Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
5:59 PM
The tabloids in London are all a buzz with the fact that Lindsay Lohan has pulled out of a film project with Keira Knightley where the two actresses were to have multiple girl on girl love scenes.
None of the details really surprised me. Lohan is known to be rather picky, fussy, and difficult to work with in that prima donna sort of way. Knightley is known to be a wild girl - up for anything once. (It's too bad to - because her portrayal of Pride and Prejudice is one of the most beautiful things ever put on cinematic film.)
But what kicked out my gut, is that the screenplay was written by Knightley's MOM!
It's one thing if you're a parent and you worry if you raised your kids right and they go off and do something stupid and foolish when they are in fact young and stupid.
But what a world we live in now when our own parents are writing scenes where we have our daughters commit immoral sex acts ON film, for a buck, or in this case a few euro.
Call me old fashioned - it just comes off as more than a little creepy to me.
I don't find the sentiment expressed here particularly "old fashioned", as sensible.
This is the new paradigm for evil, selling movies like this-which would probably a few years ago be classified as porn films-to a generation basting in moral confusion, and relativism.
As for the actresses, how do we know that Ms. Lohan did not have a moment of emotional/mental clarity? Maybe the true-to-yourself ethic made her realize she didn't want to play a lesbian or be in such a film..
In either case, it was Divine Providence (God, and His grace) that allowed her and the other actress not to, whatever the details of that situation..
As for the other actress, I never liked her very much anyway, as I always got the impression she was a bit taken with her self and her appearance..I suppose this can be said for many actors, or people..but it always seemed to me she was an actress just a bit too self-possessed, impressed? So, I made sure to miss her in Pride and Prejudice, and would rather an older production.
People are fond of saying "like Mother like Daughter", so I have to wonder who is exactly influencing these young girls.
The idea that someone's Mother-the very person who should be protecting her child in this life- is urging, and writing things to help create a scenario where her child (whatever age) is morally compromised is a tragic thing to me..
I understand this actress is of age, and that her Mom is just one influence, but, to me, this is not far from a parent filming their child tin pornography, or aiding in some other sullied tale, like Dakota Fanning's Mother did..
One could argue that these women..living amoral lives are already compromised, because the are worldly and living in the world without God in a real way, so are just doing more hedonistic living. But even years ago, there was more of a limit, and people did not advertise-with heads held high-doing these kinds of films..
I think the blame also falls on previous film actresses, and celebrities, who have paved the way for these kinds of things.
Names in recent past that come to mind, as women who sport ill repute include their contemporaries , Britney Spears, and that whole group of under 30 set of fast living girls..
Their path was paved by those "trailblazers of moral depravity, Madonna, Sharon Stone, Demi Moore, Annette Bening, amongst others..
They were apt to walk around nude, in print, and on film, at the drop of any hat.
They were also the ones, some who gave a nod in film, or in their stage shows, to the death-style of homosexuality and lesbianism..
One could argue that these kinds of things go back to the adulteries of old films stars, like Elizabeth Taylor..
But the fact remains, our culture is vastly becoming a sewer-like one where wholesome moral values, God's plan for couples, families, and individuals, and just normal human decency, is a being laughed at and pummeled away.
Welcome to Rome, 2007..
It's tragic enough that Liberals began killing their kin in the 1970's, now they have their Mothers indoctrinating them and initiating them into lesbian life, and so called "love" scenes.
These "rights of passage" are a window into the new mind of liberal parents today.
Tragic and insane..
Just deaf dumb and blind to evil..
Unreal..
|
|
me thinking that maybe, just maybe, Lindsay Lohan isn't as awful as I thought. I do believe Hollywood just takes these young girls and pretty much ruins them (all the fame, adoration, money, partying, etc.) Perhaps Lohan IS growing up finally. She was delightful to watch in the film, Prairie Home Companion.
MrsV,
My husband watched "Pride and Prejudice" (with Knightley) and he hated it. Said it was unbelievably painful. Sounds as if Knightley's mom has a screw loose or just thinks lesbian film scenes would boost her daughter's contract value. And now you have Madonna pretending to be the holiest of the holy's with her pending adoption, Kabbalah (sp?) children's books written by her instructor but published with her name, and other spiritual fakery.
|
|
not ashamed to be right- I have had a longstanding aversion to Madonna and her antics, one that has lasted almost 20 years.
As an innocent observer (and not a vigilant one, as she's not a person who is so interesting to me at all..) I have seen Madonna's "rise" from New York street kid to worldwide fame.
I remember seeing her when she was in her early and mid 20's, dancing around and posing on magazines in corsets ands bras. I remember her talking about how she was just a "material girl" and how "boys" were just "toys".
Into her 30's her antics just got worse, as she traipsed around on stage, tv and then ultimately, in books, in leather, half or whole naked, and in provocative, or outright lewd poses, which were meant to arouse, but for our Christian family, only offended.
I never saw her coffee table book, but between passing the aisles in the supermarket, and changing the channels on cable tv, I got enough of an idea about her, over the years, to surmise that she was literally being used as a pied piper to indoctrinate, and undo little girls.
If you think about it, Madonna has made all her money on bad music, and has basically been a shrewd businesswoman to do it. She has crafted her shows around the "naughty", all the while selling a brand of wicked propaganda which sells men and women lies.
