Haha...the fuck you have.
What if they said "the slow motion clashed too much with and took me out of the frenetic pace of the levels below."
This is what I meant to invoke by asking whether or not there was something perverse in telling someone what they
felt was
wrong. My inclination here is to say they "didn't get it," which is just another way of saying they're wrong. The idea that, the deeper you go, the more slowly time moves is given visual expression through the slow-motion. If the van just fell normal speed and Nolan cut right before it hit the water and then just spent the whole rest of the time below without ever cutting back to the van, that wouldn't have been nearly as effective. I want to say that the slowness of the van
adds to the frenetic pace of the levels below, it's what gives the frenetic pace of the levels below its sense, and to not share in that feeling is to have missed (re: gotten wrong) an important aspect of the film.
The weird thing here is that, even if we grant the existence of "evidence" and the possibility of "proving" something in an aesthetic argument, persuasion is
still so fucking hard to come by. I've quoted it before on here but it's always relevant in this context: I always go back to Plato's dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro:
"What kind of disagreement, my friend, causes hatred and anger? ... If you and I were to disagree as to whether one number were more than another, would that make us angry and enemies? Should we not settle such a dispute by counting? ... The question which would make us angry and enemies if we disagreed about it ... [is] the question of the just and the unjust, of the honorable and the dishonorable, of the good and the bad."
Is there really a difference in
kind when we disagree about math versus art? Or is it that because in art our emotions are so involved that the level on which disagreements about numbers take place is buried under biases, prejudices, passions, ignorance, etc.? And, if the latter, then is it really not possible to work our way through all of that stuff to get to that "rational" level? Is the solution not, in
Inception fashion, to just go deeper?
We bring too much of ourselves into every experience, and helplessly so.
I don't like the idea of being helpless. Doesn't mean it's not the case, but I'm going to fight it until the frequency and depth of my failure lets me know it's truly the case. Until then, I can't help but feel like, again in
Inception fashion, it's like bringing in our projections. Sure, we're going to populate our dreams with shit from our subconscious, but we can/should be able to help bringing in a freight train or a homicidal ex-wife
I think this is what you've leant the film.
It's connect-the-dots, and I'm undeniably making the connections, but I'm connecting dots he put there knowing they could be connected the way I'm connecting them.
Inception is about the puzzle.
I agree with this 100%. Where we diverge, I think, is that you say this in a reductive sense - Nolan
minimizes everything else
in service of the (cinematic) puzzle - whereas I say it in an expansive sense - Nolan
stretches everything else
as part of the (metaphysical) puzzle. Given that the puzzle at the heart of the film is the puzzle of life and the battle against skepticism, saying it's "about the puzzle" should be the greatest compliment the film can possibly receive. It should not be in any way, shape, or form an indictment.
Everyone else serves plot
Just like Tarantino's Elvis/Beatles split, this is the Mann/Nolan split.
Nolan is very structure/concept oriented, whereas Mann is very character oriented. For Nolan, his characters are pieces of equipment needed to build what he's trying to build. Now, that is not to say that his characters are inconsequential, that there's no depth, that they literally serve no other purpose but to move the plot along. That was one of the main points of criticism for Inception, the hollowness of the characters. Nolan's characters aren't hollow so much as written with very specific arcs and purposes, not all of which constitute worlds in themselves. Any character in Heat, from Dennis Haysbert to Danny Trejo to Kevin Gage to Val Kilmer to Ashley Judd to Natalie Portman, any one of them could've been main characters in their own individual movies. That's the density of characterization that Mann strives for. For Nolan, you couldn't have a movie based on his Harvey Dent. But then, that's not what he's striving for. His movies are extremely focused, they're not about characters or even about a single character's interaction with other characters, they're about one individual character. Memento is about Guy Pearce, Insomnia is about Al Pacino, Inception is about Leonardo DiCaprio, and the Dark Knight Trilogy is about Christian Bale, and every other character in every other Batman film is designed with the specific purpose of illuminating something else about Bale's Bruce/Batman. They're tools for the structure and theme of the story of Bruce Wayne/Batman. That type of solipsism isn't of interest to Mann, who loves the way characters and themes weave in and out throughout his films, and it's one of the many sources of charm of his films, but that's not Nolan's bag and for him to try it Mann's way is to lead to a diminishing of what he does best, which is why I find The Prestige to be such a weak effort as he tried to be more like Mann with two equal characterizations rather than an intense focus on one.
the awkward portrayal of Rachel's relationship with Harvey, which exists to remind us of Batman's inner conflict (Batman may have no limits, but Bruce does) - that remains the most hideous love triangle I've witnessed in a good film.
