|
PopZeus posted:Prefacing this by saying I 100% think you can read 300 as a satire (and that Synder's basically said as much), here's the best I can gather from seeing people's complaints.  The embellishments are throughout his tale though, they're in the movie and it’s kind of the point that he’s trying to seduce an audience. Showing the spartans as overweight or out of shape when pulling out from the storyteller at the end of his tale would simply make it parody rather than satire. Like, the movie came out at a time when American and British directly lead imperial projects in Iraq and Afghanistan were in full swing - it’s as relevant a work then as it is now. A major complaint about the movie you often saw, and still sometimes comes up, was that people felt alienated when their friends or whatever were identifying with the spartans. “I wanted to do something more than just a movie about giant bugs. What i tried to do is use subversive imagery to make a point about society. I tried to seduce the audience to join [Starship Troopers] society, but then ask, 'what are you really joining up for?'" - Paul Verhoeven
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 02:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 08:38 |
|
|
I think my biggest regret about 300 is that he didnt include the scene of them all brushing each others hair between battles
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 02:35
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:It's worth looking at Frank Miller's justification for his comic about a thinly-veiled Batman expy killing Osama bin Laden, a story he was shopping around at DC as early as 2006. I don't think Snyder set out to make fascist propaganda but Miller definitely, definitely wanted to. Yeah Miller is crazy, which is why it’s so cool that Snyder took 300 and turned it into a glorification of Al-Qaeda and then took Dark Knight Returns and made Batman the bad guy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 02:35
|
|
|
Cease, nobody can tell what the words you use mean because you have developed new definitions for everyday words and are deploying them randomly as though everyone is familiar. At this point, you need to stop whatever else you think you are doing and explain to us what you think a police officer is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 02:35
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I think my biggest regret about 300 is that he didnt include the scene of them all brushing each others hair between battles Also the scene of them sleeping together naked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 02:40
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Also the scene of them sleeping together naked. Yeah, I have trouble seeing elements of the hyper masculinity in that film as satire seeing as he added the line about "boy lovers" in Athens and took out the explicitly homoerotic context of the comic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 02:42
|
|
|
I think that was assuming historical knowledge, since the Spartans were more gay than Anthenians. In SST, I knew it was satire when the first "Would You Like to Know More?" commercial came on, since it was so obviously another, "Id Buy That For a Dollar!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 03:03
|
|
|
Darko posted:I think that was assuming historical knowledge, since the Spartans were more gay than Anthenians. I think that is often where Synder's satire fails, he rarely seems to successfully de-center the conversation in such a way that creates awareness of the fundamental criticism. Effective satire requires a moment where the reader becomes cognizant that something is off about the otherwise sincere portrayal and that is what leads the audience to be critical of what they are seeing. This was always the genius of Verhoeven because he was very skilled at inserting moments of narrative discomfort. I feel that too often Snyder fails to trigger this sense of a de-centered narrative, and simply assumes taking a context to 11 is a sufficient marker of satire. Unfortunately, especially in a stimuli-numbed audience, it fails to register as satire and instead comes off as bombastic sincerity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 03:12
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:"A Modest Proposal" was subversive because of its ridiculousness, which mirrored the normalized class-based cruelty and exploitation of British life. Feel free to disagree, but you've pointed to nothing concrete that meaningfully differentiates A Modest Proposal in the way you can identify it as satire. Mel Mudkiper posted:I think that is often where Synder's satire fails, he rarely seems to successfully de-center the conversation in such a way that creates awareness of the fundamental criticism. Effective satire requires a moment where the reader becomes cognizant that something is off about the otherwise sincere portrayal and that is what leads the audience to be critical of what they are seeing. This was always the genius of Verhoeven because he was very skilled at inserting moments of narrative discomfort. I feel that too often Snyder fails to trigger this sense of a de-centered narrative, and simply assumes taking a context to 11 is a sufficient marker of satire. Unfortunately, especially in a stimuli-numbed audience, it