>Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 21:06:29 -0600 (CST) >From: Maury Mccrillis >To: libprofs >Cc: machatr@mail.auburn.edu, epperra@mail.auburn.edu, rhamowy@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca, jollekd@mail.auburn.edu, perrycb@mail.auburn.edu, whitesw@mail.auburn.edu On this the occasion of Braveheart's 10 Oscar nominations I am once again reminded of how the ideological preoccuptions of many academics are of such little concern to professional film-makers and to average theatregoers. It is times like these that also make me wonder why is it too often held to be of no consequence among professors in the humanities that enrollment in the theoretical disciplines has been in such sharp declined these last few decades. I will think of the review of Braveheart given here several months ago by Ron Hamowy and his supporters, and I will think again on the attempts to cast aspersions on Mel Gibson himself and then I will go to see the movie in re-release. M.P. McCrillis mccrima@mail.auburn.edu ======================================================================= >Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 23:31:44 -0600 (CST) >From: Tibor R Machan >To: Maury Mccrillis >Cc: libprofs, epperra@mail.auburn.edu, rhamowy@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca, jollekd@mail.auburn.edu, perrycb@mail.auburn.edu, whitesw@mail.auburn.edu None of what you say has any bearing on the truth of Hamowy's evaluation, nor on the merits of academic or intellectual treatments of these topics. The comments remind one of disparagements of science because most of us do not follow the technicalities of most disciplines. Clearly, millions of people pray to gods and believe in biblical accounts of the world and human history - so what? Should we just throw Darwin into the trash bin, or Einstein? The Academy, incidentally, does not even reflect popular tastes but the way the industry insiders lean any particular year. I am not sure about the objective merits of BRAVEHEART but I must say that after Homowy's analysis I am less inclined to take Gibson seriously as a decent human being. He seems to be afflicted with homophobia big time and while I am not big on gay rights and such, this seems to me clearly irrational. If I'm justified in disliking Jane Fonda for being a pinko, I don't see why I cannot have similar views about Gibson for being a homophobe. He may act reasonably well, of course, as did Jane. But that is not all one can consider about another human being, his or her professional competence. Tibor Machan ======================================================================= >From: kurt@wickman.pp.se >Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 11:09:12 +0100 >To: Tibor R Machan , Maury Mccrillis >Cc: libprofs, epperra@mail.auburn.edu, rhamowy@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca, jollekd@mail.auburn.edu, perrycb@mail.auburn.edu, whitesw@mail.auburn.edu Tibor, Do you really dislike some individual human beings? Or is it short-hand for disliking their philosophical views of the world? What if Fonda changes her mind (weirder things have happened)and becomes a true believer in the same things as you? Would you still dislike her? Or has she committed a cardinal sin, a sin that can't be forgiven, neither by man or God? I have the provisional view that it is "right" for man (among species) to be "imperialistic" towards other species. Is this what you mean by the term "homophobia"? All the best Kurt Wickman ======================================================================= >Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 05:46:33 -0500 >To: libprofs >From: mac@headwaters.com (Wendy McElroy) >Subject: Re: Braveheart I have neither read Ron Hamowy's review of Braveheart nor seen the movie itself. I think Mccrillis' point, however, can be appreciated independently of both. He is saying that there is a great gulf between the Humanities as presented at universities and the common experience of common people. Over the past decade, the hard sciences have become so increasingly relevant to our understanding of everyday life that even a techno-befuddled sort like me has learned to program a computer and do calculus. During this same period, the Humanities seem to have continued their drift away from speaking to the (wo)man on the street. I think the intellectual abilities of the common man are sadly underrated by many. There is a sort of 'intellectual class system' that has evolved in our society which acts to -automatically- discredit voices from the street. Frankly, I'd like to see (eg.) philosophy return to the intellectual gutter, not only for the sake of the people who live there but in order to infuse it with vibrance. Maybe then TV News anchors would start interviewing Humanity profs. for their commentary on current events. I think they would interview that man-of-the-people Socrates, if he were about. Wendy McElroy "I e-mail, therefore I am" ======================================================================= >Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 