Tibet & Ma
swerdlin at GTE.NET
Sun Nov 30 15:22:47 MST 1997
> From: johnm <economic at NETINS.NET>
> To: RUSHTALK at athena.csdco.com
> Subject: Re: Tibet & Ma
> Date: Sunday, November 30, 1997 15:38
> On Sat, 29 Nov 1997, Ma ZhangKai wrote:
> :-)Ma ZhangKai wrote:
> :-)>Richard Swerdlin wrote:
> :-)> "Seven Years in Tibet" should be seen by Ma.
> :-)> It is interesting to note how China decided to save Tibet
> :-)> foreign inroads.
> :-) You know, unfortunately, I can't see this film(Brad Pitt in it, its
> :-)origianl work is a Nazi, 85 years old), but I know some content of it
> :-)a site founded by our dissentes, I agree their view, this film is
> :-) And, I know another film will be fabricated, 'Kundun'(Dir by Martin
> :-)Scorsese), I think you will see this film in christmas.
> :-) Richard Gere, Dalai's US prentice, will acting the leading role in
> :-)film named ' the red corner'(I think it is, in Chinese, is Hong Jiao
> :-)Luo, let PapaPaul translate it to you please), this film is a wanton
> :-) And, a film about Tian An Men 1989 is in swaddle by HollyWood, its
> :-)protagonist may be Tomkelus(I can't spell it correctly), you must see
> :-)in future. I think, like all that films made by HW, a USA will apear
> :-)anywhere where is in unfairness in your sight, then, this film is a
> :-)newer '007' only. our dissentes said, from this film they remembered
> :-)that west journalistes run away from China at 1989, I don't know it is
> :-)true or not. :):):)
> Its been my opinion since high school that most "docu-drama" films
> from Hollywood (or most places for that matter) are made to entertain,
> and not to inform. I imagine that most films you see about real life
> sujects will be about (just a general opinion, here) 80% dramatization
> material, and about 20% documentary material, although they may be
> touted as a "true story". When I see "true story", i begin to doubt
> the substance of the movie right there. Don't believe everything you
> read, Ma...or everything you see.
> Approach movies, newspapers, and books as you would if you were from
> the state of Missouri in the US; have a "show me" attitude not just
> about these from the US, but from any other country as well. I'm sure
> that in the US, as in any capitalist country, profit helps determine
> the content of any movie. And some documentaries as well (just saw
> one on weather, mentioning "global warming"the other day).
> Just my cynical opinion. :)
> John B Hammes
I've always considered movies a form of entertainment. I recall
mentioning the above to a high school English teacher, who had asked
us to rank our personal "top ten" in a long list of movies that had
been released during a certain year or two. My "top ten" happened
to be chiefly crime movies. The same was true of some of the other
students in that same class. She seemed to fear that we might
confuse events on the silver screen with those in reality. However
her fear was not echoed by other English teachers. Related perhaps
to the particular teacher's fear was her dislike of "unpleasant" things
in general. I encountered something comparable in a colleague or
two, when I was teaching elementary school in Ohio. "Unpleasant"
was not limted to movies however, since this was a factor in literature
also, involving both nonfiction and fiction (prose & poetry).
Amusingly, I recall Oliver Stone's reaction to accusations of
knowingly making movies with inaccuracies or lies. He smiled and
said this was merely "artistry" and "creativity" on his part. His retort
came as no surprise. Many of my own teachers had mentioned the
phrase "artistic licence" regarding poetry & prose.
Trying to complete crossword puzzles can be challenging. The
same could be said concerning the degree of truth contained in a
movie, since the chief consideration remains that of $$$$$.
(swerdlin at gte.net)
More information about the Rushtalk