Author Topic: Panel Discussions  (Read 4351 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10863
  • Respect: +1270
Panel Discussions
« Reply #45 on: February 12, 2004, 03:55:54 PM »
0
Quote from: SoNowThen
Keane claimed that a coat hook (among MANY other things) was an obvious phallic symbol in the 39 Steps. That alone should be reason to never let her speak or write about film again.

That's more of a belief on her part... my guess is that she's saying Hitchcock unconsciously/unintentionally created these phallic symbols. I think it's a valid interpretation unless she's saying he intentionally did that.
"Hunger is the purest sin"

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Panel Discussions
« Reply #46 on: February 12, 2004, 04:10:48 PM »
0
I think it's the sub-retard blather of a charlatan posing as a film intellectual, and if we're gonna allow that kind of junk into this panel, then count me out.
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

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10863
  • Respect: +1270
Panel Discussions
« Reply #47 on: February 12, 2004, 04:25:46 PM »
0
You can't keep Freud out of anything.

 :yabbse-undecided:
"Hunger is the purest sin"

godardian

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3733
  • Respect: +6
    • Trappings
Panel Discussions
« Reply #48 on: February 12, 2004, 04:30:12 PM »
0
Quote from: SoNowThen
Keane claimed that a coat hook (among MANY other things) was an obvious phallic symbol in the 39 Steps. That alone should be reason to never let her speak or write about film again.


It depends on what place an object has in the overall scheme of the film and the manner in which the object is being used. I'll have to look into it again. I don't remember caring her for commentary, though.

Obviously, we're not talking about "letting" anyone speak or write, but whether what they have to say is valid or worthy of publication/broadcast (you can tell I'm American by my insistence that anyone should be able to say anything, though I do also recognize the distinction between censure and censorship). Someone in a decision-making position decided her opinion was worth broadcasting through media. Perhaps that person is equally to blame if we have to call people to task?

The reason you can't keep Freud out of anything is that he was so damn right about our mental mechanisms... not always pretty, of course.  :?
""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.

cron

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3292
  • deeply superficial
  • Respect: +9
Panel Discussions
« Reply #49 on: February 12, 2004, 04:54:42 PM »
0
The only thing that the Discussions would REQUIRE is Mr. Sarcasm out of them. Seriously. I'm willing to try.
context, context, context.

Pubrick

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 12170
  • Lynchian identity mystery
  • Respect: +769
Panel Discussions
« Reply #50 on: February 12, 2004, 10:51:20 PM »
0
i like the Reality topic but not the panel restrictions. the sort of thing that interested me about it was the opportunity for extreme subjectivity AND research to back it up.

that's what i meant by pretention. don't tell me "this is the most life-affirming treatise on the human condition" without explaining why u think that. if i'm gonna talk about reality, everyone's gonna hav their own approach, i would talk about the restrictions of cinema and what films hav advanced it. it's an open-ended discussion that could go forever, but even in a single-post/rebuttal scale it could be extremely rewarding.

i guess u can't hav a panel on that topic cos it's too personal. in fact i can't think of anything that would work as a panel discussion among two opposing groups. if ur thinking about debate style, sumone should propose a statement and groups would affirm it or disagree.

for example: "movies are really not that important".
endless 'nothing is what it seems'-isms

Duck Sauce

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1986
  • Respect: +4
Panel Discussions
« Reply #51 on: February 12, 2004, 10:54:52 PM »
0
guys, just do it....


first topic for the Panel


"Are Panel Discussions Necessary?"

Pubrick

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 12170
  • Lynchian identity mystery
  • Respect: +769
Panel Discussions
« Reply #52 on: February 12, 2004, 11:06:28 PM »
0
"money - would you kill your own mother for it?"
endless 'nothing is what it seems'-isms

The Silver Bullet

  • The Ultimate Boon
  • ***
  • Posts: 585
  • Respect: 0
    • http://esotericrabbit.blogspot.com
Panel Discussions
« Reply #53 on: February 13, 2004, 02:45:13 AM »
0
I'll organise the first one and get it off the ground in the next day or two, if GT is willing to let me try. It's his idea, after all.
RABBIT n. pl. rab·bits or rabbit[list=1]
  • Any of various long-eared, short-tailed, burrowing mammals of the family Leporidae.
  • A hare.
  • [/list:o][/size]

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Panel Discussions
« Reply #54 on: February 13, 2004, 10:29:58 AM »
0
I'm trying to think of good discussion stuff...

How about something on the journeyman directors, past and present. Are there guys working today, directors-for-hire, that genre jump and really bear no personal mark, but consistently churn out decent Hollywood pictures?

Or how about an analysis of studio output, like how people used to say in the golden days that each studio had its stamp on the movies it made, like MGM's were kinda more fantasy (Wizard Of Oz), and Paramount's were a bit different, and Warners and so on. Are there any trends like that now?

These might be interesting, researchable, decent two-sided discussion topics...
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.

cron

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3292
  • deeply superficial
  • Respect: +9
Panel Discussions
« Reply #55 on: February 13, 2004, 10:32:00 AM »
0
The second one sounds great, SNT.
context, context, context.

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5767
  • Respect: +151
Panel Discussions
« Reply #56 on: February 13, 2004, 11:14:04 AM »
0
Quote from: The Silver Bullet
I'll organise the first one and get it off the ground in the next day or two, if GT is willing to let me try. It's his idea, after all.


All you gotta do is get an idea and get 5 people to agree to participate. Its one thing to do that and another getting people to agree they like your idea. If you can get it done, do it. I think people here are willing to try panel discussions, but they want the right topic. Maybe go back to the ones Shaftr said or search for a new one.

molly

  • The Return Threshold
  • ****
  • Posts: 844
  • Respect: +4
Panel Discussions
« Reply #57 on: February 13, 2004, 01:55:24 PM »
0
you can count on me as a wildcard, i don't think i'm qualified for more.
Also, i don't think you should build discussions on PRO and AGAINST, because most things are somewhere in between, and we are trying to have here detailed opinions, and they are never 100% yes or no.
I think that in most essays people focus on something, and they aren't always aware that something isn't clear enough, or the readers don't have enough information, or somebody misunderstood sth, so i think sub-questions should be involved in some way.

also, time limitation isn't good always, so if somebody gets some idea 10 days after discussion, he should contact an admin or sth like that.

Duck Sauce

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1986
  • Respect: +4
Panel Discussions
« Reply #58 on: February 13, 2004, 08:34:26 PM »
0
I think we should avoid the following topics, not because they arent important but because they have been discussed to death.


1. Abortion
2. The Death Penalty
3. Stem Cell Research
4. Gay Marriage
5. File Sharing
6. General Terrorism


I know xixax can come up with better and more interesting topics than these. If we run out, then dig into the boring box.

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Panel Discussions
« Reply #59 on: February 15, 2004, 07:24:13 PM »
0
Quote from: Duck Sauce
I think we should avoid the following topics, not because they arent important but because they have been discussed to death.


1. Abortion
2. The Death Penalty
3. Stem Cell Research
4. Gay Marriage
5. File Sharing
6. General Terrorism


*sings* "One of these is not like the other"
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.

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy