>Joanna writes:
>>In the film's terms, it's an act of love. Stepping back a little
>>bit and looking at the wider picture it's hard to buy that.
>
>What wider picture? The only picture is what is up there
>on the screen. The only terms are the film's terms.
No film is an island, entire upon itself. It isn't unreasonable to read it in perspective.
The wider picture is the real world in which it was made and in which it will be viewed.
One neither has to simply accept the real world as natural or neutral, as you seem to do in this instance, nor address all the implicit social issues, as Joanna insists. But the issues don't go away, what issues you choose to ignore make an implied statement, one way or another.
>I bet if Imelda Staunton had won and conservatives
>complained about honoring a performance about an
>abortionist who helps women take the lives of their
>fetuses, all bourgeois liberals who be up in arms.
>
>I guess it is okay to make movies about freedom of
>choice in matters of life and death in only some areas.
Abortion happens in a social context too, anyone who treats the social context which often necessitates abortion as neutral or natural also needs to be taken to task. Do you get it?
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas