|
Waffles Inc. posted:It's why everyone is trying to get you to speak plainly about what you mean--you're using language that is muddy or confusing or misleading and then getting upset when people are trying to get you to clarify Oh yeah I absolutely have a trend towards perhaps being a bit accidentally obscure but its also why, as I said, earlier, I am happy to explain what I mean I don't think I have gotten upset at anyone asking me to clarify things though? I got upset at SMG calling me an idiot who is making things up and then misrepresenting me when he responds.
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I think you are over-focusing on the exposed penis and not the whole "naked submission wrestling with opponents demanding more." I can attest that this is a subject matter where over-focusing is not possible
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:context - the significance behind images Ok, first problem: that's not what 'context' means. At all. Second problem: you didn't write 'context'. You wrote contextual, which is an adjective and not a noun, and consequently means something even more different. Third problem: the word 'cohesion' doesn't have anything to do with 'disparate elements'. Fourth problem: even by your own strange definitions, the idea of "creating a single coherent perspective" appears out of nowhere. You were talking about "significance behind images", not perspective. Those concepts are not at all interchangeable. Fifth problem: by defining 'cohesion' as 'coherence' you've effectively used the word you were trying to define in its own definition. Like, "I define blue as something blue-ish." I can keep going here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Ok, first problem: that's not what 'context' means. At all. This seems like an argument that is inevitably going to end at us throwing dictionaries at each other. All I will say is that you are wrong about both of these and I am not going to argue it. SuperMechagodzilla posted:Second problem: you didn't write 'context'. You wrote contextual, which is an adjective and not a noun, and consequently means something even more different. And at this point I am done. You are weaponizing the ambiguity of language to avoid honest discussion and its tedious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Oh yeah I absolutely have a trend towards perhaps being a bit accidentally obscure but its also why, as I said, earlier, I am happy to explain what I mean Upset was the wrong word yeah, more like there's a lot of posting going on (like actual pages) where folks are just trying to extract what you really mean, and that makes everyone look like they're just white-noise posting at one another There's no real substance to the conversation because it's all about semantics and idea extraction rather than talking about the real meat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:There's no real substance to the conversation because it's all about semantics and idea extraction rather than talking about the real meat I agree As I said before, I am a descriptivist and post-structuralist at heart, which, to me, means I feel like words ultimately have no tangible meaning beyond what can be mutually understood between parties. I am looking into the ether and trying to explain what I find there in the imperfect art of language, and have kind of accepted it will fail. It is difficult to explain something that is not material in material terms. Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 18:05
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I agree Like after what like 4 pages I still don't know if I could say to my cat out loud in plain language, "SA Forums Poster Mel Mudkiper does not think 300 is an effective satire because [reason]" because I don't know why it doesn't work for you, in plain language
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 18:06
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:Like after what like 4 pages I still don't know if I could say to my cat out loud in plain language, "SA Forums Poster Mel Mudkiper does not think 300 is an effective satire because [reason]" because I don't know why it doesn't work for you, in plain language Let me try then. SA poster Mel Mudkiper doesn't think 300 is an effective satire because the satirical reading of the film, to me, requires a deliberate and conscious breaking from accepting the images at face value that I do not think the director effectively prompts. The film can be seen as a satire, but I do not think he effectively guides the audience to consider that it is a satire. You can disagree. For example, you may think the baby skulls is that moment. I do not, because I think the baby skulls are still consistent with a film that sincerely glorifies the nobility of a culture of death. I think Snyder's films are too easily seen as sincere to be seen as effective satire. You may say a good satire doesn't require a moment that forces the audience to reconsider what they are seeing. I disagree.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 18:12
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:This seems like an argument that is inevitably going to end at us throwing dictionaries at each other. All I will say is that you are wrong about both of these and I am not going to argue it. You don't need a dictionary. When you adjust the nozzle on a garden hose, you can change the spray from a mist to a coherent stream. Both the mist and the stream are made out of water, and each droplet of the mist is roughly identical to the others. The mist is consequently not made of 'disparate elements'. 'Disparate' means 'different'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 18:13
