From: owner-basia-digest@smoe.org (basia-digest) To: basia-digest@smoe.org Subject: basia-digest V10 #124 Reply-To: basia@smoe.org Sender: owner-basia-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-basia-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk X-To-Unsubscribe: Send mail to "basia-digest-request@smoe.org" X-To-Unsubscribe: with "unsubscribe" as the body. basia-digest Tuesday, May 17 2005 Volume 10 : Number 124 Today's Subjects: ----------------- RE: The Sweetest Illusion ["Steve O'Hearn" ] RE: Let's review the real point [Bill Roberts ] RE: them swear words [Leslie Osborn ] Re: them swear words [PParm16424@aol.com] RE: The Sweetest Illusion [j w ] RE: them swear words [steve7701@theriver.com] Re: them swear words [Leslie Osborn ] RE: them swear words [steve7701@theriver.com] RE: them swear words [j w ] RE: them swear words [steve7701@theriver.com] RE: them swear words [j w ] RE: them swear words [Leslie Osborn ] RE: them swear words ["Steve O'Hearn" ] RE: them swear words ["Steve O'Hearn" ] RE: them swear words ["Steve O'Hearn" ] RE: The Sweetest Illusion ["Steve O'Hearn" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 01:42:41 -0400 From: "Steve O'Hearn" Subject: RE: The Sweetest Illusion > On the other hand, I seriously doubt that Seinfeld > would say for one moment that Richard Pryor, George > Carlin, or any number of other brilliant comedians who > use foul language are necessarily out of material. If I recall correctly - and it was over ten years ago when I saw this interview - but I think that was brought up, and Seinfeld didn't comment on them, and simply restated that his approach was to deal with such topics with finesse and avoid foul language. Then again, I heard his post-TV-show "Seinfeld on Broadway", and he lets a few expletives out on that recording. > Cussing is like any other part of language. Maybe it's part of your language. But it's not part of the language of many, many people I know. And it's an infinitessimally small part of my language. > It can be > used well or poorly, too much, with imagination or without. True, I agree. Who would Eddie Murphy be without "I am Gumby, da** it!" Cracks me up every time. But I think that of all the films I've seen where directors and actors tried to explain that the foul language was somehow necessary for the story, I think I'd agree maybe - just maybe - about 5 percent of the time. I think it's generally very, VERY overdone nowadays. And I think the economics support this. R-rated films regularly make less money at the box office than G-rated films do. But it's pretty well established that directors don't really make films to kill at the box office, they largely make them to kill at the film festivals, where their peers are, and that subset of humanity has a desire for foul material that is skewed from the public norm. I remember the columnist Michael Medved making the point several years ago in the year when "The English Patient" won the Oscar for Best Picture. That year's nominees for BP also included Slingblade (awesome film), Fargo, and two others - all rated R. Medved pointed out that in that same year - I think it was 1993 - George Lucas re-released the original 1970's Star Wars film as a way of getting some buzz going about the start of the latest trilogy. And Medved pointed out that this re-release of the old Star Wars film - a family-friendly film that everyone has on VHS, it's on TV fer cryin' out loud, almost 20 years old at the time - and yet it made more money at the box office in just that March 1993 re-release than the English Patient and all the other nominees for Best Picture that year - COMBINED. I think the highest grossing films that year included Babe, Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, and Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame, all rated G. But the R-rated stuff keeps getting churned out. Directors want their friends at the festivals to like them. - - Steve ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 10:06:12 -0500 From: Bill Roberts Subject: RE: Let's review the real point I really must tell you Jeff that I shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as Jesus. Thanks anyway. :) By the way, did you email Joe and ask HIM why he had to start something again? I would like to keep the subject on Basia as well. Can you ask Joe to do the same thing? Now for the explanation. The recent flame war about Mark should have taught us all something. Some people think that ridiculing Mark to unnecessary extremes is somehow more acceptable and noble than doing it directly to someone, like I did. It isn't. Yes, everything I said was deliberate and calculated. Did I go too far? Yes. Did I know it was? Yes. Was there a point? Yes. How many people here got the point? Well I can tell all of you that Joe certainly didn't. I freely admit my fault to all. Can Joe and everyone else who kept this going to ridiculous extremes do the same? No. THAT should speak volumes. It is true that is doesn't matter who was right in what was said. It DOES MATTER however, that the same attitude that started it in the first place is still present in Joe's thinking and probably some others as well. I was told off line that I should sit back and let Joe and the others reveal themselves for what they are. Thank you Joe, you proved them right. I stopped attacking him and let it go. And sure enough, Joe managed to prove that he is the troll I already knew him to be. Go back and look at the recent posts. Did I attack or belittle him first? No. He did. I made