About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page


Post 40

Sunday, July 3, 2005 - 6:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andrew,

I know you were merely responding to points raised by others, but that was one amazing critique. You cut right to the essentials. How old did you say you were? Dayaamm!

I have a comment or two about the pleasure human beings derive from entertainment like amusement parks (which is where I have come to put the success of horror movies in my own thinking), but let me give it a rest a minute and reread your little essay. That was one fine piece of writing.

I echo Linz's "More." Like Lincoln said of Grant when religious people would complain that he was intemperate, "If I knew what brand of whiskey he drinks I would send a barrel or so to some other generals." 

Wonderful job, also, of keeping the discussion at a high level. I had a feeling you could fend for yourself quite well. You surpassed by far what I had imagined.

Simply wonderful job.

Michael

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 41

Sunday, July 3, 2005 - 1:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"It's been an instructive feature of esthetic debates on SOLO more or less from the beginning that there's a hard core of pomo nihilists who vehemently deny they're pomo nihilists, yet every time pomo nihilism gets attacked, out they come with fangs bared."

Bravo, Linz! I, too, am fed up with Joe Maurone's nihilism. I see right through him each time he defends or shares the art that he claims inspires him and affirms his love of existence. It's all just an act to hide his belief in nothing -- his hatred and rejection of values, purpose and truth. All I can say is thank God that Rand gave us the power to make reliable philosophical and psychological diagnoses of other people based on the art that they like. If she hadn't, I would have been fooled into believing that Joe is one hell of a wonderful person.

Well, I'm off to a party tonight, so I'd better go and pump myself up for it by listening to Lanza (I have some good friendships to destroy and few other bridges that need burning, and, as I'm sure you know, listening to Lanza affirms and inspires such virtues).

Happy 4th, everyone,
J


Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Post 42

Sunday, July 3, 2005 - 2:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


 Man, I don't want it to be like this..

 I really don't want to fight, or attack anyone. I do want to defend those who are being insulted in their absence. People like Jennifer and Jason. I see more nihilism on the persistant snide references to them than in Spielberg's WAR OF THE WORLDS, which is just a movie. (Yes, that was hyperbole.) And I thought there was nothing wrong with the manner in which Daniel wrote his initial post, so yes, I will defend him as well. Hell, Linz, you've given out far worse when you attack someone's opinions.

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 7/03, 3:07pm)


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 43

Sunday, July 3, 2005 - 7:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
After making my way through Andrew’s lengthy bamboozling, all I can really do is shake my head. It is fortunate that such windbaggery can be punctured in a couple of short strokes.

First, as to the general quality of his arguments. Here is a typical example;

>Andrew: A film like WOTW doesn't challenge us to change the conditions that cause war, or to take up arms in the right side of a war. It just rubs our noses in the gory evil of it.

Of course, we can only wonder what *better* 'challenge' to war could be made by a movie than to "rub our noses in the gory evil of it"? Does he think perhaps Spielberg should "rub our noses in the *clean goodness* of it?" Does he think *that* would "...challenge us to change the conditions of it?". Unfortunately, plenty of films have been made rubbing our noses in the 'clean goodness' of war, and we all know what these are called. In other words, this type of argument is just empty rhetoric – it only sounds impressive. It is actually vacuous. And so on with the rest of his reply.

Quality aside, let's just cut right to the central point of contention: that WOW is a ‘nihilist’ movie.

>Andrew:And your claim that ignorance of H.G. Wells implies ignorance of nihilism is just silly. So how's this:I've seen Fight Club. *Now* can I talk about nihilism?

Apparently *not*. Let me see, the ending of "Fight Club" was what? As I recall, it was the destruction of skyscrapers at the hands of a psychopath and his lover, who watch them collapse picturesequely from a safe high camera angle. Message of ‘Fight Club’: destruction is *beautiful – even fun* - and there is *no hope*. Insanity is the only sane option. This, Andrew, is *nihilism*.

Let’s contrast this with WOW’s message: destruction is *incredibly horrible*, but despite the worst imaginable occuring, there *is hope*. This therefore, is *not* nihilism. Andrew, are you getting clear on the difference now?