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Let me try then. Ok see, this I get! And it makes clear that like, this is where we depart into the realm of ideology because like, I can't even remotely imagine not seeing the skulls as an almost too over the top satire. And by that I mean basically there simply isn't any convincing me of "baby skulls [being] consistent with...glorifi[cation] [of the] nobility of a culture of death"
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 18:15
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:Ok see, this I get! And it makes clear that like, this is where we depart into the realm of ideology because like, I can't even remotely imagine not seeing the skulls as an almost too over the top satire Considering that 300 (the film) came out deep in the height of post 9/11 conservative tough guy bravado, I think you need to keep in mind some of the social context of the time. There were large swaths of the nation that were 100% sincere in the belief that American had lost its toughness and its willingness to actually fight especially against our enemies. I do not think it can be assumed, especially at the time, that people would, on their own, see a depiction of a society that is literally argued in the film to have saved western culture from the middle eat to be satirical. It seems to me far more likely a person in that epoch would not see the baby skulls and go "oh man, this culture is hosed" but would rather go "look at how strong and cool a society that doesn't worry about caring for the weak is" Like, there are elements of Birth of a Nation that could be seen as fundamentally satirical (the fact the black characters are literally not portrayed by black actors, meaning the film is self-admitting it is an artificial depiction of race), but that reading gives the film a benefit of the doubt that it has not earned. I feel 300, to a much less extreme extent, suffers from the same problem. It is possible to be read as satire, but I think it easier, especially at the time of its creation, to be read as sincere. Waffles Inc. posted:And by that I mean basically there simply isn't any convincing me of "baby skulls [being] consistent with...glorifi[cation] [of the] nobility of a culture of death" That's perfectly fine. Nothing is more tedious than trying to convince someone else of your interpretation. I am interested in hearing how people construct their ideas, not telling them to share mine. I am talking about my interpretation not to convince you I am right, but to show you how I arrived at my perspective. Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Considering that 300 (the film) came out deep in the height of post 9/11 conservative tough guy bravado, I think you need to keep in mind some of the social context of the time. There were large swaths of the nation that were 100% sincere in the belief that American had lost its toughness and its willingness to actually fight especially against our enemies. I do not think it can be assumed, especially at the time, that people would, on their own, see a depiction of a society that is literally argued in the film to have saved western culture from the middle eat to be satirical. It seems to me far more likely a person in that epoch would not see the baby skulls and go "oh man, this culture is hosed" but would rather go "look at how strong and cool a society that doesn't worry about caring for the weak is" This is exactly how I mean about ideology. I was a college freshman and saw 300 in theaters and I went "oh man this culture is hosed" and so did my friends. We were basically like this post at the bar afterwards garycoleisgod posted:In regards to 300 on my first viewing I spent nearly the entire run-time hating the gently caress out of the movie and considering it gross & fascist, then when it was ending and Diver Dan was narrating the story to the troops my thought process went "This is such bullshit! This dude wasn't even present for lots of the events he's narrating. There's no way he could know about them. What a plot hole! What am I supposed to believe, that he's just making...it...all...up?... So no, I don't think it can "be assumed". But at the same time yes, obviously people can see it as un-satirical, but the same can be said for literally any satirical media, including things like 'Starship Troopers' and 'A Modest Proposal' All in all, I don't think "some people will take this at face value" is a metric by which satire should be judged
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 18:25
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:All in all, I don't think "some people will take this at face value" is a metric by which satire should be judged because that would make Fight Club the worse movie of all time
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 18:28
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:This is exactly how I mean about ideology. I was a college freshman and saw 300 in theaters and I went "oh man this culture is hosed" and so did my friends. Basically like this post Right. Part of the problem is that we are talking about art in two ways simultaneously. Where you and I both agree is that the significance of a piece of art is determined by the relation between reader and text. A text means what a reader takes it to mean. 300 absolutely can be read as a satire, and there are those whose subjectivity will prompt them to immediately take this interpretation. They are not wrong to do so. However, there is also the critique of the film in terms of "craft" as in, looking at the film through ideas of the construction of film as a medium. I am not saying that I think 300 is not a satire and cannot be read as a satire. I am saying that I think Snyder, as a craftsman, did a poor job of creating a film that guides the viewer to that conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 18:28