Her "message", if you will, was always about hedonistic pleasure, and things and money, and a basic selfishness and carnality, which urges women to live by their feelings (all of them) and for themselves ONLY.
The first generation of little girls gyrating in fishnets and their undies would be in their twenties today, though I am sure she has influence other naive people over the years, everyday.
It's not just that I can't stand her act, or what she sells, it's that she is doing it with the full knowledge that the harlotry she sells can and will undo women, girls, and their mates in the future!
She not only has the gaul to do this, but to know it full well and to make a massive PROFIT doing it!
As if that is not the living end, she has a baby girl and boy out of wedlock, and suddenly says tv is "all trash" and that she doesn't want "her" kids viewing that, so they don't. Meanwhile all her victims are lived skewed and messed up lives, because of all the junk and tawdry messages she's pumped onto MTV for ages!
To top it off, with all of her millions not enough, she feels she has found "spirituality" because she's had a baby too.
But now she runs to remake herself in England, and wants everyone to think she's a decent soul, but not just that, a right proper lady, and a very nice gal too.
One can't live the latter half of their lives being Mary Poppins, or Grace Kelly- in an honest way-when they have spent most of the earlier part of their adulthood living like Mary Magdalene, unrepented and getting there by making a profit by others' undoing.
So, for me, Madonna takes the cake when it comes to selfish, inconsiderate wannabes who can't be content with most, they feel the need to have "it all", even when their soul's estate has never earned it.
She has virtually lead the way for young women to be as perverse as they can possibly be, with a wink and a nod to them for the profit they'll make..Ruining their lives, because of lies she sold them, to better her life and her self, and she's still doing it today.
And now she wants to be the Pope and a world spiritual leader, who has, apparently according to her, made years of selfless treks into the domain of the holy, kind, pure and self-sacrificial, as real people of faith do everyday-
just because she says so..
|
|
I say-and this goes for most remakes of films today, from Willie Wonka to Shakespeare, all, if you want better made films, with more modesty and less repellent indecency-go for films made before the early 1990's, and preferably, much earlier, like before the late 1960's.
You may not get the lovely color of some of the films, but you'll, likely, get a closer-to-the-soul rendition, because actresses won't be so self absorbed meditating on their (ahem) upper body issues..
REFRESHING when *that* is out of the picture, to say the least..
Always ask yourself, particularly Christians:
Is this a presentation with aspects that are truly needed to tell a story? Do they add, or take away from the film?
Increasingly, my Husband and I who love the classic (well written, crafted and CLEAN), films have to check to make sure we avoid "R" ratings.
This is because there's been so much gratuitous nudity (Not that there needs to be anyway..we would avoid it if there was)-that even a good story is not worth seeing..And it's never truly necessary..
Do you feel saddened or sullied when you turn off the film?
Maybe, party to a thing you did not want to see?
Here's an interesting link on some old Jane Austen themed films..
http://www.amazon.ca/Pride-Prejudice-1979-BBC-Production/dp/B00004WG2X
I LOVE the Edwardian era, especially the arts and clothing, and love the late Victorian periods, but none of their sauciness was quite what we've seen in recent productions..
Queen Victoria herself was quite interested in Bible literacy..
The Liberals today push/with Hollywood- revisionist history, that includes RE-writing classics to make them into tawdry farces, or adulterous, or homosexual tales..and romps..
The seamy side should be suggested, if needed, but not to offend viewers, as it didn't readers..
There is little restraint and artistic delicacy in so much of today's films..
Let alone focus on the spiritual, or wholesome, such guidelines allowing a creative project to blossom..
Let alone honesty..too..
"Splendor In The Grass" is a marvelous production, with the young Warren Beatty and the late Natalie Wood. I first saw this film as a college student.
The tale is kind of bittersweet, but I love it to this day..
It's really a tale of coming of age-but I cry every time I see it..
This was perfectly cast, and the talents there are huge.
For me, this was one of the last of good films,
them peetering out by the mid 1960's, with maybe a few Steve McQueens, IMHO..
"The Sand Pebbles" with Steve McQueen, and the very young Candance Bergen is another nice one, if heavy on the war side of it..
This, and lovely, beautiful love stories, like "The Quiet Man" with John Wayne.
NONE of them had to stick their upperbodies in our faces, or make their hind quarters prominent in the screen..
Seems quality died in this genre, for the most part, after/or during the mid 60's..
Give or take a very rare few ocassional films..
"The Elephant Man"..for example..but very very few..
Not all the films I noted were all so happy, but there are other great productions that were..
For example, "It's A Wonderful Life"
"The Sound of Music"..
And some great recent ones, "Big Fish", "The Notebook"..Maybe some Molly Ringwald..
But so much more rare..
"Marty" by Paddy Chayefsky -an amazing and lovely work of art!
Very touching..Darling, darling film!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048356/
But do you think such honesty, and true caring is shown in films today?!
No, it isn't..
I'm getting convinced that Biblical living effects personal discipline and personal taste!
And I don't mean that in a looking-down-your-nose-way..
The way current films, and people..seem to want to appear sassy verging on lewd, and act like it's all normal and cutesy..
NOT! my friend..
Note the years they're all made..died about 1966..give or take some oxygen breathes between then and today..
See what I mean..
|
|
|