<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Moment Of Silence</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.heronswoodvoice.com/2008/11/moment-of-silence/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.heronswoodvoice.com/2008/11/moment-of-silence/</link>
	<description>Heronswood Voice - A web log written by George Ball</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:23:01 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jane Langston</title>
		<link>http://www.heronswoodvoice.com/2008/11/moment-of-silence/#comment-3345</link>
		<dc:creator>Jane Langston</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2008 05:17:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.heronswoodvoice.com/?p=473#comment-3345</guid>
		<description>Well, George, I’ve raised two sons, the youngest one became cinema-crazy around age 10 or 11, and that’s the age when smart kids begin to get tired of the kiddie swill and develop an interest in adult problem films, I found that kids have a way of signaling you when they become ready to bump the age level up. With Adrian, he was 12 and when he came for his every-other-weekend visit, he suggested that we watch “Clerks” together. He’d already seen it and wanted to share with Mom. It’s full of language mainly, and I was sorta blushing when we watched it. I thought “he’s 12, and we’re watching “Clerks” together. It feels strange, as I’ve assiduously selected kid-appropriate films to watch with him thus far”. I took it as a signal. But, having worked in retail, I recognized and found the humor in the film too. We watched a lot of classic noir and adult dilemma stories, lightened by comedy, musicals etc. A varied program. He led me through the Hitchcock phase, the Kubrick phase, and he particularly developed an obsession with Orson Welles at around 11 or 12.’Mom, is Orson Welles still alive?” He watched The Third Man and Touch of Evil and Citizen Kane repeatedly. I believe at around 13 he was using hankquinlan as his email name, when he wasn’t being “Johnny the Eunuch”. Kids at this age already know of human violence because they see and hear the news and because schools are full of bullies, especially to cute overweight smart kids like Adrian who was lugging biographies of Orson and the Graham Greene Film Reader around in the 8th grade. So I approved a program of gradualism in his exposure to the uglier sides of adult life, in films that is, but I had some limits. His Dad allowed him to watch “Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer” at 12 or 13 and this I would not have approved of in my house (his dad and I divorced, as you’ve probably surmised). And he was reading a lot of pretty noir graphic novels and getting ideas from those too. When things such as child molestation are graphically portrayed in modern films, it stirs up controversy but I see it this way: human violence predates the motion picture, going back to the beginning of history; to remove it completely from all media would not only be impossible but undesirable because even if all media were Disneyfied, adorable and violence-free, real-life violence would still be happening just like it always has (movies and TV don’t “cause” it) and if the victims of it never saw, heard or read about similar experiences of their own being portrayed, I think they’d feel even more isolated and crazy than ever because nothing in their personal experience is seen or validated in the media and they’d feel like they’re the only people on earth it was happening to and the world would not understand if they tried to tell, because it would be a sugar-coated world that did not mirror any of their life experience. That said, I agree that today’s cinema violence can be way overdone, the obligatory sex scenes have bored me with their predictability, the story interest is sacrificed to the CGI gang with their toys, etc. But this is just the thing kids get interested in at this age, the world of adults that they know they will enter. Way back in high school from 1969 to 1972 I had Dreiser’s “An American Tragedy” as required reading in English class ,it features attempted abortion, planned murder, trial and execution, also ‘A Streetcar Named Desire”, Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” and other works with considerable edge, so if they don’t get it from films, it’s there in 11th grade lit. None of the moralists made any fuss about these things then. I guess you could say I advocate showing kids the world the way that it is and has been-maybe it will get them stirred up to want to better it; but pretending the world is nothing but namby-pamby adorable will feel unreal to them, will make them feel as if we’re insulting their intelligence and lying to them ,as well as making them complacent. But I agree-not too much, too soon. James Bond is a fantasy figure, I think even kids understand this, and parents can’t point out any adults in their family’s real life who actually lives like this, but a little grandiose fantasy is OK. I fantasized about playing for the Red Sox and being the first woman in professional baseball when I was a kid. Did it happen? You know the answer. Take them to see Bond, then balance it out by telling them about real-life espionage stuff, like the breaking of the Enigma code or Moe Berg the baseball catcher working undercover for the OSS in Nazi territory impersonating a nuclear physicist.

Keep the movie reviews coming, please George! BTW, my favorite film decade is the forties, for Brit as well as American films, and other countries like Japan and Italy were developing well at this time. But I may go see the latest Bond b/c it’s been a long while, and I’d like to see if I end up agreeing with you or not. Maybe Adrian, now age 23, will accompany me.

