I'm torn on this question. Generally I want to see things exactly as the artist intended, so that I may come to my own conclusions. There is always some nanny or killjoy lurking, looking for an opportunity to control what information others may be exposed to. And the censors always act with the best of intentions, self-assured in the righteousness of their campaign. It comes from all angles; for example, "The Last Temptation of Christ" was pretty much shut down by religious protests, but a screening of "Napoleon Dynamite" was cancelled because someone was concerned about the phrase that Napoleon utters in one scene, "You guys are retarded."
On the other hand, there are some cases -- and this is one of them -- where I'd be more comfortable if the artist had been a bit less committed, if you know what I mean. Certain displays can be a bit overwhelming, and this detracts from my ability to absorb the totality of what is being conveyed. So I'm not going to argue that this needs to be censored for the good of society, but I have to admit that I sort of appreciate it here.
To be clear, I certainly advocate censorship with respect to things children are exposed to. Although in our modern era, even this basic concept has become muddled and problematic. We've got school districts that expel children for pointing a finger and saying "Bang!", and there are serious movements to ban or rewrite "Tom Sawyer". So it seems to me we've got a lot of lunatics running around that consider themselves enlightened, and I don't know what to do about that except maybe hit them with baseball bats.
reply
share
EddieAdamsFromTorrance
12 years ago
You seem incredibly intelligent and well informed, so it would be completely unfair to discredit your argument, though I would have to say that I vehemently disagree on many of your points.
reply
share