the mistake of not deleting his stupid posts before I read them. But for all you who have eyes to see, there it is for you. Who is starting the problem again? Me? No, it's Joe. He can't help himself. I hope that most of you here will finally get it, and see the truth here. Trolls like Joe and others can dish it out, but they can't take it. I have no hope for Joe and some of the others, because they suffer from an incurable and permanent case of cerebral-rectal inversion. I can only hope that others will make note of this, and call him on it, the next inevitable time it happens. Now, if we can all calm down, let's talk about Basia. And hopefully the adults on this list will prevail. Quoting Jeff Abrams : > > Jesus, Bill. WTF is wrong with you? Are you an adult? > Amazing. > No one cares what happened and no one is interested in whether or not you > are right or wrong. > Only you. So, for your spleen's sake, give it up. > > Don't bother to flame me. I don't care, either. This is a Basia list and > that is all that matters to me. > > --- > > Jeff Abrams > maniac@mazdamaniac.com > > I went to this doctor, all he did was suck blood from my neck. Don't ever > see Dr. Acula. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-basia@smoe.org [mailto:owner-basia@smoe.org]On Behalf Of > Bill Roberts > Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 6:37 PM > To: basia@smoe.org > Subject: Let's review > > > > Let's review what just happened. > > Lets not. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 08:50:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Leslie Osborn Subject: RE: them swear words For me, just my opinion, I think that language can only have so much power as it is given. It can reflect on the speaker's imagination, or lack of, surely. But I feel that in the US anyway, we're in this sort of weird era where people want things sanitized to the point of nothingness, so when I see something riling people up a bit, I have to tip my hat. Like Deadwood, and you all know I'm a fan of the show anyway, but while network TV has become super bland out of fear of offending I like seeing something so completely adult, and language is one part of that... though after the first ten c------rs you begin to ignore it and the story has to stand on its own. In Deadwoods case I think it does, but not everything that uses "foul" language as expression is as successful. Somehow I feel I've wandered from the point. But you get the idea anyway. I guess in my opinion life isn't rated PG, so language-- if done well-- doesn't bother me. It can be expressive. I just find the presumption of the climate in the US right now-- that others can determine for my own good what is good for me to see or hear-- a lot more offensive. I'd rather almost see blantant overuse-- what better way to diminish a word's verboten allure? We're halfway there already. ;-) - -- Leslie O. "People around the world want the same thing- wanting to love and be loved. The rest is just bulls---" Basia, Melody Maker, 1990 Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 13:23:20 EDT From: PParm16424@aol.com Subject: Re: them swear words I grew up in a squeeky clean, religious environment. For many years, any foul language was totally offensive to me, as was anything outside of my narrowly defined position. I have learned to loosen up a bit, and realize that language use is not set in stone. It changes from generation to generation, year to year, culture to culture. We went to see a minister who is English a few years ago. He used the word "hell" (and not in the sense of a location) and the word "damn" (not in the sense of damnation), but when he used the word "bloody", he apologized profusely. But what the heck? We were Americans and the word "bloody" means something covered in blood, and nothing more. That was an eye opener. I teach a family where the father is English and the mother is Austrailian. While I giving the mom her piano lesson, she thinks nothing of telling her kids to "piss off", meaning to "go away" so she can have her lesson in peace. I find that interesting and funny! It all depends on when and where you are as to whether a word may be offensive or not. Phil P. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 10:55:42 -0700 (PDT) From: j w Subject: RE: The Sweetest Illusion - --- Steve O'Hearn wrote: > > Cussing is like any other part of language. > > Maybe it's part of your language. But it's not part > of the language of > many, many people I know. And it's an > infinitessimally small part of my > language. The fact that you don't use it doesn't make it not part of language. It is part of language whether you use it or not. I've always found it bizarre that people would be offended by words rather than ideas. I can express the most horrifying and disgusting ideas without using profanity and I can say completely innocuous things using profanity. Ideas and actions should offend, not words. > And I think the economics support this. R-rated > films regularly make less > money at the box office than G-rated films do. That's largely due to the fact that R-rated movies are generally aimed at an older audience that is less likely to engage in repeat viewings, not to mention that the R-rating obviously cuts out a huge chunk of the potential audience. > But > it's pretty well > established By who? > that directors don't really make films > to kill at the box > office, they largely make them to kill at the film > festivals, where their > peers are, and that subset of humanity has a desire > for foul