Posted: 20 April 2018 at 6:01pm | IP Logged | 10
|
post reply
|
|
I may be on my own here but I enjoy learning from history. Trying to understand the context of things.
It seems that this (what, these days, passes for a self anointed) journalist, misses that in pointing at trends of the past (and missing the point entirely with some characters). In doing so he has exposed the underskirt of the present.
I dunno, I've often heard that one should not swing at the easy ones and it feels that these needy top-10's are kinda 'easy'.
We learn from the stigma's, lore & trends of the past. They helps us avoid or harken back to issues pertinent in the present.
Take the presenter, he owes more to scare mongering, like those that reacted to Fredrick Wertham back in the 50's than the super 'oh-so' enlightened stance he seems to feel that is indicative of this millenium!
This attitude seems to bleed (a little) into the whole current naming and shaming mentality. So and so is a bawdy lech and as such we should never look at one of their films ever again.
And yet, we in the same breathe will say that someone who was severely autistic and genius level recall can draw every detail from a view they saw for only a minute. Let's revere this!
Somehow we live in a world where we can't separate the art from the artist, unless it suits our view on fairness and equality.
Art can (and sometimes does) come from odd places. Some of them quite dark or isolated.
Sticking with the Hate-monger and the Hitler connection. When they felt that something was subversive what did they do? Oh yeah...
I fail to follow the number one most inappropriate character. Is he saying that Hitler's 'hate' is now no longer inappropriate? So we are accepting of it?
Surely it would have been inappropriate if he was the hero of the piece not the villain?
|