Diaper Raffle Sayings

... And I watch Indiana Jones

" Why ask me? I write novels. "
Donna Tartt (on the war in Iraq)

God, what annoys me the" settlement culture ". And, no, I'm not talking about the United States nor of them (of questionable taste, but do not want to talk) pretension of spreading democracy.
I'm talking about, more simply, those funny pseudo-intellectuals who, as soon as you see, they begin to break your soul with "You really must read this" or "You must absolutely see that." Or worse: "If you do not watch this, listen to this one, you will never understand how things really are."
I understand that their intentions are noble.
But I think I can read and watch and listen to what I think.
Right?
Wrong.
Because if a poor man does not read essays unknown Russian, does not watch movies and Jodorowski Ozpetek, do not believe the idea of conspiracy contained in the songs of Rage Against The Machine then it is ignorant. An apolitical, without any civic sense.
at best.
a conservatism that defends corporations and the U.S. for its benefit, when it's bad.

If a poor man, then, bother that Al Gore, after being a lousy vice president, will be recycled as environmentalist (environmentalist dick, I think, but de gustibus ...) just because it was missed the victory in elections that, in fact, had already in hand, or think that Michael Moore would take the prize for "Bowling For Columbine, to thank the committee and then eclipse and plant it to break the balls, then it is a poor fool, worse, a poor fool that protects the established power and economic interests to secure the oil lobby.
Although the poor in question is a girl of twenty, lives in a small town of Modena, and oil has been right in the picture.

If that same poor man watches the news and reads newspapers, (and therefore is not "unrealistic" and not "living in his world") but at night wants to watch a movie that has no intrinsic meaning, an educational and informative value, but it's just a good movie, you do not want see the reality, preferring refuge in fiction, in the Hollywood glitter.
No.
A film should be first of all nice, then if you need something better, otherwise okay. "Into The Wild" was used to something, but first of all it was a good movie.
"Bowling For Columbine", though it pains me to admit it was a good movie, because it was heard.
"Fahrenheit 911" was a horrible film. Because it was built with the idea of serving something. It was not right, wrong, good or bad, comfortable or uncomfortable. It sucked. As a movie.
"Sicko," even worse.
And I do not despise them tell them why I find them "inconvenient" or I have not understood. I understand them very well. Precisely for this reason I do not like. And
not find them "uncomfortable" if not for the fact that the word itself ("uncomfortable" film uncomfortable, awkward book, hard uncomfortable) causes me hives. In my opinion, billing himself as a director uncomfortable, or that a writer is like saying: "Look at me, now I'm untouchable! No one can criticize me, because otherwise it will be accused of ignorance of the facts or collusion with the powers that be! "
(say, Theo Van Gogh has never said that his films were uncomfortable. Where is he now? spans two below ground. Moore always says, that his films are uncomfortable. Where ' is it now? millionaire in his mansion in Michigan, bought, among other things, with the proceeds of the shares of certain healthcare and pharmaceutical industries, and other relevant industries, guess riddle?, in the field of Defense ... But look! Right those so criticized in Sicko and Fahrenheit!)
But I digress, as usual.
What I mean is.
What bothers me, but so much trouble, now that the movies, and books, and songs, should "Serve some purpose." Having a purpose
, a purpose.
And if you do not like, you're an idiot.
It's not that they met your taste, or did you consider dull or the hero you were on the ball. You idiot
.
do not.
Well ... A nice
film is great as it is beautiful. Not because you "sign" something. If the filmmakers want their
teach something, they turn a documentary, I say. But they do?, Create something that is neither one nor the other, nor fiction nor reality. So
are protected on two fronts: If you liked the story, it's because you found it "uncomfortable". You did not happen, not want to understand, in short, tourism will not ears to hear.
If you have understood very well, history, and criticizes the film because of the way they told it, because he has exaggerated some aspects neglecting others, because it has distorted the facts to fit his conception (Moore docet ), because he shot the film only to shock, without the slightest likelihood that there is in fact told,
"Well," I answered. "After all, it's only a movie."
With Cock.