And what makes you think the movie is just about supporting abortion? It's a two-hour flick! The actors don't sit around the whole time yelling "pro-abortion! pro-abortion!" There's much more to it.

About the film, well, I certainly didn't AGREE with the stance it took, but I wouldn't call it "filth". (WARNING! SPOILERS AHEAD!) The characters are well-rounded, the story progresses fluidly, and the pacing and acting are both praiseworthy. I do, however, think that it's kind of mixed up in it's narrative and the stances it takes. For example, why would a strictly "pro-choice" film (which is what John Irving would have us believe it is) have characters who all end up in the negative? Dr. Larch dies from a drug-overdose, sad and lonely. Candy and her husband, who aborted their child eariler in the film, end up with no choice to have another child after a war accident. The apple-picker's family is torn apart, and Homer Wells, at the end of the film, is beginning a life that he truly doesn't want to live. Pro-choice? Hmmmm...

Other than that, I thought the film was well-made, and Portman's score was excellent, as usual.

NP: Bless the Child (Young) ****/5 ... an unsettling score by Young...which is exactly what I expect when I buy one of his horror scores Recommended.

Did this make any sense? I just ordered pizza for take out, so I am eager to get in the car and pick it up. Meaning, my mind might not be set on making the clearest of analogies! Sorry!

Pizza time!

quote:

---

Originally posted by DjC:
okay, Rudy was a great score, but one another film rips it off, it angers me. It is more than just a few notes.

---

On a semi-unrelated note here, my father insists that EVERYTHING ever written by Goldsmith sounds like Rudy. Go figure. :P

NP: 1492

Shaun

And I really didn't care for the film - for reasons already mentioned, and a couple of others.

Irving can be quite scathing towards women’s issues as evidenced in The
World According To Garp. He satirized the extremes in women’s issues with the group that cut out their tongues. Spoilers ahead!

I found Cider House Rules more balanced in its approach.
Homer initially is against abortions and points out that orphans are at least
alive and capable of finding more than just
a lonely existence. Candy has an abortion, discusses her desire for future children,
and is then relegated to a childless future. On the other hand, the movie is
more pro abortion in its stance as evidenced by the horrors of embedded crochet
hooks and conception due to incest which causes Homer to change his views.
Perhaps the actual RULES in the Cider House best represent Irving’s thesis. Those rules were made by outsiders who don’t have to live by them. Irving seems to be saying that people affected by the vargaries of their lives should make
their own rules. I mean, would men really want to delegate all decisions on how
to treat prostrate cancer ONLY to women?

NP Mulan

[This message has been edited by joan hue (edited 20 August 2000).]

I quite agree with DjC when he says that it is politically-correct to be pro-abortion – I say this as someone who is a firm pro-abortionist – not least because if you outlaw something like abortion, you merely drive it underground leading to untold tragedy (one of the main reasons that I frequently campaign for the legalisation of soft drugs (as an initial step toward the eventual legalization of all narcotics)). Anyhow, I believe in the right of the mother to decide for herself, quite apart from the fact that a pregnancy through rape or incest should be terminated if desired by the mother. Likewise, if a problem is detected with the developing foetus then an abortion should at least be an option.

It is very much the conservative and old-fashioned view to be anti-abortion – outlawing abortion would be as ludicrous, and as damaging, as outlawing homosexual intimacy or genetic engineering.

CIDER HOUSE RULES was the epitome of political-correctness – the sort of conformist and soft-centred movie that is as mainstream as Robbie Williams, motorbikes, hamburgers and blue denim.

I mean, CIDER HOUSE RULES was okay, but talk about toeing the line! I heartily agree with the sentiments of one UK critic when he said “….…..Its nomination for Best Picture shows that the Academy still loves a liberal homily, even if it’s yawn-inducingly dull”. Yes, the movie’s intentions were fine, but what a wishy-washy way to put its agenda across. Why not make an entertaining movie, that also manages to prick the emotions and conscience in the process - CIDER HOUSE RULES was as tame and as soft as icecream left out in the midday sun – neither thought-provoking nor entertaining – just plain Sunday School politically-correct marmalade and molasses.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joan hue:
I mean, would men really want to delegate all decisions on how
to treat prostrate cancer ONLY to women? [This message has been edited by joan hue (edited 20 August 2000).]

