|
And honestly now, who didn't get goosebumps when we see the galaxies and nebulas and the forge of the sun tempering the earth to the sound of Lacrimosa, Day of Tears??
|
| # ? Jul 12, 2011 01:20 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 09:45 |
|
|
chime_on posted:He hasn't directed all of the films he's written. You're correct on this one- I just assume, maybe unfairly, that when people talk about Malick, they talk about his major directorial works, Badlands, Days of Heaven, The Thin Red Line, The New World, and The Tree of Life. Someone before mentioned that quote about loving every leaf, etc. not really working for them- not that this makes it any more powerful but it's interesting to note that that line is actually taken directly from Dostoevsky. I'm not sure how many more literary allusions there are in the film, but I'd be curious to see if anyone picks up on others.
|
| # ? Jul 12, 2011 03:36 |
|
|
Liesmith posted:The camerawork, the lighting, the stunning imagery. This movie was thematically weak. The poorly developed characters, the voiceovers constantly explaining what was going on in the film, and the lack of anything to actually engage the audience for long, boring periods. With these criticisms, which are understandable, I don't know how you can like anything by Malick.
|
| # ? Jul 12, 2011 04:35 |
|
|
Black Bones posted:And honestly now, who didn't get goosebumps when we see the galaxies and nebulas and the forge of the sun tempering the earth to the sound of Lacrimosa, Day of Tears?? Honestly I got goosebumps when the brothers made up in the room, and when the dad addmited his failings. The creation scenes just made me go "welp... this is uh, pretty, I guess."
|
| # ? Jul 12, 2011 05:30 |
|
|
Origami Dali posted:With these criticisms, which are understandable, I don't know how you can like anything by Malick. I love The Thin Red Line. It's got a lot of similarities to this film, but it's grounded in a compelling if fractured narrative, it has action (by which I mean people doing things, not just explosions) and the voiceovers don't explain what is going on, they amplify what people are feeling and make what we are seeing more significant. The thin red line had scenes where nothing was happening as far as plot, but that was OK because it was about the experience, immersing yourself in this alien world of violence and tropical beauty. I had connected with the film by the time it really started relying on my patience. I feel like this is The Thin Red Line with all the stuff that I can connect with taken out, leaving only etherial beauty and long, disjointed scenes. I think I haven't made it clear that there are parts of this film that I love. I love the scenes which explore the misery and cruelty of childhood. Those are bold as hell, and they are extremely real. I've never seen anything like them in film. Unfortunately they take up about 15 minutes of what felt like a yearlong film. The first hour was alienating. Other than the little boy, every single character feels like a stark archetype with no definition or personality. In the face of that, even the best scenes felt like too little, too late.
|
| # ? Jul 12, 2011 08:42 |
|
|
Liesmith posted:I love The Thin Red Line. It's got a lot of similarities to this film, but it's grounded in a compelling if fractured narrative, it has action (by which I mean people doing things, not just explosions) and the voiceovers don't explain what is going on, they amplify what people are feeling and make what we are seeing more significant. The thin red line had scenes where nothing was happening as far as plot, but that was OK because it was about the experience, immersing yourself in this alien world of violence and tropical beauty. I dont understand these criticisms because to me the voice overs in both these films serve the exact same purpose. The specific voice over you mentioned in tree of life earlier amplified the suggested look on his face. While yes it was clearly shown that he wanted his father to get hurt, until the voice over came in it was just a look but the voice over amplified it into a deep and real cerebral desire. He wasnt explaining anything, he was solidifying the desire. Also this last sentence doesnt make sense to me either because this is EXACTLY what Malick was doing with this film as well. This entire movie is about the experience of being a child, the camera works is specifically designed around immersing the viewer in the perspective of a child. Liesmith posted:Other than the little boy, every single character feels like a stark archetype with no definition or personality. I would say this is possibly true for the mother, which I didnt mind considering her overall symbolic meaning but Id say this is just wrong about the father, He has plenty of depth and plenty of time is spent on it. The scene in which you watch this mean, stern and intensely strict father express absolutely calm and beauty while playing the piano was fantastic. He has a certain part of him that is an archetype, as thats the entire point of the mother and father, but hes given plenty of other unique qualities in the film that flesh him out more. IE his breakdown when he loses his job, his obsession with classical music, his gardening habits, the moment when he asks jack to kiss him goodnight etc. I dont know how you can interpret all of this as no definition or personality.
