That's a goocher.

As I walked back from the library at lunch, I thought about the rather conservative stance that putting social issues in movies is exorbitantly liberal and therefore bad. I don't understand why some do take issue with Hollywood pushing the envelope and giving us movies like TransAmerica, Brokeback Mountain...Syriana that all contain relevant social issues, because if they didn't, who would? Isn't one of the purposes of art to make you think, challenge yourself in even the smallest of ways? Why shouldn't Hollywood present these issues? I haven't been able to think of a logical reason to object. What people should be objecting to more are the flash-in-the-pan, inane, violet, plotless stories that Hollywood produces. ;)

Anyway, the point of my little rant is this. When I got back to my office, I found an email from my brother:

I keep thinking about A. and his pal parroting those
conservative gasbags about how Ultra-LIBERAL Hollywood is
forcing their agenda on the public through movies. I keep
laughing. One function of art, especially motion pictures, is
to challenge the accepted and unquestioned viewpoint if it is
the wrong one. Their response? I'm good, thanks, made up my
mind a long time ago. Did he have a problem with To Kill a
Mockingbird? North Country, maybe?

How strange that we were on the same wavelength about this very issue.

(no subject)

I just measured pasta. Boy, have I been eating far too much of it! Measuring might be tedious, but I think I'd better make it a habit.