In a message dated 8/11/99 9:00:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [log in to unmask]
writes:
 
<<  He isn't making a 'Pound the
 fascist' point but rather including Pound in the litany of art that forms
 the films backdrop...art like anything else is a commodity, which makes
 sense given that the film seems to say, to me at least, that capitalism has
 no 'victims' or 'innocents' since we are all complicit in our
 acquiescence...we quite literally will eat shit, or pay to watch a film we
 people eat shit. >>
 
I don't argue with the observation regarding the complicity of art, but I
don't see why viewing the film as criticizing pound as a fascist is in anyway
inconsistent, unless one's argument is that the two points are mutually
exclusive, or that one wants to argue that the film is not a film about the
evils of fascism -- which isn't to say that that's all that it's about.  it
would help to recall that the point under discussion when I made the
association concerned pound as fascist, and not passolini commentary on the
subject of eating shit.  it's seems doubtful to me that passolini would have
chosen to include pound in the film had it not been for pound's enthusiastic
support for mussolini and fascism, nor would he have been unaware of the
opposition of pound's poetry with the broadcasts.  however, I believe that
the only way to resolve this question is to see the film and then draw your
own conclusions.
 
unfortunately, I can't think of a context in which Leopold's questioning my
having seen the film that isn't insulting.
 
joe brennan....