|
| # ? Jul 12, 2011 19:01 |
|
|
AccountSupervisor posted:I dont understand these criticisms because to me the voice overs in both these films serve the exact same purpose. The specific voice over you mentioned in tree of life earlier amplified the suggested look on his face. No it didn't. It merely explained it. An amplification would be something beyond merely expressing his wish for his father to die. As it is, that's just redundant, because we've already seen that wish encoded with a lot more nuance in the scene itself. Also the last line only doesn't make sense because you cut out the lines where I explained the difference.
|
| # ? Jul 12, 2011 20:41 |
|
|
Liesmith posted:No it didn't. It merely explained it. An amplification would be something beyond merely expressing his wish for his father to die. As it is, that's just redundant, because we've already seen that wish encoded with a lot more nuance in the scene itself. Well then well just disagree because to me it emphasized it. It brought it from nuance to intense desire. Plus it all serves the running theme of the childs constant conversation with "God". It went from a personal desire to an existential desire when he began whispering his wish and I really liked it. You automatically allign the statement with redundancy just because what hes saying is the same(which it isnt) as what he looks like hes thinking, when to me it is the very act of the whisper and the call to God that amplifies it. I didnt include those lines because it was irrelevant to the point I was trying to make, you didnt so much explain the difference in anything detailed you just stated that its different. Please tell me where TRL for you made early connections and why ToL failed to do that early on. I just disagree and I dont think ToL is missing any of the things that TRL had that made the connection work early on. I had made a connection with the film waaaay before it began trying my patience. I didnt want it to end, I could have watched this movie for another hour at least. Also Im not challenging your opinion on this, its very much personal preference as opposed to objective failure and Im genuinely curious as to why ToL failed to grab you early on.
|
| # ? Jul 12, 2011 21:46 |
|
|
Liesmith posted:No it didn't. It merely explained it. An amplification would be something beyond merely expressing his wish for his father to die. As it is, that's just redundant, because we've already seen that wish encoded with a lot more nuance in the scene itself. Wouldn't you say there's a difference between wanting your father dead and wishing God would kill him? Particularly in a film that is so concerned with theistic questions? I think there's an important distinction between the two in this context and there isn't any good "show me, don't tell me" way to demonstrate it.
|
| # ? Jul 12, 2011 21:52 |
|
|
The oedipal struggle in Tree of Life was obvious, but I don't see how that's bad or anything. Like Jack is presented with a way to harm his father, and we hear him pray/wish "God" to do it for him. I mean who doesn't love yet hate their rear end in a top hat father? Remember the scene where Pitt and McCraken walk down the street together, with Pitt talking tough, and the son throwing away his toy-stick to mimic his father's posture: he resents the violence of the father, and dreams of the day when he will be that strong, because dad showed him how. OUCH I'VE BEEN HIT OVER THE HEAD TOO OBVIOUS
|
| # ? Jul 12, 2011 23:31 |
|
|
Do you guys think they found the gold?
|
| # ? Jul 17, 2011 19:10 |
|
|
Just got back from this. I still need to let the film process in my mind a bit more. It's overwhelming (in a good way).
|
| # ? Jul 18, 2011 04:00 |
|
|
This is one of the rare films where I feel like I should check it out in theaters one more time. There's a new theater by me with a gimmick of offering food and waiter service to your seat, etc that is showing it. I don't know if that would just be a distraction, though.
|
| # ? Jul 18, 2011 19:30 |
|
|
Sounds like a huge distraction for this type of movie. I had the misfortune of sitting next to someone who ate a pizza very loudly throughout the film. I can't imagine a waiter bringing someone nearby food would be any less intrusive.
|
| # ? Jul 18, 2011 23:59 |
|
|
Went to see this last night, made sure to not sit near the exit. I'd heard there were occasional walk-outs. I Loved it though, it was gorgeous. Glad I went to see it on the big screen, normally I tend to avoid the theatres. Strangely it was playing at the giant multiplex nearer to my place so I didn't have to venture far into downtown to see it at the artsy-er theatre. I skimmed the thread but can anyone tell me what was up with that attic-type room that was shown a couple times, once with a kid riding a tricycle in circles with some strange looking guy standing nearby?
|
| # ? Jul 19, 2011 00:03 |
|
|
NObodyNOWHERE posted:Wouldn't you say there's a difference between wanting your father dead and wishing God would kill him? Particularly in a film that is so concerned with theistic questions? I think there's an important distinction between the two in this context and there isn't any good "show me, don't tell me" way to demonstrate it.
