|
At this point in the thread, I'm not sure if anyone is actually engaged in serious discussion or just performing elaborate troll rituals. But I did find the perfect tweet for a TL;DR: https://twitter.com/Goons_TXT/status/368190471426035712
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 20:34 |
|
OK consider me trolled, I hate myselfLord Krangdar posted:Freud has influenced how people think human psychology works, and the terms they use to think about it. The vast majority of people know nothing about Freud beyond a few pop-culture buzzwords, and even less about Lacan. You can argue some vague universal unconscious understanding of it, but good luck with that. quote:Asking me to prove vocabulary is absurd and shows you're still not grasping the language comparison at all. Why not ask me to prove all the words in the preceding sentence are part of English vocabulary, and prove how I know what they mean? Just because I used the word "asking' doesn't make it a real word, right? Same with "me" "to" "prove" "vocabulary" "is" "absurd" "and" "shows" "you're" "still" "not" "grasping" "the" "language" "comparison" "at" and "all". Why, none of those words are even real science! It's easy to prove vocabulary, or anyway establish it with a reasonable degree of certainty. If you want to know whether "ask" is part of the English language and what it means, there are any number of ways to proceed: you can poll a representative sample of English speakers, you can Google the word and see in what contexts people are using it, etc. Now try the same thing with a representative sample of filmgoers and "what does a jaeger sword symbolise?" The answer may surprise you! "Oh, but the filmgoers who didn't answer 'sword=penis' are illiterate." At which point we're at a circular definition where "literate" means "sees penises" and "sees penises" means "literate", which is useless. e: VVVVVV euphronius posted:People have been saying phallus, not penis, and you insistence to keep using penis is indicative of your desire to misrepresent and argue in bad faith I think. Sure, I can say "phallus" if you want. It doesn't change the argument in the slightest. Clipperton fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Aug 22, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 16:20
|
|
|
People have been saying phallus, not penis, and you insistence to keep using penis is indicative of your desire to misrepresent and argue in bad faith I think.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 16:39
|
|
|
euphronius posted:People have been saying phallus, not penis, and you insistence to keep using penis is indicative of your desire to misrepresent and argue in bad faith I think. This is the important nuanced distinction(power dynamics within relationships etc), the general issue of contention seems to rooted in the nature of narratives(parables/art/symbolic meaning expressed through texts) and the ideal at the heart of communicating through(or as) religion(art) not science. The pseudo techno-babble science on screen through the Simulacra has no bearing on the reality of science in the Real, this isn't to say it's not commenting on that relationship or our relationship with those opposing cultural forces. Earlier in the thread I mentioned a quote from Kingdom of Heaven "None have claim, all have claim", honestly that movie helps me understand this one tremendously, but couldn't make the connection consciously at the time. Also something stuck out about Maxwell Lord's use of the word amateur in relation to the discussion in general(and this point/reference will maybe help illustrate). Honestly it's such a bizarre concept to me fundamentally I still can't comprehend the meaning. Discussion as commodity(capitalism is the default driving political/economic/cultural(etc) force today, maybe the context was intended differently i.e playing the game of baseball, but still) with implications of, amateur being unpaid(inferior?)? professional being paid(superior?)? should I just regurgitate points made by talking heads and points from the media today as if they have greater validity over myself(ourselves)? this isn't to discount influence but trying to be aware(the why) of it. For example there are many quotes and scenes from Kingdom of Heaven that help this discussion and this movie and more succinctly can illustrate my point of view(to use a quote from a quote "diving within"), but I'll just use the two for now. quote:Godfrey of Ibelin: Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless and do no wrong. That is your oath. quote:Bishop, Patriarch of Jerusalem: Who are you? Do you think you can change the World? Does making a man a knight make him a better fighter? e:This also has significance with Hellboy 2 "If you cannot command, than you must obey". e2:Sorry for this, but it's such a great example, another scene this time from Galaxy Quest, in relation to all this(the commentary on relationships between the real, simulacra, (pseudo-science)technobabble, science and so on) and what SMG was demonstrating just now with regards to Pacific Rim(You're not the animal, you are the person who will survive the experience(transportation through the conveyor(simply, the experience of sharing, communicating, accepting, interpreting, re-interpreting, the cycle of death and rebirth of the self(more recently, breaking bad and the star trek script, we can empathise with the monster Walt has become without ignoring the why))). It's a simple but beautifully executed message, we can all theoretically(magically?) be reached(empathy) despite vast distances between us and even joke about it. brawleh fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Aug 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 17:05
|
|
|
Hey I have a couple of porn flicks I really need deconstructed, do you guys accept PMs? I'm not entirely sure of the imagery.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
Kaiju are placental mammals. Where are their nipples? Can they be milked? Are there any industrial uses for their milk like the rest of their effluvia?
jscolon2.0 fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Aug 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 17:27
|
|
jscolon2.0 posted:Kaiju are placental mammals. Where are their nipples? Can they be milked? Are their any industrial uses for their milk like the rest of their effluvia? What did you think that blue stuff they were drinking in the Shatterdome cafeteria was?