See ya,

Jane</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, George, I’ve raised two sons, the youngest one became cinema-crazy around age 10 or 11, and that’s the age when smart kids begin to get tired of the kiddie swill and develop an interest in adult problem films, I found that kids have a way of signaling you when they become ready to bump the age level up. With Adrian, he was 12 and when he came for his every-other-weekend visit, he suggested that we watch “Clerks” together. He’d already seen it and wanted to share with Mom. It’s full of language mainly, and I was sorta blushing when we watched it. I thought “he’s 12, and we’re watching “Clerks” together. It feels strange, as I’ve assiduously selected kid-appropriate films to watch with him thus far”. I took it as a signal. But, having worked in retail, I recognized and found the humor in the film too. We watched a lot of classic noir and adult dilemma stories, lightened by comedy, musicals etc. A varied program. He led me through the Hitchcock phase, the Kubrick phase, and he particularly developed an obsession with Orson Welles at around 11 or 12.’Mom, is Orson Welles still alive?” He watched The Third Man and Touch of Evil and Citizen Kane repeatedly. I believe at around 13 he was using hankquinlan as his email name, when he wasn’t being “Johnny the Eunuch”. Kids at this age already know of human violence because they see and hear the news and because schools are full of bullies, especially to cute overweight smart kids like Adrian who was lugging biographies of Orson and the Graham Greene Film Reader around in the 8th grade. So I approved a program of gradualism in his exposure to the uglier sides of adult life, in films that is, but I had some limits. His Dad allowed him to watch “Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer” at 12 or 13 and this I would not have approved of in my house (his dad and I divorced, as you’ve probably surmised). And he was reading a lot of pretty noir graphic novels and getting ideas from those too. When things such as child molestation are graphically portrayed in modern films, it stirs up controversy but I see it this way: human violence predates the motion picture, going back to the beginning of history; to remove it completely from all media would not only be impossible but undesirable because even if all media were Disneyfied, adorable and violence-free, real-life violence would still be happening just like it always has (movies and TV don’t “cause” it) and if the victims of it never saw, heard or read about similar experiences of their own being portrayed, I think they’d feel even more isolated and crazy than ever because nothing in their personal experience is seen or validated in the media and they’d feel like they’re the only people on earth it was happening to and the world would not understand if they tried to tell, because it would be a sugar-coated world that did not mirror any of their life experience. That said, I agree that today’s cinema violence can be way overdone, the obligatory sex scenes have bored me with their predictability, the story interest is sacrificed to the CGI gang with their toys, etc. But this is just the thing kids get interested in at this age, the world of adults that they know they will enter. Way back in high school from 1969 to 1972 I had Dreiser’s “An American Tragedy” as required reading in English class ,it features attempted abortion, planned murder, trial and execution, also ‘A Streetcar Named Desire”, Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” and other works with considerable edge, so if they don’t get it from films, it’s there in 11th grade lit. None of the moralists made any fuss about these things then. I guess you could say I advocate showing kids the world the way that it is and has been-maybe it will get them stirred up to want to better it; but pretending the world is nothing but namby-pamby adorable will feel unreal to them, will make them feel as if we’re insulting their intelligence and lying to them ,as well as making them complacent. But I agree-not too much, too soon. James Bond is a fantasy figure, I think even kids understand this, and parents can’t point out any adults in their family’s real life who actually lives like this, but a little grandiose fantasy is OK. I fantasized about playing for the Red Sox and being the first woman in professional baseball when I was a kid. Did it happen? You know the answer. Take them to see Bond, then balance it out by telling them about real-life espionage stuff, like the breaking of the Enigma code or Moe Berg the baseball catcher working undercover for the OSS in Nazi territory impersonating a nuclear physicist.</p>
<p>Keep the movie reviews coming, please George! BTW, my favorite film decade is the forties, for Brit as well as American films, and other countries like Japan and Italy were developing well at this time. But I may go see the latest Bond b/c it’s been a long while, and I’d like to see if I end up agreeing with you or not. Maybe Adrian, now age 23, will accompany me.</p>
<p>See ya,</p>
<p>Jane</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: George</title>
		<link>http://www.heronswoodvoice.com/2008/11/moment-of-silence/#comment-3336</link>
		<dc:creator>George</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:16:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.heronswoodvoice.com/?p=473#comment-3336</guid>
		<description>Dear Jane,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Your views of movies are fascinating. My gripe about “the new Bond” is now he’s just another boring, pseudo-literary character.

If I want old clichés, I read Hemingway. I don’t care about the Fleming books—in fact, as a boy, I disliked them. Bond was scary, menacing and shallow. Why should 1950’s middle-class British literary tastes be important? Pointless. Therefore, bring back some of the flavor that’s been lost in this nostalgia for the hard-edged, post-war, OSS romance. Art should be interesting if nothing else. Quantum of Solace is a “monument of boredom” at least to this old-timer. As I say, perhaps they’re aiming for a female audience, which wouldn’t be surprising.

