Originally Posted by Bourne101
Evidence would suggest that this is incorrect. We have a psychological tendency to ignore situations like this, especially when there are other people around. Numerous experiments have been conducted examining this bystander effect. The common real life example is the murder of Kitty Genovese. People in her apartment complex witnessed her get attacked over a period of 30 minutes and it took that amount of time for a person to pick up a phone and call the police from the comfort of their own apartment.
While I basically never agree with Armond White, I think his review of the film is pretty spot on (although I liked the movie a little more than he did). It's not like the film is a code to live by or anything, but it's bold, daring, and doesn't pull its punches. Something like The Ides of March felt like it was on the cusp of actually conveying its anger, but seemed to hold back a bit.
Like Dominik said, this is his pop song. It's not like it's going to change the country, but it gives Dominik an opportunity to express his anger via a gangster picture and will create discussion amongst those who have interest in doing so. If you didn't like the movie, that's cool, but I don't think it needs to cover the ground that you wanted it to cover. It's like saying that when Bob Dylan wrote Positively 4th Street, he should have also said that his hypocritical fans are probably still good people. The song is addressing hypocrisy, nothing more. If you want to look at the good that happens in America, there are other films that convey that.
Well I'll agree to disagree about the psychological tendencies of most people for now because I need to take a look into the evidence you suggested so I can better understand everything, but I don't want you to think that I wanted a film that focused on solely the good of America instead of the one we got. I've kind of moved beyond my original criticism of the film being unjustified in it's critique. After all, everyone has a different way of looking at the world and it's pretty much impossible to say in a general way that such and such is the way the world is
without coming from a subjective standpoint. So, in other words, I think I was wrong to say Dominik wasn't justified in making his criticisms, but I still have other issues with the film.
Rather than just restate everything and waste space, I'll just say that all of my new concerns are listed in my last response. It's a little lengthy, but hopefully I managed to convey the idea that my problem with Killing Me Softly wasn't that it was cynical. I just listed the gun shot scenario as an example of my personal view on how people act.