neal@fear.UUCP (Neal Bedard) (06/18/85)
I couldn't let this go by: In article <2107@ut-sally.UUCP>, kelvin@ut-sally.UUCP (Kelvin Thompson) writes: > > _1984_ > > by Kelvin Thompson > > _1984_ is a bad, utterly depressing, anti-humanist movie. The producer > of the movie has claimed that at its heart the movie is a love story, but > in truth it is a relentless attack on the nobility of the human > condition. Mr. Thompson probably never read Eric Blair's original text, `1984' (Before the flames start, George Orwell was a pseudonym.) The *book* is depressing too. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I am told it very closely follows the book in plot, character, and general tone. It is, as he asserts, a relentless attack on the human condition. It is brutal, cold, inhumane, and much, much more. `1984' is a warning, not a prediction. Even if one is depressed by its content (I refer to both the film and the text here) it does show some very important trends in our current society to be wary of. Sometimes learning via film (or any medium) is a bitter pill to swallow, but Real Life ain't all cotton candy, either. If you want to be entertained, go see `GOONIES', etc. and put your brain on hold. By the way, `1984' was written in 1948. The last two digits are transposed, hence the title. The actual date has absolutely *nothing* to do with what `1984' is about. My most recent pick as a must-see: `MASK'. Trust me. Take your SO. -Neal B. -- "mynd you, m00se bytes kann be pretti nasti" UUCP: {(ucbvax!dual!turtlevax,ihnp4!resonex,decwrl!amdcad!cae780)!weitek!neal}