|
| # ? Jul 19, 2011 04:00 |
|
|
Saw this movie last night and I really enjoyed it. There wasn't a single second where I was bored or uninterested in what was happening. The O'Brien stuff is definitely the highlight - it's such a wonderful evocation of childhood, and it made me think back to my days in my first home. The way Jack is frightened of his father and finds comfort in his mother resonated perfectly with my memories, as well as the tense fear we all felt when we heard our parents fighting. All those scenes were just perfect, and the stranger it got (the mother floating in the air, the attic scene with the odd man) the more enthralled I became. The creation/dinosaur stuff was a mixture, for me, of half beautiful and mesmerising and half overwrought and silly. Sometimes the film seems like it's assigning itself a lot of self-importance, but that's one of the overall points of the film, and of Malick's oeuvre in general (the importance humans give themselves despite being so tiny in the scope of the universe) and so it works fine. The narration is probably the weak point of the entire film for me - sometimes it works, but mostly it just seems a little too vague. The effects were mostly wonderful, but there were some duff shots and the dinosaur CGI was just that little bit too unbelievable for me not to notice. Sean Penn's section was another mixed bag. I loved the cinematography and the way it made Austin (or was it Houston? I don't remember) look huge and overpowering, but the content of the scenes didn't seem to say much more than "Sean Penn is sad". I'd love to see a longer cut of the film to see how much more could have happened in these scenes. The bit where he lights the candle and just stares at it had me laughing, I admit, especially because that's the end of his scenes for quite a while. Overall, it's a great film that toes the line sometimes but never quite falls into "pretentious" territory. It's thematically wonderful, the cast all do a great job, and I can't heap enough praise on its sheer soaring ambition. Just sometimes it became a little too cheesy, a little too overwrought, and I didn't buy everything. I'll definitely try and see it in cinemas one more time, though.
|
| # ? Jul 23, 2011 08:32 |
|
|
Bown posted:Saw this movie last night and I really enjoyed it. There wasn't a single second where I was bored or uninterested in what was happening. Oh yeah, I just saw it as well. I agree with all that, it was very evocative. I don't know if it was the soundtrack or the framing of scenes or what but I was into it pretty much the whole time. Maybe half the movie the tragedy or beauty would be almost emotionally too much to deal with, it was so intense I was feeling it for a couple hours afterward.
|
| # ? Jul 24, 2011 05:44 |
|
|
Liesmith posted:The first hour was alienating. Other than the little boy, every single character feels like a stark archetype with no definition or personality. In the face of that, even the best scenes felt like too little, too late. This is exactly how we felt, and why we walked out at about the hour and a half mark. The family was fine, and I enjoyed watching it to a degree, but I had been lost by the ridiculous drag on of the creation scenes and I just wasn't interested after that. I've never walked out of a film before but in no way did I feel like I was going to miss anything. After reading what happened later, I still don't feel that way. I understand where he was going and why he did the film in the way he did, I just wasn't at all interested in the message nor could I relate to anything that happened.
|
| # ? Jul 25, 2011 02:35 |
|
|
Taear posted:This is exactly how we felt, and why we walked out at about the hour and a half mark. The family was fine, and I enjoyed watching it to a degree, but I had been lost by the ridiculous drag on of the creation scenes and I just wasn't interested after that. Did you bitch to the management about how horribly awful the movie was and convince them to refund your money?
|
| # ? Jul 25, 2011 04:29 |
|
|
caiman posted:Did you bitch to the management about how horribly awful the movie was and convince them to refund your money? No, I just left. I'm fine with spending £6.50 to fund my local cinema.
|
| # ? Jul 25, 2011 12:57 |
|
|
caiman posted:Did you bitch to the management about how horribly awful the movie was and convince them to refund your money? I would only do that if the projector died halfway through or something, it's not their fault I didn't enjoy the movie.
|
| # ? Jul 25, 2011 14:56 |
|
|
Saw this movie and enjoyed it, particularly the expert creation and use of the music. I don't know how to answer someone when they ask how it was though. I feel that answering "it was okay" , "good", or "bad" would give them a wrong idea of what The Tree of Life is as a film. What I got from it was that there are beautiful miracles that happen to bring us where we are today, but at the same time horrible tragedies befall people. Is it because they are bad, or deserve it (as Jack wonders after the kid drowns)? No, but then is there any such thing as "deserving" something? Or do things just happen, and you have to accept it and move on, or else be lost and in pain?
