(no subject)
last night, claire convinced me to see fahrenheit 9/11 at midnight at the metreon with her and zach and carson. how did she convince me? she said that even if i dion't like the movie, it'll be the hot topic of conversation for the next few months and i should be in on it. that, and zach had a bag of wine, which we could all play with while we wait in line. i'm a sucker.
i don't know if i liked the movie. it was kind of like... i don't know... too much? for me, personally? i mean, i know bush is retarded, and babies are being killed in iraq, and innocent people are being arrested, and some soldiers are 18 years olds who thought they were playing a video game, and the american people were/are lied to.... and all that. i mean, it's good that it was affirmed, but i don't see why the hell it would be necessary to zoom in on an hysterical woman's face for three minutes whose son died in combat. i don't like it when news interviews do that, and i don't like it when michael moore does that. it made me cry a lot, but you can see those images and cry without michael moore's narration.
it kind of reminds me of schindler's list, like with the sad score and the little girl in the red dress. the holocaust was... well, whatever, as it is--you don't need any schmaltz to make it more sad. the same thing goes for the whole thing in iraq. it's fucking ghastly. you can talk about it any way you want... it seems disrespectful to show children dying along with background music.
i don't understand, on a somewhat different topic, why people think that you need to physically and literally see images to "see" them. i remember when the war was going strong and people were like, "ooooh iraqi television shows people exploding and american tv doesn't--cowards!" but like... i mean, if you read about it, you know what's happening. i read about the whole thing in... farjullah? (sorry) and i don't need to see it. i think the images speak for themselves.
i don't know if i liked the movie. it was kind of like... i don't know... too much? for me, personally? i mean, i know bush is retarded, and babies are being killed in iraq, and innocent people are being arrested, and some soldiers are 18 years olds who thought they were playing a video game, and the american people were/are lied to.... and all that. i mean, it's good that it was affirmed, but i don't see why the hell it would be necessary to zoom in on an hysterical woman's face for three minutes whose son died in combat. i don't like it when news interviews do that, and i don't like it when michael moore does that. it made me cry a lot, but you can see those images and cry without michael moore's narration.
it kind of reminds me of schindler's list, like with the sad score and the little girl in the red dress. the holocaust was... well, whatever, as it is--you don't need any schmaltz to make it more sad. the same thing goes for the whole thing in iraq. it's fucking ghastly. you can talk about it any way you want... it seems disrespectful to show children dying along with background music.
i don't understand, on a somewhat different topic, why people think that you need to physically and literally see images to "see" them. i remember when the war was going strong and people were like, "ooooh iraqi television shows people exploding and american tv doesn't--cowards!" but like... i mean, if you read about it, you know what's happening. i read about the whole thing in... farjullah? (sorry) and i don't need to see it. i think the images speak for themselves.