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:because that would make Fight Club the worse movie of all time I mean, I do consider Fight Club to have become a poorly aged manifesto of pre-9/11 prosperity angst
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 18:30
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:As I said before, I am a descriptivist and post-structuralist at heart, which, to me, means I feel like words ultimately have no tangible meaning beyond what can be mutually understood between parties. I am looking into the ether and trying to explain what I find there in the imperfect art of language, and have kind of accepted it will fail. It is difficult to explain something that is not material in material terms. To be very clear, this is not "the inherent ambiguity of language". That's bullshit. You simply, incorrectly used 'disparate' and 'coherent' as antonyms for eachother, when they aren't to anyone else. There is no "mutual understanding" here. Everyone got confused because you made a mistake. And then by using 'perspective' and 'significance' as synonyms, you made another mistake. And then, another and another. And the mistakes keep happening. This is not the product of some inherent flaw or limitation of language itself. It's that, in refusing to correct your mistakes or even perceiving them as such, you are generating an enormous gap between what you mean to write and what you actually end up writing. And to cover it up, you are abusing critical theory and saying it was all deliberate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Considering that 300 (the film) came out deep in the height of post 9/11 conservative tough guy bravado, I think you need to keep in mind some of the social context of the time. There were large swaths of the nation that were 100% sincere in the belief that American had lost its toughness and its willingness to actually fight especially against our enemies. Do you feel there is anything that can convince these people otherwise? i.e. do the moms cheering their kids stomping on bugs have any metric that will change their minds about bugs being the enemy? (I'm a cynic in this way and feel no. I think that good satire just gets people who have not yet considered a stance on some things more easily able to recognize behavior)
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 18:32
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Right. Part of the problem is that we are talking about art in two ways simultaneously. Well in that case I disagree that the craft can be that bad if it's almost trivially easy to read the film as satire. Combine that with the fact that Snyder clearly knew what he wanted from the movie (based on his bringing up Verhoeven) and I think "it can be read as satire but Snyder did a bad job making it read as satire" just plain doesn't make a lot of sense
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 18:33
|
|
|
Darko posted:Do you feel there is anything that can convince these people otherwise? i.e. do the moms cheering their kids stomping on bugs have any metric that will change their minds about bugs being the enemy? I agree with this. My mom and dad are deep red chuddy trump voters and they love Starship Troopers on its face; they uncritically and purposefully cheer "KILL EM ALL" The satire is utterly lost in them, but that doesn't mean it's not a raging satire of people exactly like them
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 18:35
|
|
|
Darko posted:Do you feel there is anything that can convince these people otherwise? i.e. do the moms cheering their kids stomping on bugs have any metric that will change their minds about bugs being the enemy? I agree. Art cannot "make" people feel anything. People take significance from art. Art doesn't deliver significance. I think a skilled artist, however, is better able to guide the reader to what significance they might find. All satire will be read as some readers as sincere. I think good craftsmanship helps guide readers through the experience to a satirical conclusion more effectively however.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 18:35
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:Well in that case I disagree that the craft can be that bad if it's almost trivially easy to read the film as satire. Its also trivially easy to read it as sincere though. 300 spawned an entire micro-culture of "spartan manliness" in its wake that utterly missed the point. Waffles Inc. posted:The satire is utterly lost in them, but that doesn't mean it's not a raging satire of people exactly like them Well, this is where I think we might disagree. I argue a film is never inherently any sort of message. Starship Troopers can be read as a satire, and the director shares that reading, but that doesn't mean it IS objectively a satire. The significance of a film is based upon the subject reading it, not the text as an object.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 18:39
