In the same vein, not every story has to be a morality play. Sometimes, the good guys don't win, evil triumphs and the girl doesn't get saved.
Millenials say it's wrong to save girls. It propagates the Damsel In Distress mentality. ?
Yay to diversity and equality!!! New Spidey has a black gf and a yellow bff!!!! ?
Oyster Bells,
Here I stand: everyone's work (think also of Itchy) reflects their worldview / philosophy of life, though obviously not as a literal expression of their views. So, I find productive reflection in the portrayal of the range of ways in which characters relate to drugs, from unemployable-but-apparently-lovable Steven Burnett to legally-doubling-our-profits Jerry Horne.
Deciding whether an omission of the dangers is wrong or bad would depend on the particular case, on the kind of film or filmmaker.
? I'm curious in what sorta case you'd think it okay, and not okay. Would you elaborate, please? (Please know this is really not a debate, it's not a subject I get personal with. I'm just curious)
Oyster Bells,
Here I stand: everyone's work (think also of Itchy) reflects their worldview / philosophy of life, though obviously not as a literal expression of their views. So, I find productive reflection in the portrayal of the range of ways in which characters relate to drugs, from unemployable-but-apparently-lovable Steven Burnett to legally-doubling-our-profits Jerry Horne.
Deciding whether an omission of the dangers is wrong or bad would depend on the particular case, on the kind of film or filmmaker.
? I'm curious in what sorta case you'd think it okay, and not okay. Would you elaborate, please? (Please know this is really not a debate, it's not a subject I get personal with. I'm just curious)
I'd find it justifiable in cases where aesthetics is more important than ethics, as in avant-garde cinema usually not seen or pursued by mass audiences (e.g. Dietmar Brehm's The Murder Mystery), where the aim is to question rather than entrench the status quo. Guess it would be most unacceptable in a cynical mainstream films portraying drug experiences as attractions. Lynch/Frost's approach is fascinating and unsettling (accessible mainstream experimental TV): what to make of the Becky Burnett tripping-wind-in-the-hair sequence within the overall film? How does she relate to Itchy? Winding Refn's Pusher trilogy is an interesting downbeat alternative.
An aside, I'm firmly anti-drugs but it seems that psilocybin belongs in that category only for / because of "toe-heads" (ala Irene).
Not so sure I buy into the "Drugs are bad, mkay" schtick. In fact, I am very strongly pro-drugs; by which I mean every adult should be free to choose whether or not to use, and which they use. My only indulgences are occasional alcohol and frequent nicotine (I vape, don't smoke), but I don't believe I or anyone else has the right to say what others can or cannot do - provided nobody else gets hurt in the process.
So far, all we've seen in Twin Peaks are the extremely negative aspects to drug use. Lynch and Frost have every right to tell the story in whatever way they please but I really hope the show isn't going to become anti-drug propaganda.
So far, all we've seen in Twin Peaks are the extremely negative aspects to drug use. Lynch and Frost have every right to tell the story in whatever way they please but I really hope the show isn't going to become anti-drug propaganda.
I think we'll be o.k., DL seems fairly open-minded. Being a recovered Alcoholic, I do really appreciate that he's even-handed with it, in that Diane's drinking is portrayed honestly. My only hang-up with drugs (I grew up in Berkeley in the early 70's.....) is that a person should probably make sure they don't have a underlying psychiatric disorder before going down that road and making it much worse. I've actually seen that happen. America is very hypocritical re: drug use-witness the opioid epidemic. My basic stance is that if it impairs your creativity, imagination, or ability to relate to other people-then it's probably not for you. Zappa had a no-drugs policy if you were in his band....he had to due to the complexity of the parts!
laura and ronette, prostitutes(selling burgers, for people leaving the bar across the street), they both write off zebra and penguin(both black and white, like episode 8, basic void/inconsistency of reality) and live on beyond death, their song is the first deranged sounding electronic and next song tells them to allow death and accept blue(all melt like icicle) and look for something as a way out in the wake
lol I like you Murat. You don't have make some perceptual leaps
Thank you very much! Rehearsing as we speak. 😉
Not so sure I buy into the "Drugs are bad, mkay" schtick. In fact, I am very strongly pro-drugs; by which I mean every adult should be free to choose whether or not to use, and which they use. My only indulgences are occasional alcohol and frequent nicotine (I vape, don't smoke), but I don't believe I or anyone else has the right to say what others can or cannot do - provided nobody else gets hurt in the process.
So far, all we've seen in Twin Peaks are the extremely negative aspects to drug use. Lynch and Frost have every right to tell the story in whatever way they please but I really hope the show isn't going to become anti-drug propaganda.
Smokers do harm others because they pollute our local air, affecting our health in addition to REEKING, and some of them carelessly chuck them while still lit. A few years back our lovely Griffith Park caught fire because of a smoker. And for example it is a good thing that airline pilots not drink or use drugs just before/when working.
Being sober over 23 years now, I know the subject of addiction well. I don't believe in prosecuting drug use, but education about what they do to health, and where addiction leads are important.
Not so sure I buy into the "Drugs are bad, mkay" schtick. In fact, I am very strongly pro-drugs; by which I mean every adult should be free to choose whether or not to use, and which they use. My only indulgences are occasional alcohol and frequent nicotine (I vape, don't smoke), but I don't believe I or anyone else has the right to say what others can or cannot do - provided nobody else gets hurt in the process.
So far, all we've seen in Twin Peaks are the extremely negative aspects to drug use. Lynch and Frost have every right to tell the story in whatever way they please but I really hope the show isn't going to become anti-drug propaganda.
Smokers do harm others because they pollute our local air, affecting our health in addition to REEKING, and some of them carelessly chuck them while still lit. A few years back our lovely Griffith Park caught fire because of a smoker. And for example it is a good thing that airline pilots not drink or use drugs just before/when working.
Being sober over 23 years now, I know the subject of addiction well. I don't believe in prosecuting drug use, but education about what they do to health, and where addiction leads are important.
Can't let this one by.
Smoking is, IMO, the single most stupid thing anyone can choose to do and I'm not denying there are negative health effects to others around and about. The smell aspect is something I'm not happy about either but until someone makes things like eating gorgonzola or public flatulence illegal there's not much I can do.
However... there is very strong evidence that says more health damage is caused by vehicle and industrial pollution. That being the case, every self righteous non smoker should immediately give up their car, van, bus, train, whatever and stop using and/or buying things that are made from plastic, or use fossil fuels in their construction, either as raw material or power for manufacture.
Fires caused by cigarettes are in the same league as accidents caused by drunk drivers. Both are due to someone's stupidity or selfishness - or both - could have, should have been avoided but are in no way grounds to ban either. Suitable grounds for punishment, though.
Fire walk with