The stupidest thing you've heard someone say about a movie..

Started by CollinBullock, March 29, 2003, 02:00:00 PM

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ... 41
User actions

SoNowThen

#225
October 03, 2003, 03:24:24 PM
Agreed, of course.

But I'm pretty sure Paul didn't have the plight of women's fight to achieve equality with men on his mind when he conceived this picture. that's all i was saying.
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

#226
October 03, 2003, 03:27:19 PM
Quote from: SoNowThenAgreed, of course.

But I'm pretty sure Paul didn't have the plight of women's fight to achieve equality with men on his mind when he conceived this picture. that's all i was saying.

That's true, I'm sure. Usually, works that are conceived as social commentary fail as art, but that doesn't mean that art can't succeed as social commentary... is what I understand from what you're saying, in which case i agree.
""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.

SoNowThen

#227
October 03, 2003, 03:29:56 PM
Hmm, yes, I like that. Very much so!
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.

AK

#228
October 03, 2003, 03:44:41 PM
Quote from: godardian... but I find those who have made feminism into a dirty word are those offended by any sort of modern attitude towards women, people that would prefer women to just be quiet. Certainly, old-guard feminists have done their share to degrade the term, as well, by allowing paranoia and hysteria and stupid arguments over the way "woman" is spelled to distract them from the work at hand.

I think that the belief that any worldview- and no artist can help expressing a worldview by what they choose to include/omit in their work- can be entirely apolitical is naive and insupportable.

Of course , when the feminist movement rose , made increduble good changes into women's lives (in decades)..but , IMO , after a long period , it became a shadow of what supposed to be in first place and I believe some feminists should reavaliate some concepts that they dropped.

And I disagree that is insupportable... Any piece of art (a movie in this case) can be absorbed (maybe not the entire piece but some parts) to any person ,depending the previous knowlodge from each one.

Sorry, if a miss some part.

godardian

#229
October 03, 2003, 04:08:16 PM
Quote from: AK
Quote from: godardian... but I find those who have made feminism into a dirty word are those offended by any sort of modern attitude towards women, people that would prefer women to just be quiet. Certainly, old-guard feminists have done their share to degrade the term, as well, by allowing paranoia and hysteria and stupid arguments over the way "woman" is spelled to distract them from the work at hand.

I think that the belief that any worldview- and no artist can help expressing a worldview by what they choose to include/omit in their work- can be entirely apolitical is naive and insupportable.

Of course , when the feminist movement rose , made increduble good changes into women's lives (in decades)..but , IMO , after a long period , it became a shadow of what supposed to be in first place and I believe some feminists should reavaliate some concepts that they dropped.

And I disagree that is insupportable... Any piece of art (a movie in this case) can be absorbed (maybe not the entire piece but some parts) to any person ,depending the previous knowlodge from each one.

Sorry, if a miss some part.

I agree that it's subjective from the viewer's end, but what I was saying is that there is also always subjectivity built in to any creative work, even documentaries. Unless you can somehow broadcast in their entirety each individual person's actions, thoughts, and feelings 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, then you're picking and choosing what/who to show, and how, and that's where it's inescapable that you'll be putting your worldview into what you're creating, which can then be interpreted politically.
""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.

AK

#230
October 03, 2003, 04:37:40 PM
Quote from: godardian

I agree that it's subjective from the viewer's end, but what I was saying is that there is also always subjectivity built in to any creative work, even documentaries. Unless you can somehow broadcast in their entirety each individual person's actions, thoughts, and feelings 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, then you're picking and choosing what/who to show, and how, and that's where it's inescapable that you'll be putting your worldview into what you're creating, which can then be interpreted politically.


so i indeed missed a part....

but i accept this subjectivity from the auteur as a natural path to construct  the work.... every time you pick a certain camera angle, scene (at the cut room) and so on you are determinating your point of view...a great example is Bowling for Columbine - it's openly tendentious....

and i also believe that unconscious of, any filmmaker does that - maybe that's what you meant on the Magnolia example.

SoNowThen

#231
October 03, 2003, 04:42:37 PM
Yep. Exactly. You guys are both on the same track now. And it's right right right.