fails to register as satire and instead comes off as bombastic sincerity. In terms of "narrative discomfort" I think people get these feelings all the time with Snyder movies. Look at the Martha scene! But it seems like he always refrains from being too obvious in revealing the game. And to me, this speaks to exactly the issue people have with Snyder. In my opinion he commits to doing actual satire, and accepting the consequences of creating huge audience divides because people will actually disagree about what it's saying. EDIT: Honest question, since I haven't read A Modest Proposal: does it have any part that boils down to "lol wouldn't it be dumb if someone actually argued all this??" Or like, any kind of really overt winks at the reader? Martman fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 03:15
|
|
|
garycoleisgod posted:When I watched Starship Troopers the satire didn't click for me until Doogie Howser showed up dressed as a Nazi and then it clicked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 03:34
|
|
|
Martman posted:EDIT: Honest question, since I haven't read A Modest Proposal: does it have any part that boils down to "lol wouldn't it be dumb if someone actually argued all this??" Or like, any kind of really overt winks at the reader? Going in reverse but this is not what I meant by de-centering the narrative. Winking at the audience doesn't make good satire either, in fact its probably the worst kind of satire. De-centering a narrative requires dissonant moments that upset the cohesive narrative of the story. The doogie as an SS guard is a great example. Its not a winking acknowledgement of satire, its a striking and uncomfortable image that recontextualizes everything else you see or have seen. If Doogie was not dressed as a nazi, him reading the mind of the brain bug and going "it's afraid" would be a triumphant moment of victory. Instead, because we have been rendered uncomfortable by the dissonance of his appearance, we are better able to grasp the significance of the "good guys" gloating over a terrified survivor after a battle in a genocidal campaign. Martman posted:300 is subversive because of its ridiculousness, which mirrors the gung-ho racism, nationalism and bloodlust of America. This is where I disagree. An absurd portrayal in an absurd epoch cannot be effective satire just on the strength of its excessiveness. 300 fails as a satire for me because it doesn't ever create dissonance in the narrative. Satire is not effective when you do everything by the book, but excessively, and then expect the audience to see the excess as mocking rather than sincere. I have always found Snyder to be a director who clearly has ideas, but I also think he is tremendously clumsy in his handling of them. Having a message only a few skilled viewers can understand is not subtlety, it is a failure of craft. Martman posted:EDIT: Honest question, since I haven't read A Modest Proposal: does it have any part that boils down to "lol wouldn't it be dumb if someone actually argued all this??" Or like, any kind of really overt winks at the reader? Returning to this. No, A Modest Proposal doesn't have any scene like that. But again, that is not what a dissonant moment looks like.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 03:44
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:De-centering a narrative requires dissonant moments that upset the cohesive narrative of the story. The doogie as an SS guard is a great example. Its not a winking acknowledgement of satire, its a striking and uncomfortable image that recontextualizes everything else you see or have seen. If Doogie was not dressed as a nazi, him reading the mind of the brain bug and going "it's afraid" would be a triumphant moment of victory. Instead, because we have been rendered uncomfortable by the dissonance of his appearance, we are better able to grasp the significance of the "good guys" gloating over a terrified survivor after a battle in a genocidal campaign. I'm not saying Snyder does nothing but turn things up to extremes. I think he turns them to extremes in the uncomfortable ways you're describing but rarely pushes it into territory where the audience has no choice but to decide it's a joke. I understand that "wink at the audience" maybe puts a more comedic edge than what you were going for, but I don't think you're being as clear as you mean to about what this kind of dissonance is. If it really is a break in the "sincerity" of the portrayal, then yeah it kind of is a wink. And to follow up then, are there such moments of "narrative dissonance" in A Modest Proposal then? I meant to just ask for examples of the kind of thing you were describing, not to redefine it. Martman fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 04:33
