Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site tekcrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ucbvax!decvax!tektronix!tekcrl!terryl
From: terryl@tekcrl.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Re: MASS APPEAL
Message-ID: <271@tekcrl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 23-Sep-85 16:11:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: tekcrl.271
Posted: Mon Sep 23 16:11:39 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 26-Sep-85 06:19:55 EDT
References: <1182@mtgzz.UUCP> <2689@vax4.fluke.UUCP>
Lines: 21

> In article <1182@mtgzz.UUCP> leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) writes:
> >     My big complaint with the film was that it had the potential to evolve
> >into a philosophical debate on the liberalization of the church.
> 
> Which is precisely why I liked this movie so much -- Between AGNES OF GOD,
> CONFESSIONS and other movies dealing with Growing Up and Being Catholic (as
> George Carlin says), I've had it up to here with two-hour long spiels on
> what to do about the church.


     Exactly!!! Back when "Silkwood" came out, a few critics were saying
"It's a good thing Jane Fonda didn't get this role; otherwise, it would
have just turned into a political movie, and made the movie less enjoyable",
or words to that effect. Now "Agnes of God" comes out and THE SAME CRITICS
are saying "Gee, the movie could have been much better if it had only dealt
with the church in a much more political fashion, etc...". Seems to me a big
double standard here: You can't touch big business in a movie unless you
paint them in a positive fashion, but the church and organized religion is fair
game for whatever view you wish to espouse!!!! Now, don't get me wrong, I'm no
lover of organized religion, but I really hate such a myopic view of right and
wrong and who deserves our loyalty more.


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com