material that > is skewed from the public norm. The percentage of mainstream movies made each year that play festivals is very very small. Some directors lean in the more artistic and/or eclectic direction, but for every John Sayles or such, there's ten Michael Bays. > I remember the columnist Michael Medved making the > point several years ago > in the year when "The English Patient" won the Oscar > for Best Picture. That > year's nominees for BP also included Slingblade > (awesome film), Fargo, and > two others - all rated R. Medved pointed out that > in that same year - I > think it was 1993 - George Lucas re-released the > original 1970's Star Wars > film as a way of getting some buzz going about the > start of the latest > trilogy. And Medved pointed out that this > re-release of the old Star Wars > film - a family-friendly film that everyone has on > VHS, it's on TV fer > cryin' out loud, almost 20 years old at the time - > and yet it made more > money at the box office in just that March 1993 > re-release than the English > Patient and all the other nominees for Best Picture > that year - COMBINED. Medved's logic here is atrocious. Star Wars didn't out gross those movies because of any great philosophical divide in the population or due to its PG rating. It made more because it's a beloved classic that appeals to an audience of almost every demographic. None of the nominees mentioned was intended for a mass audience and certainly none were aimed at young people. Their R ratings precluded a big chunk of the population from attending, and their subject matter guaranteed that they would not be huge mainstream hits. Aside from that, Medved is extraordinarily conservative on social issues (which is perfectly legitimate) so he comes into the argument with a strong bias, one that overrode the facts in the above argument. > I think the highest grossing films that year > included Babe, Mighty Morphin > Power Rangers, and Disney's The Hunchback of Notre > Dame, all rated G. > > But the R-rated stuff keeps getting churned out. > Directors want their > friends at the festivals to like them. Most studios don't like R ratings and pressure filmmakers to get down to a PG-13 if they can. Most of the ones that make R rated movies and insist on preserving the content that earned the rating do so because they are storytellers who sincerely believe that it would hurt the story they are trying to tell if they eliminated it. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 11:24:57 -0700 (MST) From: steve7701@theriver.com Subject: RE: them swear words I was in the army (way back when). I have always said that after 8 weeks of the over-the-top cussing you hear from the Drill Sergeants in basic training, you can never be shocked by any language again! Still, as this business with the Newsweek article on the possible desecration of the Islamic holy book, different things affect people in very different ways. And some people are very upset by the use of profanity, especially the really filthy sort. Many years ago, Herman Wouk wrote the bestselling book, The Caine Mutiny. In the preface, he said basically: Sailors cuss a lot. Everyone knows they cuss a lot. So rather than bore you by putting the same few words in to every sentence for the next 500 pages, I'm going to assume you all know how sailors really speak, and leave them out. I have always thought that was a great way to handle it. Steve R. I guess in my opinion life isn't rated PG, so language-- if done well-- doesn't bother me. It can be expressive. I just find the presumption of the climate in the US right now-- that others can determine for my own good what is good for me to see or hear-- a lot more offensive. I'd rather almost see blantant overuse-- what better way to diminish a word's verboten allure? We're halfway there already. ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 11:25:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Leslie Osborn Subject: Re: them swear words > We went to see a minister who is English a few years > ago. He used the word > "hell" (and not in the sense of a location) and the > word "damn" (not in the > sense of damnation), but when he used the word > "bloody", he apologized profusely. > But what the heck? We were Americans and the word > "bloody" means something > covered in blood, and nothing more. That was an eye > opener. Very interesting! About five years ago, I worked under an English art director, and learned all sorts of new slang, which we (and our whole staff) would use often and with gusto. I knew 'bloody' and 'wanker' were impolite, but here it's more funny than anything. So I had to, um, adjust my behaviour when I went over to visit her later! But then also we would have to 'translate' our meanings to one another about all sorts of speech. It was interesting (still is, she's still a good friend) and it made me realize so many of my own speech that I take for granted! - -- Leslie O. "People around the world want the same thing- wanting to love and be loved. The rest is just bulls---" Basia, Melody Maker, 1990 Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 11:30:44 -0700 (MST) From: steve7701@theriver.com Subject: RE: them swear words I recently saw a CD by Martha Wainwright which may be the most profanely titled album ever - it's called "Bloody Mother****ing A**hole." I saw it in Borders - without black bars or anything. Not too many years ago a store would have had it all covered up, if they would have sold it at all. Steve R. We went to see a minister who is English a few years ago. He used the word "hell" (and not in the sense of a location) and the word "damn" (not in the sense of damnation), but when he used the word "bloody", he apologized profusely. But what the heck? We were Americans and the word "bloody" means something covered in blood, and nothing more. That was an eye opener. