Re: irevulent

John Smith (johnsmiii@yahoo.com)
Sat, 21 Aug 1999 00:22:04 -0700 (PDT) 

Despite the fact that this sphere and its subdivisions
mean nothing to you, we should first recollect the
wisdom of Scots.  Now we know William Waldo's (from
Braveheart or something or other) Hollywood
incarnation was likely a farce.  Regardless, it did
grab the Americans by the heart for a transcendental
shake.  Imagine, a two dimensional medium could have
such an effect on the people.  A myth could affirm a
person's erstwhile rejection of what is ugly and
horrible in the world and fortify what is honorable
and true.  From a derived myth, we can produce film
that we can translate feelings of freedom from Waldo's
words.  All of that energy and history changed an
American publicm, if only for a short while, it
renewed a myth, made us long for the greater days. 
Now, another Scot film is Trainspotting, in which
supposed friends, one of which is the strongest, rank
and defile each other's monetary worth in exchange for
self-same freedom.  The hero, of the story, escapes
with $ 16000 pounds and the story ends.  The story
changed a lot of people.  In fact, just like the movie
Jaws caused a slump in Australian tourism, the movie
Trainspotting caused an all-time peak in heroin usage
(the characters were heroin users dealing in
intoxicants and other profit-makers) and a subsequent
rise in the death rate amongst NA youth (Even though
it's a Scottish film).  Makes me wonder why someone
should put all of that energy into what people already
know -- the world is a SHIT SANDWICH -- instead of
interpolating the wisdom of those who've known more. 
Interestingly enough (Although Mel Gibson directed the
film and wrote the screenplay), both stories are told
by old-timers.  I'd like to chill out by the sandbox
again, it's so hard to make friends.  It makes me
wonder why, when the world is already a SHIT-SANDWICH,
old-timers are confirming what is already known.  Why
should we have to eat it, too? 


--- Scottie Bowman <rbowman@indigo.ie> wrote:
> 
>     Actually, Tim, I think I *did* get you a tiny
> bit riled there.  
>     But none the worse for that.  Rather the better
> in fact.  
>     Vitality is, after all, the one really essential
> ingredient 
>     of all good writing.  I think you may be
> starting to hit 
>     your stride at last.  I hope you're
> appropriately grateful.
> 
>     Incidentally, 'American' & 'Australian' *are*
> simple epithets.  
>     Surely you don't regard the terms as pejorative?
> 
>     And if we're to shun any discussion of religion
> I'm not sure 
>     under which dispensation we've been allowed, up
> till now, 
>     all this talk of the Jesus prayer.  
> 
>     In light of Jerome's experience in the Hurtgen
> Forest 
>     I should also have thought the pacifist element
> in 
>     his subsequent writing was, at the very least,
> debatable.  
>     Is no one permitted to say in that context that
> they 
>     at least sympathise with the position & suspect
> what 
>     his attitude might be - like that of other
> right-thinking 
>     chaps - towards gun control?
> 
>     Or did that old comforting feel of the stock
> against 
>     the shoulder lead you into a certain shamefaced
> sympathy 
>     with the aims of the NRA?
> 
>     Scottie B. 
> 
> 
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com