The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current, September 23, 1987, Page 4, Image 4
Fflitnrial I -- Nebraska n University of Nebraska-LIncoln Mike Reilley, Editor, 472-1766 Jeanne Bourne, Editorial Page Editor Jann NyfTeler, Associate Neu's Editor Scott Harrah, Night News Editor Joan Rezac, Copy Desk Chief Linda Hartmann, Wire Editor Charles Lieurance, Asst. A & E Editor An ugly precedent: school book banning 1584: William Carter is sen tenced to death for printing Catholic pamphlets. 1987: Nebraska leads the nation in book censorship at tempts with 12. One book, “When the Sky Began to Roar,” is removed from Lincoln junior high libraries because of pres sure from parents. In the last 400 years, journal ists have fought against the li censing of print. And now the battle has moved from the newsroom to the libraries. With the recent bicentennial celebration of the U.S. Constitution, it seems only fit ting that libraries and book stores all over the nation are promoting “Banned Books Week — Celebrating the Free dom to Read.” Kathryn lotten, general book manager at Nebraska Bookstore, said the store has set up a window display and several posters listing banned books. “We want to make people aware of what books are banned or trying to be banned” Totten said. “I find it real scary. There arc classics on that list.” Parents groups, with support form Citizens for Excellence in Education and the Eagle Forum, have pressured sch(x>l boards across the country to remove b(X)ks such its "Cujo,” “Pel Sematary” and “An Indecent Obsession.” Phyllis Schlally of The Eagle Forum said, “Parents have ev ery right to object to what they find offensive and to express their views. There are millions of books out there, if a parent objects to one, give them an other fxx)k.” Censors argue that the con tent of some books is too strong for children. The Lincoln par ents opposed “When the Sky Began to Roar” because the book contained profane lan guage, condoned sex outside marriage, group sex, drug use and encouraged children not to respect their parents. Censorship is ambiguous, though. What may offend one person might not offend some one else. Although some of the content is strong in the banned book%, it’s still the parents’ duty to monitor what their children do, whether it’s what they read or what they watch on TV. By the time children reach junior high age, their parents should have passed their morals along to them. Therefore, the problem lies at home, not in the library. Instead of spending so much time debating at school board meetings, parents need to be at home with their children, teach ing them right from wrong. Book banning sets a frighten ing precedent. Parent groups could use it to justify banning cable TV and other sources of information that touch their children each day. Book banners forget that they live in a democracy. People are free to choose where they live, what they cal, say and yes, even what they read. ‘it seems like a few groups are out to make a decision for ev eryone,” Totten said. It needs to be a personal deci sion one that William Carter and his readers back in the 16th century never had. Privacy disregarded by UNL administration Although students were able to get their names removed from this fall’s buzz books, their names, addresses and phone numbers still arc available in the administration building. If students arc concerned enough to get their names re moved from the directory, it should also be removed from the desk book. By removing their names from the buzz book, stu dents arc stating that they don’t want their private information publicized. That’s their right. But officials in the admini stration building say it’s public information. Apparently, they have their wires crossed. Some students need or want to avoid harassment and prank, obscene or threatening phone calls, such as teacher’s assis tants or editorial columnists. This is a dangerous situation and it should be rectified. " T AM NJOT Afc>AIK> l PCM.F' ... X vJCO I Df\IW c^p.is dc*\ku DOESN'T GO WITH AM 'DlUj; KJORTH HAIRCUT'/ "J War realities not found m films Movie moguls take taboo off war, don't encourage thought In Hollywood and on other film sets around the world, moviemakers are re-inventing, recalling and, in some cases, refighting the Vietnam War. Just when the more progressive minded among us thought a new gen eration of filmmakers— Francis Ford Coppola, Oliver Slone, Michael Cimino — who attended college dur ing the volatile years of the war, had exorcised the war movie from the American psyche, they seem to he appearing again. Some arc appearing with a more compassionate set of ethics and a motif here and there sug gesting that war might not just be hell, it might be unnecessary. And that was always the standard cliche. No matter how many times John Wayne said “1 hate this war,” the audience knew he felt he had to be there, that he would have swam to the war if a troop carrier hadn’t delivered him there. The same ego that prompts a super power to involve itself in a Third World civil war for the sake of world security, prompts directors to rc-in venl wars. There is nothing on earth that gives a filmmaker more thrills than actually staging a war where no one gets hurt, detail by detail, explo sion by explosion. It wouldn’t actually surprise me much if, in some directors’ uncon scious set of lenses, there aren’t dreams of an aulcurist society where some members of the populace arc selected to give their lives for the perfect shot in a war movie. If you give a director a million dollars, he or she will settle for some ketchup and a few smoke bombs, maybe he or she will even rent an abandoned building and shoot some plaster off the walls. If you give a director $10 million he or she will find a way to get some choppers, maybe go out of his or her way for an accurate location shooting. If you go beyond that, the director gels shaky. For just a little more, a director could level Saigon and re build it just as it looked in 1974. He or she could hire the indigenous popula tion of some verisimilitudinous lati tude to flail, writhe and scream for a powerful wide-shot of a napalmcd landscape. Eventually the shaky di rector will enter “Heaven’s Gate’’ territory and, with one eye developing a nervous twitch and the other taking on that special “Son of Sam’’ glaze, he or she will ask if there isn’t some way they could put a big tinted dome over the whole island to repaint the sky. Charles Lieurance r i * “How could wc get the sun to set a little earlier?” he or she will ask the assistant director, a small catamite just out of UCLA film school. “Well, sire, I mean, sir, wc could, uh, talk to someone....” Many members of the crew that worked on Coppola’s “Apocalypse Now” commented that as the filming progressed Coppola became more and more like the film’s megalomaniac king of Cambodia, Kurtz. He was no longer filming Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness,” he was recreating it and, slowly but surely, the filmic illusion was becoming the filmic delusion. W i th the advent of budgets beyond the midmillions and technological ad vances in cinema that allow even the most bizitrrely imagined nightmares to be faithfully rendered on celluloid, the nature of film illusion is becoming a questionable thing. Is there really much illusion to it anymore? In Hollywood, the current thought seems to be that a war is a terrible thing to waste, and the moguls almost wasted it, allowing it to fall into the hands of poets instead of the hands of hacks who could turn a profit from the conflagration. “The Deer Hunter,” “Apocalypse Now” and “Full Meial Jacket” are intellectual/metaphysical debates. “Platoon,” “Go Tel I the S par tans” and “Hamburger Hill” are war movies. The nature of gorxi and evil enter into them only as melodrama, i These are Hollywood films, full of cheap thrills and paced for the average joe. The question is whether it’s better to recreate the war with a Hollywood mainstream director or leave n to a megalomaniac maverick who loses the war in an overstuffed bed of allu sion and metaphor. From the intellec tual standpoint, looking at war through the poet’s eye is more cere bral, but the historian may find more in “Go Tell the Spartans” or “Platoon” that rings faithful to the actual events. The last straw is that Hollywood has to film the war. Vietnam w ill be on film for a very long time now because the taboo is off the war movie. Thai’s not such a bad thing really. The idea that the genre war film somehow caused the nation to be more apathetic about war’s evils is absurd. Note that while no studio would touch a Viet nam War movie — while film’s like “Apocalypse Now” and “The Deer Hunter” were sinking in — America was gearing up for Ronald Reagan. Genre films do not encourage deep thoughts and the regeneration of the “war Film” is not likely to send us reeling into a real war. As for accuracy, you can find poets in the film community and you can find hacks and you can find moguls, but you probably won’t find reality And why would anyone even look lor it there? Lieurance is an English major and I)N assistant artsand entertain ment editor. Reader says Iraq, not Iran, aggressor in war This is in response to the guest opin ion of Nawaf Soleman (DN, Sept. 12). This country seems to have a bias against the country of Iran. In the war between Iran and Iraq, the United States appears to be taking the position that Iran is the aggressor. Unfortunately this is not the case. Iraq has been the instigator throughout this long and deadly war. Iraq was the one that invaded Iran. They were also the ones to use chem ical weapons, a violation of interna tional law, against Iran. They initiated the cowardly attacks against the shipping within the “Ara bian Gulf.” Attacking Iran’s only means of support, while their own oil exports were being shipped out via pipelines through other nations. As far as the cease fire goes, it was Iraq that broke it by resuming its attacks against shipping and civilian population centers. - As far as terrorism goes, Iraq was the first to use it as a means of national policy. They were supporting the likes of Abul Nidal and the PLO long before the current regime was in power. Iraq is also the only one that in the course of the war, and in the war zone itself, to have taken American lives Letter when the U.S.S. Stark was attacked. They (and the United States) have excused this as an accident, but would this have been so readily forgiven had it been an Iranian aircraft? Would we have said it was an accident? With all these “accidents” of his tory, it doesn’t appear that the Iraqis are as peaceful and fun loving as Mr. Soieman and the U.S. press would lead us to believe. With all that we’ve done to destroy that regime in Iran, I believe that the time has come to attempt a reconcilia tion rather than threatening to go to war because they don’t accede to our wishes. Iraq deserves all the punishment Iran can impose upon them. Iran is not the aggressor and never has been throughout this long war. They have just been protecting what is theirs. With all the destruction Iraq has caused, no one can blame the Iran ian’s if they demand reparations, even if it requires the removal of the king. The United States did no less when they defeated the Japanese in World War II. Guy A. Brace II engineering sophomore