" Pan Labyrinth

Anonymous Guest's picture
Submitted by Anonymous Guest on Mon, 2007-07-30 18:23

Recently I saw this movie which has been higly recommended by most reviewers.This movie made me literally sick. The visual monstrosity and ugliness is comparable only to Mel Gibson's " Passion of Jesus Christ". But the philosophical monstrosity of the movie's message is even worse-it says that man has only two alternatives :or to sacrifice others to himself ( the captain) or to sacrifice oneself to others ( the girl). As Ayn Rand observed " Heads are sacrifice and tails are sacrifice." And with these fake loaded coins our mainstream cultural-political elite are buing us for last 2000 years. I think enough is enough.


( categories: )

"So, Leonid, what's your

Leonid's picture

"So, Leonid, what's your favorite movie?”
"Life is beautiful", " Pursuit of Happiness" ,"Astronaut Farmer", "Bucket list", “ The Contact” ( with some reservations)-to mention a few.

I was going to rent this

Mark Hubbard's picture

I was going to rent this movie for next week, because 'trendy movie wanker' [another thread] friends keep recommending it. A must-see apparently. I've always been put off by the write ups though, and given your analysis, Leonid, I don't think I can be bothered. Not yet, anyway.

So, Leonid, what's your favourite movie?

Les Miserables

Leonid's picture

Leonid

Since you mentioned Les Miserables I suggest that you compare Gavrosh with Ofelia. Maybe that will help you to understand my claim.

Floating abstractions again.

JoeM's picture

"Pan" suppose to be "deep", intellectual fine art and therefore much more dangerous."

But since you've failed to make your claim stand, this means nothing. You could say that about the aforementioned, Les Miserables based on your review. At any rate, I'm resting my case.

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

Leonid Maybe. You please

Leonid's picture

Leonid
Maybe. You please explain to me. But now I have to quit.

Yup

JoeM's picture

It's a difference.

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

LeonidIs it really any

Leonid's picture

Leonid
Is it really any difference? It's basicly the same minus sacrifice for eternal life.Besides, "Hostel" and "Saw" is low trash which nobody takes seriously but "Pan" suppose to be "deep", intellectual fine art and therefore much more dangerous

Didn't convince me...

JoeM's picture

Sorry. Perhaps you should find an easier target, such as a movie like HOSTEL or SAW, to use as examples.

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

LeonidO.K let me repeat my

Leonid's picture

Leonid

O.K let me repeat my argument.

1. The movie's methaphisical sense is maleovalent. The main theme of the movie is violence,cruelty, monstrosity for violence,cruelty and monstrosity sake in both actual and imaginery worlds. The overall visual impression of the movie is darkness. The two main characters are Captain and Pan. They are main acting forces who initiate development of the plot. The Captain is sicky psychopath and Pan is sicky altruist who demands from little girl to sacrify her brother newborn infant. The only positive character is the doctor and his only positive act is euthanasia( dead again).The rest of the characters including Mercedes are passive for the most of the screen time. Ofelia is busy persuing her unexplained unmotivated goals in her imaginery world-perfect example of escapism.
Her only choice in the end of the movie is to sacrifice her brother or herself.
If somebody thinks that movie's goal to teach us how to avoid that kind of world than he's mistaken :we already living in this world, created by altruists,pragmatists and postmodernists. And for the proof read newspapers or turn on Tv.In this sense the movie is naturalistic piece of art despite all computer-generated graphics since it is true reflection of contemporary cultural trend. I don't like this trend and I don't like this movie, but that, as any pragmatist would say is a question of opinion.

Your point

JoeM's picture

Leonid:
" I brought "Pan's Labirynth" as an example of today's decadent cultural trend with its maleovalent sense of life and altruism. "

If I ignore your response posts, and stick with the main thread post, we're still presented with the problem. You mention a specific movie, but fail to make the case about that specific movie to make it relevant to your case, judging by the opposition to your view. I don't think anyone fault's your desire to fight malevolence, just the qualit of your argument.

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

To take your side for a moment...