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 18:53
|
|
|
Lightanchor posted:Everything Karl Marx wrote has been thoroughly discredited by someone at some point, I heard. So I don't understand why you guys keep talking about "class" issues. Don't you realize the government acts in all our best interests? That's what most people think, but I guess you all are just more enlightened than everyone else. Do you think the government has some secret motivation behind their actions? Do you think when you become rich you just suddenly hate poor people? Come on. I love the fact that you admit in the first sentence you don't really know whats going on but then wade in and try anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 18:53
|
|
|
As an aside, the sheer amount of dosh that China's brought in is absurd. No wonder nobody wants to offend them anymore. EDIT: A Dirty Sock posted:At this point in the thread, I'm not sure if anyone is actually engaged in serious discussion or just performing elaborate troll rituals. Yup. I barely respect that people find analysis discussion interesting, or at the very least fertile ground for fun at others' expense, but it's a shame that the discussion's never actually gone anywhere. It's also a bit of a shame that it's not very helpful from a creative perspective, except to show where GDL made an attempt to show one thing, and people decided to interpret it another way. Which you can't really do much for, so it's still pretty unhelpful anyway. But at least we haven't reached Outsider Art Exhibit levels of condescension yet. Runa fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Aug 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
All this talk about Freud and phalluses (phalli?) has me thinking that everybody is seriously talking past one another. Instead of using words like "symbols" and "meaning" which can suggest some sort of direct one-to-one code that only those with liberal arts degrees can decipher, lets swap them out for words that are a little less loaded. How about "images" and "connotations?" I don't know why anybody would want to disagree that PR is a film that contains images, and that all images carry connotations of some kind, and that those connotations may be different for different people, and many of them may be shared. An oversimplified example of this is something like swearing. For a lot of English speakers, exclaiming "oh my god" is an inoffensive, automatic exclamation. My grandma, however, finds it very offensive because of her beliefs and personality; the Bible forbids taking God's name in vain, and my grandma believes casually saying "oh my god" fits the bill. She's not the only one. However, it's such a ubiquitous turn of phrase that I expect most people say it without really reflecting on why they say that as opposed to anything else. Many people say it who don't believe in god at all, and consider that traditional religions have been debunked, and yet still mention god regularly by doing so. Why? I don't think there is one answer for this, but I think you wouldn't be wrong to suggest that it has to do with the fact that western civilization emerges from a specific history in which the language and values of a Christian tradition have been singularly influential, and continue to be influential. Saying "oh my god" may not be calculated to draw on that history, nor intended to offend, nor intended to testify to a belief in god, but still carries with it that connotation. And if you try to explain to my grandma why she shouldn't be offended by it or register it as a mockery of her beliefs, I'd be happy to tell you you are being an insensitive rear end in a top hat. The visual vocabulary of the western world is certainly influenced by our understanding of history and culture. If you make an image in which New York is destroyed, be prepared to have some folks understand or relate this to 9/11. If you make a basically identical image in which a Japanese city is destroyed, be prepared to have some folks understand or relate this to the atomic bomb. Let's try to apply this same notion of connotations to the image of a sword. I don't think we'll get anywhere if we pretend that Freud was not one of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century, and regardless of how his theories have held up under scrutiny, they have had a profound effect on our culture and schools. We needn't say anymore about him, but I will add that the connection between a phallus and a sword is far from esoteric, because of Freud's profound effect on the development of western culture (regardless of how silly one may find that). A sword is built to be long and hard and sharp, and its purpose is to cut and fight with. A sword may be used to thrust and penetrate and wound or else to defend. Obviously there are some differences between a sword and a penis. At least between a sword and my penis, anyways. We may also notice that the specific sword in the movie is retractable. None of this means that swords = phalluses, not argument. It does suggest however, that it is far from "out of nowhere" to draw the connection. Obviously, there are people who are drawing it. They draw it because they've been conditioned by their education to draw it, because they can see a thematic fit for such a reading, and because they do not think the filmmakers were ignorant of the cultural connotations and metaphorical weight that a sword might have. Thinking from a different angle, if Mako's awakening to her potential had coincided with a different capability than a sword or a gun, would people even try to mount an argument or reading in this vein? What if she whipped out a lasso, or activated a cloaking mechanism, or a force field? A lasso would have different connotations - it would be related to Wonder Woman, and also ranching and subduing dangerous or rowdy animals. A cloaking mechanism would relieve Mako of the pressures of being seen (an object of somebody else's sight) and would relate her culturally to something like a Predator (whose face has a much-commented-on vaginal aspect). A force field would show that Mako can protect herself and others, and make her invulnerable without having to pick on somebody else to prove it, differentiating her from a bully or an oppressor. The fact that the weapon in the movie is a retractable sword that grows when Mako gets serious may not have been intended to have the connotations it does have, but to deny that a sword is more phallic than any of these other options isn't terribly reasonable. This is getting long, but I'll try to finish my thought: if we can agree that a sword has more phallic connotations than do other weapons that could have been just as cool, can't we also agree that those connotations are not irrelevant to a discussion of the movie? Especially a discussion of the movie's gender politics? This isn't to say that any conclusive link is being established about the "true meaning of PR" and Freud, but rather that in attempting to read the film, the cultural baggage of its images is considered fair game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
T.G. Xarbala posted:As an aside, the sheer amount of dosh that China's brought in is absurd. I guess you could say China has lots of fans. (Because you see Crimson Typhoon had lots of spinning blades) 
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
Lucasar posted:A force field would show that Mako can protect herself and others, and make her invulnerable without having to pick on somebody else to prove it, differentiating her from a bully or an oppressor. Force fields as a feminine idea, in media I've seen, seem a way to ascribe superpowers to a female character without actually giving her the actual power to decisively end a threat herself. This is because, thanks to a soft, mushy understanding of the term, people equate it with "barriers" rather than the invisible forces permeating the physical world. It's common in predominantly patriarchal genre fiction, especially those conducive to the idea of fantastical powers in play, though better writers will make an effort to ensure that a "Force Field" can be a legitimately useful power as opposed to a token tossed to the woman in a cast. We're coming at this from different cultural angles, to be sure, since from a practical perspective I don't necessarily see why it's a bad thing to be equated to a bully or oppressor when meeting force with force. You might disagree, but I find the use of force at least justified when defensive. But yes Mako's sword was pretty amusingly donglike. It even starts off floppy. OldPueblo posted:I guess you could say China has lots of fans. Ow, my spleen!