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:I don't think fighting Nazis is morally distinct from fighting mass murderers. Cops don't fight fascists, whether or not they commit crimes, because cops are part of power structures that sympathize with fascists, power structures which may not even consider fascists to be committing crimes. The fantasy of the supercop is "What if police adhered to a supermoral ethical code?" In the case of a Nazi-fighting supercop, "What if a policeman adhered to a supermoral ethical code that saw planning for genocide as a crime?" You could call it supervigilante, too, if you like. I know you don’t. However, you are wrong. Many Nazis have not murdered anyone. Mass murderers are conversely not agitating for the reformation of society along murderous lines. The fight between a fascist and an antifascist is not about preventing or avenging a murder; it is over the structure of human society. You seem to think that Nazis are bad because they are likely to break the law. Cops are agents of the state. Some superheroes, such as the Superman of comic books, are also agents of the state, who throw criminals into jail and help the police with investigations and so on. However, the Superman of Man of Steel is not an agent or abetter of the state, and hence he is not a literal or figurative cop. If he was, I suspect you would like him a lot more, since he would be concerned with property damage reduction, status quo maintenance, and suppression of radical elements rather than a life or death war against fascism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 04:51
|
|
|
I would agree that Snyders style is nothing like Verhoeven, definitely, and would never knock a preference.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 04:52
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Yeah, I have trouble seeing elements of the hyper masculinity in that film as satire seeing as he added the line about "boy lovers" in Athens and took out the explicitly homoerotic context of the comic. I'm not stepping in to bat for the Zack-Man here, but I wonder how much of that was studio mandated. He really only had the Dawn remake under his belt at the time, but once 300 was a success Watchmen let its dick flag fly proud.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 04:53
|
|
|
Another thing regarding the Doogie-as-a-Nazi thing; according to Cease's logic it would seem that doesn't really count as enough of a dissonant moment? After all, nazis are real and some people support them, so audiences could easily view that as simply an endorsement of nazis being good at science and stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 04:58
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:You seem to think that Nazis are bad because they are likely to break the law. Cops are bad because they are complicit in oppressive power structures at best (and very often just abusive, hateful, and corrupt to boot). Nazis are bad because their political goals are mass murder and oppression, and vigilantes who beat the poo poo out of them in the real world are good. Feel free to gently caress off with this I'm-not-saying-you-actually-love-cops-but bad faith poo poo. Martman posted:This is exactly the thing I'm saying I think Snyder does all the time. Opening with baby murder is a great example! We are rendered uncomfortable by the dissonance of the main characters both slaughtering babies and being presented as cool and glorious. It's part of a story about how Sparta brutalizes its children to produce warriors of unsurpassed quality, and is loosely based on Sparta's own propaganda. It's not too ridiculous to be a story people have taken seriously because people have taken it seriously for centuries. This is the challenge of satire. Satire needs to kick the reader out of simply accepting it at face value, and there isn't one single right way to do this. A Modest Proposal, for example, did this by proposing something ridiculous on its face in a po-faced tone. Straight up making a historical case for eugenics isn't that, neither is framing the story as a narrative told by a character in the story. I'm kinda surprised Mudkiper didn't bring up 300 when talking about Snyder and male gaze, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 09:00
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:
Male gaze, more like the gay gaze amirite The male gayze of 300 Re satire in 300, the "kick" you are talking about happens at multiple points in the movie, the biggest of which is the reveal that this was all a story being told by Faramir. The traitor who's deformed and ugly, the peace loving senator who's a rapist AND a traitor, the homophobic portraysl of the persian king being a fem top that wants to dominate you, the persians having ogres(!), all that poo poo should be recontextualized as that dude grossly exaggerating and lying to goad the greeks into war. The over the top elements should make you roll your eyes and raise little red flags for how over the top they are and then make sense in an aha moment. Also I'm kinda disappointed Nodosaur didn't comment on the album I linked a while back, I was interested in his take on Batmans no kill rule clearly being a relatively recent invention. Edit: But for reals yo, the eye candy for my young gay self was unreal in 300. Between the army of naked men in 300, manhattans dong, Cavill shirtless and Batflecks ab/rear end, I feel his shots sexualize men a hell of a lot more than women McCloud fucked around with this message at 09:53 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 09:51
|
|
|
