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]