So I repeat: when you blather on about such and such’s 'nihilism', *you just don't know what you are talking about*. You didn’t even realise that your own example condemns your case. It is, as I said from the first, “simply a mistaken categorisation” on your part. And as you are not stupid, I assumed then, as I do now, that it is a mistake borne of *inexperience*.

From here, there seems little point in critiquing the rest of your Bamboozlepalooza, even though there is much argument of the same or worse quality. If there is anything remaining you still consider a powerful objection and would like me to specifically address, if you can put it concisely I would be happy to do so. If not, we all have better things to do.

- Daniel

Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 44

Sunday, July 3, 2005 - 7:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hmm. I suppose there is one last piece of gratuitous nastiness that I should seriously address in some detail, as unwarranted implications are being made about a great director and artist as a consequence of Andrew's mistaken ID. That is, that the ending of WOW is “tacked on” and phoney – that the filmaker’s underlying intentions are really nihilistic and destructive; that Spielberg is the sort of artist that would “crassly” exploit tragedies such as Sept 11 in an ‘unconscionable’ and ‘anti-human’ way. (Similar claims are parroted about HG Wells).

What, I wonder, is the weight of evidence for this belief? Spielberg is widely regarded as one of the most optimistic, humanistic , and sometimes even schamltzy filmmakers of modern times – although he has never shrunk from confronting evils such as racism and fascism. Are we to believe all this, from ‘ET to ‘Schindlers List’ has been a false front – that lurking underneath this harmless ground has been Spielberg’s vast, malevolent, tragedy-sucking anti-human evil all along? Surely it cannot be some recent change of heart in this famous man – after all, he has wanted to make this movie for a decade or more. If it is true, it must run very deep indeed.

Or maybe – just maybe – that Andrew simply *does not know what he is talking about*.

I will leave you to decide.

- Daniel

PS: as far as digging up old threads goes, I invite anyone who could be bothered (masochists only) to read the thread Andrew offers. In it you will find I propose the outrageous idea the “free-rider” problem in economics exists, and is a decisive problem in funding armies voluntarily. I am comprehensively attacked for such a clearly malevolent notion – this textbook notion is a socialist ‘trick” apparently! Anyway, if you are interested in the general quality of the arguments Andrew has to offer in this thread, you might want to try his post 80, where he accidentally de facto legalises murder and theft (as I show my post 82). Not to mention his enthusiastic endorsement of the amusing 4-2=4 type anti-maths of Reginald Firehammer. I plead guilty to being patronising. Because regardless of what he might say of me, he is not evil, not stupid, just *inexperienced*.






Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 45

Sunday, July 3, 2005 - 7:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andrew, thanks for the wonderful critique of TWOTW, and (more importantly) thanks for the warning. It is definitely a movie I will not be seeing with my 10 year old daughter.

Best regards,
Roger Bissell


Post 46

Monday, July 4, 2005 - 12:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andrew,

Thanks for the heads up on WOW. You cogently led me to confirm my earlier decision not to watch it, which had been made after seeing the preview.

After 6 months of intense exposure to films from India, I have now tripped to the Hollywood fallacy, and seldom watch American offerings any longer. (_Batman Begins_ last night was a worthwhile exception which I made based on Robert's review.)

Even a modern classic of Bollywood film noir like _Dil Se_ ("From the Heart", 1998) is more positive, passionate, and life-affirming than the typical bilgewater "light-hearted romantic comedy" pumped from the dark recesses of present-day Hollywood. (Here again, _Hitch_ is an exception in which Hollywood returns to its roots and produces something delightful and totally out of character for one of its recent films.)

In September Joss Whedon will present me with a birthday present (and, hopefully, graduation present) in the form of _Serenity_, based on his excellent TV series Firefly.

But looking at the year Oct. 2004 through Sept. 2005 I see _Coach Carter_, _Friday Night Lights_, _Hitch_, _The Incredibles_, _Batman Begins_, _Serenity_ (as I have every reason to suppose,) potentially _The Fantastic Four_, and, if reports are to be believed, _Ray_ as worthwhile to excellent. Everything else is straight from the bilges, completely unmemorable, or could not coax me from my apartment. And eight worthwhile to excellent films makes this by far the best 12 consecutive months in recent Hollywood history.