|
| # ? Jul 26, 2011 00:47 |
|
|
I just saw half of this last night at the little art house theatre down the street. I had to leave because of sudden gastro. At the very beginning I was thinking...ah great another unfocused story by Malick but starting with genesis the story was very well structured and linear, without giving up the artistic mood. I was a child in a small Southwest Texas town (Uvalde) in the early 80's and this movie hosed with my head. Everything is exactly like I remembered as a kid, the lawns, the architecture and neighborhoods left over from the 50's. I have lived in many places since and I dont know if the movie would have the same visceral impact if I had been born elsewhere in the world. I could smell the neighborhood and the houses and feel the summer heat. I remembered things that happened when I was a small child that I hadn't thought about in a long time. It is obviously an extremely personal movie for Mr. Malick. I think I have to go back and see the whole thing again. Soon! gently caress I only saw half of it and felt compelled to write about it.
|
| # ? Jul 27, 2011 03:16 |
|
|
Liesmith posted:Tree of Life sucks. It's boring, trite, and long, but to be fair it's beautifully shot. the first third of the film is random shots of galaxies and nebula and volcanoes. Then CGI dinosaurs out of nowhere, then some stupid baby laughing, then a bunch of people I don't care about doing boring things that don't make sense. Then to cap it off there's more arty crap and another 20 minutes of nebula. A lot of the arty crap in particular was so cliche that I thought it must be a joke. The field of sunflowers, Sean Penn falling to his knees in the weird heaven scene, ugh. And the constant whispered voiceovers were stupid and worthless. They were all about making explicit things that were already encoded in the film, plus they too were terrible boring cliches. I'm pretty sure that the writer jerked himself off after every scene because he's so goddamn artistic. The film definitely felt like self indulgent masturbation to me. Oh, and of course he directed it too, because if it had been anyone else they would have edited it. The fact that he's made truly great films in the past, and that this film was just so incredibly beautiful to watch just makes it that much worse. OK, sure, you can see a bit of this in films like the Thin Red Line, but where it's really provocative and interesting there, in Tree of Life there is nothing to ground it. It's a bit like Lennon after the Beatles. I can see why you might geet bored or have trouble relating. These characters werent really cliche's if you come from the area they are your grandfather or your father and mother/grandmother/aunt etc. Products of their time and socio/economic culture. He was painstakingly good at recreating a place and people in a certain point in history. I suspect that he used that time and those characters (Waco Texas, 1950's) because he was most familiar with them. He could make the same movie and the same themes about a family in New Delhi, or Bangkok or some poo poo but it wouldnt feel right. I think he was really trying to recreate visually the emotions and fears he felt as a child surrounded by people and places that he was very comfortable and familiar with (and felt safe in), but struggling to learn a social code that had to be taught rather than was intuitive and natural. We fear what we do not understand, and so he feared his father. Who was trying (and succeeded) to teach him this code. Does this poo poo make sense or am rambling? This movie hosed with my head I'm going to go see it again asap.
|
| # ? Jul 27, 2011 03:35 |
|
|
Mouthpiece posted:I can see why you might geet bored or have trouble relating. These characters werent really cliche's if you come from the area they are your grandfather or your father and mother/grandmother/aunt etc. Products of their time and socio/economic culture. He was painstakingly good at recreating a place and people in a certain point in history. I suspect that he used that time and those characters (Waco Texas, 1950's) because he was most familiar with them. He could make the same movie and the same themes about a family in New Delhi, or Bangkok or some poo poo but it wouldnt feel right. I grew up in suburban PA and basically felt the same way you did, I don't know if it's being American or male or what. (btw is anyone in this thread a woman? I saw it with my sister and she hated it, and I'm wondering if it's because of stuff not resonating with her). I'd never really seen a movie where so much was dependent on the viewer emotionally and not in some puzzle-y way. I'd be really interested to see too what kind of people irl give this movie good or bad reviews. I don't know if I'd say his father succeeded in instilling that attitude as much as succeeded in making him cold and alienated while still struggling with the whimsical and loving nature of being a social creature. But that's not really giving away a plot point or anything, definitely see it again. Sorry if that was rambling, my hands were literally shaking when it was over.
