Yoko Ono failed to force the producers of this very important movie to remove the John Lennon song, "Imagine." This legal victory is in keeping with FAIR USE of music in documentary and film.
Stein (the judge, unrelated to the film's star Ben Stein) described Fair Use thusly, "the doctrine provides that the fair use of copyrighted work for purposes of criticism and commentary is not an infringement of copyright." He was right and the 1st Ammendment was upheld.
Lawsuits with agendas to shut down first ammendment rights are dangerous and un-American. The 1st Ammendment (Known as Freedom of Speech) has two clauses concerning religion.
The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from passing laws that will establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. The courts have interpreted the establishment clause to accomplish the separation of church and state. This is to protect religion from government control, not goverment from religious control as is so often mis-construed.
The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from interfering with a person’s practice of his or her religion. However, religious actions and rituals can be limited by civil and federal laws, ie. no animal sacrifice.
In a free society, Christians must argue for protection of all religions, that we may practice our own. In a democracy I believe we must be informed and active because WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. They will do what we say if we say it loudly.
"Agenda-based film and art" is a redundant label. The fact is that all art has a point of view and an agenda. There are more overt or less, but the fact is to use (the medium) is to choose a worldview. The only question is whether the message is clear or muddled, subtle or overt, fair or unfair.
Michael Moore is not ashamed of his viewpoint. His religion is expressed in his ranting against what he hates, & for what he likes. His portrayal of the "facts" is not often debated by those who love and agree with him. The means justify the Moore, you might say.
It is well documented that MM is not afraid to "groom" the facts, the words and the pictures to support his premise. This means that his "Academy Award Winning 'Documentary'" is NOT a documentary at all. It is a work of fiction. The rules for the Academy Award say that a documentary is a non-fictional movie. This is another example of a system rigged to support a point of view. Very dissappointing.
Moore's brand of agenda film is spewed forth with a similar venom that you see from a "Christian" Hate Group such as Westboro Baptist Church. Not that bad, but you get the idea. Inciting people to hate is profitable and dramatic. And it always gets ratings. But, it is not converting or trancendent as is truth spoken in love. We must strive for this winsome tone in all we do. It is a formula for success.
"Expelled" is biased. But, it does explore in a humorous way the truth of the state of the academic community toward Intelligent Design and what academia considers the fairy tale of a creator god in charge of the universe. If open-minded liberal viewers actually went to see the movie, would they be laughing? Would they be sympathetic?
To it's credit, "Expelled" does not have the bitterness of a Michael Moore hachet job, ie. his treatment of the aging Charlton Heston in Heston's own home.
Ben Steins cagey toungue-in-cheek humor is not ment to wound, just to poke the sore spots. Watching him get avowed athiest Richard Dawkins to admit there quite possibly may be a God was somehow endearing for both. Humanity and humility (if athiestic) is quite refreshing!
You should plan to see "Expelled"! It is both entertaining and enjoyable.
"Expelled" plans a national re-release of the film this summer and the company has come up with an ambitious plan to make the film available to any group which would like to bring the film to a local theater.
For more information or to schedule a screening please contact: Premise Media at (678) 546-5580 or email: Tripp@premisemedia.com
For media inquiries or to schedule an interview please contact: laurakobbs@gmail.com.
For more information please go to: http://mm.ninjitsuhosting.com/sites/all/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=17602&qid=182582
7/8/08
Will Smith's "Hancock" a Foul-Mouthed Disappointment
Dear Blog,
I was so excited for the new Will Smith movie that I let the guard down. I didn't even look at a review, so strong was my opinion of Smith and his ability to choose quality roles. I was not prepared for the ugly words that came from the mouth of the homeless superhero.
Sh--, Bit--, ass---- were frequent refrains as the characters in the movie painted Hancock as an insensitive jerk for his eventual (predictable) chance for redemption. I was shocked and disgusted.
Against my instincts, I continued to watch, thinking that Smith (and the movie) would turn around and stop the foul language. It continued nearly the whole way through to the end.
The movie is disturbing in it's flirtation with and easy acceptance of adultery and it's uber intense and disturbing violence and graphic images of blood, guts and superhero suffering. Really icky stuff, especially when I was expecting a feelgood flick from my ol' buddy Will.
Yes, Sony has a reall winner on their hands with this disturboriffic picture. To me it's a bait-and-switch, Appatowic slippery sloping, disgusting, revolting development that will tarnish Smith's squeaky reputation and serve to cram even worse language into the MPAA rating system. No, I don't care that it has made over $100 Million! This movie will offend a significant part of its audience and they may think twice before going to the next Will Smith movie.
SO WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT? All of the ratings for the MPAA are handled out of their Sherman Oaks office in LA. The Ratings Chairperson's name and email is: Joan_Graves@mpaa.org.
I intend to start a dialogue with the MPAA. It must be done if we are to avoid the future of even uglier words being allowed into the stories our children hear. A large enough outcry will make an impression and change will occur!
Peace out!
I was so excited for the new Will Smith movie that I let the guard down. I didn't even look at a review, so strong was my opinion of Smith and his ability to choose quality roles. I was not prepared for the ugly words that came from the mouth of the homeless superhero.
Sh--, Bit--, ass---- were frequent refrains as the characters in the movie painted Hancock as an insensitive jerk for his eventual (predictable) chance for redemption. I was shocked and disgusted.
Against my instincts, I continued to watch, thinking that Smith (and the movie) would turn around and stop the foul language. It continued nearly the whole way through to the end.
The movie is disturbing in it's flirtation with and easy acceptance of adultery and it's uber intense and disturbing violence and graphic images of blood, guts and superhero suffering. Really icky stuff, especially when I was expecting a feelgood flick from my ol' buddy Will.
Yes, Sony has a reall winner on their hands with this disturboriffic picture. To me it's a bait-and-switch, Appatowic slippery sloping, disgusting, revolting development that will tarnish Smith's squeaky reputation and serve to cram even worse language into the MPAA rating system. No, I don't care that it has made over $100 Million! This movie will offend a significant part of its audience and they may think twice before going to the next Will Smith movie.
SO WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT? All of the ratings for the MPAA are handled out of their Sherman Oaks office in LA. The Ratings Chairperson's name and email is: Joan_Graves@mpaa.org.
I intend to start a dialogue with the MPAA. It must be done if we are to avoid the future of even uglier words being allowed into the stories our children hear. A large enough outcry will make an impression and change will occur!
Peace out!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)