06:29:00 -0600 (CST) >From: Tibor R Machan >To: Wendy McElroy >Cc: libprofs Wendy: Acadme is always a bit removed from the "real world" because it tends to be a place where people explore the more fantastic, speculative, experimental aspects of the world. This is true even in the sciences, especially physics (where theories of subatomic particles, field forces, the origin[[s] of the universe[s], etc. are about as wild as anything deconstructionism can produce). And add to this the fact that most universities are legally protected, socialist institutions which can operate with stolen funds way past the demand for them as expressed in the market place, the remoteness is even greater. But in and of itself this does not prove that any particular judgment made by someone at a university need be off - after all, the guy who produced that post about BRAVEHEART is himself at a university, just as Hamowy. (What about when CHINA SYNDROME received all those nods from Hollywood? Or DANCING WITH WOLVES - did that make them speak to the hearts and minds of the saner folks out there? And why are those folks out there so sane, anyway? Is Pat Buchanan's rise in the polls not an indication that ordinary folks can be just as nuts as anyone in academic humanities? Best, Tibor ======================================================================= >Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 13:01:35 -0500 >To: libprofs >From: mac@headwaters.com (Wendy McElroy) >On 2/19/96 6:29 Tibor wrote > >> Acadme is always a bit removed from the "real world" because it >>tends to be a place where people explore the more fantastic, speculative, >>experimental aspects of the world. I must bow to your greater experience, Tibor. My 'day' job is writing/editing documentary scripts for a production company, not working in academe. However, philosophy was not always so distinct from the real world concerns of man. Classical philosophy addressed straight-on questions such as 'what is the meaning and nature of friendship?' I think that modern psychology deals with many aspects of human nature that used to belong to philosophy. Certainly, most of the hard sciences [and I grant you that physics is becoming more like a religious creed] demand 'applicability' in the results grad students produce. My husband is currently pursuing his Ph.D. by computerizing the functions of a particle accelerator. >> And add to this the fact that most >>universities are legally protected, socialist institutions which can >>operate with stolen funds way past the demand for them as expressed in the >>market place, the remoteness is even greater. Tibor, you amaze me! You are the first libprof who has ever brought up the fact that most profs actively seek positions created and funded -- by their standards -- with stolen money. This makes the tension between 'the common man' and 'academe' thicker, of course. People are robbed to support an institution that often looks down upon them as inferior. On this point, my sentiments are entirely pro- the man on the street. BUT my previous point was not that 'the common man' is right and 'univ. profs' are wrong, but simply that there is an intellectual class system which leads to each side dismissing ideas not on the basis of their worth but on the basis of which class they come from. It is ironic to address this to you, however, as you are a counter-example to the above theory. You go far out of your way to breach the gulf between the univ. and what you call 'the real world' through letters-to-editor, columns, TV appearances etc. The first time I heard you speak was at a small supper club in L.A., where you applied philosophical principles to the issue of national defense. In particular, you discussed episte. problems in assessing defense. You can't get more 'applicability' than that!! All the best Wendy McElroy "Simplify, Simplify"...Henry David Thoreau simplify...me ======================================================================= >From: EVERS@HOOVER.STANFORD.EDU >Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 10:06:46 -0800 (PST) >To: LIBPROFS (1) Because I was not a recipient of the libprofs list mailings when "Braveheart" came out, I did not read the correspondence. Could someone who saved it please e-mail it to me. (2) Very little is actually known about the life of the 13th-century figure William Wallace. But I would like to mention an historical novel about him, one that is in print in a Scribners illustrated ed. and that has long been a favorite of children. The novel portrays Wallace as rather libertarian in his beliefs and behavior (except for his cross-border raids on farms in northern England). Porter, Jane. The Scottish Chiefs. Ed. Kate Douglas Wiggin and Nora A. Smith. Illus. N. C. Wyeth. