Madonna had to clean the theater after watching Licorice Pizza

[Guest]

Just now, HuffsAhoy said:

You sound like those conservatives from the 1980s moaning about Satanism overtaking every aspect of daily life  Just because you're unable to grapple with the horrors of the world, doesn't mean they shouldn't be depicted in art. 

Okay. Have fun watching child rape. Til it happens to you…

[RichAssPiss 4,957]

19 minutes ago, urgirl said:

That some things are so disgusting the name of ‘art’ can’t redeem it. 120 days of sodom and Lolita were filmed legally but the child rape depiction kills any other merit the movies may have, some things are too sick and evil to be swallowed, plus the fact that no matter what stance the film takes to the events, there will always be many many sickos in the world searching out these kinds of ‘artistic and rulebreakjng’ movies to fuel their own poisonus perversions. I’m anti-child rape in movies. In fact I’m anti rape in movies period. Too many sickos using it as **** and way way too little of ‘good message’ payoff, there’s basically none. 

It's a movie filmed with adults. There is no sicko able to abuse it as child ****. There are no children in sexual situations shown in the movie at all. It's terribly dangerous not to separate the actual abuse and assault of minors from a representation on film portrayed by adults. It's the kind of myopic thinking that has been used to censor art and media throughout history. As if representation and reality are not different, or that representing something innately means you are encouraging it in reality. As a horror movie fan, what do we do with those? Are they not representations of abhorrent violence and abuse? So, they must go? Because they show things we don't want to see in reality?

[proxy 851]

3 hours ago, Not Chrissy Teigen said:

then check her writing about how fun sex with underage boy is. and since when rich old person dating someone young is a flex?

Again it's a fiction, Madonna does not date underage, she's dating 25 years old grown up man, and her live it's not your business hater! As always you can count on hate spreading here by pressed LM just mention Madonna.

[TimisaMonster 31,073]

10 hours ago, VoldeLorde2 said:

Not this pdf file movie… what’s inspiring about a 25-year-old woman grooming a 15-year-old boy? 

Well...she herself dates extremely younger men so maybe she felt it was relatable 

[stvn 618]

5 hours ago, HuffsAhoy said:

Unfortunately, it's a result of a lack of proper reading education in all areas of elementary, middle, and high school. Today's generation has zero ability to critically think about literature in a metaphorical sense. They only want to see what's "on the surface" instead of putting their brains into high gear and differ deeper. As an English instructor, it's very unsettling. 

Actually, it's your take and the take of a few others that I find could be seen as simplistic. The argument some are making of, "ITS NOT LITERAL DUMMY" or "it's just art/fantasy!!!!" Cool, got it. Duh. That's not what I/others are saying here.

As an English teacher, do you think there is value in discussing the effects of art on society? Do you think the context of how the piece is portrayed and framed is relevant? Do you think it's *possible* that Madonna's book of fantasies, while apparently being things that never happened, could IN CONTEXT serve to glorify the act described? Do you think she presented that story in a context that framed it as wrong or bad? Where do you think the lines should be drawn? Do you think there should be no lines? Personally, I'm not suggesting that art like Madonna's sex book should be illegal or burned or anything. But I'm saying that it can be perfectly fair and right to be critical of the morality involved and the possible effects of presenting something which is entirely illegal in a context that completely and totally glorifies it.

So there can be debate about all of these topics, and I welcome that debate. I think it's okay to agree to disagree as well. But I think it's very simplistic to be so cut and dry about these topics, especially as an English teacher. but idk whatever

ALSO, whoever was deflecting against Madonna's other behaviors by saying people are just hating cause she's an older beautiful successful woman, that's not relevant to the point. Has she faced sexism? Misogyny? Absolutely she has! Does that work as an argument though against calling her out for literally anything at any time? No. 

Madonna has repeatedly said and done things that I personally disagree with, especially in recent years, but I also still give her credit where it's due. It's not an either or for me. Just saying!

[stvn 618]

5 hours ago, HuffsAhoy said:

Today's generation has zero ability to critically think about literature in a metaphorical sense.

What was the metaphor in Madonna's child r*** fantasy? I'm dying to know! I'm just a dummy who didn't get the proper education, so you must enlighten me immediately, please! 

[Chromatography 10,186]

10 hours ago, HuffsAhoy said:

Last time I checked, she's never groomed underage boys. Y'all just jealous she's in her mid-60's and still bagging hotties left and right

Ummm if the genders were reversed you would call it predatory. Women can also be just as predatory.