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
T.G. Xarbala posted:Force fields as a feminine idea, in media I've seen, seem a way to ascribe superpowers to a female character without actually giving her the actual power to decisively end a threat herself. This is because, thanks to a soft, mushy understanding of the term, people equate it with "barriers" rather than the invisible forces permeating the physical world. It's common in predominantly patriarchal genre fiction, especially those conducive to the idea of fantastical powers in play, though better writers will make an effort to ensure that a "Force Field" can be a legitimately useful power as opposed to a token tossed to the woman in a cast. We're coming at this from different cultural angles, to be sure, since from a practical perspective I don't necessarily see why it's a bad thing to be equated to a bully or oppressor when meeting force with force. You might disagree, but I find the use of force at least justified when defensive. Yeah I wasn't trying to suggest that a force field is more feminine, only less phallic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
Lucasar posted:Yeah I wasn't trying to suggest that a force field is more feminine, only less phallic. Oh, sorry then. Gender ramifications of weapons and superpowers is something that does get my sincere attention, so the question of a weapon or power that isn't masculine yet isn't predominantly defensive in concept is one part of a bevy of topics I've been thinking about for a while.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 21:27
|
|
|
This issue here in all honesty, Liberalism, which is funny because you mention liberal arts degree and it's hard to read irony into your use of that. Provocations are apart of all works of art(discussion/communication), otherwise you have design by committee, which isn't an inclusive or collaborative effort in any meaningful sense nor will it really say anything directly meaningful. Rather it's just an attempt to merge as many subjective desires* into a product through ticking boxes, in essence advertising. You want to sell the ideas as easily as possible when honestly your relationship with art should be to symbolically wrestle with it. I try to be very careful when addressing the gender politics at play within Pacific Rim, not to say that's successful but it's always in my mind when formulating how to frame the points. But if you're saying that interpretations of art, art itself, should conform to your ideal of not causing offense I'd have to say no. You can make a subjective choice to engage with those interpretations or even the work itself, also the ideal behind religion(Jesus Christ was a provocative figure) isn't the same as those bore from the cultural and social systemic nature of Religion today or yesterday. For example, Richard Dorkins seems to have a willful fundamental problem with his understanding of religion to the point of parody, he's something of a Moses figure symbolically to some in their new religion of Atheism which has all the same fundamental problems of the systemic structure of religion, he is offensive but without his provocations I can't form this opinion. Understand when talking about coding all Kaiju female this isn't the same as all Kaiju being defined biologically as female, it has to do with societal and cultural norms i.e Man is default in our cultural gender binary. Under the umbrella of Woman is everyone, Trans, Gay, Lesbian, Bi, Heterosexuals. Answer me this, who is the target of the following insult "you throw like a girl". This ties to the whole point of artificial constructions presented as real which can distort reality itself if we don't understand what they mean and our own relationship with that meaning. You want to stop using symbolism and meaning as descriptors, Personally I won't do it(spurred this response, I mean it was good/worth thinking on) but you belittle people by not wanting to belittle people, It's whole lot of nothing like all liberalism. You want to talk about a depiction of a symbolic weapon that is defensive and where the weapon itself isn't phallic like within Pacific Rim, look to Leatherback. e:*messed up the wording there somewhat, also in relation to earlier talking points subjective desires and ideas aren't formed in a vacuum, we all have them but again it's about exploring why. brawleh fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Aug 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
It's important to note that "she wields a phallic symbol" isn't actually part of the case against Mako as a character. I think most of us would agree that Mako drawing and wielding the sword is one of the coolest moments in the film, and I don't think anyone's advanced the idea that the use of a sword somehow undermines Mako or renders Mako insufficiently feminine or something. The fight in Hong Kong and the subsequent stratospheric anime slice were one of the few times that we were allowed to see robots fighting monsters without shitloads of murky water or smoke or whatever cluttering everything up and slowing everyone down. That segment was easily my favorite part of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
Slattern figure is up for pre-order. $469.99 http://www.sideshowtoy.com/collectibles/pacific-rim-slattern-pacific-rim-sideshow-collectibles-400192  
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
brawleh posted:This issue here in all honesty, Liberalism, which is funny because you mention liberal arts degree and it's hard to read irony into your use of that. Provocations are apart of all works of art(discussion/communication), otherwise you have design by committee, which isn't an inclusive or collaborative effort in any meaningful sense nor will it really say anything directly meaningful. Rather it's just an attempt to merge as many subjective desires* into a product through ticking boxes, in essence advertising. You want to sell the ideas as easily as possible when honestly your relationship with art should be to symbolically wrestle with it. I try to be very careful when addressing the gender politics at play within Pacific Rim, not to say that's successful but it's always in my mind when formulating how to frame the points. Read my post more carefully: I didn't pose an ideal of "not causing offense." My example of offensive language was used in an attempt to illustrate how symbols and language and words are not culturally inert, even if the history and cultural associations of those symbols was not intentionally invoked. All usages emerge in contexts, and those contexts must be reckoned with when interpreting, and this is especially the case in a mass medium like film, where the context is extremely rich and broad. In other words, I think we agree on that point. The purpose of what I was writing was not to belittle, nor was I suggesting that there were no non-phallic weapons in the movie. I am only trying to point out