|
1984 is a fine movie, although I've had to watch its ongoing remake a few too many times. They've apparently been filming it for 66 years.A Wizard of Goatse posted:yeah, you had an extremely loving awful english class Haven't you heard? English classes have been deemed ++problematic.
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 17:29
|
|
ME
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 13:37 |
|
|
Would there be a lot of Internet anger/outrage/etc if they made a 1984 that spliced in BNW's 'Pretty much everyone else is actually ok with things, it's Our Heroes that are just bent out of shape'? Maybe I'd just be the kind of filmmaker that trolls the audience, but I'd get a kick out of making a film where we follow some overtly dislikable rebels trying to take down a government that reads as idyllic/utopian, only to reveal/hint that the government is Ingsoc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:yeah, you had an extremely loving awful english class if they did not provide basic context for the books The equivalent example for Gatsby is how it was a critical failure when it was released.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
Apropos of nothing, I think it's time for another adaptation of The Time Machine, but with the obviousness of the social commentary cranked up to eleven.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 08:41
|
|
|
Random fun fact: Huxley was actually one of Orwell's professors in college.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
Ravane posted:Random fun fact: Huxley was actually one of Orwell's professors in college. And Huxley's grandfather TH Huxley taught biology to HG Wells.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Would there be a lot of Internet anger/outrage/etc if they made a 1984 that spliced in BNW's 'Pretty much everyone else is actually ok with things, it's Our Heroes that are just bent out of shape'? i'd hope not given that's exactly what was going on in the book
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:i'd hope not given that's exactly what was going on in the book Going on in BNW, not 1984
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Really surprised to see complaints about 1984's 1984. What's the exact criticisms of it? I see a few people saying it's bad/awful but few actual explanations of why. The score is pretty questionable, but everything else in it is very solid. John Hurt's perforamance is pitch-perfect in my books. Dude was born for that role.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
well why not posted:Really surprised to see complaints about 1984's 1984. What's the exact criticisms of it? I see a few people saying it's bad/awful but few actual explanations of why. The score is pretty questionable, but everything else in it is very solid. John Hurt's perforamance is pitch-perfect in my books. Dude was born for that role. There's no way I would call it awful, but because the book has so much internal dialogue and emotion the movie fell a bit flat for me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
starkebn posted:Going on in BNW, not 1984 everybody except Winston and Julia were totally accepting of the situation and willing to fall into their little niches inside it, they notably never meet any other actual dissidents of any meaningful kind and Winston even gets a whole spiel about how obliviously happy the proles are (though what does he know). a horrifying-to-the-reader society does not automatically mean everyone within it is horrified.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:everybody except Winston and Julia were totally accepting of the situation and willing to fall into their little niches inside it, they notably never meet any other actual dissidents of any meaningful kind and Winston even gets a whole spiel about how obliviously happy the proles are (though what does he know). a horrifying-to-the-reader society does not automatically mean everyone within it is horrified. you think his neighbours, co workers and other party members loving liked it? Everyone was putting up a strained front because they thought the thought police would throw them in the Gulag. The only character I remember being into it was the guy who was working on the dictionary. starkebn fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Sep 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
I might have to re-read it with that in mind. It could make sense. I think it's a contorted way of looking at it though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
starkebn posted:you think his neighbours, co workers and other party members loving liked it? Everyone was putting up a strained front because they thought the thought police would throw them in the Gulag. The only character I remember being into it was the guy who was working on the dictionary. The caste that was bred as retarded people to fill the menial jobs probably didn't mind, at least. I haven't read the book in years but I remember reading either the foreword or something ancillary written by Huxley and he seemed like a guy that was really, really pissed off about people having casual sex.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
raditts posted:The caste that was bred as retarded people to fill the menial jobs probably didn't mind, at least. They were happy as long as they got their porn, grog and were generally left alone. They weren't retarded though, just the "lower classes" - you might be thinking of Brave New World where they were genuinely retarded at the lower levels.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
starkebn posted:There's no way I would call it awful, but because the book has so much internal dialogue and emotion the movie fell a bit flat for me. Also, Brazil came out a year afterward and, even if it wasn't a hit on release, it sucked a lot of that cult film cred away from the 1984 film.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
