the movie industry in 10 years?

Started by SmellyBoobFungus, February 24, 2004, 03:17:43 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3
User actions

RegularKarate

#30
February 24, 2004, 03:27:23 PM
Now you're making generalizations SNT.  Your hatred for over/mis-interpretation (especially when it comes to things phalic) has caused you to dismiss ANY possibilities out there.

They DO exist you know.

(and by "they", I mean the penis and the vagina)

SoNowThen

#31
February 24, 2004, 03:28:52 PM
Egad, I've opened Pandora's Box!!!
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Ghostboy

#32
February 24, 2004, 03:29:01 PM
Quote from: SoNowThenSo let me get this straight: if you're an artist or filmmaker, and you EVER use the images of an oval or a long stick, you're using vaginal or phallic imagery?

There's no denying that you're using vaginal or phallic IMAGERY, but whether or not that was the explicit intent of the artist is where the area becomes more gray.

Even if it's not conscious on the artist's part, it can be read into. There was once a commercial that featured Robert Altman marveling at all the ridiculous things that are suggested about his films which, he finally realized, are all actually 'readable-into-ish' (his word).

I get annoyed as much as you do at bizarre subtexts being found in film and seized upon as canon by those more interested in affirming an agenda than examining artistic inent. But then there are those undercurrents that really do fascinate me, too, and you really can't disregard the potential of subconscious elements, especially when it can be traced through a filmmaker's repertoire.

Jeremy Blackman

#33
February 24, 2004, 03:40:09 PM
Quote from: SoNowThenSo let me get this straight: if you're an artist or filmmaker, and you EVER use the images of an oval or a long stick, you're using vaginal or phallic imagery?
The point is that it's possible, not that it's The Truth.

I don't think any interpretation (that doesn't explicitly contradict the facts) should be excluded.

And by exclusion, I mean:

Quote from: SoNowThenIf you really like it, JB, write your own book, rather than trampling on a classic.

edit: and this...

Quote from: SoNowThenthe misuse of this freedom

SoNowThen

#34
February 24, 2004, 03:40:12 PM
Don't get me wrong, I agree there are unconscious things running through all artists' works (some that follow lines throughout their careers), and I understand that some works call for a more detailed reading of the material (what some may call 'analyzing').

But the misuse of this freedom to interpret has been running unchecked. It is a frightening thing to think that you may one day put some creative work out into the world with definite intent, only to have it so misconstrued that its work is perverted and warped to another's agenda. I try to be true to an artist's work (reading all the sources, looking at it myself from different angles, and making an informed decision, rather than running with a blatant agenda), and I wish the same courtesy to be extended to me.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Jeremy Blackman

#35
February 24, 2004, 03:44:48 PM
You might as well accept the fact that nobody is going to interpret your work exactly as you interpret it. Not to be insulting, but isn't that the definition of pretension?

SoNowThen

#36
February 24, 2004, 03:55:24 PM
To clarify:

1. this lady prof I mentioned is the kinda teacher to give a bad mark to those who do not tow her line of belief in regards this "symbol". This kinda of junk always happened in school. It's not healthy discussion, it's forced belief.

2. Why need something that is long and cylindrical always be a phallus? Let's say you're shooting a baseball scene, and you decide to have a fan eating a hotdog because that's what they eat at ballgames -- now everyone can point out the obvious phallic symbol as a comment on the masculinity of American sports? No!!! It's there as a prop, for goodness sake!


___

I don't want everyone to get the same interpretation, JB. But I want to be clear on what I'm trying to talk about. Clarity of vision is sometimes a nice thing to have. I'm talking about willful manipulation of something to change its meaning -- I thought you were against that?

Maybe I'm not making any sense here, but I wish I were, cos I feel strongly about it. I feel like most people are not that open to "art" as we know it, and that there's a small window by which you can show it to them, and you have to handle it with kid gloves. Yet, the people who do the handling are running around fucking things up, letting their own egos get in the way, rather than just presenting the wonderful art.

Am I insane here?!
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Jeremy Blackman

#37
February 24, 2004, 04:19:43 PM
Quote from: SoNowThenI'm talking about willful manipulation of something to change its meaning -- I thought you were against that?
You're assuming that there is The Meaning. I'm against that. And I'm also against imposing one's own interpretation upon others (rather than suggesting it).

Where you see "manipulation" I see "interpretation." Am I wrong?

SoNowThen

#38
February 24, 2004, 04:25:53 PM
No, that sounds fair, if you allow that sometimes interpretation is used as manipulation.


I know when I'm writing certain pieces, I have a very specific meaning in mind, whereas sometimes I'll just write something for the mood of it.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

godardian

#39
February 24, 2004, 04:27:34 PM
Quote from: SoNowThenSo let me get this straight: if you're an artist or filmmaker, and you EVER use the images of an oval or a long stick, you're using vaginal or phallic imagery?

Not across the board, obviously. But when something is so EMBLEMATIC and so overriding as a symbol, a literal visual that is constantly and repeatedly used as a signifier like the really, really obviously vaginal eye in Lord of the Rings, it's absolutely fair.

The first instant I saw that fiery slit (seriously, this is literally what it is) in LOTR, I thought "vagina." And it's shown to us in the film before we're told it's an "eye" (anyone ever read Georges Battaile's Story of the Eye?). That's not overanalyzing, that's seeing what's right in front of your face. I'll equivocate on some "phallic/vaginal" interpretations, but it is completely about context. They're not always right (meaning that anything phallic-shaped or vaginal-shaped could be read as those things, but how relevant is it?), but they're not always wrong.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3
User actions