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 11:59:45 -0700 (PDT) From: j w Subject: RE: them swear words - --- steve7701@theriver.com wrote: > And some people are very upset > by the use of > profanity, especially the really filthy sort. That's sort of my point. They shouldn't be. Words aren't filthy, only the ideas behind words are; it's all about context. I could give a very good demonstration of this, but obviously I would offend a lot of people and I'm not interested in doing that. > Many years ago, Herman Wouk wrote the bestselling > book, The Caine Mutiny. > In the preface, he said basically: Sailors cuss a > lot. Everyone knows > they cuss a lot. So rather than bore you by putting > the same few words in > to every sentence for the next 500 pages, I'm going > to assume you all know > how sailors really speak, and leave them out. I > have always thought that > was a great way to handle it. So Wouk basically told his reader that rather than grow up and deal with the reality of the world depicted, I'll shelter you from NAUGHTY WORDS, because if your eyes even glimpse them, you might go straight to Hell (ok, I'm paraphrasing a bit ;) ). I have no idea how anyone can think of that as a great way to handle anything. Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 12:48:39 -0700 (MST) From: steve7701@theriver.com Subject: RE: them swear words > Many years ago, Herman Wouk wrote the bestselling > book, The Caine Mutiny. > In the preface, he said basically: Sailors cuss a > lot. Everyone knows > they cuss a lot. So rather than bore you by putting > the same few words in > to every sentence for the next 500 pages, I'm going > to assume you all know > how sailors really speak, and leave them out. I > have always thought that > was a great way to handle it. jw wrote: So Wouk basically told his reader that rather than grow up and deal with the reality of the world depicted, I'll shelter you from NAUGHTY WORDS, because if your eyes even glimpse them, you might go straight to Hell (ok, I'm paraphrasing a bit ;) ). I have no idea how anyone can think of that as a great way to handle anything. Actually, more than considering it "sheltering" me from anything, I appreciate that he reduced the boredom level. Some people can barely complete one sentence without swearing. Whether I'm offended or not, I'm annoyed...in the same way I'm annoyed trying to listen to some kid who adds "like" or "you know" to every sentence. As for the argument that since swearing is a part of real life, therefore it should be in there...so is using the toilet, but I don't want the author or film director to insert scenes of the characters going to the bathroom on a regular basis. No one seems to mind leaving that part of reality out! Steve R. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 13:09:13 -0700 (PDT) From: j w Subject: RE: them swear words - --- steve7701@theriver.com wrote: > As for the argument that since swearing is a part of > real life, therefore > it should be in there...so is using the toilet, but > I don't want the > author or film director to insert scenes of the > characters going to the > bathroom on a regular basis. No one seems to mind > leaving that part of > reality out! > > Steve R. Come on Steve, that's a horrible analogy. They don't generally show bathroom scenes because it has nothing to do with the story. Dialogue obviously has something to do with the story, and dialogue with cussing can be as well written and delivered as without. I think the issue here is that you see certain words as inherently bad. __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 13:37:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Leslie Osborn Subject: RE: them swear words > I recently saw a CD by Martha Wainwright which may > be the most profanely > titled album ever - it's called "Bloody > Mother****ing A**hole." I saw it > in Borders - without black bars or anything. Not > too many years ago a > store would have had it all covered up, if they > would have sold it at > all. When I first saw that I laughed me **off! Her album is being met with very good reviews and it's been said that she is a better songwriter than her brother Rufus. - --LO Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 23:42:17 -0400 From: "Steve O'Hearn" Subject: RE: them swear words I used to wonder why "bloody" was considered offensive until it was recently explained to me - apparently there's a connection with "bloody", and the Virgin Mary, and I'll let you figure out the specifics on your own. So I think there are those who intend the expression - and others who take it - as an insult against Christians in particular. I saw a documentary about the classic film "Where Eagles Dare" where a Brit uses the expression "bloody" about 7 times in a row, and the documentary discussed the difficulty in dealing with the censors and that film. