I have 2 hours free time until my next meeting...so here we go again.
To clarify something. In my view there is no difference between XXX with Vin Diesel (yuck!) and 300. I didn't take any seriously (I never even bothered watching XXX btw). But I don't get why you say 300 (the movie) takes itself seriously, when its Director publicly stated they changed historical facts to make them "look cool". I mean, come on, if that is not a confession of "un-seriousness" I don't know what is then.
Now about Art, I believe you implied that we would change opinion about "entertainment" if the movie would be about capitalist vampires or something. My reply was meant to point out that I do not care about the message portrayed by the artist. Even If I wholeheartedly oppose his point of view, I would still respect it and more importantly defend his right to express.
In my personal opinion, when an artist delivers a message it is: 1) his personal view on some subject, 2) a reflection of the general opinion of the culture/society/group the artist represents, about a given topic 3) both.
In the first case, I will defend it because I believe in freedom of speech, I know it can be abused, but I don't see many other choices in this particular point.
In the second case, on top of freedom of speech, I prefer to know what a particular culture/society/group has to say about something, than ignoring or repressing it.
Please don't take anything I have said here or before...or ever personally. It's just for the fun of dialectics. I always try hard to avoid arguments ad hominem, but ...the best hunter can miss a rabbit from time to time....
Finally, I never said, nor do I think you are narrow-minded. After all, accusing all those who oppose your point of view is the first sign of "narrowmindedness".
Peace.
Bookmarks