how when somebody tries to use the language of symbolism and meaning to talk to somebody who does not have specific training in reading them, that this language can confound communication. Symbolism and meaning have colloquial definitions and usages, as well as more specialized definitions and usages in a critical context. Like the word "icing" means one thing to a hockey player (a foul), and another thing to a baker (frosting). I'm not trying to suggest that there are not importantly symbolic relationships and images with meanings in the film, but rather that when that language is used, it is abundantly clear that not everybody understands what is meantt. My post was an attempt to establish a common vocabulary between people coming at this from different educational backgrounds, not an attempt to dumb anything down. My encouragement to consider how other options in the imagery might have produced different meanings based on the differing histories and characteristics and contexts of different weapons is a way of trying to encourage viewers to unmoor their viewing from the literal. In any case "giant robot uses weapons to vanquish monstrous foe" may be the literal content on film, but that each decision made to render that content produces a comment by any number of symbolic contexts in which it participates.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I think most of us would agree that Mako drawing and wielding the sword is one of the coolest moments in the film, and I don't think anyone's advanced the idea that the use of a sword somehow undermines Mako or renders Mako insufficiently feminine or something. Is that what most of us think? I thought it was jarringly campy. Mako yells "This is for my family!" and katanas a kaiju to death. The samurai coding came from nowhere. She begins as an exotic woman shadowed in mystery, able to use her oriental kung-fu skills to beat the guys at their own game. But all those mysteries are revealed in the drift, where it turns out she's just an emotionally scarred little girl who can't control her deep-seated issues. She redeems herself when she becomes an oriental samurai warrior who wields a phallus to slit another orientalized & feminized being down the middle. Is this a feminist arc? One in which she was about to nuke her own military base because she couldn't handle herself until a man was able to calm her down? Neo-[authoritarian militarism with market support] allows women in its ranks, so long as they are virile. How does a woman become virile in this film? By being exotic, as with Mako and the only other woman pilot. Did she even have speaking lines before yelling things in combat? I just remember her strolling around all foreign looking. Also, a sword is the most phallic thing there is. The second most phallic thing is a penis.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
The words used are equally as important as the context given(or not), this gives further meaning beyond the words themselves and beyond the cultural baggage, it sets the words meaning in place within the given context of the discussion. I know you aren't trying to suggest the absence of symbolism and meaning and this might be unfair, but to paraphrase "Don't insult my Grandmother or I will be insulted by you" I can infer your reading but can't ignore mine. This isn't to say you intended my reading, but tonally it sets my reading, this point came up earlier as well in relation to talking about fascism. If we can't define elements within Pacific Rim as fascist because it will cause offense in trying to understand elements of the movie how else can we even begin to approach the discussion or the movie itself? If we have to obfuscate and assume the reader as will react badly is this not some form of infantilisation? the discussion as you suggest then that means we will be more likely to misconceive each other and for me has an implied condescending tone from the start. This is why discussion between Left and Right political positions are better honestly, we can define their shape. Liberalism wants to occupy your middle ground of an arbiter(as an adopted ideological state), for me I make a conscious effort(not saying I'm successful) in trying not to assume anything about the reader but just deal with the content of their communication(it's difficult). Not that less consideration of others is implied when trying to communicate far loving from it, we should be careful and measured as possible(even later redefine/refine our relationship in light of new information) but it will not always be accepted and there needs to be an emotional truth behind it(good faith). To use a very extreme example, if you see someone talking in such a way that you feel and know is alluding to sexism/racism should you not address it for what it is? isn't trying to spare their emotional response a way of sparing your own? Fundamentally using different descriptors can entirely warp a point from it's original intent, the issue is that through further expansive(further context) communication things will inevitably become clearer(if they are accepted is entirely another thing), even if only for yourself. When the obvious symbolic phallus is employed as a weapon against a textually coded female Kaiju(A pregnant Otachi) and is decried(to paraphrase) just drawing dicks everywhere, obfuscation will not help things. Like SMG, myself included, we make a conscious effort not to ignore the Kaiju(we identify with them), all relationships within the movie come back to the Kaiju again Jaegers themselves are born from them. Yet in your own post and you ignore the Kaiju to focus on the idea that Phallus is a loaded word in relation to Mako. Talking about how implications would be different if the symbolic form of the weapon was different, well yeah, but context gives better understanding. The sword goes from limp to erect, thrust into Otachi to go even further creates yonic slits from which a baby Kaiju is born on screen. If there are other meanings to this, by all means I'm interested in reading them, but don't demand or attempt to warp a reading that uses descriptors that correctly gives context to their meaning. I agree that we understand each other, I just don't think we actually agree, I'm constantly trying to re-read your response in order not to misconstrue your point. My first post was intentionally provocative(I enjoyed your post) now comes something much more considered, regardless of educational background or personal cultural backgrounds this is about the basic human element in literacy(communication that's not always audible, subtleties in visual expressions for instance can say much more than words) that is integral to all our relationships but their may not be a way to reconcile ideological positions that are fundamentally opposed. brawleh fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Aug 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