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1921. Originally published in 1809. (3) I understand that the NY Times ran an obit for Joe Peden, but in looking through the national edition I was unable to find it. Could someone please e-mail me a copy or post the text to the entire libprofs list. Bill Evers Hoover Institution ======================================================================= >From: REBissell@aol.com >Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 18:01:31 -0500 >To: EVERS@hoover.stanford.edu, LIBPROFS >(1) Because I was not a recipient of the libprofs list mailings when >"Braveheart" came out, I did not read the correspondence. Could someone who >saved it please e-mail it to me. Me, too, please. Thanks. Roger Bissell REBissell@aol.com ======================================================================= >Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 22:08:27 -0600 (CST) >From: Maury Mccrillis >To: machatr@mail.auburn.edu >Cc: libprofs, epperra@mail.auburn.edu, rhamoy@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca, jollekd2mail.auburn.edu@mail.auburn.edu, perrycb@mail.auburn.edu, whitesw@mail.auburn.edu >Subject: Gibson Thank you for your note, Tibor. Whether or not what I had to say has any bearing on Hamowy's evaluation depends, of course, on which of Hamowy's evaluations you are referring to. The fact that the film has gained more nominations than any other film this year and that it has been re-released indicates that the sort of disdain that many academics here have expressed for the movie is a feature of their professional concerns with the politics of history and sexuality. Having those concerns is fine with me, but pretending that ascertaining a director's views on homosexuality is a sound way of judging the merits of a piece of fiction is not. Anyway, a discussion of the merits of Hamowy's evaluations has already been precluded by his invocation of the dreaded "kill file". As for Mel Gibson not being a decent human being, even if it were true, I did not realize that this was a prerequisite for regarding a film as good or bad. Does this mean that I can no longer regard Roman Polanski's Macbeth as a good film? You may be justified in feeling less inclined to regard Gibson as a virtuous man, or you may have drunk from a poisoned well. I can't say. But are a handful of electronic mail messages really all that is necessary for you to call into question a person's worth as a human being? M.P. McCrillis ======================================================================= >Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 23:37:10 -0600 (CST) >From: Tibor R Machan >To: Maury Mccrillis >Cc: libprofs, epperra@mail.auburn.edu, rhamoy@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca, jollekd2mail.auburn.edu@mail.auburn.edu, perrycb@mail.auburn.edu, whitesw@mail.auburn.edu My idea is that I am now inclined to look at Gibson, to the degree that I know his attitudes and behavior, as an undesirable person for me. Jane Fonda, too, may have been a great mother or sister or cook or wife. What I knew of her back in those days made me feel disgusted watching her, even when, as in KLUTE, she was quiet a good actress. I am not in a court of law having to assess the guilt or innocence of a defendant - I have taken no such oath. I can act for purposes of suiting my own sensitivities and until I learn that Gibson is, on balance, a decent person, all I have to go on what sticks out, namely, his evident homophobia (not just in BRAVEHEART but also on some talk shows). In personal relationships we ought to do well by our own values, even if only on minimal information. It is not my duty to look into the man's whole character. Tibor Machan ======================================================================= >From: "Aeon Skoble" >To: REBissell@aol.com, libprofs >Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 08:12:33 CST6CDT > >(1) Because I was not a recipient of the libprofs list mailings when > >"Braveheart" came out, I did not read the correspondence. Could someone who > >saved it please e-mail it to me. > Me, too, please. Thanks. That discussion is archived at ftp://lumina.ucsd.edu/pub/.../libuniv_dir/libprofs.html ======================================================================= >Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 13:07:20 -0600 (CST) >From: Maury Mccrillis >To: Tibor R Machan >Cc: libprofs, epperra@mail.auburn.edu, rhamowy@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca, jollekd@mail.auburn.edu, perrycb@mail.auburn.edu, whitesw@mail.auburn.edu That Gibson's attitudes and behavior make him "undesirable" for you provides me with an explanation as to why you would not feel inclined to see a movie featuring him in it--even if that movie were a good movie. However, it does not follow that because Gibson may be undesirable to you that a movie with Gibson in it would lack merit. So, in the end, what are we left with? Tibor does not regard Mel Gibson as a decent person. Well, you may be right, Tibor, but so what? Mike Tyson is not, in my estimation, a decent person, but if I want to see a good boxing match he's the person to watch. George Foreman, in my estimation, is a very decent person, but it's his boxing that counts when in a match. M.P. McCrillis =======================================================================