<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: La Visa Loca - Kakaloka talaga</title>
	<atom:link href="http://chuckster.blog.friendster.com/2005/05/la-visa-loca-kakaloka-talaga/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://chuckster.blog.friendster.com/2005/05/la-visa-loca-kakaloka-talaga/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:42:17 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Vida</title>
		<link>http://chuckster.blog.friendster.com/2005/05/la-visa-loca-kakaloka-talaga/#comment-6</link>
		<dc:creator>Vida</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 May 2005 13:45:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chuckster.blog.friendster.com/2005/05/la-visa-loca-kakaloka-talaga/#comment-6</guid>
		<description>"Movies are not and should not be like that."

I do not know much about film making so i'm just simply going to comment on your comment per se. By saying this (your quote above) you are in fact saying there is a "one road" to film making. And this is followed by your statement that "movies should not be preachy" which contradicts the very purpose of your critique on the film. The fact that you provide a "what should and what should not be" implies that you have a normative criteria, of what is to follow in a film making process. You are in fact "preachy",and falling into the same trap as the movie you are talking about. Finally, by saying that "movies should change the viewer's life" means that art SHOULD have a purpose beyond art itself. Whatever happened to art for art's sake? Functionalism in art is ONE movement, but NOT the only movement.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Movies are not and should not be like that.&#8221;</p>
<p>I do not know much about film making so i&#8217;m just simply going to comment on your comment per se. By saying this (your quote above) you are in fact saying there is a &#8220;one road&#8221; to film making. And this is followed by your statement that &#8220;movies should not be preachy&#8221; which contradicts the very purpose of your critique on the film. The fact that you provide a &#8220;what should and what should not be&#8221; implies that you have a normative criteria, of what is to follow in a film making process. You are in fact &#8220;preachy&#8221;,and falling into the same trap as the movie you are talking about. Finally, by saying that &#8220;movies should change the viewer&#8217;s life&#8221; means that art SHOULD have a purpose beyond art itself. Whatever happened to art for art&#8217;s sake? Functionalism in art is ONE movement, but NOT the only movement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