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-basia@smoe.org [mailto:owner-basia@smoe.org]On Behalf Of > PParm16424@aol.com > Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 1:23 PM > To: basia@smoe.org > Subject: Re: them swear words > > > > I grew up in a squeeky clean, religious environment. For many > years, any foul > language was totally offensive to me, as was anything outside of > my narrowly > defined position. I have learned to loosen up a bit, and realize > that language > use is not set in stone. It changes from generation to > generation, year to > year, culture to culture. > > We went to see a minister who is English a few years ago. He used > the word > "hell" (and not in the sense of a location) and the word "damn" > (not in the > sense of damnation), but when he used the word "bloody", he > apologized profusely. > But what the heck? We were Americans and the word "bloody" means > something > covered in blood, and nothing more. That was an eye opener. > > I teach a family where the father is English and the mother is > Austrailian. > While I giving the mom her piano lesson, she thinks nothing of > telling her kids > to "piss off", meaning to "go away" so she can have her lesson in > peace. I > find that interesting and funny! It all depends on when and where > you are as to > whether a word may be offensive or not. > > Phil P. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 00:12:51 -0400 From: "Steve O'Hearn" Subject: RE: them swear words > > swearing is a part of > > real life ...so is using the toilet I thought that was a GREAT analogy! > I think the issue here is that you see > certain words as inherently bad. I think the issue here is that Steve R NAILED it. - - Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-basia@smoe.org [mailto:owner-basia@smoe.org]On Behalf Of j w > Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 4:09 PM > To: basia@smoe.org > Subject: RE: them swear words > > > > --- steve7701@theriver.com wrote: > > As for the argument that since swearing is a part of > > real life, therefore > > it should be in there...so is using the toilet, but > > I don't want the > > author or film director to insert scenes of the > > characters going to the > > bathroom on a regular basis. No one seems to mind > > leaving that part of > > reality out! > > > > Steve R. > > Come on Steve, that's a horrible analogy. They don't > generally show bathroom scenes because it has nothing > to do with the story. Dialogue obviously has > something to do with the story, and dialogue with > cussing can be as well written and delivered as > without. I think the issue here is that you see > certain words as inherently bad. > > > > __________________________________ > Yahoo! Mail Mobile > Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. > http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 00:25:58 -0400 From: "Steve O'Hearn" Subject: RE: them swear words > Words > aren't filthy, only the ideas behind words are; What are words, if not the expression of those ideas? This is why if a child uses foul language, it's not offensive, because children often simply don't know any better, and are parroting something they've heard. But when an older person uses foul language, it communicates the idea that this individual knows better and is intentionally attempting to offend or shock or whatever - he or she is trying to evoke some unusual response from other people, generally negative. In that case, the words themselves are not shocking, but the idea behind it is disappointing. And who wouldn't react negatively when someone initiates behavior intended to make others uncomfortable? A person would have to be stupid or deaf not to pick up on the hostile intentions that often lurk behind outbursts of foul language. So it's no surprise that when the inevitable reaction comes, the initiator simply continues with the negative feelings by denigrating the person who reacts, as if any rationale civilized person would do otherwise. "What's the matter with you, can't handle a bunch of foul language?" This is the ultimate juvenille taunt. The question isn't whether others can "handle" it, as if that were even an issue. The real question is - what sort of abuse or horrible life or utter lack of goals or desparation or carelessness or selfishness or WHATEVER - there are so very many possibilities - what causes any individual to be so hostile and overtly offensive to others in their intentions? Not that the actual act of cursing is itself offensive, I don't think it is. It's the motivation behind it. In my experience, the motivation is often a tragic one. Yes - the most financially successful or artistically creative people can employ excessive amounts of foul langage. That's all irrelevant, and fleeting anyway. Foul language indicates, rather, failure on the simplest of social levels. Socially offensive people can sometimes enjoy great success, often fleeting, but success nevertheless. But in the words of the legendary tycoon J. Paul Getty, "I would give up my entire fortune in exchange for a successful marriage." How many Hollywood success stories end in divorce? There's financial success, and then there's social success. I find the most socially successful people show respect for others. Foul language is a rather vulgar form of disrespect for others. - - Steve ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 01:05:32 -0400 From: "Steve O'Hearn" Subject: RE: The Sweetest Illusion > The fact that you don't use it doesn't make it not > part of language. You're assuming that I don't use it, and implying that I said it wasn't a "part of language". Wrong on both counts. Yes, I know it's a part of language. And I use it - but very, very sparingly. > I've always found it bizarre that > people would be offended by words rather than ideas. I agree. Here's a great example of that: Tony Campolo is a bit of a radical