage girls. It scared me to death. So... I must admit that anything on
that topic alarms me. Plus I suppose it's unfair for me to make any calls
without having seen it... I always try not to do that... I guess I'm just
really wrestling with this whole issue of where the boundries are for
society, for art, for holiness... etc. I tend to agree that the message of
the whole piece is the important part to grapple with... not picking it
apart like a puzzle. It was meant to be a whole. Not pieces. But... well I
guess I can't say anymore about American Beauty in particular without seeing
it... but in general.... is any means justified as long as your coming to a
good end artistically? I don't know for sure what I think right now... what
I do know is that we can never say "you can't make that". That would be a
scary world. However... I would be guilty if I stopped grappling with what
was good for my soul.
Thanks for your response. Please respond again if you have any further
comments.
chelsea

> From: Kelvin T Bailey <kelvinbailey at juno_com>
> Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 09:00:40 -0400
> To: chelsea at joshuahouse_org
> Cc: over-the-rhine at actwin_com
> Subject: Re: Good flicks?
> 
> Sounds like your friends missed the point.
> Some lines were ALMOST crossed , that's the point.  I'm assuming you/they
> are referring to the whole sex with a teenager bit.  Contrary to the
> rantings of several alarmists, that never happened in the film.  He
> considered it, got pretty darned close to it, but decided nothing was
> worth crossing that line.
> Subversive to life/love/holiness?  How about affirming
> life/love/holiness.  Great scobittygoshkins, how people miss the forest
> for the trees!  (Whoops, that was a cliche.  There goes my artistic
> credibility...)
> 
> Kelvin
> 
> On Sun, 06 Aug 2000 13:43:50 -0500 chelsea kay <chelsea at joshuahouse_org>
> writes:
>> My two best friends walked out mid way through. I have decided not
>> to say it
>> based on the previews and what they said... even some interviews
>> with the
>> actors and directors sealed me decision. I was an acting major in
>> college
>> and I'm a sucker for good acting... but it seems to me that some
>> lines were
>> crossed rather flippantly in this movie. I know I haven't seen it
>> ... but in
>> general it just seems that people take less and less responsibility
>> for the
>> images they put in people's souls. Likewise, people become less and
>> less
>> effected by images that are, at their core, subversive to
>> life/love/holiness.
>> From what I could tell... this seemed to be one of those movies. I
>> can not
>> deny that it wasn't brilliantly and artistically done... but good
>> for the
>> soul...???? That is my main question. Responses welcome. :)
>> Chelsea
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------
>> Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/MediaNation/OtR/
> 
> ________________________________________________________________
> YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
> Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
> Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
> http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
> 

---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/MediaNation/OtR/
Follow-Ups: