Vegetables Take Umbrage
The Lonesome Drifter: Well, how about this: I have yet to read a comprehensible account of what makes the nonhookerists even possibly imagine that they weren't. All I've seen is unsupportable analogies, statements of personal faith, extrapolations from aggressively ignorant notions about prostitution, and wanly cultlike, pasted-grin affirmations that in this wonderful world of ours, no sweet gals like those were could ever be hookers. Not even the on-the-record statements of the *film's lead actor* and *wife to one of the filmmakers and sister-in-law to the other* can sway these human vegetables from their appointed rounds because they dwell in a world of MAGICAL THINKING in which repeated assertions of what they *wish* were true can make it so. If these people were reachable by reason, I would ask them to produce one scintilla of verifiable evidence for their side, but it's a lost cause because some people still think the world is flat, others think there's a benevolent alien craft tagging along behind the Hale-Bopp comet, and THESE people think they weren't hookers.
Endora: Did I read that right? I was just called a "human vegetable"? I believe that is a personal attack. I am complaining to management. In fact, I'd like to make a class-action complaint on behalf of my non-hooker brethren.
Skyvue: Edward, I would happily attack the substance
of your post if you would be so good as point it out to me. Look,
months ago, those of us who believe them to be friendly gals pointed
out any number of things that led us to believe so. The truth
is, there's no shred of evidence, not one, within the film itself
that suggests that they are hookers. You, and other frustrated
hookerists, sputter and fuss and fume and bluster but the truth
is, within the film itself, there is nothing that backs you folks
up. There are the credits (notoriously unreliable sources of info
regarding a film and these particular credits even claim that
TAFKAP or some glyphoid played the guy who died in the field)
and anecdotal evidence from various misguided souls (the marvelously
talented but clearly addled Ms. McDormand, who hesitated before
naming those gals professionals, so uncertain was she; some assistant
to a cameraman of jaze's acquaintance). The truth is, this is
an issue of faith, not proof.
At the end of Woody Allen's MANHATTAN (forgive me, Edward, for using this example, which I know is distasteful to you), we are left not knowing for sure whether Mariel Hemingway's character goes to Paris to study acting or remains behind with Woody's character. Except we do know: she leaves. We are certain of it, even though the film itself leaves the issue unclear. Some things are just apparent and one of those is that, the morning after, those friendly gals' billfolds contained no more dough than they did before that "date" began.
The Lonesome Drifter: Nice try, Brett, but your treatment of Frances McDormand's testimony shows the worst possible bad faith.
Skyvue: It is always the hookerists who resort to insult and ridicule. Now, simply because we interpret the film differently than [deleted] and Drifter would have us do, we are akin to those poor delusional souls who recently ended their own lives. Why the venom, chums? Misguided as I believe hookerists to be, I feel no need to insult them.
Endora: To assist Skyvue in our passive resistance, I will simply restate my position. 1) No money was witnessed changing hands 2) In this country, one is innocent until proven guilty 3) Given 1) and 2), I personally cannot and will not proclaim these women hookers. I am quietly confident in my beliefs, and feel no need to proselytize among those in the hooker camp.
Skyvue: It was only after this argument began that the hookerists began scrambling around looking for "evidence" to back them up (assistant cameraman, indeed) and they've come up with a few scraps of fluff, there's no denying it. But while watching the film itself, one encounters not one hint that these women are hookers. To assume that they were suggests to me a rather unfortunate attitude towards sex, and towards women, that would be better dealt with in therapy than in this conference. To wit: It's okay to label the two men horny guys who were just out for a good time but heaven forbid two women should feel that way. No, they must have been in it for the money and the money only. What a sad reflection of our society's attitudes toward women and their sexuality.
Three-Toed Goth: In support of Drifter: "He who has no argument is like unto a vegetable." - Aristotle (criticising Heraclitus, an early Nonhookerist)
Skyvue: I'm still waiting <tm Drifter> for the hookerists to explain what it was, *within the film*, that so convinced them <tm> those gals were professionals. The McDormand interview is a recent addition to your miniscule canon of evidence and you guys were no less adamant before that. Please address this question or else I will be forced to assign you the unfortunate attitudes toward women and their sexuality that I alluded to previously (in a post which you collectively, and conveniently, ignored).
The Lonesome Drifter: I ignored it because it seemed gratuitous and cruel to draw the obvious conclusion for you, Brett, which is that you appear to be calling Frances McDormand a self-hating sexist woman with a filthy mind. frances.mcdormand.said.it.macro.
Erin a.k.a. EB: An eminently reasonable question, Skyvue. A theme is emerging here that warrants examination--and that is the palpable conservatism of the hookerist faction. We in the other camp have been called cultists and worse, but at least there's some imagination in what we perceive as women's sexuality. The hookerists on the other hand take the fundamentalist position on motel encounters involving unmarried females. What exactly is the FARGO foundation of this blind faith in these girls being working girls? And to reiterate what Vue said, what is the evidence *WITHIN the film*?
Skyvue: Ms. McDormand may well have been told by her husband or brother-in-law that they were hookers. We don't know. You, and the other hookerists, were not, however. You are still evading the question. Why, prior to hearing the McDormand quote, were you so convinced that they were hookers? What evidence was there, in the film, that suggested this? If, in fact, you have nothing to point to, I can only assume you were predisposed to presume as much and so leave you to wrestle with those demons either on your own or with your therapists.
The Lonesome Drifter: Oh, I forgot: a *lying* self-hating sexist woman with a filthy mind. Or an easily manipulated one. (1) Buscemi says "I know a place where we can get laid." Not "I know a place where we can pick up some chicks," but "where we can get laid." (2) Buscemi employs a hooker later in the film--it is his SOP. (3) Apparently the credits list them as hookers (I thought they didn't, but the antihookerists seem to accept this). (4) Buscemi and pal are BUTT. (5) frances.mcdormand.said.it.macro
Endora: #5 is not within the film. It is surprising how flimsy the other four are, all laid out like that. Somehow, I thought you had stronger arguments.
Skyvue: Who says "pick up chicks"? He knew these were friendly gals, he'd had success with them before, he called a spade a spade. Had they been hookers, he would have said as much. What, was he shy about using that term? I think not. (2) I once slept with a blonde woman. Not every woman I've slept with has been blonde, however. (3) The credits, a point of contention of long-standing, are not within the action of the film. (4) I too am no Adonis but have, every now and then, managed to appeal to a woman of certain tastes. (5) Frances McDormand may have later said they were hookers but nothing she says or does *within the film* suggests that they were hookers. In fact, based on the lecture she later gives Buscemi's partner, I think Marge might well have taken a moment to gently lecture a couple of professionals, urging them to quit hooking and perhaps attend the police academy.