McCloud posted:Male gaze, more like the gay gaze amirite The oracle scene followed by the sex scene are pretty textbook, that's all. It was just something that reminded me of Mudkiper's argument earlier. A story related by a narrator-character is a pretty standard framing device you'd expect to see in any sort of movie. (Is Atomic Blonde a satire? It's over the top and narrated by a character, in a way we later come to realize is the POV of that character rather than a perfect narration.) Deformities betraying a spiritual failing, pacifists secretly desiring to undermine the state and betray it to its enemies, the invaders being subhuman monsters, and homophobic-stereotype antagonists are all reasonable things you'd expect to see in a straight fash narrative. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 10:26 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 10:20
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:It's part of a story about how Sparta brutalizes its children to produce warriors of unsurpassed quality, and is loosely based on Sparta's own propaganda. It's not too ridiculous to be a story people have taken seriously because people have taken it seriously for centuries. So, what in Starship Troopers or A Modest Proposal is too ridiculous to be taken seriously? Especially given the fact that plenty of people did, in fact, take Starship Troopers seriously. Specifically note that a man wearing a Nazi costume is, as you've argued, obviously not enough, given that nazis are real and real people support them. I guess, to put a pin in it, here's how I perceive your argument: -murdering babies for the benefit of society is definitely not ridiculous enough to constitute satire -murdering babies for the benefit of society specifically by eating them is definitely satire, because that's just crazy Martman fucked around with this message at 11:13 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 11:03
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 11:05
|
|
|
Martman posted:So, what in Starship Troopers or A Modest Proposal is too ridiculous to be taken seriously? Especially given the fact that plenty of people did, in fact, take Starship Troopers seriously. Specifically note that a man wearing a Nazi costume is, as you've argued, obviously not enough, given that nazis are real and real people support them. Starship Troopers is a lot of ridiculous things all adding together. The cheery tone, the useless-yet-brutal training framed as comedy, the fact that all of the surviving war heroes in recruiting are all horribly crippled ("The mobile infantry made me the man I am today"), stomping the cockroaches, the children fighting over an assault rifle, the fact that the soldiers all end up failing and dying gruesomely, the ridiculous casting, and the unexpectedly pitiable brain bugs ("It's afraid!"). Even so, it's still not wholly effective. (Even Robocop gets approving straightforward reads sometimes.) Eating babies, in the case of A Modest Proposal. Martman posted:I guess, to put a pin in it, here's how I perceive your argument: e: yeah this. It turns the normalized brutality against the poor into ridiculous brutality against the poor. It's also worth keeping in mind that A Modest Proposal is not a fictional story, but rather a "real" political essay. A political pamphlet has no standard of suspension of disbelief at all. Something that might be ridiculous in political writing is perfectly reasonable in a fictional story. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 12:08 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 11:41
|
|
|
Martman posted:This is exactly the thing I'm saying I think Snyder does all the time. Opening with baby murder is a great example! We are rendered uncomfortable by the dissonance of the main characters both slaughtering babies and being presented as cool and glorious. I think the issue with pointing to this element as a moment of de-centering is twofold. First, its both something in the original comic (admittedly not at the beginning tho) and consistent with actual history. Second, taken holistically, it seems to all contribute to a sort of Randian utopia perspective. It seems to imply that the power and nobility of the Spartans comes from the fact they have no weak or sick or lame to care for. The fact only the strong get to live is why they are so powerful. Keep in mind, this is a story in which a handicapped person is declared unfit to be a Spartan because he is misshapen and is proven right. His physical deforming becomes consistent with a moral deformity. I think arguably the two best places he could have caused decentering is on the issue of slavery. The Spartans are speaking highly of freedom, and are gleefully killing what are acknowledged to be slave soldiers for the sake of that freedom. However, the movie never points out that the spartans themselves owned slaves, and were deeply brutal to them. Have a moment where they speak highly of freedom as the source of their power as they are being served by slaves. Have them speak about how depraved it is that Persia is a kingdom of slaves while a slave prepares their weapons. Show that the Spartans are deluded hypocrites. Additionally, they could have added a moment in de-centering by pointing out there were nearly a thousand other greeks also at Thermopylae. Even the last stand included a few hundred other Greek soldiers. You could do a lot with the vanity of pointing out the heroes congratulating themselves as the sole preserver of Freedom and Greek culture while their allies are treated thanklessly despite their losses. quote:And to follow up then, are there such moments of "narrative dissonance" in A