I think we all get the drift. But don’t you know people who would find that more humorous than a simple, “Unbelievable!” (assuming the use of “unbelievable” by itself might be funny)?

Regardless, meaningless was probably the wrong word to use. What about ‘unnecessary’? Perhaps I just feel that if the absence of profanity will cause a situation not to be funny, the scene/lines need more work.

At the same time, I can appreciate a need for authenticity. I recently saw “Gran Torino” and felt that the language in the movie was probably an accurate description of how the people in the movie would talk.

It doesn’t bother me at all when Private Ryan gets shot and shouts an expletive.

Regarding District 9…It was a breath of fresh air for me. Will Smith is who we’d want to be. Wikus is who we are.

I thought Wikus’ “character see-saw” was very well done.

Then after touching on some criticisms, Rich points out three things he thought were valuable about the film: District 9 is 1) a brilliantly conceived sci-fi adventure that provides a great balance of 2) popcorn entertainment and 3) food for thought. So apart from the negatives that both you and he pointed out, Rich praised District 9 for being a well-put-together sci-fi adventure (something that, as always, is pretty rare). He also praised its entertainment value (something especially rare these days when it comes to sci-fi adventure). And finally, he praised the thoughtfulness with which the film approaches the issue of quote-unquote human decency.

I think you’re right that he could have fleshed these things out better, but they are present.

Rich, I would love to hear you and Ben discuss this movie some more in the next podcast.

When one describes a thing, one usually isn’t describing every part of a thing. For instance, if I see a puppy and describe it as cute, it would be unfair for you to respond by saying, “And so we’re just supposed to tolerate intestines and poop and take it as cute,” even though it’s true that the puppy I described as cute also contains about a pound or two of intestines and poop. You wouldn’t do that because that would be beneath you.

For the same reason, we don’t take one’s praise of particular aspects of a film (aspects that Rich pretty clearly defines in his article) to mean praise of every aspect of said film. We don’t do that because that would be beneath us.

When I praise Citizen Kane, I’m not praising arrogance, vanity, and adultery. When I praise Casablanca, I’m not praising gun runners, gamblers, alcoholics, and adulteresses. When I praise Spirited Away, I’m not praising Japanese gods. When I praise the Word of God, I’m not simultaneously praising the rape of siblings, the wholesale slaughter of cattle and sheep, and the betrayal of the Son of God.

It’s clear that your threshold for tolerating the kind of foul language that rules the roost in many unchurched circles was breached by this film. I would never say that you should overlook your own threshold. One should always be cognizant of what one can and can’t deal with. (I know people who would have walked out after two eff words and would be astounded at your own personal level of fortitude.) The thing is: you cannot make that judgment for people you don’t even know. Just because your faith caused you to be disturbed by what you heard doesn’t mean that others are or should be equally disturbed.

So keep in mind that when someone praises a film like District 9, it’s not likely they’re praising it for the reasons you fled it and it’s not necessary that they feel the same level of disgust that you feel/felt.