JoeM's picture

Leonid, I'm gonna take your perspective for a moment...Rand certainly wasn't adverse to making judgements about trends in art. Perhaps the best line she had was this: "The game will continue...until some future sacrificial worm turns and declares that he'll be damned if he'll allow Romanticism to be treated as bootleg merchandise."
She continues, "The public, too, will have to do its share: It will have to cease being satisfied with esthetic speakeasies, and demand the repeal of the Joyce-Kafka Amendment, which prohibits the sale and drinking of clean water, unless denatured by humor, while unconscionable rotgut is being sold and drunk at every bookstore counter."

It should be pointed out here that the context of this was her defense of "thrillers" like Fleming's James Bond being appropriated by those who want to destroy it at the same time ("bootleg romanticism.") It wasn't an attack on something bad as much as it was a defense of something good. And her article provided enough for the reader to judge the case on both sides. No ambiguity.

The problem with posting criticisms like reviews among Objectivists is that we've all probably have read Rand already, and know the arguments. So what happens when someone posts a vague post on a movie they didn't like because of supposed bad values and another Objectivist doesn't see it that way? It's up to the one offering the criticism to back it up, especially if they question the sense of life of Objectivists who did like it. Otherwise, it can really come off as Randroid posturing.

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

Leonid Let me put it

Leonid's picture

Leonid

Let me put it straight : I didn't intend to discuss any specific work of art. I brought "Pan's Labirynth" as an example of today's decadent cultural trend with its maleovalent sense of life and altruism. I don't really mind who enjoys what and why. My primary concern is contemporary cultural and socio-political trend and I think it can be changed through cultural influence.I don't understand why you invoke term "floating abstractions" which describes abstractions without premises. I think I was dealing mainly with premises. And finaly I don't guilt anybody. If one feels guilty he shoud check his own premises,not mine.

Critics: With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility

JoeM's picture

Leonid:
"No, to the people who violate rights you don't say anything, you retaliate with physical force. In the realm of ideas however you express opinion, explain, persuade."

I was wasn't advising one to say "enough is enough," in a literal situation of life or death. I meant it as an internal "enough is enough," (or external to others you want to rally to the cause.) Hope that clears that up.

"That what all art critics are doing for living. Remamber Ellsworth M Toohey? If he could influence why you cannot?"

Here, I agree with you, Leonid, although I disagree with the opinion part, which I'll explain in a bit. Otherwise, we're on the same side. I have nothing against criticism if done well. Rand was a master at it, she's one of the only people, if not the only person, who has ever made me reconsider my artistic choices. But she did a lot of work. She didn't present her subjective views, or solipsistic opinions. And she balanced her negative views with her positive offerings. But she didn't intimidate someone into her preferences with guilt or floating abstractions, and certainly didn't offer up ungrounded opinions to be regarded as important in themselves.

You, on the other hand, admit that you didn't review the movie, but simply made an observation that it preaches self sacrifice. You make a claim, but don't provide enough substance. Yet you want people to take your claim seriously. You could be right, but who would know it, based on your post?

[ If people want to talk about her responses to questions about her personal preferences, that's another issue. Example, her response of "Rubbish" to her opinion of Maxfield Parrish. Or her suggestion to listen to classical in response to what music she'd recommend. That's not a reasoned criticism, it was her opinion, which was solicited. I'm sure she wouldn't want people to burn their Parrish prints based on that, contrary to Jeff Walker's suggestion (and if people did do that, that's their fault, not Rand's.) ]

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

You say "enough is enough" regarding things that violate rights

Leonid's picture

Leonid

No, to the people who violate rights you don't say anything, you retaliate with physical force. In the realm of ideas however you express opinion, explain, persuade. That what all art critics are doing for living. Remember Ellsworth M Toohey? If he could influence why you cannot? You said "you can say enough is enough to people who preach to you about altruism, or guilt you about your artistic choices, but it means nothing in matters of art or commerce." Do you really think that sword is mightier than word?

Hugo not necessary

JoeM's picture

Since the point was not about the worth of Hugo's work in itself, there's no need to go into it. The point is that there are great works (and not so great) of mixed premises. Rand could have held her recommendations of Hugo, due to his mixed premises, but she didn't, because she left it up to her audience to work that out. We could say, today, "enough is enough," and disparage Hugo for his contradictions and recommend only ATLAS SHRUGGED. But that would suck. You can say "enough is enough" regarding things that violate rights, you can say enough is enough to people who preach to you about altruism, or guilt you about your artistic choices, but it means nothing in matters or art or commerce. It's up to the individual artist to work those things out for themselves, and it's up to the audience to do likewise.

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

Leonid Hugo has mixed

Leonid's picture

Leonid

Hugo has mixed premises and that always leads to contradictions. But he was great writer with great sense of life. As I said I cannot discuss Hugo here-the subject is too big.

Subject matter

JoeM's picture

Leo, I've already addressed the matter, don't play me. But seriously, why should your point be taken seriously, if you can't bother to remember names, how do I know you've paid attention enough to the story to even bother? I don't begrudge you for language difficulties, or name difficulties, but it does raise a flag since use of language often reflects the quality of thought.

As for Les Miserables, Rand was the first to admit Hugo's contradictions. Didn't stop her for appreciating the book. If she had tried to rationalize them away, however, that would have been bad. But I don't question her sense of life for liking the book, since she explained her terms and gave concrete examples for her likes and dislikes.
************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

LeonidWell I think I stated

Leonid's picture

Leonid

Well I think I stated that clear - Objectivism will change popular culture and the way people think. It is already happening. " As it is in Heaven", " Life is beautifull", "Contact", books like "Crosspoints", "Noble Intentions" and many others already make the diferrence.By the way I tremendeously enjoy Star wars" and super heroes movies because they show that man can fight evil and win.The sense of life in these movies override their altruistic premises. I just feel sorry for superheroes themself since they never get a girl.

Leonid"Les Miserables "is

Leonid's picture

Leonid

"Les Miserables "is NOT altruistic book. It's about integrity and principles.Jan Valjan definitely doesn't have maleovalent sense of life. But this subject is too big to discuss here. If I haven't express myself clear enough I suggest you to see movie " As it is in Heaven." and compare it to the "Pan's labirynth". Maybe you'll understand what I mean.

Leonid I'm originaly from

Leonid's picture

Leonid
I'm originaly from Israel and English is not my mother tongue. I also have a problem to remember names which are not terrible important to me.But I can see that you understand me perfectly well nevertheless. Now can you reply to the subject's matter?

Heinekin?

JoeM's picture

Um, Leo referred to "Anakin" as "Heinekin." That's a beer, bud. Eye

Seriously, I have to ask, and I hate to ask this normally, but where are you from? You've made several grammatical errors that make me question a few of your assumptions. Your writing style is somewhat strange, making me wonder if you're not native to English, so I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt and trying to focus on your arguments. But the name mixup there has me wondering if it's something else, since that's easily referenced. I can give the benefit of the doubt, but often enough, sloppy writing is a sign of sloppy thinking, and I have to wonder about the quality of your judgements on this movie.

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

Mixed premises...

JoeM's picture

Although, Leonid, maybe you're right. There IS so much altruism in literature, it needs to stop. For example, there's a book that has a character SO altruistic, that he steals to feed his family, and goes to jail, then he becomes a priest and creates wealth for others, only for the town to turn against him and send him on the run again. His reverance for God is his fuel, as he continually risks his life for others in atonement for the sins he is accused of. And when he has a chance to exact revenge on his tormenter, he turns the other cheek. Of course, he dies at the end. Surely it must take a tragic sense of life to enjoy such a novel...

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

Missing the point

JoeM's picture

Leo, you missed the point, or purposely ignored it by changing the subject. Incidentally, I've written quite a few things here about the sacrificial ethics of superheroes, so you're preaching to the choir.

Oh, and I do have to take issue with your criticising Jason for quoting Rand when you do so yourself. But I believe you misrepresent her with your call for propaganda:

"To change the trend we don’t need objectivist party but objectivist books and screenplays, objectivist sitcoms and soap operas, objectivist movie directors and pop singers, in short we need objectivist culture created by generation of new intellectuals."

Since I admit that I haven't "outgrown the teacher," I'll indulge myself and quote Rand:

(Before you deluge me with questions about there being no such thing as Objectivist art, let me add; My novels are Objectivist, because I translated my sense of life into conscious terms. I can't say that about anyone else's novels. Further, no such formulas necessarily apply to other fields of art. For example, my husband's paintings are exactly in his field what my novels are in mine, but I'd never call it "Objectivist" painting. No such term is appropriate." -AYN RAND ANSWERS, p.185

Given all the stories of publishers (and supposedly, Rand herself) who groan when they've read "Objectivist" manuscripts...