Modest Proposal then? I meant to just ask for examples of the kind of thing you were describing, not to redefine it. Honestly I would have to go back and check, its been years since I read it. McCloud posted:Re satire in 300, the "kick" you are talking about happens at multiple points in the movie, the biggest of which is the reveal that this was all a story being told by Faramir. The traitor who's deformed and ugly, the peace loving senator who's a rapist AND a traitor, the homophobic portraysl of the persian king being a fem top that wants to dominate you, the persians having ogres(!), all that poo poo should be recontextualized as that dude grossly exaggerating and lying to goad the greeks into war. The over the top elements should make you roll your eyes and raise little red flags for how over the top they are and then make sense in an aha moment. The problem is that this argument only works if you re-contextualize Greek culture to be something that would be incensed by these things. The movie rewrites the Greeks to align with modern conservative moral values, and it kind of removes the plausibility of an unreliable narrator appealing to those revisions as a satirical signal. Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 12:56 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 12:51
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Satire is not effective when you do everything by the book, but excessively, and then expect the audience to see the excess as mocking rather than sincere. That is actually the definition of satire, except for the part where you are worried about ‘sincerity’. Satire does not involve fretting over whether the plebs will ‘get it’, and is not necessarily intentional at all. That’s why we have The Room, and the phrase “unintentional self-parody” (although it, confusingly, refers to satire). There is overlap, but it’s important to know the difference. Parody is where you copy the form of a text but replace the content with overt jokes. Satire, on the other hand, is simply when you exaggerate an ideology to the point where its failings are overt. Robocop is mostly a satirical film, but the commercial interludes about the 6000 SUX and whatnot are parody, not satire. If you remove those commercials, as Verhoeven did with Total Recall, the film is indistinguishable from any other sci-fi action movie. Most people actually miss that it’s a satire of liberalism, where Robocop becomes a police drone with ‘a human face’ - still enslaved to the corporation but it’s now a friendly, ‘green’ corporation so I guess that’s ok? Doogie wearing a black uniform is not what makes Starship Troopers satire. Fascism isn’t bad because of the color of the uniforms. That’s not its failing as an ideology. And then, the film was made in the 1990s with the message “war makes fascists of us all”. Like Robocop, it is a satire of liberalism, with a multicultural federation facing off against the despotic, totalitarian brain-bugs. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 13:50 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 13:24
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Satire does not involve fretting over whether the plebs will ‘get it’, and is not necessarily intentional at all. That’s why we have The Room, and the phrase “unintentional self-parody” (although it, confusingly, refers to satire). I agree with this. Satire doesn't have to come from the conscious author figure to be satire. I certainly do not disagree with a viewing of 300, or any Snyder film, as satire. What I primarily disagree with is the implication that this viewing is an essential one, or that it is a failure on the part of a viewer to not share this interpretation SuperMechagodzilla posted:Satire, on the other hand, is simply when you exaggerate an ideology to the point where its failings are overt. That is certainly a form of satire but it is absolutely a reductive stance to reduce all satire to this process. Satire is about using a superficially authentic reproduction of form to criticize that form. Excess is certainly a form of that process, but I argue it is a clumsy and ineffective one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 13:51
|
|
|
Mel and Cease: is your contention that Snyder at least attempted satire and just failed horribly? Or that he actually carries fascist beliefs/is a fascist (as well as an objectivist for his desire to adapt The Fountainhead)? Cause a whole lot of people believe the latter and I am pretty sure that's where this convo started (or at least historically the satire thing has been brought up repeatedly in reference to The Fountainhead, and how he certainly doesn't want to do it as a satire because none of his movies are satirical).
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 13:58
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Satire is about using a superficially authentic reproduction of form to criticize that form. False. There is nothing in satire about 'superficial authenticity' overtop of a 'deep' inner meaning or whatever. As with Cease's complaint that Superman is a super-hero, your criticism of 300 is ultimately that it is satirical - that it exemplifies an ideology, exaggerating it in 'unnatural' ways that make people uncomfortable. Your only complaint is that it is 'clumsy', but in ways you cannot specify. So: "it bad."