Isn't it nice how truly personal, heartfelt cinema like Magnolia can be at once subjective and objective, singular and universal?

Paul is a great man.
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.

ElPandaRoyal

#232
October 03, 2003, 04:56:47 PM
QuotePaul is a great man.

Fuckin' bet he is.  8)
Si

molly

#233
October 03, 2003, 06:09:41 PM
Quote from: AK
Quote from: mollyI've read that some feminist journalists don't like Magnolia because the author deals too much with father-son relatioship, and is conservative... I'm not a feminist, I am all for EQUALITY, but there are moments that I'm kind of embarassed of the fact that i'm a woman. It's like they prescribe what people should think and feel. I'd just like to say that people shouldn't make their judgements about feminism based on idiots like these.

embarassed to be a woman ? Because of the father -son realtion in there? Why is that? I mean, I fell too connected with them, even because their relation/problems are so universal in my point of view (a estranged parent,no matter which one , you know)....

those feminists could be pissed with Frank TJ "tips"- and even this way they would be wrong to take him seriously.



maybe I wasn't clear enough. I'll try again:
I said I sometimes feel embarassed for being a woman because some girls who think of theirselves as feminists are crossing the line and becoming bullies, instead of defenders of people's rights. I can totally understand that men are afraid of them. Even I am afraid of some "professional" feminists. If a guy is obsessed with father-son relationship, it's his problem. Even a worst psychologist would say a person shouldn't appologise for his/her feelings, but only for actions. If an action is "Magnolia", then I still can't see anything to appologise for.
And, I think TJ Mackey character looks like it was written by an intelligent and opinionated woman with good sense of humor and rather advanced ideas about men and women. From feministic point of view the film is OK.
Those feminists I mentioned in the beginning are not doing a favour to us girls. They are just using feminism as an excuse to bully people and therefore made it a dirty word. Men are not guilty and responsible for everything in this world.
AK, you missunderstood me, but I totally agree with you.
I also agree that a film, book or whatever that is concieved with nothing but the general "humanistic and universal" idea, with paper-thin characters, remains drifting in that Universe. Drifting  away.
If I wasn't clear enough, please tell. Sorry for mistakes, english is not my native language :oops:

godardian

#234
October 03, 2003, 06:23:51 PM
Quote from: molly
Quote from: AK
Quote from: mollyI've read that some feminist journalists don't like Magnolia because the author deals too much with father-son relatioship, and is conservative... I'm not a feminist, I am all for EQUALITY, but there are moments that I'm kind of embarassed of the fact that i'm a woman. It's like they prescribe what people should think and feel. I'd just like to say that people shouldn't make their judgements about feminism based on idiots like these.

embarassed to be a woman ? Because of the father -son realtion in there? Why is that? I mean, I fell too connected with them, even because their relation/problems are so universal in my point of view (a estranged parent,no matter which one , you know)....

those feminists could be pissed with Frank TJ "tips"- and even this way they would be wrong to take him seriously.



maybe I wasn't clear enough. I'll try again:
I said I sometimes feel embarassed for being a woman because some girls who think of theirselves as feminists are crossing the line and becoming bullies, instead of defenders of people's rights. I can totally understand that men are afraid of them. Even I am afraid of some "professional" feminists. If a guy is obsessed with father-son relationship, it's his problem. Even a worst psychologist would say a person shouldn't appologise for his/her feelings, but only for actions. If an action is "Magnolia", then I still can't see anything to appologise for.
And, I think TJ Mackey character looks like it was written by an intelligent and opinionated woman with good sense of humor and rather advanced ideas about men and women. From feministic point of view the film is OK.
Those feminists I mentioned in the beginning are not doing a favour to us girls. They are just using feminism as an excuse to bully people and therefore made it a dirty word. Men are not guilty and responsible for everything in this world.
AK, you missunderstood me, but I totally agree with you.
I also agree that a film, book or whatever that is concieved with nothing but the general "humanistic and universal" idea, with paper-thin characters, remains drifting in that Universe. Drifting  away.
If I wasn't clear enough, please tell. Sorry for mistakes, english is not my native language :oops:

I do understand what you're saying, which comes down to: It's always dangerous to label ourselves, because most of us are more than our gender, race, sexuality, etc. As a woman, you don't want to let bullying feminists tarnish the world's image of women.

