"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 15:21:35 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 20:02:21 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


Who has criticized the networks? Besides jps, that is. You mean to
say
that a decent movie about war can be made *without* foul language?

Save those facetious questions for someone else, John. Movies without
that
language were made at a point in history when the country was still
living a
fairy tale existence. But, they can still be historically accurate in
their
own way.


So you feel that when we lived in a time of greater respect, and
consideration for other people, and had better manners, that was
living a "fairy tale" existence?

There is no need to be crude, rude, and abusive. If you can't get your
point across without having to resort to the lowest common
denominator, then I would suggest that you are what you watch.

Dave

It's not nothing to do with "greater respect". In the 1950s and earlier,
most war movies presented a squeaky clean image of what war and the armed
forces were like. Even the most brutal of them are not as explicit as
newer
ones like "Deer Hunter" or "Full Metal Jacket".

The point of those movies back then was not to be 100% factually
accurate in every minute detail. Those movies were not documentaries,
they were made to provide entertainment and to instill a positive
attitude with respect to our military.

Hollywood was an ESCAPE from reality. One need only watch the Wizard
of Oz to remember this.

That we seem to feel today, that we have to use the "shock values" of
blood, guts, gore, and racy language to make a point, says something
about the state of our population.

That Hollywood has become more and more political in their productions
(And decidedly left leaning) is also of concern. No one need look any
further than Michael Moore's propaganda films to see it. By using
"shock" tactics, it's easy to sway popular opinion against certain
operations or political ideals by showcasing it in a graphic,
negative setting.


My dad flew a TBF Avenger (torpedo bomber) in the pacific. After a
successful mission and returning to his carrier, he'd get a handshake
from
his CO. Afterward, he had to deal with a half dozen guys who thought it
was
a kick to beat up the Jew-boys. He'd been a pretty decent boxer in high
school. His CO suggested that he might not notice if some of the half
dozen
ended up too black & blue to walk straight for a few days. That's how the
problem got straightened out.

That's how everyone solved their problems back then. As a kid growing
up, if you were not the most popular and became the object of bullies,
you either learned to be tolerant of pain, or you fought back and
gained their respect.

You don't see details like that in old movies. You *do* see it in movies
about Vietnam - major friction within groups who are supposed to be on
the
same side.

And why do you suppose that is? I'll give you a hint, it has much to
do with liberals and the anti-war element, who are attempting to sway
public opinion through the guise of "entertainment".

Dave

OK....you'd better clarify that last paragraph, Dave. Are you intimately
acquainted with Francis Ford Coppola and his political leanings?