starkebn posted:They were happy as long as they got their porn, grog and were generally left alone. They weren't retarded though, just the "lower classes" - you might be thinking of Brave New World where they were genuinely retarded at the lower levels. Oh yeah, I thought we were talking about BNW there, my bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
starkebn posted:you think his neighbours, co workers and other party members loving liked it? Everyone was putting up a strained front because they thought the thought police would throw them in the Gulag. The only character I remember being into it was the guy who was working on the dictionary. you know there's been a big movement in Russia to bring Stalinism back, right? people adapt, people accept, authoritarian regimes are not met with a mass grassroots democratic uprising. Orwell isn't being sarcastic when he talks about the people sincerely embracing all the transparent bullshit they know is false. The whole book isn't about simply terrorizing people into brief compliance and it makes that point over and over, it's about how the leninist regimes pounded people into a sovok mentality. Outside Winston and Julia the next most radical dissident even in the political prison is the guy who accidentally left the word 'god' in a book. the difference is that 1984 is about Russian-style modes of securing compliance and passivity (creating the security of no options) where BNW is about the more familiar and homey techniques of the West, and I think the reading that despite everything the book says secretly there's a resistance cell around every corner and Oceania is on the verge of popular revolt appeals to that part of the American psyche that wanted to believe the Iraqis would be throwing roses at their "liberators'" feet A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Sep 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
I re-read 1984 very recently and I would say that most of the people in that society are very accepting of the situation. I thought that was part of the point, that these people had been stomped on so hard that there weren't even a bunch of people who would rebel if given the chance; for most of them, the concept of rebelling is literally unthinkable. The only thing that's a bit odd is that nobody notices the proles actually have a lot of fun and there don't appear to be any people who leave their job and "become" proles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
precision posted:I re-read 1984 very recently and I would say that most of the people in that society are very accepting of the situation. I thought that was part of the point, that these people had been stomped on so hard that there weren't even a bunch of people who would rebel if given the chance; for most of them, the concept of rebelling is literally unthinkable. Defecting from the party would be a fairly obvious political crime. Also that the proles are actually having a much more fun time of it is some of Winston's envious conjecture while he's off pitying himself, and he doesn't really know anything outside the little niche he's allowed. Maybe, maybe not, who knows! Not really in the real USSR A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Sep 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:you know there's been a big movement in Russia to bring Stalinism back, right? Terry Pratchett posted:If it continues long enough, even a reign of terror may become a fondly remembered period. People believe they want justice and wise government but, in fact, what they really want is an assurance that tomorrow will be very much like today.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
Terry Pratchett deserves a posthumous Nobel Prize. The man really knew how to phrase simple yet profound truths.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Stalin's always had this remaining cadre/cult of admirers in certain parts of Russia, i.e. the ones that he never hosed over. So, things were good for you, who the gently caress cares about the Ukraine, etc. That's the problem with having a country so loving huge, the regional divisions are pretty acute even in the information age.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Stalin's always had this remaining cadre/cult of admirers in certain parts of Russia, i.e. the ones that he never hosed over.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
And Americans put Andrew Jackson on their money
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
And remember Reagan fondly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Yeah, I guess it's just the free thinkers who get picked up, tortured, then dumped at the cafe on the corner who are really against the regime. And that's not a lot. I'd do think the majority hate the situation they are in, but they don't blame the regime for that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
"Should a Brave New World or Nineteen Eighty-Four film ever get made in today's polarizing political climate?" No. "With the polarizing clusterfuck known as American politics in the 21st century dominated by micro-aggressions & trigger warnings where everyone is alleging that every political/ideological opponent is the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in the 24/7 information age, do you think film adaptations of either of these two novels which embody every aspect of political & social control as it's subject matter as objectively viable to the public?" No. "Is the American population mature enough to handle it?" Yes. "Will Fox News & Media Matters begin to accuse the left & right of thoughtcrime or newspeak?" No. "Will colleges embrace these Ministry of Truth type criticisms?" No. "Will Morgan Freeman voice Big Brother?" No. "Will filmmakers avoid them more on social stigma positions rather than the pressure of adapting revered classics?" No. "Would Ingsoc & Fordism replace the Democrats and Republicans on the ballot in 2020 as a result?" No. What a bizarre OP.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:"Is the American population mature enough to handle it?" 3/10 SuperMechagodzilla posted:What a bizarre OP. Then just vote gently caress off OP. and move on with your life.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 01:09