-Bill

Post 47

Monday, July 4, 2005 - 12:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks Bill and Roger.

The funny thing is, I didn't really want to see this movie either. When my friends proposed going to see it, I at first said "It looks like crap," and refused. But they whittled away at me until I finally went to see it with them. Shoulda stuck to my guns.

I'm a definite Firefly fan and I'm *really* looking forward to Serenity. All the buzz I've picked up from the previews tells me this movie will not disappoint.

Bill, have you seen Million Dollar Baby, The Aviator, or Team America: World Police? I think the previews for The Fantastic Four are pretty dismal, but then again, so is the Serenity trailer, to the unitiated, at least.


Post 48

Monday, July 4, 2005 - 1:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill Nevin writes:
>Thanks for the heads up on WOW. You cogently led me to confirm my earlier decision not to watch it, which had been made after seeing the preview.

Bill, would you agree with Andrew's accusation that Steven Spielberg is the sort of artist that would “crassly” exploit tragedies such as Sept 11 in an ‘unconscionable’ and ‘anti-human’ way?

- Daniel

Post 49

Monday, July 4, 2005 - 4:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Then there's Secondhand Lions, a delightful piece of a couple of years ago... and Big Fish was another interesting work........

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 50

Monday, July 4, 2005 - 6:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't know whether this has been noticed here (and I haven't seen the new movie yet), but I want to take a scientific approach on aliens.
We all see always two kind of aliens, both are superior to our own race, but are either friends or foes. However, even SETI specialists agree that the most likely alien race would be entirely different. Those races above were created with humans in mind, e.g. they project human symbolism into the alien lifeforms with no regard to whether an alien would know human conduct.

Perhaps an alien lifeform develops under water (just for an example). They will not take the same approach as we have taken by developing mechanical devices. Instead those aliens would built (maybe) creatures by using biotechnology that is far advance to ours. They would most likely communicating using under water echo frequencies of some sort. We wouldn't even know whether they have any value system or what their value system is, so we could only try to communicate by mathematics and generalized physics or images. This would still not mean that there is some kind of understanding of each other, but still this race is intelligent and capable of evolving. They could be a swarm intelligence or something entirely different.
This is just my take on aliens and that aliens in SF mostly means foreigners with human ethics (in one form or the other). Those aliens were used to show racial differences or altruistic ethics or even emotionless (Spock f.e.) species. In horror genre they are mostly some kind of evil creature, perhaps comparable to a crazy person that just does its evil deeds, because it has no gasp over reality.


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 51

Monday, July 4, 2005 - 8:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andrew Bissell wrote:

Then there's this nihilists' website, which includes Wells's original TWOTW in its pantheon of nihilist classics. Barnes's attempt to save this film from accusations of nihilism by reference to its ending (which is tacked on to the film like a band-aid placed over the wound from a 12-gauge shotgun blast) falls flat on its face. Oh, but here I go dropping context again: Spielberg once made E.T., so I guess that means this film can't be nihilistic.
That website also cites Ayn Rand's Virtue of Selfishness in its pantheon of nihilist classics.  Need I say more?

 


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 52

Monday, July 4, 2005 - 8:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
By the way, must a work of art have only one interpretation?  Isn't it possible for a work of art as complicated as a movie with evolutionary, scientific and philosophical underpinnings to be liked and disliked by different individuals for different reasons with none of the individuals necessarily having a malevolent sense of life or desire for pomowanking mental masturbation?  Isn't it just possible that a work of art might resonate differently with two different individuals for reasons that make neither evil, including subjective interpretations of traumas?

Does serendipity exist?  Isn't it possible to laud the heroes for their efforts to stay alive while remembering that sometimes, luck may be needed to achieve your goals?  Or do we have to now deny that sometimes, human beings are impotent when facing some problems (death and aging are current examples) and that we must learn to live with such problems in a way that tragic art can sometimes demonstrate?  I will have to see the movie before making more comments on this.

Daniel,

The Dark Side of the Force seems to be taking over your posts. Please, do not let it do so. There is no point in arguing over art to the point that things begin to get nasty. Remember the rule of thumb: for many Objectivists,snide comments at dissenters are morally justified because of the dissenter's inherent immorality.  However, snide comments from dissenters are signs of evil and irrationality.