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 14:04
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:Mel and Cease: is your contention that Snyder at least attempted satire and just failed horribly? Or that he actually carries fascist beliefs/is a fascist (as well as an objectivist for his desire to adapt The Fountainhead)? I tend, in general, to consider the question of artistic intent irrelevant. I primarily am concerned with the idea that a satirical viewing is primary and essential.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 14:09
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I tend, in general, to consider the question of artistic intent irrelevant. I primarily am concerned with the idea that a satirical viewing is primary and essential. Nobody has argued that "satirical viewing is primary and essential", because that's another nonsense phrase. Like, as opposed to 'secondary' and 'inessential' viewings? What the gently caress is an 'inessential viewing'? SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 14:14 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 14:12
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:What the gently caress is an 'inessential viewing'? The Incredible Hulk didn't really seem to matter in the long run
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 14:24
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Nobody has argued that "satirical viewing is primary and essential", because that's another nonsense phrase. do you consider certain viewings of a film to be more fundamental to the interpretation and discussion of the film, or are all honestly arrived interpretations equally valid?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 14:29
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:The Incredible Hulk didn't really seem to matter in the long run But then, which movies do?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 14:40
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:The Incredible Hulk didn't really seem to matter in the long run I’d argue it mattered to the canon more than Civil War or Age of Ultron.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 14:46
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:do you consider certain viewings of a film to be more fundamental to the interpretation and discussion of the film, or are all honestly arrived interpretations equally valid? We don't talk in terms of 'viewings'. We talk in terms of readings. And yes, the reading that 300 is told to us by an unreliable idiot narrator is stronger than the reading that infanticide is hella good. Again, as with Cease, you've developed a private pseudo-critical language that you expect others to automatically understand. So, through a lot of puzzling, we're figuring out that you mean 'unclumsy satire' somehow necessitates analysis. Those films that don't are 'inessential'. And again, you haven't actually explained what that means, except a vague reference to weird stuff. "Doogie is dressed as a nazi, and that's weird. This necessitates analysis." "The mountain of baby skulls is not weird. It does not necessitate analysis, and is somehow Randian.[???]" You are using a Star Trek-styled technobabble to generate synonyms for "good" and "bad". There are films that fail as satire - i.e. that are not conducive to being read as a satire. The first Iron Man is an example, because of the "infinite energy" plot point. Liberals don't actually believe in infinite energy; they believe in 'green' energy. Iron Man consequently does not exemplify liberal ideology. 300 does not have this issue. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 14:50 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 14:47
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:We don't talk in terms of 'viewings'. We talk in terms of readings. And yes, the reading that 300 is told to us by an unreliable idiot narrator is stronger than the reading that infanticide is hella good. then you understand what I mean by an essential viewing I tend not to use the term reading because while it is the correct term it also invites two or three posters inevitably going "how can you read a movie?" I actually had to edit my posts to say viewing because my inclination was, indeed, to use reading.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 14:50
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:then you understand what I mean by an essential viewing No, because there is nothing about essence or essentiality here. And where did the part about 'primacy' come from? Or 'fundamentals'? Or 'validity'? You're using words and concepts incorrectly. Your definitions of things like 'satire' and 'the gaze' are wrong in very straightforward ways, just as Cease defines a police officer as 'a person who may or may not be a police officer'. It's certainly not clarifying anything, or preventing people from getting confused & asking you what the hell you're talking about. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 14:55
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:then you understand what I mean by an essential viewing I don't think you're especially going to have that problem here fwiw
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 14:55
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:I don't think you're especially going to have that problem here fwiw good to know. I tend to err on the side of caution, especially after some of the issues that come off with stuff like that in TBB. SuperMechagodzilla posted:No, because there is nothing about essence or essentiality here. And where did the part about 'primacy' come from? Or 'fundamentals'? Or 'validity'? I'm a descriptivist my friend Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 14:57
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I'm a descriptivist my friend Then you are failing. Because, again, you are using words in ways that those you are addressing cannot understand without elaboration on your part. When you write about 'fundamental viewings', we were eventually able to figure out that you meant 'readings'. But then, where did the 'fundamental' part come from? What is a fundamental reading? Nobody has said anything about fundamental readings. You seem to maybe be using 'fundamental reading' as a synonym for 'good reading' - but that's not clear because you're simultaneously using that phrase interchangeably with 'essential reading' and 'primary reading'. And these phrases all mean entirely different things in everyday language.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 15:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 08:38 |
|
|
Apropos of nothing I thought about Total Recall and the character of Ritcher.He gets cucked by Arnie, undermined by his minions ( " I'm sure she hated every minute of it" followed by a fantastically timed cut ) disciplined by his boss (the one who orders his wife to fake that marriage) and finally dies a horrible death after getting both his arms ripped off and falling to his death for hundreds of meters.Even when he gets angry during a chase and his gun gets shot out his hands, he grabs a massive phallic shotgun to keep fighting. Never be medium management in a Verhoeven movie.Henchman die bad, but the individuals above them die bad and suffer prolonged insults to their dignities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 15:13
|
|