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Its also trivially easy to read it as sincere though. 300 spawned an entire micro-culture of "spartan manliness" in its wake that utterly missed the point. So did Fight Club. And Quentin Tarantino got tons of copycats who's missed the satire of Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 18:46
|
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:So did Fight Club. Yeah but I am not sure what this is arguing I response to what I said.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 18:51
|
|
|
I was actually agreeing with your point. I've only seen 300 once, in theaters when it premiered in 2006. I was in high school and very politically different and I took it at surface level. It's easy to do. Edit: When reflecting back on it years later, I can see the satire. Detective No. 27 fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:I agree with this. My mom and dad are deep red chuddy trump voters and they love Starship Troopers on its face; they uncritically and purposefully cheer "KILL EM ALL" I think it's also important to look at movies that *DO* fall into Mel's criticisms, movies like American Sniper, 12 Strong, or pretty much any movie where Mark Wahlberg is portrayed defending American ideology from the scary browns. 300 does not resemble any of these movies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 18:55
|
|
|
Regarding batman not killing, this weeks celebrated 1000th issue has batman squaring off against a mercenary group equipped with power armors in an abandoned warehouse. He disables one of them by throwing a batarang at his neck, rendering him unable to use his arms. Not sure if that was permanent or not.. but at least he'll be alive!
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 19:15
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:I think it's also important to look at movies that *DO* fall into Mel's criticisms, movies like American Sniper, 12 Strong, or pretty much any movie where Mark Wahlberg is portrayed defending American ideology from the scary browns. Right: even a pro-torture film like Zero Dark Thirty goes out of its way to 'humanize' the terrorists and other baddies, presenting things naturalistically. There's typically some scene of like "oh those poor Arab women and children", proving that the heroes aren't racist (see Iron Man) - mirroring the basic ideological premise that 'they will greet us as liberators'. The predominant ideology behind the war on terror was one of humanitarian intervention. It's absolutely atypical to show the villains as monsters who love being evil and having fun orgies. What the orgy scene in 300 does resemble is the sequence at Yoshiwara's House of Sin from Metropolis, where the hero is tempted by the promise that people of all races can just do drugs, gamble and enjoy 'free love' - but within this oppressive capitalist system. What sort of liberation are we talking about?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 19:19
|
|
|
0DT inspired this very funny and true tweet: https://twitter.com/hexprax/status/926145982957469696
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 19:20
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted: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. You say that, but then you turn around and explain to me that a strong man who kills fascists is a kind of super-cop. So you are either a liberal who is annoyed that Man of Steel does not uphold your ideology, or your pre-existing animosity to Man of Steel is so great that it has turned you into a hand-wringing violence-decrying liberal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 19:24
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:SA poster Mel Mudkiper doesn't think 300 is an effective satire because the satirical reading of the film, to me, requires a deliberate and conscious breaking from accepting the images at face value that I do not think the director effectively prompts. The film can be seen as a satire, but I do not think he effectively guides the audience to consider that it is a satire. You can disagree. For example, you may think the baby skulls is that moment. I do not, because I think the baby skulls are still consistent with a film that sincerely glorifies the nobility of a culture of death.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 19:29
|
|
|
Martman posted:In what way is Doogie's Nazi uniform inconsistent with a film that sincerely glorifies Nazis? As I saw it, it was that the film never explicitly identifies its culture as fascist until he shows up literally dressed as nazi Its a film couched in language of service and patriotism and serving your country and other empty jingoistic buzzwards and then doogie shows up and you realize that language is not inherently patriotic but inherently fascist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 19:34
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:As I saw it, it was that the film never explicitly identifies its culture as fascist until he shows up literally dressed as nazi There's very obviously mandatory military service to be considered a citizen, which I thought was an inherently fascist idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 19:36
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:As I saw it, it was that the film never explicitly identifies its culture as fascist until he shows up literally dressed as nazi You literally cannot vote in their society if you're not enlisted. Also, Michel Ironside's entire fascist thesis in his classroom happens before Doogie's even signed up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBxgrr0wL8M ruddiger fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 19:36
