Who do you believe: The tale or the teller?

Started by Gold Trumpet, November 08, 2003, 09:06:17 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2
User actions

Gold Trumpet

#15
November 10, 2003, 10:06:09 AM
Kinda. Its easier to disagree with a critic or teacher imposing a point of view, but many people can't when it is the very artist imposing his. I'm not sure if you still would say his word is just an opinion and not fact, which I believe.

SoNowThen

#16
November 10, 2003, 10:14:29 AM
I will agree with you that they usually wanna fuck with people a little bit, and will lie as it suites them, but more out of fun than anything. Fellini is the perfect example of this. And I will also agree that many threads can be pointed out by critics that the filmmaker himself wasn't aware of (didn't PTA say that he didn't realize the father-son-surrogate family things in Hard Eight and BN until someone talked about it?). But like I said before, sometimes filmmakers will do something very deliberately, and that we cannot disregard.
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.

Gold Trumpet

#17
November 10, 2003, 10:19:22 AM
Quote from: SoNowThenBut like I said before, sometimes filmmakers will do something very deliberately, and that we cannot disregard.

Even then, to me, it is just their opinion as it is anyone else's. What they say may be accurate to summing something up, but it doesn't dismiss other views that also make sense. An example is when Oliver Stone called Natural Born Killers a satire. There are things in the movie to back this idea up, but I still don't believe it is one and my position also has evidence in the movie to back it up. Are both people here right or is someone wrong because the opinion goes up against the artist?

SoNowThen

#18
November 10, 2003, 10:21:13 AM
I was speaking about things more specific in the mise en scene.


So yes, I agree with you on the Stone example.
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.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2
User actions