By most accounts, Kevin Smith’s upcoming comedy Zack and Miri Make a Porno is pretty funny (and unexpectedly sweet) but it’s likely to be stardard fare filmmaking. Yet, out of a run-of-the-mill sex comedy comes an experimental film which I had to watch twice.
Earlier today, Erik Davis over at Cinematical posted a short experimental video from Tony Kaye (yes, the infamous Tony Kaye) featuring the stars of Smith’s film Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks. Entitled “This Is Not Sex”, the short was created for Mean Magazine which appears to be an entertainment magazine I’ve never heard of – until now.
It’s a great short which is both funny and disturbing, featuing Rogen and Banks talking about sex and clips (of people not having sex) all intercut with famous lines about sex. I’m sure there’s some deep rooted message about our fascination/preconceptions/obsession with sex but frankly, reading too much into it is likely to make it much less enjoyable to watch. Thank you Tony for making my day.
my pleasure!
Hey Tony, Lake of Fire was awesome! did you listen to last night’s debate, abortion got a surprising amount of time covered by Obama and McCain. After seeing your film I have really lost a grasp of what is morally right on this issue. I wonder if most of our moral inclinations on this subject are culturally indoctrinated, is there really a way to argue one way or the other the righteousness of a position?
I don’t think anybody will deny that abortion is a horrible thing to have to decide upon, but does anybody feel comfortable making the decision for others? It seems to be obvious that it should be a decision made by the people directly involved, and nobody else. Only a nutcase would be comfortable making such a horribly complicated decision for others.
awesome. i love you tony kaye.
A nutcase like McCain?
There is a necessary arbitrariness to the divisions made when putting forth a law on abortion, because we are talking about things we do not have sufficient evidence for, i.e., when does life begin, by what measure to you consider something sufficiently alive? Its not enough to apply one’s articles of faith as evidence for political actions, one needs to heed on the side of caution when prescribing something as personal as that.
Obama makes a great point in his book ‘The Audacity of Hope’ where he talks about what if we applied the scenario of the Sacrifice of Isaac into the real world, in order to see the divergence between articles of faith and demands of politics. Abraham is asked by God to sacrifice his son Isaac, and he is about to slit his throat when an angel intervenes at the last second… thus proving Abraham’s devotion to God. But what if this same scenario was taking place on the top of an apartment building in the modern day, and you were a spectator to that event, would you accept that this ok because God wants it… no… you would call the police, afterwards make sure the parent’s rights to the child were taken away, you would not be able to just give in to the faith argument. In politics it has to be about what we can fundamentally all agree on, and work within that scope for discussion. But with Abortion nobody can agree on anything, the fundamentals of it are impossible to grasp. So in a way, our ignorance almost demands of us to step aside, to let personal choice pervail.
The Sacrifice of Isaac anecdote reminds me of the same territory as Dostoevsky’s “The Grand Inquisitor”
I’m sure rot can elaborate, being the Dostoevsky fan around these parts.
The key is actually the chapter prior to the Grand Inquisitor, called ‘Rebellion’ (this being in Dostoevsky’s Brothers Karamazov). I actually worked out an argument for the twofold reality of ethics for individuals and citizens, from musing on that chapter and Rousseau’s Social Contract… which can be read here:
http://www.thepaganagenda.com/2006/09/23/ivans-rebellion-and-the-social-contract/
my mind is mush now, so I cannot even begin to get into the Grand Inquisitor.
Only a person worried about reaching a big audience would reference something like the bible to represent a modern day issue.
My question still stands: Who the fuck would be comfortable making a decision like this on the behalf of other people?
Only a person worried about reaching a big audience would reference something like the bible to represent a modern day issue.
My question still stands: Who the fuck would be comfortable making a decision like this on the behalf of other people?
“A nutcase like McCain?”
If that is what he wants to do then he is a nutcase, a disgrace, and a horrible person.
Obama is Catholic, but he at least appreciates the distinction between Church and State. I would say he is a good representation of the kind of positive example of Christianity that Maher in his documentary neglected to observe. Use the Church to instruct your private life, use pragmatism to instruct your public one.
McCain is an ugly opportunist, he is no better then Cheney, Bush, Rove… in the end he will tell you anything to get what power he desires. It boggles my mind that he opposed Haebus Corpus for Gitmo prisoners having been himself an unlawful prisoner. Its like being a rape victim but passing legislation to make rape easier… that is some serious fanaticism.
Obama is a Unitarian, Biden is a Catholic.
I forget what McCain used to be, but he became a Baptist a couple years ago.
I know stupid things!
“Get the bunny!”