Oh, the irony...
I found myself chuckling ruefully at the irony of a situation I read about yesterday. An Italian minister, in criticizing new Dutch laws legalizing euthanasia, said something along the lines of '...the Nazi legacy is alive and well.'
The irony, to me, lies in the fact that, during World War II, the Dutch were among the oppressed that were subjugated by Hitler's regime, while the Italians were his allies. You can bet money that the minister in question would never have commented on that little twist of fate.
Personally, I think the Dutch laws, as they stand now, make a lot of sense. I realize that preservation of life is an important aspect of the services government provides...but I also feel that, if someone is on the verge of an excruciatingly painful and slow death, they deserve the option to choose to avoid the pain. Personally, I don't think I would do it...my own beliefs would clash pretty strongly with that choice. But if you've got, for instance, blood cancer, which is going to eat you slowly from the inside out (the ailment that claimed my step-grandmother), and it's gotten to the point where the pain medication is only going to dull the pain a little bit--the doctor agrees that there's nothing left to try--and the second opinion says the same--then I know a lot of people would choose, after a while, to find relief any way they could. And, to be perfectly frank, I'd be happier with a loved one dying peacefully rather than chewing on the end of a 9mm barrel thoughtfully for a moment before pulling the trigger. (Granted, I would also probably be the one arguing that throwing in the towel is pretty presumptuous, on your part...but I also think that, ultimately, each of us has to be responsible for making that choice. I don't think it's the government's job to decide that for us).
In other news--the Da Vinci Code trial is almost over...final arguments are today, then we just have to wait for the judge's decision. I want to slap the lawyer for the plaintiffs--he complained that Dan Brown was 'a poor witness' because he couldn't remember the dates and relative order in which he'd read some things. With all due respect to the amount of time spent becoming a lawyer, the guy's full of shit. When you're sifting through THAT much information, you don't think about when you read 'A' or 'B', unless you're some kind of savant that never forgets a date. And while Brown's a gifted mathematician and cryptologist, I just don't see the exact sequence of dates being important enough to him, in the writing process, to even warrant being noted. I think, if the lawyer in question can tell us, without referring to any sort of notes, the exact date of his licensing exams, then he might have grounds for making such a complaint.
And a last note, as I'm rambling about miscellaneous stuff--just read a commentary about Hollywood expressing concern over declining movie-house attendance. The article specifically referred to the exhortation made during the Oscars, with the line "No director called cut and said, 'That's going to look great on the DVD.'"
Well, y'know, maybe Hollywood has a reason to be concerned. The commentary I read pointed out that the death of the movie house has been claimed several times--first it was TV, then VCRs, then the Internet...and movies are still there. So, obviously, the problem is not the rise of outside entertainment.
For my part, I know I didn't go to the theater as often last year, for one simple reason--there wasn't a whole lot out there I felt was worth seeing. I can't bring myself to shell out seven to ten dollars to go see Hollywood rehash Bewitched or Dukes of Hazzard--the success of those shows on TV was hugely due to the chemistry of the cast, writers, and directors, and you just can't recapture that. I was almost ready to pass on Batman Begins...I don't remember what it was that finally convinced me to go, but I'm glad I did--they got away from the idea of doing a live-action comic book and instead turned the comic book into a real movie (some won't see the distinction between the two...and some will.) Saw Star Wars for two reasons--I'd seen some of the teaser stuff from earlier DVDs and knew I'd love the lightsaber fights, and I just wanted to complete the cycle in my mind. I've already expressed my disappointment with that effort. I caught Fantastic Four, with mixed emotions...it was what I expected it to be, so I wasn't disappointed (a lot of people said it wasn't as exciting and intense as X-Men or Spiderman...yeah, well, neither is the comic book...) And I don't think I saw another movie all summer, until Wallace and Grommit came out. Didn't catch another movie after that, until Narnia came along.
If Hollywood wants me to get out to the movie theater, they've got to put out films that I want to see. While I can appreciate the thought and emotion behind Brokeback Mountain, I honestly don't want to see it. I feel the same way about Crash...if you caught me on the right day, with money in my pocket, I would maybe go see it. But it just doesn't appeal to me. I'd go catch it long before I'd catch a re-invented War of the Worlds, though.
Give me something to see. I'll show up. Really, I will. I love seeing stuff on the big screen. But if the best you've got to offer is something I wouldn't even bother seeing on the small screen, don't expect me to cough up the money to suffer through it in a dark theater with a lot of other people around. I prefer to do my suffering in private.
I found myself chuckling ruefully at the irony of a situation I read about yesterday. An Italian minister, in criticizing new Dutch laws legalizing euthanasia, said something along the lines of '...the Nazi legacy is alive and well.'
The irony, to me, lies in the fact that, during World War II, the Dutch were among the oppressed that were subjugated by Hitler's regime, while the Italians were his allies. You can bet money that the minister in question would never have commented on that little twist of fate.
Personally, I think the Dutch laws, as they stand now, make a lot of sense. I realize that preservation of life is an important aspect of the services government provides...but I also feel that, if someone is on the verge of an excruciatingly painful and slow death, they deserve the option to choose to avoid the pain. Personally, I don't think I would do it...my own beliefs would clash pretty strongly with that choice. But if you've got, for instance, blood cancer, which is going to eat you slowly from the inside out (the ailment that claimed my step-grandmother), and it's gotten to the point where the pain medication is only going to dull the pain a little bit--the doctor agrees that there's nothing left to try--and the second opinion says the same--then I know a lot of people would choose, after a while, to find relief any way they could. And, to be perfectly frank, I'd be happier with a loved one dying peacefully rather than chewing on the end of a 9mm barrel thoughtfully for a moment before pulling the trigger. (Granted, I would also probably be the one arguing that throwing in the towel is pretty presumptuous, on your part...but I also think that, ultimately, each of us has to be responsible for making that choice. I don't think it's the government's job to decide that for us).
In other news--the Da Vinci Code trial is almost over...final arguments are today, then we just have to wait for the judge's decision. I want to slap the lawyer for the plaintiffs--he complained that Dan Brown was 'a poor witness' because he couldn't remember the dates and relative order in which he'd read some things. With all due respect to the amount of time spent becoming a lawyer, the guy's full of shit. When you're sifting through THAT much information, you don't think about when you read 'A' or 'B', unless you're some kind of savant that never forgets a date. And while Brown's a gifted mathematician and cryptologist, I just don't see the exact sequence of dates being important enough to him, in the writing process, to even warrant being noted. I think, if the lawyer in question can tell us, without referring to any sort of notes, the exact date of his licensing exams, then he might have grounds for making such a complaint.
And a last note, as I'm rambling about miscellaneous stuff--just read a commentary about Hollywood expressing concern over declining movie-house attendance. The article specifically referred to the exhortation made during the Oscars, with the line "No director called cut and said, 'That's going to look great on the DVD.'"
Well, y'know, maybe Hollywood has a reason to be concerned. The commentary I read pointed out that the death of the movie house has been claimed several times--first it was TV, then VCRs, then the Internet...and movies are still there. So, obviously, the problem is not the rise of outside entertainment.
For my part, I know I didn't go to the theater as often last year, for one simple reason--there wasn't a whole lot out there I felt was worth seeing. I can't bring myself to shell out seven to ten dollars to go see Hollywood rehash Bewitched or Dukes of Hazzard--the success of those shows on TV was hugely due to the chemistry of the cast, writers, and directors, and you just can't recapture that. I was almost ready to pass on Batman Begins...I don't remember what it was that finally convinced me to go, but I'm glad I did--they got away from the idea of doing a live-action comic book and instead turned the comic book into a real movie (some won't see the distinction between the two...and some will.) Saw Star Wars for two reasons--I'd seen some of the teaser stuff from earlier DVDs and knew I'd love the lightsaber fights, and I just wanted to complete the cycle in my mind. I've already expressed my disappointment with that effort. I caught Fantastic Four, with mixed emotions...it was what I expected it to be, so I wasn't disappointed (a lot of people said it wasn't as exciting and intense as X-Men or Spiderman...yeah, well, neither is the comic book...) And I don't think I saw another movie all summer, until Wallace and Grommit came out. Didn't catch another movie after that, until Narnia came along.
If Hollywood wants me to get out to the movie theater, they've got to put out films that I want to see. While I can appreciate the thought and emotion behind Brokeback Mountain, I honestly don't want to see it. I feel the same way about Crash...if you caught me on the right day, with money in my pocket, I would maybe go see it. But it just doesn't appeal to me. I'd go catch it long before I'd catch a re-invented War of the Worlds, though.
Give me something to see. I'll show up. Really, I will. I love seeing stuff on the big screen. But if the best you've got to offer is something I wouldn't even bother seeing on the small screen, don't expect me to cough up the money to suffer through it in a dark theater with a lot of other people around. I prefer to do my suffering in private.
posted by Curtis at 10:08 AM
4 Comments:
ahh, what to comment on? i was going to comment on the dutch thing, so i guess i'll start there and go down the list. the euthanasia debate and assisted suicide issue. when pain has reached the point that someone will disregard self-preservation to eliminate that pain, then i say they should have that option. admittedly that thresh hold will be different for every individual, but we all have that point.
i'm not following the dan brown case, but i find your updates quite interesting. quite honestly i hope he wins, from what you've posted it looks like he probably will.
the movies... i love going to the movies, if i had the cash on hand, lived in an area where there was a little more variety in the films, and the time in the evenings... i'd got to movies every night... the fair has been weak the last year or so. i went several of the same films you saw, also took in sin city (which i loved), constantine (which i was, much to my surprise, not dissapointed in), and brother's grimm (which i liked to a point, but the studio choked gilliam back to make it really tacky).
if hollywood wants folks to go, they need to offer something worth going to see. narnia was delightful, in my opinion, but the overall fair is scarce... i'm starting to go into the foriegn market for dvd's more and more, cause at least there is something interesting there.
ditto to what Frank said.
But I gotta say - I'm getting to the point where it's actually more fun to lay in bed and watch a movie late at night than going to the movie house. I love a great summer blockbuster (or Xmas one, for that matter) but seeing 'em at home is great.
I look forward to the day, far down the road, when I can set up an impressive movie room in the basement. Now THAT will be my ultimate.
Ah, yes, home theater...my friends, when they bought their home in Trenton, also got a big-screen TV (it came with the house). Ross already had a fantastic sound system. Many is the film I've first been exposed to thanks to that combination. It will be a sad, sad day when that TV finally dies and needs to be replaced...
When they do it, finally, I think they need to get one of those LCD projectors and a drop-down projection screen, so they can make it even bigger! (Though I wouldn't complain if they got an HD Plasma widescreen, either...but it would take an AWFUL lot of arm-twisting before Ross could talk Marla into that!)
The Dutch are so evil.
Post a Comment
<< Home