If this was an argument with more of a factual/testable than an artistic/value basis, I'd be behind you here. But arguments over artistic values solve little - only experiences relevant to those values do so.

Laj


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 53

Monday, July 4, 2005 - 9:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andrew,

Okay, maybe eight is a low number, but this was a _very_ good year for Hollywood. And I doubt it is the start of a trend. They have had too many false starts in the past (like 1982.)

I meant to see _Team America_ and _The Aviator_, but didn't get around to it with the pressure of work and class. I will now try them on DVD on your recommendation.

I did see _Million Dollar Baby_, and it was well worth seeing in its own way. But it was not what I would consider positive, uplifting, radiant sense-of-life, etc. You have to understand that most of my socializing is with unmarried women. So I am always on the lookout for a good date movie, which this was not, especially if the relationship were not already well-established. _Hitch_ as far as I know, is the only really good American movie for a first date that has come out in a couple of years.

I _never_ take a first date to a Hollywood movie that I have not already seen. There is just no percentage in that, given how bad the typical flick is, even the ones that receive glowing reviews. And I never purchase the DVD of an American film that I have not already rented or seen on the big screen. There are so few of them worth watching even once for that to be anything but a way to waste money.

Contrast this with the case of Hindi films. Last Friday night I took a lady to the premiere of _Paheli_ at Bollywood Cinema 6 in Houston. It was as delightful as I had hoped, we both enjoyed it, and I had no lack of confidence in asking someone raised in Mexico City who had never seen an Indian film before to see this one on a first date.

I routinely go to www.yashrajfilms.com or www.erosentertainment.com (which, despite its name, only sells perfectly clean titles) and buy recent DVDs sight unseen. I have seldom been disappointed, never badly, and am often very pleasantly surprised by the films they offer. (Don't try this on you own, though, without first getting a list of films from me to begin your explorations with. Or I couild loan you a couple at the TOC conference.)

With its romantic realism, which Indian directors have recently begun experimenting with, positive sense of life, concrete illustrations of the benevolent universe premise, lavish cinematography, colorful, exotic sets and costumes, gorgeous cast members, warm, rich, soulful music, and extravagant dance numbers, Hindi cinema has won my heart.

I'm an amateur photographer and have always thought visually. Their directors and cinematographers really know how to fill up the big screen with vivid, colorful images in a way that Hollywood has seldom equalled and never surpassed. Even with films that fall down on plot or overall intelligence, you can at least watch the beautiful actresses dancing. Or, in Linz's case, the beautiful actors. ;-)

If you hate Indian music, these films will not attract you. But before you judge that, you should be aware that Hindi film music is entirely different from Ravi Shankar or anything else that Western audiences conventionally associate with the term 'Indian music.'

-Bill



Post 54

Monday, July 4, 2005 - 9:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

I enjoyed _Second-Hand Lions_, and it is the type of movie I would like to see more of. My enthusiasm for it is somewhat tempered by the question that kept running through my mind during it of whether the heroic stories were true or bs. The movie seemed to make the point that that didn't matter in the context of the theme as much to its director as it did to me. Maybe I'm misinterpreting or misremembering it.

I missed _Big Fish_ but will try to see it.

-Bill

Post 55

Monday, July 4, 2005 - 10:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Laj,

I agree very much with your points in the first two paragraphs of post #52. There are movies and other works of art that represent views and emotions that are far outside my own sense of life but that are nevertheless very well done and meaningful in their own way.

But frequently I would just like to see artistically serious, well-crafted entertainment that does line up with my own sense of life, and with the traditional American sense of life. _Hitch_ does this. Billy Bob Thornton's halftime speech in _Friday Night Lights_ does this. In a more somber emotional palette, _Coach Carter_ also does this. But usually Hollywood has only stumbled in this regard throughout my entire lifetime.

There are many dark, morally ambiguous, possibly malevolent, open-to-interpretation, intelligent, finely-crafted works out there in our culture that discerning, intelligent, philosophically grounded viewers like you and I might appreciate when we are in the mood for a critical challenge. But what I am concerned about, and what I think Andrew, Linz, and many others here are concerned about, is that the average young person today hasn't been exposed to _The Fountainhead_, hasn't been exposed to _The Magic Flute_, hasn't been exposed to Lanza, hasn't been exposed to Chopin or Verdi or Puccini, hasn't been exposed to _Les Misérables_ or anything by Hugo, hasn't been exposed to Michelangelo or Vermeer, hasn't been exposed to _Ninotchka_ or (the original) _Sabrina_.

When they see and hear nothing but tripe on a daily basis, and their only contact with anything halfway thoughtful or well done is an occasional encounter with a work that seethes with malevolence and futility and is chock full of pomo values, that is eventually going to weigh heavily on their souls if they are basically good. And it is going to be an inspiration towards corruption if they are basically bad or pliable. When Hollywood spews forth from its bilges work after work of mindless, unredeemed and unredeemable garbage, sporadically leavened with negative, turgid, angst-ridden pomo chow for decade after decade, that will have an influence on our culture and will tend to drag the American sense of life down towards its level.

I saw the world premier of _Bunty aur Bubli_ ("Bunty and Bubli") three weeks ago. It is the story of two ambitious young people who turn to a life of crime in order to obtain riches and fame. There is nothing inspirational in that _per se_, and in common with most Hindi movies it doesn't have much plot. But the sense of life expressed in this film is radiant, better and grander than anything Hollywood has done in years. In the greatest scene the duo, who have formed a partnership merely to perpetrate confidence schemes, sing that they are slowly starting to fall in love with each other. They are shown against a wild mountainous desert landscape, something like Bryce Canyon in the U.S. The song is titled "Chup Chup Ke" and its refrain is "chup ke chup ke, chori se chori", "surreptitiously, (or 'by theft',) surreptitiously, silently, silently", the words used to describe how a thief moves. So they are literally singing that love is "stealing" up on them.

Hollywood has not produced a single positive musical scene of this calibre since _The Sound of Music_, but Bollywood now turns out multiple films per year with scenes as ebullient. I find the irony striking that the nation that first realized this sense of life on a large scale can no longer create works of art in popular culture that embody it, while on the other side of the world there is a nation whose artists can give voice to it regularly, a nation that not 15 years ago was governed as a socialist madhouse.

-Bill

Post 56

Monday, July 4, 2005 - 11:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Daniel.

I would agree that Spielberg is an artist of great genius whose works have run a very broad gamut of themes, styles, and emotional ranges. The works that he has created are so far from one another in overall tone, and his personal politics are so far to the left that I can't say what he might do in work that I haven't seen.

I will sign off now before Andrew hates me too much for highjacking his thread.

-Bill

Post 57

Monday, July 4, 2005 - 11:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ah, but in the very end, you find it was all true - as the prince's son and grandson showed to pay homage to the old men...

Post 58

Monday, July 4, 2005 - 11:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andrew writes:
>Then there's this nihilists' website, which includes Wells's original TWOTW in its pantheon of nihilist classics.

Laj:
>That website also cites Ayn Rand's Virtue of Selfishness in its pantheon of nihilist classics.  Need I say more?

He advises Daniel:
>The Dark Side of the Force seems to be taking over your posts. Please, do not let it do so.

Laj, thanks for the advice. I agree, I am starting to get pissed off, and it is really not worth it. I think you've just provided an excellent "factual, testable" example of basic critical standards Andrew is employing to make his case, and as I say, people can make up their own minds.

S'pose I should remember that crusty old nihilist's caution about fighting monsters....;-) And if Andrew *does* really mean to fight the monsters that stalk popular culture as Bill suggests, I advise him to do the same.


Cheers

- Daniel
(Edited by Daniel Barnes
on 7/04, 11:34am)


Post 59

Monday, July 4, 2005 - 11:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill writes:
>When Hollywood spews forth from its bilges work after work of mindless, unredeemed and unredeemable garbage, sporadically leavened with negative, turgid, angst-ridden pomo chow for decade after decade, that will have an influence on our culture and will tend to drag the American sense of life down towards its level.

Of course I agree.

- Daniel


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.