One thing that was surprising that I forgot to mention on the blog, was the appalling practice in the Doylestown area of parents bringing 11, 12 and 13 year olds to this horrifyingly violent movie. I saw little boys and girls with their yuppie parents and it flashed, “ Too cheap to get a baby sitter”, but I wonder. At any rate, this sort of entertainment is absolutely not for children, and I found the PG-13 rating, and more so its abuses, shocking. Thanks again for your interest in Heronswood.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Jane,</p>
<p>Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Your views of movies are fascinating. My gripe about “the new Bond” is now he’s just another boring, pseudo-literary character.</p>
<p>If I want old clichés, I read Hemingway. I don’t care about the Fleming books—in fact, as a boy, I disliked them. Bond was scary, menacing and shallow. Why should 1950’s middle-class British literary tastes be important? Pointless. Therefore, bring back some of the flavor that’s been lost in this nostalgia for the hard-edged, post-war, OSS romance. Art should be interesting if nothing else. Quantum of Solace is a “monument of boredom” at least to this old-timer. As I say, perhaps they’re aiming for a female audience, which wouldn’t be surprising.</p>
<p>One thing that was surprising that I forgot to mention on the blog, was the appalling practice in the Doylestown area of parents bringing 11, 12 and 13 year olds to this horrifyingly violent movie. I saw little boys and girls with their yuppie parents and it flashed, “ Too cheap to get a baby sitter”, but I wonder. At any rate, this sort of entertainment is absolutely not for children, and I found the PG-13 rating, and more so its abuses, shocking. Thanks again for your interest in Heronswood.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jane Langston</title>
		<link>http://www.heronswoodvoice.com/2008/11/moment-of-silence/#comment-3328</link>
		<dc:creator>Jane Langston</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:14:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.heronswoodvoice.com/?p=473#comment-3328</guid>
		<description>Jeezaroo. A James Bond film review in a gardening blog. Cool! I&#039;m new to your site the last thing I expected to see!

Haven&#039;t watched any Bonds in a long time. Great boy films, but my sons are grown now. For spy stuff with depth, try Graham Greene, I guess.
Recently watched the original &quot;The Quiet American&quot; from the late 50s directed by Joseph Mankiewicz, featuring one of the all time oddball acting duos, Michael Redgrave and Audie Murphy. Filmed in Saigon, late 50s, Vietnam conflict just gearing up. Haven&#039;t seen the remake. Generally I love older films the best, but did see &quot;Good Night and Good Luck&quot; and &quot;Borat&quot; at the theater; generally wait for video.
Some people plant biblical gardens, other Shakespeare herb gardens; my dream is a cinema garden, with roses and other plants named after actors planted together if they were in a movie together, maybe also plants named after fictional characters coupled with the actors who played them. Still researching it. Short on $$$ but it should be better by spring.
People who love gardening maybe also love movies too? Both indicate a delight in the visual. Somebody should do a study. Psychology has been way late in studying the cinema lover and realizing that cinema therapy is a viable way to self-treat one&#039;s stresses (movies are competition for them, that&#039;s why they can&#039;t stand it!) Later. I&#039;ll be checking into your blog archives. You sound like a real personality, sir. Thanks for sending this. Eagerly await the catalog also!

Jane

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jeezaroo. A James Bond film review in a gardening blog. Cool! I&#8217;m new to your site the last thing I expected to see!</p>
<p>Haven&#8217;t watched any Bonds in a long time. Great boy films, but my sons are grown now. For spy stuff with depth, try Graham Greene, I guess.<br />
Recently watched the original &#8220;The Quiet American&#8221; from the late 50s directed by Joseph Mankiewicz, featuring one of the all time oddball acting duos, Michael Redgrave and Audie Murphy. Filmed in Saigon, late 50s, Vietnam conflict just gearing up. Haven&#8217;t seen the remake. Generally I love older films the best, but did see &#8220;Good Night and Good Luck&#8221; and &#8220;Borat&#8221; at the theater; generally wait for video.<br />
Some people plant biblical gardens, other Shakespeare herb gardens; my dream is a cinema garden, with roses and other plants named after actors planted together if they were in a movie together, maybe also plants named after fictional characters coupled with the actors who played them. Still researching it. Short on $$$ but it should be better by spring.<br />
People who love gardening maybe also love movies too? Both indicate a delight in the visual. Somebody should do a study. Psychology has been way late in studying the cinema lover and realizing that cinema therapy is a viable way to self-treat one&#8217;s stresses (movies are competition for them, that&#8217;s why they can&#8217;t stand it!) Later. I&#8217;ll be checking into your blog archives. You sound like a real personality, sir. Thanks for sending this. Eagerly await the catalog also!</p>
<p>Jane</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