And finally, you write: "I didn't reviewed the movie but dissected its metaphysical essence and found that it is revolting."

In other words, you gave us your opinion. See, Rand wouldn't have given us her opinion without the concretes of a review. You've offered floating abstractions. Anyways, even if you had, so what? You've told us what you don't like, and that enough is enough. We sorta know what you're against. What are you for? What are YOU going to do? You will NEVER rid the world of art you don't like, nor can you stop others from enjoying it. All you can do is provide an alternative, or support those who create that alternative, and screw the rest.

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

Superheroes

Leonid's picture

Leonid
JoeM:Speaking about superheroes: what Superman, Batman, Spiderman and Jedi Knight have in common? They all suppose to provide selfless service to the people. If they pursue their selfish goal –like love- it always spells trouble. And the Oscar prize of selflessness is obviously goes to Superman. For some brief moment he falls in love, but soon realizes that selfish affair is incompatible with his mission and kills it dead. For Kryptons it’s maybe not so difficult. Batman is facing the same problem. From sequel to sequel he is starting and breaking relationships, trying to combine his selfish needs for love and happiness with his selfless duties. So far not much success. Spiderman, it seems found winning formula. It’s took to him 3 full-length movies. Would it work? I doubt, let wait for the next movie. Worse of all did Jedi knight, He’s been told by Jedi counsel that his own purpose is selfless service of the galactic population (not even mankind) but he happened to fall in love and to fight for the life of his beloved one. The result was total disaster: young handsome Heineken transformed to the ugly murderous machine-like dictator-Dart Vader. The moral of the tale is clear: sacrifice yourself or sacrifice others and we are back to the square one with our Pan’s labyrinth. Please note that these selfless heroes are dominating our popular culture for almost three generations. To change the trend we don’t need objectivist party but objectivist books and screenplays, objectivist sitcoms and soap operas, objectivist movie directors and pop singers, in short we need objectivist culture created by generation of new intellectuals.

LeonidJason,each work of

Leonid's picture

Leonid

Jason,each work of art has esthetic and philosophical value. If ugly message is conducted by masterpiece it makes the message even uglier. I don't enjoy Dostoevsky inspite I appreciate him as a great writer. I'd prefer Ayn Rand.Besides,you are missing the point. I never attemted to discuss the esthetic value of Pan's Labyrinth. I,however think that it is strong connection between ethical and esthetical values. " Genius and Evil are incompatible" (Pushkin)-but this is topic for another discussion. Now one cannot consciously decide inadvance what he's going to enjoy. Enjoyment is an positive emotion,something which makes you to feel happy, your subconscious spontaneous response based on automatic value-judgment, your sense of life. It has nothing to with your explicit philosophy.

My use of that quote was

Jason Quintana's picture

My use of that quote was meant to illustrate that the difference between assessing the quality (and/or entertainment value) of a piece of art and judging the philosophical premises (if any) it attempts to present are two different types of considerations though they can certainly overlap.

Pan's Labyrinth is outstanding because the script, the visual content and the acting were all in perfect unison with the director's vision of how he wanted to portray the story. One can recognize and appreciate these things (along with the extremely high level of competence that went into the making the movie) as cause for enjoyment while entirely rejecting the philosophy being portrayed. The movie made me think, and it stirred my imagination.

In addition, how many movies does one watch that have a clear guiding philosophy as intricate as Pan's Labyrinth? Not many. Dostoevsky wrote several brilliant novels (which, purely as novels were vastly superior to anything created by Ayn Rand) that hinged on pretty much the same philosophy presented in the Pan's Labyrinth movie. Do I come away from a Dostoevsky novel saying "enough is enough" because he doesn't present the Objectivist ethics?

I always enjoy movies (many that other people consider to be sappy) that very directly reflect an important aspect of my sense of life, but the quality and entertainment value of a film goes beyond the philosophical premises apparent in the script and I am not going to limit myself to art that I am "supposed to enjoy" because I am an Objectivist.