[This message has been edited by joan hue (edited 20 August 2000).]

---

Dear Board mom,

have we come to the point of comparing abortion to prostate cancer treatment?

Scott

quote:

---

Originally posted by DANIEL2:
It is very much the conservative and old-fashioned view to be anti-abortion – outlawing abortion would be as ludicrous, and as damaging, as outlawing homosexual intimacy or genetic engineering.

---

Sir Daniel2,

being conservative does not make one old-fashioned and one can be very much liberal and still object to abortion. Further, this being 2000 would make liberal views of the 60 and 70's now pretty much old fashioned.

As far as your last statement about homosexuality and genetic engineering, that is your personal opinion for you cannot prove that, which is the reason you desided to abandon a lengthly essay on the reasons for your opinion.

I respect your pro-abortion stance, although I absolutely do not share it, yet next time you may be better served avoiding the flawed cliche' written statements about conservatives and old fashioned practices. It might turn around on you and bite you right in the face.

Sincerely,

quote:

---

Originally posted by DANIEL2:
I quite agree with DjC when he says that it is [b]politically-correct to be pro-abortion – I say this as someone who is a firm pro-abortionist – not least because if you outlaw something like abortion, you merely drive it underground leading to untold tragedy (one of the main reasons that I frequently campaign for the legalisation of soft drugs (as an initial step toward the eventual legalization of all narcotics)). [/B]

---

That's rediculous. Stealing is illeagal now, and people get shot durring robberies. By your logic, it should be legal to give criminals anything to prevent "untold trgedy".

quote:

---

Anyhow, I believe in the right of the mother to decide for herself, quite apart from the fact that a pregnancy through rape or incest should be terminated [b]if desired by the mother. Likewise, if a problem is detected with the developing foetus then an abortion should at least be an option.[/B]

---

So you think the mother has the right to decide what happens to a human life? It doesn't really matter whether she wanted it or not. That's stupid. You might as well say infanticide shouldn't be crime. In fact, people don't even have the right to take their own lives! Why should they be given the right to take someone else's, even if that someone else is living inside them?

quote:

---

It is very much the [b]conservative and old-fashioned view to be anti-abortion – outlawing abortion would be as ludicrous, and as damaging, as outlawing homosexual intimacy or genetic engineering. [/B]

---

So I guess I'm old-fashioned. And it's called pro-life. If you get to call me "anti-abortion" I get to call you "anti-human life." Get the picture?

quote:

---

CIDER HOUSE RULES was the epitome of political-correctness – the sort of conformist and soft-centred movie that is as mainstream as Robbie Williams, motorbikes, hamburgers and blue denim.

---

You're right here. It's really a shame that murder is now as american as a hamburger.

John the disgusted

Now, with partial-birth abortions, the process is even more abhorrant. Why don't they just have a large trash bin at the exit of the hospital where new mothers can toss their newborns on their way out if they decide they dont want them?

Sorry to be frank, but it's not much of a stretch from partial-birth abortions. Just disgusts me.

Let me try to explain again. Rules were posted for the rootless migrant
workers by rooted land owners. The migrants did NOT live by those rules
and chose to ignore them. The implication was that rules should not be
made by others who don’t have to live by them.
During this period in history, abortions were totally illegal under any
circumstances, including rape and incest; however, in spite
of the law, the doctor did perform abortions. I believe that John Irving’s
book and script posits that this law ( rule) was made by people
unaffected by its impact. Perhaps he was saying only women should decide
as they were most affected ,OR that the father and mother should make
that decision, as Candy’s boyfriend did accompany her and seemed in
support of the decision. Don’t jump on me, guys. I’m clarifying Irving’s
point of view.