Lightanchor posted:Is that what most of us think? I thought it was jarringly campy. Mako yells "This is for my family!" and katanas a kaiju to death. The samurai coding came from nowhere. She begins as an exotic woman shadowed in mystery, able to use her oriental kung-fu skills to beat the guys at their own game. But all those mysteries are revealed in the drift, where it turns out she's just an emotionally scarred little girl who can't control her deep-seated issues. She redeems herself when she becomes an oriental samurai warrior who wields a phallus to slit another orientalized & feminized being down the middle. Is this a feminist arc? One in which she was about to nuke her own military base because she couldn't handle herself until a man was able to calm her down? See, I'd tell you that the rest of the movie was jarringly not campy. Mako cutting a monster in half with a sword while shouting something in Japanese was cool - the imagery was bright and distinctive, the motion was clear and stylized, etc etc. So much of the rest of the movie is people arguing in hallways or robots trudging through seawater and squinting through silt, but in the second half of the Hong Kong fight PR actually let its hair down and decided to have a little fun. Otherwise I agree completely with your analysis - I don't think Mako's a particularly feminist character or that that scene is notably redeeming or empowering or something. (I think she would be if she did all the same stuff but if the film was actually scripted/shot such that she was the main character, but that's a different conversation) But, it was neat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 00:51
|
|
|
Just in case you wanted to see what she's like when she's not screaming and terrified, here's Mana Ashida (the girl who played child Mako in the flashbacks) playing with some capybaras. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOdHhEph9oU
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
Thanks for taking the time to respond, but I can't help but feel that you're reading a normative judgment out of my example with my grandmother. My point was not "don't insult my grandmother" but rather "what insults my grandmother may not be intended as an insult, or understood as an insult to others." This is to illustrate an example of unintentional miscommunication. I therefore find it perfectly acceptable to define elements within Pacific Rim as fascist, regardless of who that offends. I make no statement (or perhaps I did, if so point it out) about whether or not offense is a factor, only that not everybody uses terms the same way, and if so, why not acknowledge that? If attempting to find or establish a common vocabulary is infantilising, continuing to speak in incompatible jargons is what? Respectful and honest? In reading this discussion I have seen some people use the word "symbolic" repeatedly. By examining their usage I begin to see what it is they seem to be describing by that word. It is not what I use the word to mean, nor what that person's conversation partner appears to mean. By suggesting a common definition and usage be established, I fail to see how anything dishonest or condescending is being undertaken. To use an extreme example, when you go somewhere and do not speak the native language, you can carry on in your best English, speaking with all your best respect, and not make a word of sense to anybody, or you can make broad gestures and point to things in an attempt to understand and be understood. This needn't come as a token of condescension, nor at the expense of also using your best English. Ignoring a failure to communicate or refusing to think of new ways of expressing yourself does not seem to be an effective method of bringing people together. If hoping that people can be brought together in mutual understanding (not assent or agreement or unity, but understanding), and doing what I can to facilitate such understanding makes me a middle grounded Liberal, then I suppose I'm guilty. I have no interest in sparing anybody's emotional response, nor have I said as much. Using different descriptors can indeed warp a point from its original intent, but no more so than using shabby or descriptors in the first place. I agree that further context can provide more traction for real communication. I fail to see how attempting to agree on an operational definition for a recurring term in the conversation constitutes an obstacle to that process. I ignored the Kaiju in my earlier post, that is true. I was speaking more about the discussion of the film, and the particular hang-up over Freudian terminology, than I was attempting to provide a novel reading of the film. Rather than simply repeat that there is phallic imagery, I attempted to provide an entry point to that reading that I hoped would help somebody see how and why it keeps getting brought up. I nowhere suggested that sword=phallus is a reading of the film, or sufficient insight on its own to produce a reading, only that in order to have a precise discussion, knowing why people insist on sword=phallus would be helpful for people who do not otherwise take that as obvious. I have no wish to reconcile fundamentally opposed ideological positions, only to foster constructive conversation as opposed to talking past one another. Or are you trying to say that talking past one another is the ideological position you feel is being expressed by your conversation partners in this thread?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
T.G. Xarbala posted:Oh, sorry then. Gender ramifications of weapons and superpowers is something that does get my sincere attention, so the question of a weapon or power that isn't masculine yet isn't predominantly defensive in concept is one part of a bevy of topics I've been thinking about for a while. In X-Men: First Class, you have an especially pronounced gap between Magneto - whose superpower is used to launch knives at people, and (at one point) to take a whole submarine and erect it 30 degrees - and Professor X, who basically employs a gaydar and uses empathy powers. That's the whole 'agency vs. communion' thing in a nutshell. There's an illustrative overlap between the mutant powers in First Class and those employed by Gipsy Danger. In first class, Havok is this manly dude who lashes out with random fire, until he learns to channel it as a beam from a circular panel on his chest. They help him to aim his bright pink beam by giving him unclothed lady mannequins as practice targets. There's also Banshee, who aims his sonic powers downwards in order to suspend himself in the air (his sexual hang up is some sort of goony autism that disgusts girls, til he learns to control his voice). You get a combination of their two abilities in Gipsy Danger's otherwise-inexplicable chest turbine. The phallic revenge-knife connection to magneto is fairly obvious. On the other side, Otachi's skillset matches up with the bug lady who deploys acid spit and fleshy wings from within her body (Otachi is also roughly similar to Dren from the Del Toro-produced film Splice, with her prehensile tail and hidden wings). We can also talk about Storm with the obvious godlike weather-control fury thing, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