Christian lecturer, well known (in Christian circles) author, been around for decades. One day several years ago - around 1990 or so - Campolo was in Baltimore giving a lecture to a room full of ministers. He was speaking of the paradox of the wealth in American churches, and the desparate poverty in foreign countries where these churches sent missionaries. But apparently this one particular morning, the audience of church leaders and ministers and pastors wasn't responding enough to Campolo's liking. So he stopped his prepared comments, walked to the edge of the stage, and said "and you know what I think?" "I think you all are a bunch of f**king s***heads." Naturally the roomful of pastors woke up. The murmuring grew a bit angry. Campolo continued: "And you know why I think that? Because right now, you're all angrier at me that I said those words - you're angrier at those words than you are over the fact that tonight, children will die because their basic needs aren't met. We have 8 billion dollars in this country wrapped up in buildings, all to worship a God who says 'I dwell not in temples made with hands.' Our priorities are whacked and we need to fix them." Now - **** THAT **** is a great use of foul language. - - Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-basia@smoe.org [mailto:owner-basia@smoe.org]On Behalf Of j w > Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 1:56 PM > To: basia@smoe.org > Subject: RE: The Sweetest Illusion > > > > --- Steve O'Hearn wrote: > > > Cussing is like any other part of language. > > > > Maybe it's part of your language. But it's not part > > of the language of > > many, many people I know. And it's an > > infinitessimally small part of my > > language. > > The fact that you don't use it doesn't make it not > part of language. It is part of language whether you > use it or not. I've always found it bizarre that > people would be offended by words rather than ideas. > I can express the most horrifying and disgusting ideas > without using profanity and I can say completely > innocuous things using profanity. Ideas and actions > should offend, not words. > > > And I think the economics support this. R-rated > > films regularly make less > > money at the box office than G-rated films do. > > That's largely due to the fact that R-rated movies are > generally aimed at an older audience that is less > likely to engage in repeat viewings, not to mention > that the R-rating obviously cuts out a huge chunk of > the potential audience. > > > But > > it's pretty well > > established > > By who? > > > that directors don't really make films > > to kill at the box > > office, they largely make them to kill at the film > > festivals, where their > > peers are, and that subset of humanity has a desire > > for foul material that > > is skewed from the public norm. > > The percentage of mainstream movies made each year > that play festivals is very very small. Some > directors lean in the more artistic and/or eclectic > direction, but for every John Sayles or such, there's > ten Michael Bays. > > > I remember the columnist Michael Medved making the > > point several years ago > > in the year when "The English Patient" won the Oscar > > for Best Picture. That > > year's nominees for BP also included Slingblade > > (awesome film), Fargo, and > > two others - all rated R. Medved pointed out that > > in that same year - I > > think it was 1993 - George Lucas re-released the > > original 1970's Star Wars > > film as a way of getting some buzz going about the > > start of the latest > > trilogy. And Medved pointed out that this > > re-release of the old Star Wars > > film - a family-friendly film that everyone has on > > VHS, it's on TV fer > > cryin' out loud, almost 20 years old at the time - > > and yet it made more > > money at the box office in just that March 1993 > > re-release than the English > > Patient and all the other nominees for Best Picture > > that year - COMBINED. > > Medved's logic here is atrocious. Star Wars didn't > out gross those movies because of any great > philosophical divide in the population or due to its > PG rating. It made more because it's a beloved > classic that appeals to an audience of almost every > demographic. None of the nominees mentioned was > intended for a mass audience and certainly none were > aimed at young people. Their R ratings precluded a > big chunk of the population from attending, and their > subject matter guaranteed that they would not be huge > mainstream hits. Aside from that, Medved is > extraordinarily conservative on social issues (which > is perfectly legitimate) so he comes into the argument > with a strong bias, one that overrode the facts in the > above argument. > > > I think the highest grossing films that year > > included Babe, Mighty Morphin > > Power Rangers, and Disney's The Hunchback of Notre > > Dame, all rated G. > > > > But the R-rated stuff keeps getting churned out. > > Directors want their > > friends at the festivals to like them. > > Most studios don't like R ratings and pressure > filmmakers to get down to a PG-13 if they can. Most > of the ones that make R rated movies and insist on > preserving the content that earned the rating do so > because they are storytellers who sincerely believe > that it would hurt the story they are trying to tell > if they eliminated it. > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. > http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 ------------------------------ End of basia-digest V10 #124 ****************************