The good thing about movies or books is that the audience has the
fundamental right to agree or disagree with their perspectives. My view
on this issue is irrelevant, and I personally find that arguing about issues
like abortion, capital punishment, and other “hot” topics is a waste of time.
Those values are ingrained in us at a fairly early age and are usually immutable.
(Kind of reminds one of the arguments over certain composers.)
NP Awakenings

if you felt that I was jumping on you, I apologize right now, for this was not my intend.

Thanks for clearing up your post, appreciate it.

As far as discussing issues of abortion, captial punishment and so on, I see where you are coming from and the premise of this board certainly does not allow for a detailed round table debate about such issues. However I am a believer that communication about any and all issues are vital to the excistense of our great nation. In fact, I would add that it is the silence of so many in these and other areas that may be partly responsable for the troubles we have encountered in the US.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DjC:
it is funny how abortion finds it's way into everything possible...

---

It's an important moral and social issue. Any really important issue pervades society.

I agree Scott, I was wrong to generalize about Conservatives being old-fashioned – I realize it is not as simple as that. But, I was merely trying to demonstrate that the pro-abortion lobby naturally falls under the umbrella of politically-correct liberal philosophy – after all, we are talking about the rights of a woman to determine her own destiny and the destiny of her child. That’s what political correctness is all about – the pursuit of equality, whether it be racial or sexual – therefore the issue of a woman having the choice to abort her pregnancy is fundamental to that issue. There is still much to be done to protect the rights of the woman and to ensure that women are not discriminated against – to outlaw abortion would be as awful as taking away the vote from women.

Besides, it is pure common sense and sound reasoning to maintain the legality of abortion – though I understand that the whole issue of abortion is far more important and difficult to talk about for those who are opposed to abortion (often on moral, religious and ethical grounds), than for those who are willing to accept it. Being willing to accept abortion as a normal element of a fair and enlightened society is not being anti-life – it is merely being practical and humane.

Whether abortion is legal or not, it will continue – it’s like drug-dealing, homosexual practice and prostitution – no laws will prevent its occurrence, and I believe that any restrictive laws have a detrimental effect.

Just forty years ago, homosexual practice in Great Britain was illegal – it was a ridiculous law, and a damaging one. Whether your attitude toward homosexual activity is ambivalence, approval, or nausea, no-one can deny that it exists – and being a homosexual or bisexual is nothing to be ashamed of. The effect of the law prohibiting homosexual activity was merely to create a massive blackmailing industry – the law against homosexual practice was known as ‘the blackmailers charter’, and many important, fine, and talented men were ruined by the disgrace that hung over them, simply because of their sexual orientation.

The laws prohibiting soliciting for prostitution and the prohibition of the dealing and possession of drugs are of similar outmoded shortsightedness and downright stupidity. More than half of the teenagers in England have experimented with drugs – therefore drugs, soft and hard, are freely available and inexpensive. Wherever we go in Bristol members of my family are either offered drugs or find someone under the influence of drugs or find discarded needles and other such evidence of drug-use. It’s everywhere, and one of the main reasons is because it is illegal. If the possession of soft drugs was made legal (as a first step towards the legalization of all narcotics) the glamour and the attraction of drug-use will be largely reduced.

Not only that, with the manufacture and distribution of drugs necessarily having to conform to British and European standards, the risk of tainted cocaine or bad ecstasy will be virtually eliminated.

It is much the same with abortion. Firstly, I agree that educating the child from a very early age in the use of contraception is far more desirable than an unwanted pregnancy and the possible resulting abortion. The easy availability (away from the family block) of contraceptives free of charge to all children is vital in promoting healthy physical relationships without the risk of an unwanted pregnancy and the subsequent need for an abortion.

Without easy access to contraceptives, unwanted pregnancies amongst teenagers will continue to grow. The problem would be compounded by making abortion illegal – young girls would be forced to seek out ‘back-street’ abortionists (and run the risk of never being able to conceive again through sloppy work from the ‘surgeon’), or they may attempt to abort their pregnancy themselves through self-injurious behaviour, or they may even attempt suicide.

There is no greater celebration of mankind’s love for his/her neighbour than sexual contact – there is no greater pleasure known to mankind than sexual intimacy – everything should be done to promote sexual activity that is trouble-free and without the risk of pregnancy or infection – abortion is unfortunate and should always be the last resort - but abortion should always be an option.