HOWEVER- it is equally important, I feel, not to let people who are ANTI-feminist turn the real ideas of real feminism- equality, choice, the right to vote and own property, etc- into something negative, and we let them have the word and throw it around as a negative, we're giving up something that really does have right and noble ideas behind it, and allowing fools to define things and make rules. I do NOT think the typical feminist is an embittered, mean, angry woman who hates men; I think it's a woman who votes, reads, thinks, speaks her mind, and does what makes her happy. Even if that happens to be marrying a man who can support a family so that she can stay home and raise it. Or supporting the family herself so that her husband can stay home and raise it. Or raising a family with another woman. Real feminism is not about moralizing and judging, but about MULTIPLYING the options, and I think that's a good thing.
""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.

rustinglass

#235
October 10, 2003, 09:10:14 AM
this is scary.
take a look what this guy wrote (lost highway board on imdb, topic: this film is a crime against humanity)

Quote from: bcoffmanI think the only thing worse than the fact that a person like David Lynch is allowed to make a movie such as "Lost Highway" is the fact that there are status-seeking pseudo-intellectuals on the internet, scrambling to justify its blatant insanity and uselessness.
I have a message to all you "film students" out there: You are useless. Your existence provides nothing to society. Movies and other venues of entertainment exist to keep the populace happy and provide a means of relaxation so that they may perform the duties of society more effectively. It is not an end-all or be-all of existence. Entertainment is not meant to confuse or disorient the viewer, telling them in essence that they aren't smart enough to figure out what's happening, and shouldn't even try.
This movie and hundreds like it attempt to be "original" by being as off-the-wall and nonsensical as possible, counting on the intellectuals of the world to wildly interpret it as the most genius creation since the last piece of garbage that some "artist" shot in a weekend.

I have a message to people like david lynch:
Wake up and realize that you serve a purpose.
You are here to entertain people like me, not show me how smart you think you are.
Make me a movie that has a real story (you know, beginning, middle, and end) and I (and the public as a whole) will let you keep your job.

Thanks.
"In Serbia a lot of people hate me because they want to westernise, not understanding that the western world is bipolar, with very good things and very bad things. Since they don't have experience of the west, they even believe that western shit is pie."
-Emir Kusturica

cine

#236
October 10, 2003, 10:14:15 AM
Quote from: rustinglassthis is scary.
take a look what this guy wrote (lost highway board on imdb, topic: this film is a crime against humanity)

Quote from: bcoffmanblahblahblahblahblah
Thanks.
No thanks. You get a 'fuck you' for the film-students-are-useless comment.

Because of all the ads for Kill Bill, somebody told me the other day "If you've seen one of his movies, you've seen 'em all."
Needless to say, I almost strangled him.

Derek237

#237
October 10, 2003, 10:27:10 AM
"Bringing Out The Dead is basically just Taxi Driver all over again except instead of a taxi driver, it's an ambulance driver."

--Said by a disturbingly large amount of people

SoNowThen

#238
October 10, 2003, 10:31:29 AM
Quote from: Derek237"Bringing Out The Dead is basically just Taxi Driver all over again except instead of a taxi driver, it's an ambulance driver."

--Said by a disturbingly large amount of people

You have no idea how many times I have argued with people about this. Truly one of the most stupid things I have heard.
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.

coffeebeetle

#239
October 10, 2003, 11:01:31 AM
That comment on film students had a decidedly Orwellian tone to it, didn't it?  As if the artist's purpose is to "serve" the "working class"...what the fuck?  Artists create their works out of some underlying need to create and nothing more...be it subconscious or otherwise.  The notion that all artists exist to create run-of-the-mill, standard popcorn fare for mass audiences is absofuckinglutely ridiculous.  Art should force the mind to expand beyond it's preconceived notions...sometimes.  Then again, art can also entertain.  I think it's finding a balance between the two.  
The rant is over. :)
more than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. one path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. the other, to total extinction. let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.
woody allen (side effects - 1980)
Print
Go Up Pages 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ... 41
User actions