Do you think the love triangle still would've been as hideous with Katie Holmes in there instead of Maggie Gyllenhaal?
I don't think he can't demonstrate genuine emotion on screen, because his central relationships fucking sing. But since he's so committed to the real-world labyrinth, it's a (decent) trade-off. It's either that, or go off the deep end by no longer rooting the film in a reality that suggests real world logic. I don't think he possesses the sheer abandon required to execute the latter.
I've still only seen it the one time, but this is precisely how I'd describe
Interstellar.
It's inherently un-dreamy for dreams to possess "levels".
You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling
Mind expanding on that sentance?
Do I mind expanding?
What I meant to register there was the ease with which a moral position can yield to a fascist impulse, and my worry at that prospect.
I watch
Chinatown, I recognize its nihilism, I judge it as bad because it doesn't offer alternatives and instead just acquiesces to hopelessness and despair. The action that I take after making that judgment will determine whether or not my position is truly a moral position.
It's one thing if, upon judging the film thusly, I say people
shouldn't make movies like
Chinatown. That still allows for
choice, without which morality as such would be impossible. People would still have the choice to make movies like
Chinatown, and for a variety of reasons - i.e., because it's realistic (meaning they disagree with my moral judgment), because it works as a cautionary tale (meaning they agree with my moral judgment but still find such movies probative/productive), etc.
However, it's a whole other thing if, upon judging the film thusly, I say people
mustn't make movies like
Chinatown. That does
not allow for choice, and therefore annuls morality. Now, it's the
force of my claim rather than the
logic of my claim with which I'm expecting others to deal, and a forced choice is not a choice.
Despite how frequently and adamantly Rand reiterates this logic of force-versus-choice in morality, she seems to sometimes slip between the two in aesthetics. I'm trying to avoid that.
You and Rand talk about heroism, pursuing your values, and righteousness. Can't a proliferation of those virtues have negative impacts as well?
Funny enough, I actually had this same thought while reading something a few days ago. I was wondering how negative the consequences of something has to be for that something to become invalid. Then I started wondering if there's
anything that can escape such consequences.
At this moment, I want to say that
everything and
everyone is corruptible. It's whether or not - and understanding that - something
starts from a rational/moral position that's important and that could (theoretically) limit the ease/severity of its corruption.
Or, in Rand's words:
"You may make an error at any step [in morality], with nothing to protect you but your own severity ... but if devotion to truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking."
Your Bush example, then, wouldn't contradict an Objectivist formulation of morality, as thinking and understanding clearly weren't on the table
If we are going to talk about proliferating values. Then wouldn't things like wisdom, prudence, frugality be more natural options?
This sounds like you have a split between rationality and morality. No such split exists in Objectivism. Rand says very clearly that moral perfection is “an
unbreached rationality – not the degree of your intelligence, but the full and relentless use of your mind, not the extent of your knowledge, but the acceptance of reason as an absolute." Something like "wisdom" then is not moral but the condition of morality.
Also, a question? If people have an natural inclination towards liking upbeat movies over downbeat movies, then why the common-existence of downbeat movies? Especially among more "prestigious", "ambitious" moviemakers?
I wish I knew the psychology of taste. I have to imagine that there's some form/degree of elitism/contrarianism at work, but beyond that, I ain't got the foggiest.
Is this the wrong time to admit that I'm not a fan of Rambo 2?
Batman terrorists are fictional, obviously, but they still have to be molded after something we can connect to. They have to possess some of the abstract characteristic that terrorists hold which can trigger a connection.
Talia fits the bill, no?
Speaking of TDKR -- do you know what was one of the most intresting moments in that film for me? When Bane and his henchmen are on the plane, and he tells one of them that he has to go down with the plane to cover their tracks. The henchmen doesn't bat an eye. He is ecstatic to be martyred. I wanted Bane and his posse to be explored further along those lines. That is the sort of stuff that creates connection, not simply telling me that they are terrorists. That dream of martyrdoom is something that is abundant among actual terrorists. It is an abstract characteristic of their profession that I could relate to.
