Last night, I watched the first hour of Love Actually. Someone recommended it to me. While there were scenes that I liked (e.g., Liam Neeson’s tender relationship with his little boy, who has a cute crush on a little girl), I just couldn’t watch it all the way through.
There was so much nudity in it. It was about people going on dates and getting laid. This one British guy comes to America specifically to get sex, since he’s somewhat of a dunce in Great Britain (of course, I could identify with him there–I wonder if I’d be a more successful dater in other countries!).
I just felt that watching it was a waste of my time. I didn’t really care for the characters or what happened to them. I took out the Love Actually DVD and put in an episode of Smallville. Smallville always makes me feel better!
I know I sound like a prude–more so than I did in yesterday’s post, Charlie Pace: Flesh v. Spirit. So what’s my stance on sex in entertainment? I guess I don’t mind it, as long as it’s not the main focus of the show or movie. The show or movie has to have some redeeming qualities, in my humble opinion.
James' Ramblings 
The movie is really called Love Actually. I seen it in the theatres and I have the DVD. I was focused on the Blair-like Prime Minister played by Hugh Grant who was romantically attracted to his secretary. About sex in movies, we are sexual beings—it is stupidly pointless to ignore that fact of life. On the other hand, there are some obsence and gross things that are objectionable. If necessary, a good sound protest is called for. Mind you, unlike some other religious righties—NOT ALL THE TIME!!!
When it comes to Hollywood and their code of conduct, I veer to the right. When it comes to the Bible Belt, I veer left. I cannot stand extremes on either side. They both can irritate me very violently. Extremism is extremism is extremism. I do not feel a need to pick a side over the other.
LikeLike
That’s right–I’ll correct it. Good points.
LikeLike