[Magic Mike 2,748]

6 hours ago, HuffsAhoy said:

You sound like those conservatives from the 1980s moaning about Satanism overtaking every aspect of daily life  Just because you're unable to grapple with the horrors of the world, doesn't mean they shouldn't be depicted in art. 

Couldn’t say it better 

[Magic Mike 2,748]

Since 120 days of Sodom was mentioned, I recommend the most hotly offended sandhead virgins to see some of Pasolini's work, (or, if you can't take it, see Larry Clark films, maybe it won't affect you as much : )

[Future Lovers 7,025]

8 hours ago, Dennis said:

There's a huge difference though. The movie in this case conveys nothing that makes you think the relationship is bad, if anything it makes it look cool, inspiring and fun. And that's the problem.

Yes there are dark themes in art, but usually we know it's bad, the movie doesn't try to put them in a good light. Here it's different.

It is not the job of the film to be someone's moral compass. It is not the job of a filmmaker to stand on any side of the aisle on an uncomfortable topic. Just because the film does not go to any length to cast the central relationship in a negative light does not mean that the film is an endorsement of that lifestyle. The film simply presents a story, and it's up to the audience to decide how they feel about it. 

American Psycho is a film about a man who assaults and murders women and it is presented as a comedy with the man at the center of it, never once calling this man a bad man. Does that mean the film endorses assaulting and murdering women? No. The Wolf of Wall Street is about a womanizing, drug abusing, morally bankrupt conman and it presents him as the hero of the story. Does that mean the film endorses that lifestyle? No. They just tell a story and leave the rest to the audience. 

This is a very, very common thing in the indie film scene. It's really only a trait of most major studio films (The Wolf of Wall Street is a notable exception) and blockbusters for the film to broadcast "yes this is bad and you should not support it" because, as evidenced by this controversy, a lot of the general public need that. The audience that this film is aimed at is very used to films presenting dark themes and not waxing poetic on the ethics, it's just up to the audience to decide whether or not what's presented is a good thing or a bad thing. 

Yes, the central relationship is uncomfortable and it's absolutely supposed to be. The reason the film doesn't make a statement about it being uncomfortable is because the film's not told from the audience's perspective, it's told from the characters within the film's perspective. It's a film set in the 70s about people in entertainment industry, this sort of thing was not really frowned upon back then like it is today, so why would the characters have anything to say about it? Just because the film doesn't point a finger at it being a bad thing doesn't mean that the audience isn't meant to feel like it is a bad thing. 

Anyone who's not a creep should be able to say for themselves that a 15 year old being romantically involved with a 25 year old is a bad thing, the film should not have to say that for them to feel that way and the fact that so many people are saying that they need the film to spell it out for them that it's bad is more concerning than anything in the film. 

[IHE 563]

I fell asleep. Go away and take your botox with you.

-signed a former janitorial worker

[KURUSHITOVSKA 20,451]

12 hours ago, Meat said:

It still came from her mind. It’s disgusting to fantasise about ****ing a pre-pubescent boy. 

The book literally explores the extreme of human sexual desires.

[enissa11 2,984]

10 hours ago, HuffsAhoy said:

You sound like those conservatives from the 1980s moaning about Satanism overtaking every aspect of daily life  Just because you're unable to grapple with the horrors of the world, doesn't mean they shouldn't be depicted in art. 

you can't compare nonsensical complains about satanism and the horrors of life with the literal glamorization of child abuse, look i like some heavy controversial films in history that include to some extent child violence, but another thing is erotic stories that frame child abuse as something glamorous and erotic to be arouse by...
Do you like how dress to kill frame transgender people? now we cant's criticize homophobic movies? we have to give a free pass to misogynistic movies? paedophilic movies? because that's just life right? it's just art.... 

[stvn 618]

7 hours ago, No Way Home said:

 

 

[hELXIG 43,320]

20 hours ago, FentyGa said:

really? i work in retail and i just assume all jobs suck, should i switch to a cinema job?

I worked at a cinema for 3 years. Started out on the floor and worked my way up to duty manager. It f.ucking sucked... BUT we got 2 free tickets a day to whatever we wanted and a $1 popcorn, $1 drink and $2 ice cream, so I used to go to the movies every week. I miss that part SO much because it's so expensive now that it's such a treat. It's how they would keep their staff because everyone hated the job but didn't want to lose the free movies