Lucasar posted:I have no wish to reconcile fundamentally opposed ideological positions, only to foster constructive conversation as opposed to talking past one another. Or are you trying to say that talking past one another is the ideological position you feel is being expressed by your conversation partners in this thread? Very much so or I interpret it as such, I mean the difference in our positions are by fraction of degrees(potato, patato), but to me the distinction is important enough here(at least now) that I can't let them go(previous derail regarding symbolism, no less valuable but I'm not wanting to make worse?(harder to back down when what I see as obvious symbolism is warped into something it isn't) always trying to bring connections back to the movie and discussion itself), it's also hard for me to differentiate those fraction of degrees with past discussion. The insult element indeed is unintended, what's said is often as important as what isn't what matters is your emotional reaction to your grandmother being upset(hope that makes sense)* to me. A truth at the core of our collective experience(how I would see reconciliation needing that emotional truth, even if reconciliation doesn't come about) otherwise it's difficult for me to see a truthful understanding coming to fruition. For me the importance of context is so we can utilize our own descriptor in relation to that context, so to speak, I don't need you to use symbolic to understand you mean symbolic but the context inherent within may change or shed new light upon things. I understand it's not your intent to take that position(middle ground) but for me you are putting yourself in that position, the problem with it for me means you'll always be pulled one way or the other in a sense that's the obfuscation rather than more direct communication(I don't see people talking past each other but then I am bias so again it's difficult to fully be aware of that, at least in the moment). Your imaginative alternate Pacific Rim was great but it was a construction(relates to all my earlier points which aren't aimed at it or you, again it's difficult conceptually to wrestle away from in totality) from the reality that is Pacific Rim for me(that seems odd to say) and a lot of this thread. Not listening for me would be the fundamentally opposed position from listening, to illustrate the point, it is my position of bias I'm trying to listen, just not sure if listened too(it is I know) this is the fundamental contention in the disagreements but there is nothing substantive behind those disagreements to combat this reading of Pacific Rim that makes me think it is possibly being listened too but also ignored(this isn't a slight we all have bias to some degree), they often don't say much at all(could be a failure to listen on my part) and so my position becomes further entrenched just naturally by continuing my current line of exploration of the movie.(enjoyed this dialogue, just worry it's a derail) Sorry to expand! eventually there comes a point where a (truthful)understanding is reached and you can(perhaps) see no reconciliation or words changing things so you ask what does that leave and what does that mean? e:*like giving context and symbolic colour to perception. e2:For further context, I understood what you intended in your example of the zoo earlier, but someone else took a very different meaning from those same words(no less emotionally truthful) I could understand their position and actually this helps me better understand your intent it's just, you'll never reach a point where there isn't a point of contention between people when trying communicate. What's more important is context(symbolism/meaning for me to better understand both positions) and sometimes that simply can't be overcome(patience is what's needed not necessarily immediate action, if you were to have given another example chances are that would have been seen again differently and so you begin refining your original ground making clearer your intent but their may still be disagreements. Through the context of further communication(posting) you can infer their intent in that sense we gain our truthful understanding. e3:vvv Lucasar I agree with that, in a weird way I see us making the same point you are correct. Hell I made that mistake earlier in thread through misguided frustration and from then to now tried to be much more aware of that, apologies then again it's an interesting illustration of the point. brawleh fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Aug 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
PaganGoatPants posted:Slattern figure is up for pre-order. $469.99 BattleMaster posted:Just in case you wanted to see what she's like when she's not screaming and terrified, here's Mana Ashida (the girl who played child Mako in the flashbacks) playing with some capybaras.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 01:40
|
|
Solenna posted:She is absolutely adorable and they did a fantastic job casting her, because I think her scenes could have gone really stupid and grating really fast, but they didn't. Apparently when she met Del Toro he asked her to call him "Totoro" which is just  incarnate.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
Lightanchor posted:Also, a sword is the most phallic thing there is. The second most phallic thing is a penis. Pretty sure a hotdog outranks a sword.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 02:06
|
|
|
brawleh posted:The insult element indeed is unintended, what's said is often as important as what isn't what matters is your emotional reaction to your grandmother being upset(hope that makes sense) to me. A truth at the core of our collective experience(how I would see reconciliation needing that emotional truth, even if reconciliation doesn't come about) otherwise it's difficult for me to see a truthful understanding coming to fruition. I won't say much more to this, you are correct in identifying a derail, but I want to respond to what I feel here is this misunderstanding of my original post: I posted:Many people say it who don't believe in god at all, and consider that traditional religions have been debunked, and yet still mention god regularly by doing so. Why? I don't think there is one answer for this, but I think you wouldn't be wrong to suggest that it has to do with the fact that western civilization emerges from a specific history in which the language and values of a Christian tradition have been singularly influential, and continue to be influential. Saying "oh my god" may not be calculated to draw on that history, nor intended to offend, nor intended to testify to a belief in god, but still carries with it that connotation. And if you try to explain to my grandma why she shouldn't be offended by it or register it as a mockery of her beliefs, I'd be happy to tell you you are being an insensitive rear end in a top hat. It is not my emotional reaction to my grandmother's being upset, but my emotional reaction to somebody explaining why my grandmother hasn't every right to be upset that is the issue. See if this helps: 1. "oh my god" :: "a sword is a phallus" 2. a particular belief in God :: a particular sensitivity to psychosexual imagery 3. there is skepticism about God :: there is skepticism about Freud 4. reacting in any way to to "oh my god" :: reacting in any way to "sword as a phallus" 5. denying the legitimacy of that reaction on the basis of skepticism :: denying the legitimacy of that reaction on the basis of skepticism My attempt was to set up a parallel wherein people saying "Alien has no sexual imagery, because Freud has been debunked and there are no literal dongs" can be compared to people saying "You can't be offended by my taking god's name in vain because there is no god." The existence of God and the veracity of Freud have no bearing on whether or not people responses are honestly fueled by them, and to deny people their reactions on the basis of some appeal to what is and isn't true in some scientific sense makes you insensitive. Is that clearer? Or am I telling you something new? The reason I keep replying in detail is because I feel this point is where you have missed my meaning, and in fact are responding to me with much of what I believed I was saying, as though it were a counterargument.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
OldPueblo posted:Pretty sure a hotdog outranks a sword. I wonder which has killed more people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 02:31
|
|
|
Uncle Wemus posted:I wonder which has killed more people. Nasty hot dogs obviously.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 02:58
|
|
|
Hey kids! Get your posters on eBay of famous jaegers such as Crow T. Robot, Snake Eater, and Makes Your Shoes (I laughed way too hard at that one)! http://www.ebay.com/itm/99-Pacific-Rim-Ron-Perlman-Hot-Movie-43-x24-Poster-/221271456370?pt=Art_Posters&hash=item3384ce7a72 New topic! Knockoffs don't make anyone knock it off! Discuss! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
Clipperton posted:Apparently when she met Del Toro he asked her to call him "Totoro" which is just Del Totoro? Brilliant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 03:10
|
|
|
Clipperton posted:The vast majority of people know nothing about Freud beyond a few pop-culture buzzwords, and even less about Lacan. You can argue some vague universal unconscious understanding of it, but good luck with that. Where you've gone wrong here is calling them "buzz-words". Freud's ideas have entered common English vocabulary as words, and those words still carry the essences of the concepts they were coined to represent (albeit taken out of context in Freud's body of work and subject to evolving, nebulous meanings like all words). You need not be a follower of Freud to accuse someone of being egotistical, to call someone out on a "Freudian slip", to say someone is being annoyingly anal (retentive) or repressed, to refer to the unconscious mind, or to libido, and so on. quote:It's easy to prove vocabulary, or anyway establish it with a reasonable degree of certainty. If you want to know whether "ask" is part of the English language and what it means, there are any number of ways to proceed: you can poll a representative sample of English speakers, you can Google the word and see in what contexts people are using it, etc. Now try the same thing with a representative sample of filmgoers and "what does a jaeger sword symbolise?" The answer may surprise you! Let's take a non-Freud, non psycho-sexual example. How could I prove to someone, someone who has already dismissed the idea, that a light-bulb appearing above a character's head is a symbol showing that character has gotten an idea or "eureka moment"? Sure, I could show them examples but they could just call it a circular argument: I see that meaning in the examples because I believe its there, they don't because they don't. So how would I prove it? The thing is, we don't prove language. We learn it. Nobody had to prove the light-bulb symbolism to me, I learned it and the rest of my visual vocabulary by engaging with visual language. Back to Freudian poo poo: have you ever seen this painting by Salvador Dali, titled (in translation) "Virgin Buggered by Her Own Chastity" or "Young Virgin Auto-Sodomized by Her Own Chastity":  Take a look at that image, and then consider for me how such an image relates to establishing the validity of non-literal sexual imagery as part of visual language (keeping in mind the standards you just laid out). The way I see it, you can take this painting as an example and learn the visual vocabulary it uses, or you can stubbornly miss the point and ask me to prove that there's phallic imagery there. quote:"Oh, but the filmgoers who didn't answer 'sword=penis' are illiterate." At which point we're at a circular definition where "literate" means "sees penises" and "sees penises" means "literate", which is useless. If someone doesn't see that meaning for one particular symbol that doesn't make them illiterate, it just means that symbol or that meaning of it is not part of their vocabulary. Nobody who watches films could be completely illiterate in visual language; once again, without any interpretation of symbols a film is just meaningless lights and sounds. The problem is when people reject the entire idea of imagery, or hold it to a different and impossible standard in comparison to forms of interpretation they are more comfortable with. A better poll would be to ask a sample of film-goers who are open and aware of the idea of imagery in film- not necessarily Freudian imagery, just meaning beyond basic plot. Of course people who have chosen or been convinced/conditioned to reject (usually angrily) even the mere suggestion of imagery, themes, or non-literal meaning in film would reject the idea of a sword symbolizing a phallus- we both know that. Also, all definitions are circular in a sense; words gain meaning from how they are used, and they are used for what they mean. There is no objectively true definition for any word or symbol outside of that cycle, which is why its silly to ask me to prove one to you. quote:Sure, I can say "phallus" if you want. It doesn't change the argument in the slightest. It does; nobody is arguing the sword is a literal penis or even that it represents a literal penis. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Aug 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 03:17
|
|
|
Lucasar, if you're interested I've more I'd like to talk to you about in regards that topic of conversation(really enjoyed it) just doesn't relate to Pacific Rim, shoot me a PM