- Jason

Leonid Jason,if you like

Leonid's picture

Leonid

Jason,if you like quotations I can reffer you to the webside with about 700 Ayn Rand's quotes. Here is one of them " Person ceased to be a student( and becomes thinker) when he stopes to quote his teacher" ( AYN RAND ANSWERS 2005).By quoting out of context, as you do,one can prove that Moon is made out of cheese. In any case your quotation is irrelevant. I didn't reviewed the movie but dissected its metaphysical essence and found that it is revolting.

Sense of Life

JoeM's picture

I'm not getting into a big argument about this, nor feel the need to justify my like of the movie. But I just want to comment on one aspect, the grotesque creatures: Notice that those creatures are in contrast to the pursuit of values. They are presented as larger than life, monstrous even. That's not uncommon in heroic literature, since the heroes actions are in contrast to the opposition. A hero like Superman is SO powerful, it's hard to write a story of danger for him. But characters like Batman, who are not alien but human, look braver when facing characters like the Joker. GI JOE characters face Cobra, Destro, Zartan, etc. Beowulf had the monstrous Grendel, Ullyses had the Scylla, Charblyids, Cyclops, Sirens, Circe, Poseidon, etc. Jesus has Satan. The worse the danger, the more heroic.

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

LeonidPlease note I haven't

Leonid's picture

Leonid
Please note I haven't reviewed much the movie as such (plot,characterizations,actors performance,computer's graphics and so on) but rather discussed my impression of the movie wondering what kind sense of life one needs to enjoy it.

Good call, Jason

JoeM's picture

You nailed it.

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

From "The Art of Non Fiction"

Jason Quintana's picture

Here is Rand giving her reason for rejecting a movie review for "The Objectivist" in "The Art of Non Fiction."

"For example, someone submitted to The Objectivist a movie review that was chaos. I could not tell whether the author was reviewing a movie or preaching Objectivist morality. The two aspects were totally unintegrated. He would say something about the movie, and then start into a diatribe on the evil of presenting such people. (It was a gangster movie.) The diatribe was not integrated with what he was saying about the movie. The author thought that you could not review a movie of that sort without making it a platform for Objectivism. Of course, it was unconvincing in regard to the Objectivist slogans he used, and it was unconvincing as a review. He had two intentions: to say what he wanted about the movie, and to fulfill his “duty” to Objectivism. Well, that was the attitude at the height of the Middle Ages, when nothing was permitted except what led to the greater glory of the Church."

- Jason

(BTW, I agree with everything Daniel has said about this movie)

Pan's sacrifice

Leonid's picture

Leonid

What we are discussing here is a fiction,not a documentary.I'd agree with your reasons if you were describing actual situation say of the child in Darfur. But fiction is form of art, that is recreated reality according to artist's sense of life. The work of art shows to us what is metaphysicaly important. And in this particular case they are two things 1. Dark,cruel nasuating Universe.2 Explicit message:sacrifice and get eternal life.Ancient story indeed! And how one can enjoy this kind of Universe is bejond my comprehention.I,for one, can enjoy only that kind of art work which gives an affirmation to my sense of life,my implicit or explicit values. The technical side of this monstrosity recreation may be even superb but it make the message more explicit and therefore much more worse. And finaly how the movie can show to us what we should avoid?This is value-judgment question. For religious person suffering and sacrifice are supreme values and such a person may really enjoy this movie. And where this movie shows any alternative to the neverending carnage of sacrifice? ( by the way nobody expect 8 year old child to make moral choices-emergency situation or not). The aim of the art is not didactics, didactical art is propaganda. It can teach but one can hardly enjoy it.One enyoyes art work which depicts the world in which one wants to live, not the world which according to the one's value-judgment is not ought to be.

P.S Did you enjoy 1984 too?

My Reasons

Daniel Walden's picture

Alright, I'm gonna go back to square one here and give my reasons for thinking that Pan's Labyrinth was one of the best movies to come out in the past year despite also being one of the most chilling.

My major reason has to do with the moral position taken by the movie. We are never left with any doubt that the actions of Vidal are uncompromisingly evil. The film would simply not have the same emotional impact if it did not show scenes of violence and cruelty. Even such violence and cruelty as the film depicts are artistically neutral elements; what matters is the work as a whole and the context that it places them in. In this case, it is abundantly clear that the world should never be this way. Analogously to Orwell's 1984, it shows life as it might be and ought NOT to be, and thus serves the opposite purpose of movies like Casablanca; it shows us what to avoid than what to reach for, but it still shows us the RIGHT things to avoid.