|
| # ? Jul 27, 2011 03:57 |
|
|
Red Fructidor posted:.... Ah ok. I didnt see the ending so I was subconsciously finishing the story I think. Will write my next impressions after viewing the ending. My 1st impression of the ending before seeing the ending: His dad really wasnt a bad dude at all, given his environment, and was teaching him to be a man and instilling in him the strength of character to follow his own path. Sean Penn should get over his daddy issues and see the world in the perspective of the universe, and chill out or take some medication to get over his depression.
|
| # ? Jul 27, 2011 04:35 |
|
|
Mouthpiece posted:Ah ok. I didnt see the ending so I was subconsciously finishing the story I think. At what point during the film did you end up having to leave? What you say is true to an extent, but the father becomes a more ominous and tense figure in Jack's life, which then begins to show itself in his behavior. I agree that the father isn't all bad, but becoming a frightening (and threatening) presence in the household, witnessing his son's behavior, as well as experiencing the ultimate failings of his "code" shows him as maybe emotionally misdirected and certainly insecure. I thought Sean Penn's angst or what have you might have been a bit much (especially at his age), but not unreasonable. But yeah, a therapist might have done him better than having some weird metropolitan vision quest.
|
| # ? Jul 27, 2011 05:27 |
|
|
^^^^^^ I left just after he goes perving into the neighbors house. Im really just talking humorous poo poo mate, I didnt intend anyone to take the last post as a serious assesment.
|
| # ? Jul 27, 2011 07:10 |
|
|
Mouthpiece posted:^^^^^^ I figured, but after reading a lot of the nutty opinions of this film, it's getting a bit hard to tell. In other Tree of Life news, after peaking early this month, the theatre count and weekly grosses have been dropping at a steady rate. If anyone hasn't seen it and it's playing near you, you might want to catch it soon. I don't imagine it's going to be around much longer.
|
| # ? Jul 27, 2011 08:19 |
|
|
I just (tried) to go see this last night and I honestly thought it was comically bad. I'll give a more substantive critique but I just want to say that I've sat through some stodgy/pretentious stuff before--I've read all of Prometheus Unbound and far more poststructural critical theory than I'd care to admit. So there's my credentials for folks who would like to write me off as a philistine. Still, this movie was a Job-like trial of my patience and I walked out at around 45 minutes. First, the whispering was a technical flaw: it's difficult to understand, though you're not really missing out on much since the plot is so barebones as to be nonexistent. I was also a little put off by the uncomplicated/unproblematized gender roles--an abusive father who secretly actually cares about his kids? how sympathetic! The myth of male weakness being in full swing troubled me. The mother's femininity is archetypal but not interesting--note how well a film like The Hours handles the feminine for comparison. As far as the film itself, I saw no reason to stay, nothing spoke to me, and I was not engaged. Having read a number of "literary" novels, I am more than willing to deal with 100+ pages of exposition and the construction of a symbolic order, but only if there is some implicit promise of these elements' eventual movement. Stock photos of the horsehead nebula and CG jellyfish are not contributing to the plot or message beyond some hamfisted "welp we're all connected you know" truism. This would have worked far better as a short film where there is often no expectation of a coherent plot or narrative. Interestingly, I found myself thinking of the last two episodes of Neon Genesis Evangelion. For those who don't know, the end of the anime is a sort of retreat from the outside world and a turn to this kind of chaotic visual collage superimposed on a psychotherapy session, and the result is jarring. Yet I was willing to watch that because the foundations of the text were being deconstructed. Here there is no foundation, nothing to deconstruct, and it's just a weak effort. Finally, this is subjective but I don't really give a poo poo about white people's problems, I'm sure Sean Penn suffers an awful lot at his rich person job which seems to involve wandering around distracted and depressed. A lot of art deals with grief but I just saw no reason why I should care.
|
| # ? Jul 30, 2011 19:14 |
|
|
deptstoremook posted:
I was with you until that last paragraph. Is that necessary? Do you only enjoy movies about poor minorities or something? Does a character having money invalidate emotions?
|
| # ? Jul 30, 2011 19:51 |
|
|
deptstoremook posted:Neon Genesis Evangelion. Did you read this thread? Because your reductive summaries of the film's ideas don't seem relevant at all to the consensus here on its meaning. Anyways, why do we give a poo poo what you think? You walked out after 45 minutes. Past Tense Ragu fucked around with this message at Jul 31, 2011 around 03:14 |
| # ? Jul 31, 2011 03:05 |
|
|
deptstoremook posted:I just (tried) to go see this last night and I honestly thought it was comically bad. I'll give a more substantive critique but I just want to say that I've sat through some stodgy/pretentious stuff before--I've read all of Prometheus Unbound and far more poststructural critical theory than I'd care to admit. Why do people bring up this stuff? There is a line in this movie where Brad Pitt's character says that their is beauty in "trees and birds". This is not gravity's rainbow guys, its about pretty nature pictures and family
|
| # ? Jul 31, 2011 03:16 |
|
|
deptstoremook posted:
How much of a valid opinion can you have of something you only saw a third of? That's like watching three innings of a baseball game and assuming you know what the final score was going to be. Certainly you are allowed to not like the parts that you saw, but why come in here and write 5 paragraphs on it?