brawleh fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Aug 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 03:55
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:It's important to note that "she wields a phallic symbol" isn't actually part of the case against Mako as a character. [...] I don't think anyone's advanced the idea that the use of a sword somehow undermines Mako or renders Mako insufficiently feminine or something. I think it's pretty clear that both of these arguments exist in the wild, some of them even recently.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 04:20
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Where you've gone wrong here is calling them "buzz-words". Freud's ideas have entered common English vocabulary as words, and those words still carry the essences of the concepts they were coined to represent (albeit taken out of context in Freud's body of work and subject to evolving, nebulous meanings like all words). You need not be a follower of Freud to accuse someone of being egotistical, to call someone out on a "Freudian slip", to say someone is being annoyingly anal (retentive) or repressed, to refer to the unconscious mind, or to libido, and so on. It's still a superficial understanding of Freud/Lacan/whoever, which was my point. quote:Let's take a non-Freud, non psycho-sexual example. How could I prove to someone, someone who has already dismissed the idea, that a light-bulb appearing above a character's head is a symbol showing that character has gotten an idea or "eureka moment"? You do it the same way I talked about with English words - you can, just for example, poll a random sample of people and see how many of them interpret it as a character getting an idea. You can't "prove" it, but if you can establish that an overwhelming majority of people interpret it that way, then that's as close as you can reasonably get to demonstrating that that's what it "means". If you did that with "Jaeger sword=phallus" and got a statistically-significant result, I'd be happy to go by that. Also I never dismissed any ideas dude, I just wanted to see some evidence for them (and not even 100% rock-hard incontravertible evidence either, just something, anything, that supported them). I still haven't seen jack nor poo poo beyond people quoting century-old pseudoscience. quote:Back to Freudian poo poo: have you ever seen this painting by Salvador Dali, titled (in translation) "Virgin Buggered by Her Own Chastity" or "Young Virgin Auto-Sodomized by Her Own Chastity": Yeah, that's a dong. I do see dongs in things occasionally, you know:  Jaeger swords (and alien worms) are not among them. If someone else wants to see dongs there, then more power to them and their little dong-addled brain, but that's where we part company. quote:The problem is when people reject the entire idea of imagery, or hold it to a different and impossible standard in comparison to forms of interpretation they are more comfortable with. Good thing I never rejected the idea of imagery then! Just the universal validity of one particular kind. Also it's hardly an impossible standard, but I do see this kind of thing a lot with Lacanians et al: "  How dare you ask us for empirical evidence? What are you, some kind of scientist?" quote:A better poll would be to ask a sample of film-goers who are open and aware of the idea of imagery in film- not necessarily Freudian imagery, just meaning beyond basic plot. Try it. I bet a big chunk of them would still not say "phallus".
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
Calling something "phallic" is usually accurate, but it is just one attribute that an image can possess, and often not the most significant one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:I think it's pretty clear that both of these arguments exist in the wild, some of them even recently. Well, in particular meristem took extreme umbrage to the suggestion that Mako's weapon was a phallic symbol, but that strikes me as a bad ideological move because it leaves you either A) Getting annoyed whenever a female character uses a sword, spear, harpoon, lightsaber, etc B) Affecting such an extreme level of cinematic illiteracy that you refuse to accept that a flexible length of material that hardens and straightens in response to its wielder's heightened emotional state is in fact a phallic symbol Like, the sword was a phallic symbol - that doesn't mean it automatically lessens or belittles any woman that wields it or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 04:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 20:34 |
|
|
Clipperton posted:Yeah, that's a dong. Okay, now prove it by your own stated standards. I want empirical evidence. At least we've now established that you accept phallic imagery is possible apart from literal depictions of genitals. Now, why don't these two examples meet your standard of "seeing in what contexts people are using" the vocabulary? Is it just a matter or needing more examples? (Again, the term phallus is not the same as penis, or dong.) quote:You do it the same way I talked about with English words - you can, just for example, poll a random sample of people and see how many of them interpret it as a character getting an idea. You can't "prove" it, but if you can establish that an overwhelming majority of people interpret it that way, then that's as close as you can reasonably get to demonstrating that that's what it "means". If you did that with "Jaeger sword=phallus" and got a statistically-significant result, I'd be happy to go by that. But we don't actually do that with English words. I use and understand lots of words without first establishing statistics on how the overwhelming majority of people interpret those words, and so do you, right? This is why I keep saying you still don't grasp the point of calling film a visual language, because you're still holding discussion of the two languages to such wildly different standards. Even if the majority of people denied the meaning of the light-bulb example, you and I still understand the same meaning there. Therefore something has been communicated by that symbol in a language common between us. And if English became a forgotten language and was only spoken by a small minority, that wouldn't render communication in English meaningless between remaining English speakers. The meaning of language is not dependent on a majority vote, or on statistics. quote:Good thing I never rejected the idea of imagery then! Just the universal validity of one particular kind. Also it's hardly an impossible standard, but I do see this kind of thing a lot with Lacanians et al: " Nobody said that (your quote). It's not a matter of "how dare you" at all. I was thinking of OldPueblo when I mentioned rejecting imagery entirely, sorry to be unclear. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Aug 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 04:46
|
|