But that recurs throughout the film. It comes up when Bane kills the two guys who bring Gordon into the sewer. The first guy he just chokes and then he tells the second guy, "Search him. Then I will kill you." And he just goes ahead and searches him. Why didn't he pull a Gordon and try to GTFO? Then it comes up again when Daggett is worried about Bane's goons getting arrested. His bag man tells him that, according to Bane, "They would die before talking," to which Daggett responds, "Where does he find these guys?"
It's there, man. You just gotta know how to grab it. See, I know how to grab it.
To summarize every Bette Davis film I've ever seen. The dame is a darn fine thespian but maaaan am I not the target audience for her movies. Women like Hepburn and Crawford tend to star in films that have cross-over appeal which hers lack.
Tell me which Bette Davis films you've seen and I'll find you a few that'll hopefully overturn this perspective.
But he turns his defeat into a potential victory.
This is getting right to the heart of this film's complexity. It's really, at its core, a meditation on life - and that means, by extension, it's a meditation on death. Life gets its force from the inevitability of death. Everything we do, whether we think of it like this or not, is a fight against death. That's what gives survival an inherent feeling of victory.
Skeffington losing - as part of the inevitable passage of time, changing of the tide, etc. - is the presence of death made manifest in a political guise. But Skeffington's desire to fight is the presence of life made manifest. It's the
spirit of life and victory that Skeffington wants to live on, even though he knows that
his life and career are both over.
But he does it for aulturistic reasons.
All my talking about Rand, surely you don't need me to tell you that altruism is anathema
Tracy uses lies and deception but they are to sooth the pain of others.
And that's a contradiction. And you can only maintain contradictions to your own detriment. And that's a huge thrust in the film. "What price glory?" and all of that. And it's just one more of many reasons why your comparison to
The Fountainhead is baffling to me.
The appeal of Holiday is Grant's hesitance about the shift in lifestyles as you get older. The vacillating between being youthfully optimistic about life,and experiencing things, versus taking the security of a traditional life is the hook of the movie. Hepburn isnt even the best side player on Grant's quest - Ayres is.
Given my emphasis on individuality, it's weird that I'm now in the position of telling someone not to downplay the role of the couple, yet here I am. I'm not denying that what you're saying is "the hook of the movie." Nor am I denying that Ayres is fantastic as a "don't let this happen to you" injunction. But the reason Hepburn is so crucial, and Grant knows this, is because it's the role of one's (intellectual/romantic) companion to push you forward when you doubt yourself. The conversations that Grant has with Hepburn are the proof that they're the ones that belong together. If he would've had Hepburn by his side after the party, he never would've caved and gone back. I'm not saying he wouldn't have doubted himself, but she would've been there to keep him going. And vice-versa.
Holiday is one of the purest depictions on film of two people recognizing in each other a perfect "helpmeet."
Phil Collins made disparaging comments
I'd never heard this before, and frankly, I don't find it even a little plausible (first, because Phil was way too big to give a shit about what two knuckleheads with a cartoon show he'd never heard of were doing on the red carpet, and second, because Phil actually has a great sense of humor and probably would've found it funny). In any event, I've spent the last half hour going through pages and pages of Google search results and all I've found are people
saying Phil talked shit about them but nobody actually providing any proof. There's even a Reddit thread where people realize over the course of it that nobody has any evidence nor actually recalls reading/hearing Phil say anything. All my Google searching found were additional instances, before and after the Oscars, of Trey talking shit about Phil.
Family Guy is just random humour (for the most part) There's almost never a message, not one with value and meaning anyways.
In a way,
Family Guy is actually more radical than
South Park. Seth MacFarlane has taken the Larry David
Seinfeld credo "no hugging, no learning" to an even greater extreme. Like the Season 2 episode "He's Too Sexy for His Fat." At the end, Lois says, "Well, Peter, I guess you learned a valuable lesson," to which Peter replies, "Nope." The end. No long moral/political speeches meant to lift up to a higher plane a town full of people so fucking stupid that they keep acting just as retarded every week as the week before when a group of 9-year-olds were telling them how to better their lives.
