uggworek@sunybcs.UUCP (Donald Gworek) (04/01/85)
SEE "The Purple Rose Of Cairo" !!!! EXCELLENT film! I had no idea what this picture was about, and went to the show on blind faith that Woody Allen would not let me down. He did not!!! "Purple Rose" is one of the most entertaining films in a long time. It's great to have Woody Allen back in his 'keep them laughing' prime form! At first, I didn't like the ending. And then I realized it IS correct. It's the way things are -- real and cruel -- and not like the movies. I give "Purple Rose" Five Stars, or "I MUST see this again and again" -- Don Gworek
lwe3207@acf4.UUCP (Lars Warren Ericson) (04/02/85)
[] This movie stinks. Mia Farrow does a Woody Allen imitation for 2 hours. She is supposed to have a non-fictional husband who beats her up. During the time frame of the movie, he never does, and he always backs down in arguments. She is never bruised. I know this movie is supposed to be a comedy, about fantasy/reality etc., but I resent the idea of using a totally unreal caricature of a real-life social problem as a minor factor in the "reality" subplot. Because Woody Allen has a big name, and because the other half of the movie is about fantasy, people might conclude that this is what the psychological and physical scenario of wife-beating is really like -- just as they might conclude from watching other movies that computers look like Christmas trees and that people don't get hurt in gunfights. The single detail in the movie which rang true in any sense was encapsulated in the two seconds of the actor flying home after standing up the woman. By coincidence, it may be the case that actors are the only people Woody Allen has had recent real-life experience with. -- Lars Ericson -- ...!cmcl2!acf4!lwe3207
lwe3207@acf4.UUCP (Lars Warren Ericson) (04/04/85)
[]
seismo!elsie!ado writes:
. Message-Id: <8504031831.AA12162@seismo.ARPA>
. Subject: Re: Purple Rose of Cairo
. In-Reply-To: your article <1110005@acf4.UUCP>
.
. Would you have preferred to see the wife-beating depicted?
.
. --ado
Ado misses the point. The point is that a thoughtless trivialization of a
real social problem should not be a minor element of a comedy, if the comedy
is not about that minor element (then it is not comedy, but nihilistic
satire). If "PROC" is not a comedy, then the portrayal of the social
problem should not be a distorted and pale shadow of the reality. "Ado"
seems to assume that I get off on seeing sexual violence as a form of
entertainment. I am saying that if violence of any form must exist in a
movie, it should be to inform, not to entertain. I walk out of movies which
use violence purely for the purpose of entertainment. (A rape-strangulation
scene in one of Hitchcock's later movies is a good example. "Marathon Man"
is another.) Woody Allen's incorrect portrayal of a form of violence
disinforms people as to the nature of that form of violence, and does so
purely in support of entertainment.mgh@hou5h.UUCP (Marcus Hand) (04/07/85)
> From: lwe3207@acf4.UUCP (Lars Warren Ericson) > Ado misses the point. The point is that a thoughtless trivialization of a > real social problem should not be a minor element of a comedy, if the comedy > is not about that minor element (then it is not comedy, but nihilistic > satire). If "PROC" is not a comedy, then the portrayal of the social > . . . . . > is another.) Woody Allen's incorrect portrayal of a form of violence > disinforms people as to the nature of that form of violence, and does so > purely in support of entertainment. Goodness, we are getting judgemental. You sound like a politbureau when you say something is an incorrect portrayal... marcus 834-2408 PS. and anyway, why is satire nihilistic? -- Marcus Hand (hou5h!mgh)
lwe3207@acf4.UUCP (Lars Warren Ericson) (04/11/85)
[] > Goodness, we are getting judgemental. You sound like a politbureau when > you say something is an incorrect portrayal... I am not trying to legislate art. I am being judgemental. Maybe you can suggest a nonjudgemental form of critical and emotional reaction? All I am saying is that PROC is A) trash and B) antisocial. In a very provincial fashion it borrows a culture it doesn't understand to make a relatively uninteresting point, and in the process misrepresents a real social problem. I have nothing against Woody Allen's artistic freedom. But I also have the freedom to comment on the meaningfulness of his entertainment. "Incorrect" means just that: go to a women's shelter. Look for Mia Farrow. If you can't find her, try talking to some ordinary mortals and see what the real psychology of wife-beating is. Or do you prefer your computers with large blinking lights and rows of spinning tape drives? Or is there no truth? > PS. and anyway, why is satire nihilistic? - Marcus Hand (hou5h!mgh) I worried about this phrase before I used it. "Satire", according to the American Heritage dictionary is "the use of derisive wit to attack folly or wickedness". This presumes that all satirists have positive social intentions. The dictionary defines nihilism, in part, as "the rejection of all distinctions in moral value". Now suppose the nihilist imagined the consciousness of valuelessness to be the supremely moral outlook. The nihilist would then, to promote the point of view that valuelessness is the only true value, pick truly horrible things, and make fun of them. For example, a comedy involving incest, apartheid, incurable disease, mental retardation, or rape. To the nihilist, values are folly, values are wicked. Therefore, to satirize the cherishing of values, one satirizes events which should be cause for concern. This is "nihilistic satire". Lars Ericson Arpa: ericson@nyu Usenet: {floyd,ihnp4}!cmcl2!csd1!ericson
miller@mred.DEC (05/14/85)
I was very disappointed with the ending. Although I am not a big Mia Farrow fan (she looks 43 going on 16!), I found Cecilia to be a charming heroine. However, I would have been happier if it had ended like "The Ghost and Mrs. Muir" (Rex Harrison and ??? suddenly can't remember her name!), I became very angry with Woody Allen for ending it that way. Cyndi