|
| # ? Jul 31, 2011 03:48 |
|
....I walked out at around 45 minutes....
|
the black husserl posted:Why do people bring up this stuff? Well yeah that's fine but people in this thread (as well as the critics) are talking about it like it's the second coming, and I'm wondering what there is to it that couldn't be covered by a good Nova episode. Useless Rabbit posted:How much of a valid opinion can you have of something you only saw a third of? That's like watching three innings of a baseball game and assuming you know what the final score was going to be. Certainly you are allowed to not like the parts that you saw, but why come in here and write 5 paragraphs on it? Well I think it's like a practical joke, where everyone tells you the baseball game is on Wednesday, and then you realize that they fooled you and there's nobody out there but a guy with a lawnmower humming "Yankee Doodle," and also there was never going to be a baseball game because the players were on strike. Kind of funny, but also kind of embarrassing. HaterBaby posted:Did you read this thread? Because your reductive summaries of the film's ideas don't seem relevant at all to the consensus here on its meaning. Anyways, why do we give a poo poo what you think? You walked out after 45 minutes. I just began to tire of this tale of the suffering bourgeoisie, and the blatantly offensive intimation that the ne plus ultra of the universe's formation is a bunch of archetypal American WASP oppressors. I think that's a legitimate critique, but we don't have to talk about how the film reinforces privilege I guess.
|
| # ? Jul 31, 2011 04:05 |
|
|
You are a moron who thinks he's smarter than everybody else. That's it. Edit: I can't believe that I actually have to endure discussions of "privilege" in Cinema Discusso now too. Past Tense Ragu fucked around with this message at Jul 31, 2011 around 04:13 |
| # ? Jul 31, 2011 04:10 |
|
|
deptstoremook posted:
|
| # ? Jul 31, 2011 04:18 |
|
|
Look, considering social context is not a bad thing, guys. I don't know if you were around to see it, deptstoremook, but there is a scene where the father takes the boys to buy some barbecue from stand operated by a relatively lower-income black family. In that scene, there's a fairly subtle shot that I quite liked: the boy walks by a group of children playing around a truck, much like he and his friends have been doing throughout the movie, and he appears noticeably uncomfortable. It's only there for a few moments, but I thought it was a nice, subtle way of addressing how insular their lives are: it's a familiar scene to him, and yet he's thrown off by how alien it is at the same time. That's the key here, I think: to recognize that Malick is most interested in examining the nature of the subjective experiences that violence and harmony (and thereby social context) spring from. Why is it a WASP family? Because that's Malick's family, he's as much called it an autobiography. As far as the very direct Oedipal structure goes, I think if anything the film purposefully subverts that by pushing the structure/editing to a breaking point, shooting off from one vingette to another and back again. It stresses the constantly shifting, organic complexity that we limit with concepts like Oedipus, to our detriment. I'd give it another go sometime, I think there's more there than you're giving it credit for.
|
| # ? Jul 31, 2011 04:59 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 09:45 |
|
|
deptstoremook posted:Well I think it's like a practical joke, where everyone tells you the baseball game is on Wednesday, and then you realize that they fooled you and there's nobody out there but a guy with a lawnmower humming "Yankee Doodle," and also there was never going to be a baseball game because the players were on strike. Kind of funny, but also kind of embarrassing. Your tangent is embarrassing. Are you on drugs? deptstoremook posted:I just began to tire of this tale of the suffering bourgeoisie, and the blatantly offensive intimation that the ne plus ultra of the universe's formation is a bunch of archetypal American WASP oppressors. I think that's a legitimate critique, but we don't have to talk about how the film reinforces privilege I guess. What a loving clod you are. Yes, please expound on the minutiae of our collective caste-guilt utilizing the breadth of your fully-blossomed undergrad intellect. Derrida's corpse is mocking you from a pine box.
|
| # ? Jul 31, 2011 05:11 |
|