There's no way for that not to sound harsh, but I do want to stress the point that, for as brilliant as the satire can be on
South Park - and I should mention that I have now seen every episode ever made from beginning to end and consider this most recent season BY FAR the most brilliant and the funniest, yet the criticism I'm about to make applies just as much to this last amazing season as to earlier, not-so-amazing seasons - the internal logic of the show makes absolutely no fucking sense. Unless the residents of
South Park are literally retarded, the depth of their stupidity - especially when juxtaposed with the lucidity and eloquence of the little kids - is such that it's hard for me to reconcile the lofty ambitions of the show with such basic incoherence and silliness.
Family Guy, by contrast, is explicitly about a stupid man who who fights tooth-and-nail every last learning experience. Thus, the situations in which he finds himself have more internal coherence even if they don't aspire to same height of social commentary. And since
Family Guy isn't trying to do what
South Park tries to do, I'm not going to consider it a failure. It's just different. And, for me, it's significantly funnier.
All of that said, I will say that the second half of
South Park is far superior to the first half. I didn't like Butters initially and I didn't get why they were giving him so much story time, but he grew on me to the point where "Butters' Bottom Bitch" is probably my favorite episode of the whole show ("Do you know what I am saying?"). I also really hope they keep up the serialization, as these last two seasons are MILES beyond anything that preceded them. All of the PC shit (anchored in the latest season by that
Ex Machina spoof) was both hilarious and incisive (if it weren't for all of the Randy side shit, "The Cissy" would've been my favorite as everything with Cartman in that one was killing me ["Suck my clit and balls"]) and the way they developed that storyline over the ten episodes was excellent.
As of right now,
South Park is operating on a smarter and funnier level than
Family Guy, but overall, when it comes to which show is funnier,
Family Guy is way out in front.
You said they (South Park) can't stand having competition (Family Guy) and that's why they hate them... but Bart Simpson was on the show and they just made a few jokes about him not really being a bad-ass.
The Simpsons doesn't count because it predates
South Park. Trey and Matt respect and acknowledge the influence of
The Simpsons. That said, another reason they don't have a problem with
The Simpsons is because, and they've mentioned this in some of the behind-the-scenes shit I've watched, there have been so many staff changes that
The Simpsons at one point in time is not the same show as another time, and the shows that have been on during
South Park do not seem to threaten them as most everyone agrees (though I can't comment because I don't watch
The Simpsons) that they're long past their prime.
Family Guy, on the other hand, is a legit threat, so they're more aggressive towards the latter.
They don't hate Matt Groening, or Seth MacFarlane either for that matter
http://exclaim.ca/comedy/article/trey_parker_matt_stone-south_park_team
What's the meanest thing ever said to you before, during or after a gig?
MS: When people say to me, "God, you guys have one of the best shows on television. You and Family Guy." That fucking hurts so bad.
TP: Very well said. It's such a kick in the balls.
http://www.businessinsider.com/family-guy-writing-process-2014-9?IR=T
"South Park" co-creator Trey Parker explained in the DVD commentary that he and co-creator Matt Stone "don't respect ["Family Guy"] in terms of writing." He added that much of Hollywood felt the same way, with producers from "The Simpsons" sending them flowers after the episode and people at "King of the Hill" expressing thanks (despite both shows being on Fox). "There was this animation solidarity moment, where everyone did come together over their hatred of Family Guy," he said.
Those two don't mince words. They call a spade a spade, and they hate Seth and
Family Guy. Seth's response:
A perfect "hater's gonna hate" response
Seth's this huge star with influence, and he didn't try and teach the mindless masses anything special. He just cashed in on mindless comedy
Is teaching a prerequisite for art? For good art or all art? And you said "anything special," so is it
what art teaches or
that art teaches? And "mindless masses," really? So liking
Family Guy proves you're a mindless meat sack while liking
South Park proves you're intelligent? And "mindless comedy" is no better than "mindless action movie" inasmuch as it proves nothing beyond the fact that the person hurling these insults has chosen not to apply their mind to what they're insulting.
This part of your post is a perfect example of the arrogance and elitism that makes
South Park (both its creators and its fans) look bad and
Family Guy (both its creator and its fans) look good.
I don't know if anyone really got the family guy episode. