tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25656996.post7432520819408858422..comments2024-03-28T09:36:30.991+00:00Comments on David Lindsay: The End Of The Beginning?David Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06839882674758833524noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25656996.post-68638249476668205212009-08-06T17:30:31.545+01:002009-08-06T17:30:31.545+01:00Which makes all the difference, of course.
This n...Which makes all the difference, of course.<br /><br />This next question is intended to be rhetorical rather than to prompt intimate discussion of such matters: is female homosexual activity real sex? It, too is largely "simulated through the use of [as you might put it] stunt genitalia".<br /><br />Even the BBFC descibes Antichrist as "containing real sex". In which case, it should never have been given a certificate.David Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06839882674758833524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25656996.post-2264123133088224042009-08-05T23:19:00.135+01:002009-08-05T23:19:00.135+01:00Actually the sex is simulated through the use of &...Actually the sex is simulated through the use of 'stunt genitalia'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25656996.post-8566030718637896322009-08-02T19:39:47.374+01:002009-08-02T19:39:47.374+01:00It has real sex in it, and is therefore pornograph...It has real sex in it, and is therefore pornography. I will not be going to see pornography.David Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06839882674758833524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25656996.post-21502187048089438522009-07-21T06:26:22.024+01:002009-07-21T06:26:22.024+01:00As for this claim:
which certainly could not have...As for this claim:<br /><br /><i>which certainly could not have been shown in this country, and probably could not have been made almost anywhere in the Western world, even only 10 years ago.</i><br /><br />...<i>The Devils, Cries and Whispers</i> and <i>In the Realm of the Senses</i> were all released in the 1970s. I'll be more certain when I've seen it, but at present I'm not aware of any element of <i>Antichrist</i> that isn't already present in one or more of those films. So on what grounds are you claiming such certainty?Der Zwergnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25656996.post-73062962625427163362009-07-19T23:38:47.345+01:002009-07-19T23:38:47.345+01:00For some reason, the image of Father Ted and Fathe...For some reason, the image of Father Ted and Father Dougal holding up signs saying 'Careful now' and 'Down with this sort of thing' spring irresistibly to mind.<br /><br />Less facetiously, I'm curious as to why you're singling this particular film out for condemnation when most of the the halfway intelligent commentary on it (example <a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/05/a_devils_advocate_for_antichri.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>) has been defending it as a profoundly moral work - and one by a Catholic convert too (something Lars von Trier shares with Ken Russell, whose <i>The Devils</i> was also widely condemned and misunderstood in the early 1970s, but which has been taken very seriously indeed in many Catholic circles).<br /><br />Certainly, the highly distinguished track record of the makers of <i>Antichrist</i> demands that its detractors at least do it the courtesy of watching it before condemning it - which neither you nor Stuart Reid have bothered to do. And I'm usually far more disturbed by the eagerness of people to ban things sight unseen than I am by anything that ends up onscreen.Der Zwergnoreply@blogger.com