|
|
precision posted:I re-read 1984 very recently and I would say that most of the people in that society are very accepting of the situation. I thought that was part of the point, that these people had been stomped on so hard that there weren't even a bunch of people who would rebel if given the chance; for most of them, the concept of rebelling is literally unthinkable. I'm not sure how tenable that is without suggesting that these are secretly some sci-fi altered humans or whatever. Because when you have had cracks in authoritarian regimes appear, such as in the Prague Spring, and Tiananmen, and in 1991, it becomes very clear that most people are willing and eager to cast off their chains, and prevented from doing so by the appearance of the invincibility of the overall society. Even going with what Orwell intended, the man was a revolutionary socialist and it would be bizarre to think that he would have argued that his own beliefs were impossible nonsense. And then there is the matter of the diegetic appendix, which views Ingsoc as a historical phenomenon. But in any case, it's probably best to read 1984 as being "about" 1948, and in this context, Winston views the proles as happy for that same reason that middle-class American kids write essays in College English about their relationships with blue-collar people.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Immortan posted:3/10 I've decided to move on, into the thread. The OP is a grammatical mess, scattershot and disorganized. But the overall point seems to be that 1984 is 'relevant', but that the people are too immature for it to be 'viable'. You seem to have begun with the premise that 1984 is an extremely good and powerful book, and the question is now whether Hollywood should adapt it, or stall the production lest bad, immature people appropriate the story. In reality, 1984 is not a great book precisely because it's conducive to appropriation. It offers a sort of limp and genericized story about any ideology. Consider this quote, from the villainous O'Brien: "We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull. You will learn by degrees, Winston. There is nothing that we could not do. Invisibility, levitation-anything. I could float off this floor like a soap bubble if I wished to. I do not wish to, because the Party does not wish it. You must get rid of those nineteenth century ideas about the laws of nature. We make the laws of nature." O'Brien goes on and on about how the universe is only a few years old, nothing is real and so-on. This is, of course, the basic premise of Matrix, where the protagonist believes he is in a videogame universe of infinite possibilities, able to fly and whatnot, but is 'really' strapped to a chair, utterly passive, tortured, etc. O'Brien is a weird amalgam of Morpheus and the agents. So to the question of whether Hollywood 'should' adapt that story: Hollywood shouldn't do anything. But it already has. With Matrix, you get the pure distillation of 1984: a dull libertarianism. What this means is that 1984 has little to do with fascism or communism - something explicitly stated in the book itself: "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness; only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives." This is, again, standard stuff. But the joke of the Star Wars prequels and Matrix is that these omnipotent, amoral jew-figures don't actually exist, that the problem is not crazy individuals who 'recognize their own motives' and deliberately corrupt, but the system that enables them. What's missing from 1984 is an Agent Smith, who actually believes what he says - who loathes humanity and his employers, and actively works to reshape the very Matrix he inhabits. He has no recourse to an 'outside world' where he can imagine he is helpless or all-powerful. He is simply aware that both the humans and machines thoughtlessly destroy the Earth, and Morpheus does not provide an actual alternative.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
Never shall I forget that night, the night SMG graced our village. All the peasants were gathered watching Prometheus on an old projector in front of the church when he rode in on a horse and shouted "cinema is the ultimate pervert art, it doesn't give you what you desire, it tells you how to desire". For me it was the most important night of my life. For him it was tuesday.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I've decided to move on, into the thread. You couldn't even compare the epsilons & proles? Shameful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Immortan posted:You couldn't even compare the epsilons & proles? Shameful. Compare them to what? The 'immature' public imagined in the OP?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Jerk detected! This user is on your ignore list, click to view post anyway Holy poo poo I think he's on to m- oh, wait.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
revdrkevind posted:Holy poo poo I think he's on to m- oh, wait. Thanks for bumping a thread to shitpost?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Russia is kinda weird. loving Ivan the Terrible has a remaining cadre/cult of admirers in certain parts of Russia. Ivan the Terrible is actually kind of a mistranslation in modern english. It's meant along the lines of "Oz the Great and Terrible" as someone who inspires terror with their power.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Thanks for bumping a thread to shitpost? 90% of the 29k posts you have on this site (16x a day) are shitposts no longer than two sentences on average.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Immortan posted:90% of the 29k posts you have on this site (16x a day) are shitposts no longer than two sentences on average. And are the rest shitposts that are longer than two sentences on average?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 13:37 |
|
|
computer parts posted:And are the rest shitposts that are longer than two sentences on average? Can't knock the hustle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 21:23
|
|