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:There's very obviously mandatory military service to be considered a citizen, which I thought was an inherently fascist idea. It's obvious from the first ten minutes or so of film, the problem is that the satire is "subtle" because troop worship is the most natural thing in the world to Americans, and also, blatantly fascistic. That's the disconnect. It's not the eagle symbols and all that stuff, right off the bat, every single one of the high school scenes is about ideological indoctrination, which is of course totally normal. It's not "weird" to dissect dead animals or discuss civics in a high school class. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 19:38
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:You literally cannot vote in their society if you're not enlisted. Also, Michel Ironside's entire fascist thesis in his classroom happens before Doogie's even signed up. Guy A. Person posted:There's very obviously mandatory military service to be considered a citizen, which I thought was an inherently fascist idea. Good point. You're both right, allow me to clarify To me, they are ideas that are not identifiable to a non-informed viewer until he shows up dressed as a nazi. The film is about fascist ideals presented through the lens of traditional jingoistic language that eventually becomes darker as the film goes on. The film reads as advocating the ideas as good on the surface but the subtext becomes increasingly critical. Doogie as an SS guard is sort of like the punch line of the process HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:It's obvious from the first ten minutes or so of film, the problem is that the satire is "subtle" because troop worship is the most natural thing in the world to Americans, and also, blatantly fascistic. That's the disconnect. what he said ruddiger posted:You literally cannot vote in their society if you're not enlisted. Also, Michel Ironside's entire fascist thesis in his classroom happens before Doogie's even signed up I should note you become a citizen through "service" to the state not exclusively military enlistment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 19:42
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I should note you become a citizen through "service" to the state not exclusively military enlistment. It's a militarized state, so all branches of service serve the military. They explain all this in the shower scene. Also see: the scene with the military leader stepping down not because of public pressure or because of a judicial process due to negligence, but because the other generals want their shot at bloody and guts glory. ruddiger fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 19:52
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:It's a militarized state, so all branches of service serve the military. They explain all this in the shower scene. Just rewatched it (off work so I can see naked people now) and I am not seeing anything that says military service is the only path to citizenship. They are all discussing why they enlisted and the benefits of being a citizen and how service is the easiest path to being a citizen but I recall other scenes clearly suggesting there are non-military paths to citizenship, its just that direct service is the fastest and most guaranteed I mean, the slogan is "Service guarantees citizenship"
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 19:57
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:As I saw it, it was that the film never explicitly identifies its culture as fascist until he shows up literally dressed as nazi So Starship Troopers is not satirical for basically its entire runtime. It's literally just the one costume design that shows up in the last five minutes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 19:58
|
|
|
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)? No idea and no, respectively. C'mon, I've said that I don't think Snyder is a fascist in about every other post I've made about 300. If I had to guess why he adapted 300, he did because of his love of striking imagery and the fact that adapting it played heavily to his strengths. 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. How do you reconcile this with your male gaze-based analysis, which is heavily based on the intentions of the creator or viewer? Mulvey was big on intentionality. SuperMechagodzilla posted:Even the people painting Spartans on their pickup trucks or whatever are not in favour of the infanticide. The idea that children should be hardened by their childhood and if it kills them, oh well - that's a traditional conservative belief that's popular among the MOLON LABE sticker crew. Eugenics are popular among fascists, too. People are arguing that believing in discarding children who don't fit in is too ridiculous to be believed when people do actually believe in that! Detective No. 27 posted:So did Fight Club. Fight Club is not very good at its apparent goal of criticizing self-destructive masculinity and lends itself very easily to straightforward reads that glorify Tyler Durden as a hero striking out against our decadent society.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:How do you reconcile this with your male gaze-based analysis, which is heavily based on the intentions of the creator or viewer? Mulvey was big on intentionality. Answered your own question
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 20:00
|
|