Realistic portrayal? LOL.

There could never be realistic portrayal by any film, even documentaries, brother. It's always told from a view point, a purpose. Even famous documentary like The Salesman.

According to your theory, the characters or story of a movie has nothing to do with affecting the audience, then why everyone's so eager to ban Fitna the movie?

Why Utusan Malaysia viciously attack Namewee for producing music video like Negarakuku (I'm sure Namewee also calls his music viceo realistic portrayal"?

That racist director also calls The Birth of Nation a realistic portrayal because blacks are supposed to be slaves.

The Nazi also calls their propaganda films realistic portrayal because all Jewish are the scumbags (Okay, my Islamic lecturer agrees with it).

Who are us to determine what is realistic portrayal? How do you determine that? Jsut because other reviews say so? Just because Oscar loves it? Just because everyone is oooh and aaah about it?

OR because the movie makes you think that's what it is supposed to be? Wait a minute, wouldn't it then you are contradicting yourself because the movie (the so-called theme) doesn't affect you as an audience?

If not the movie, how do you tell a movie is a "realistic portrayal"?

Funny. In Rashomon we already see how "realistic portrayal" could be told from different perspective and WITH A PURPOSE.

And don't tell me a sex-offender-is-still-the-black-savior movie is not told to tell you something.

Or every murderer is innocent and should be let go, because "hey, people kill each other, right"?

p.s. Why are we so lenient towards judging foreign movies (just because they package themselves ever so nicely with beautiful shots, big casts and melodramatic music?), and turn so harshly towards local production...? If I argue about "realistic portrayal", would the Government lifts the ban on The Last Communist instead? I wonder.

---

Added on June 5, 2008, 9:22 am