As for the end of the film, it does end in a somewhat altruistic vein. However, the end is partially vindicated by the fact that Ofelia was in a life-and-death emergency, a situation in which no moral choice is possible. Sacrificing herself for her brother or her brother for herself really were the only options, and so in that situation her choice to allow herself to be shot is neither moral nor immoral. See Ayn Rand's essay "The Ethics of Emergencies" for a more detailed explanation.

Leonid Daniel, if you have

Leonid's picture

Leonid

Daniel, if you have nothing to say don't do it here.

Leonid

Daniel Walden's picture

Ad hominem is hardly going to provoke a good discussion. Come out of the sandbox when you're ready to play with the adults.

LeonidDaniel,can you

Leonid's picture

Leonid

Daniel,can you elaborate which part of the movie you enjoyed most. The scene of torture of the stuttering insurgent with his broken face and limbs or maybe that scene of vomiting toad ,or perhaps the scene in which doctor performs amputation with rusted saw and without anasthesia, or mayby you loved the eyeless creature eating faires. Is it possible that you simply enjoy to whatch psychopat shoots little cute girl? If you enjoy all these that you have very strong stomach and very dubious premises.

Pan's Labyrinth

Daniel Walden's picture

Frankly, I enjoyed the movie very much. The movie's juxtaposition of ancient faerie-tale and fascist-era Spain was excellent; each reflected the horrors of the other, although in very different ways. Pan's Labyrinth reminds us that there are times in some people's lives when death is the only possible escape. It's a grim lesson, but none of the best faerie stories end happily.

Frankly I think Leonid's comparison to The Passion of the Christ is absurd. Gibson took old-looking clothes, Arimaic, a smattering of Latin and a whole lot of S&M, cobbled it together, and expected it to matter. The movie was an artistic disaster because the lack of deliberation and care on Gibson's part was evident throughout the entire movie.

Pan's Labyrinth, on the other hand, even with such a malevolent sense of life, is masterfully crafted. Life-affirming art is nourishment for the soul, but a well-crafted piece about the depths to which man can sink can provide nourishment of a different sort: nourishment for our resolve that such things never happen again. We do not walk away from Pan's Labyrinth feeling as if the world is our oyster and all things are possible. But there is still a great deal of good to be gained from watching it.

Pan's labirynth

Leonid's picture

Leonid

No I would't endorse censorship. One doesn't fight ideas with force, only with better ideas.But I'd definitely try to persuade audience not to go and the studio to refuse to finance it and theaters owners not to show it by appealing to the people's reason,common sense and their sense of life.
Enough is enough means that the age of silence is over.One should call a spade a spade and a trash a trash oppenly and without P.C. fear to hurt somebody else feelings.Enough is enough means that one never gives his approval to moral cannibals by failure to express clear and explicit objection.

Leonid

JoeM's picture

That's all well and good, on its own. But in relation to the words "enough is enough"...what do you realistically expect to accomplish? My problem is not with speaking up, speaking out, fighting the good fight...it's how, what, to what extent. The words "enough is enough" imply some kind of drastic, immediate measure. But I think you know you won't achieve your goal overnight; elsewhere, you re-stated Rand's claim that it's too soon to storm the barricades politically, because to whom would an Objectivist party speak? Enough is enough? For who? Obviously not for the fans of "Pan's Labrinth."

Incidentally, while not my favorite movie of the year, I found it rather interesting, for reasons of my own, so I won't speak out against it. But besides that, a film, as art, is the product of someone's value judgements, for better or for worse. Would you endorse censorship to achieve "enough is enough?" Would you force the audience not to go, or the studio to refuse to finance it? Or the theaters to not show it? When that situation sends people to do it themselves online, will you hunt them down? Enough is enough? What does that mean qua Objectivism? As a capitalist, you know better, so I'm left wondering what YOU mean...

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

Its up to you

Leonid's picture

Leonid

It's up to you and every body of us to figure out. There are thousand ways to fight back. One of them is not to keep silent in the face of altruistic trash. Speak up.Fight with your music.Give "Anthem" to every 15 y.o. child you know. Don't support trash producers with your money.Spread the word.

enough is enough? now what?

JoeM's picture

So now what? You can say that, but what does that mean in reality?

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.