Isn't it Pasolini?
 
At 02:32 PM 08/11/1999 -0400, you wrote:
>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....
>
James Loucks
The Ohio State University at Newark
1179 University Drive
Newark, OH  43055-1797
fax: 614 366-5047
[log in to unmask]