Joan – I interpret political-correctness as the pursuit of equality above all else – sometimes even above the existing law. Occasionally political correctness can be absurd, and many conservatives are quick to highlight such cases, but the vast amount of politically-correct thinking is positive and constructive. Paradoxically, it is within cinema that political-correctness can have a negative effect. Though I have loved much of 90s cinema has stood for (it seems to have recaptured the fun, intelligence and exuberance of 30s and 40s cinema), the one ‘set-back’ has been the white-washing, blandifying and diluting effect of political-correctness. Such movies as LAST OF THE MOHICANS (1992), BRAVEHEART and THE PATRIOT have been made impotent and absurd by the application of political-correctness – basically history has been altered to conform to modern politically-correct and liberal sensibilities. Anyhow, political-correctness exists to safeguard the underdog or the minority – or those sections of society prone to persecution. Though this may undermine the potency of many of today’s movies – in the real world, it is a price worth paying. As Bill Clinton has often said ‘Fear of the Other’ is the single most prevalent evil in modern Western Society – it leads to prejudice, hatred and bigotry – political-correctness ensures that such evil continues to be eroded from modern society.

Finally, when I talk about Newton Howard’s DANTE’S PEAK theme being very evocative of Goldsmith’s STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE (the theme for that bald-pated android – I’ve forgotten its name) or Portman’s CIDER HOUSE RULES being similar to Goldsmith’s RUDY (though to a much lesser extent), I do not mean to criticise either Portman or Newton Howard in any way.
They may have been influenced by Goldsmith’s earlier work – but they did not replicate it. Indeed, beyond certain thematic similarities with Goldsmith’s RUDY, Portman’s CIDER HOUSE RULES treads very different musical territory.

In fact, I believe Portman’s proficient scoring of CIDER HOUSE RULES was superior (as film music) than anything Goldsmith has written for film since BASIC INSTINCT.

Except the very last statement, of course , although I do love Portman's score.

I have nothing against women. They should have equal rights, votes, etc. Hell, they could run society and I wouldn't care. But I stop short at giving ANYONE total control over another human life. That's tantamount to saying you're a god, something I cannot agree with or support, besides the fact that these children are payiong the price for their parents physical gratification!

You speak of equality, but you endorse a policy that is diametrically opposed to it. If all life is created equal, men and women, then how can you say babies have no right to live?

Abortion is many things. It is convienient. It is an "Easy way out". It is accepted by much of society. But it is NOT humane.

You make analogies to drugs, but abortion is not done because it is "glamourous". It is done because people do want to take the responsibility of raising the life they have brought into the world.

You also speak of young girls being "forced" to seek out back-alley abortions. But what of the cost to the child? Making it legal has increased the number of abortions but millions! If it were illeagal, and dangerous, perhaps these women would think twice before rushing to condemn the life inside them. Perhaps if it were not such an easy out, it would not be so often taken!

Finally, and I must quote you here, for I cannot summerize your eloquence:

"There is no greater celebration of mankind’s love for his/her neighbour than sexual contact – there is no greater pleasure known to mankind than sexual intimacy – everything should be done to promote sexual activity that is trouble-free and without the risk of pregnancy or infection – abortion is unfortunate and should always be the last resort - but abortion should always be an option"

But you miss the whole point! The creation of a human life by two people is the ULTIMATE act of love. Not the sex itself, but it's result, the wonderous act of making a NEW LIFE!
Are you now saying that it is worth killing a child to experience sex, while at the same time ripping away from it any purpose that might have been there? When you take away the child, sex is nothing more than physical gratification.

a six year old boy being suspended for sexual harrasment after kissing another six year old girl after the girl asked him to...

A 16 year old girl being suspended for taking Midol...

A six year old boy being suspended because he brought a water gun and that violated the no-gun rule...

A person being suspended and then fired for trying to complement another worker by saying " you work like speedy Gonzalez"...

Teenagers being taught they should go home and practice homosexual sex...

...that's all part of the political correctnes nonsense. Political correctnes has nothing to do with equality. It is mind control; mind policing. It is -don't you say anything I don't want you to say.

Your views I must respect, for you are a fellow human being. Yet, and i hope you won't take this the wrong way, but you would never, ever be allowed around my children.

With antiquated Victorian opinions like yours, I’d be very surprised if your children are ever let out of the house – and even more surprised that you had any children to start with.

Anyhow, please allow me to quote from my preceding posting – Occasionally political correctness can be absurd, and many conservatives are quick to highlight such cases, but the vast majority of politically-correct thinking is positive and constructive.

At first you were maing intelligent comments and putting forth valid opinions. Now, however, you seem to have nothing more of importance to say, so you've started resorting to personal bashing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DANIEL2:

John Dunham
Here’s a tip : If you’re going to play ‘message-board nanny’, learn how to spell “juvinile” (sic) ; it just makes you look juvenile.

---

So sory. I tend to misspel words wehn I'm anoyed buy somebody who personl attaks.

(Note to the literal minded: those words were intentionally misspelled, unlike the last one.)

Oh, and Daniel2, here are a few words you misspelled in your previous posts. I copied them from the posts directly:

Unfortunately, this thread ended pretty sour. To tie up loose ends, music is ripped off all the time. Did Cider House rip off Rudy? Academically, no. Does it really matter? No. Why not? People will still like it if they liked it before there were any claims that it was "ripped off."

PeterK

this surely went a nasty way. So, for all that it's worth it, I would like to apologize to the board for the part I have partaking in this thread becoming rather nasty. Although I don't think or at least did not attend to offend anyone, it may be possible from the reaction I have received from Daniel2 that I have offended him with my comment about my kids never being able to be around him. If this is so, my sincere apologeeze (I hate this spelling mess. PeterK we need a spell checker here, for crying out loud...).

What I was trying to say was that we all have certain values and standards of living and that we certainly have the right if not the duty to convey those moral convictions to our children and to avoid any contrary opinions to invade their lives. I do not disrespect you, Mr. Daniel2, for the opinions you hold so dearly. I do not share them and hope my kids won't share them later in life either, yet if they do then so be it. I can very much imagine you having objections about your kids spending time with a person such as me, and I don't mind this one bit, for they are your children, your responsabilty and under your wisdom and love.

As far as the comments you made about me, which quite frankly seemed very unlike you, as far as I can tell from all of your other messages, they are taking with the knowledge that you really don't know me at all and probably won't ever get the chance to. All I can say is that you are very much off base here but it really doesn't matter to me what you think of me, so call me names and misjudge me as much as you like. All I care about here is that you know that I sincerely hope you can forgive me for any pain I may have caused you with my comment and that it was not inteded to be taken in that manner.

quote:

---

Originally posted by spango:
that´s great, this issue unmasks the blamable hypocrisy which is part of the superficial american society. come on guys, let´s bomb another of these primitive countries which want to terrorize the free world with their fundamentalistic religion.

---

Spango,

some members of this board have given their time and health to this country, others have had parents and grandparents who gave their lives to this country. To bash our nation to the extend that you have sir, is very much superficial and offensive. Granted, we Americans have our own faults and we are not perfect, yet to call us terrorist to the rest of the free world is simply ridiculous. First off , this nation has much more liberty than Germany, a country I am familiar with since I lived there 13 years and contiunue to visit it since my mom and brother (both German citizens) still live there. Germany has its own problems, always has and it is not a nation white and blamless in the eyes of history either. Yet, I would never offend its great citizens for there faults and shortcomings for we all have them and it is not my place considereing that I am no longer a citizen there but simply kept my US citizenship.

As far as your comments about fundamentalist religions is concerned,(with that I take it that you are referring to fundamentalist Christians?), I sincerely doubt that you know what makes a fundamentalist Christian (I myself am not one). My advice to you would be to inform yourself a little bit better before you accuse not only individuals, but whole groups and, in your case, a whole nation.

Scott

Sorry PeterK, but I love this country and that comment was just uncalled for.

Likewise, I do respect your opinions, and I shouldn’t have said what I did.

I apologize.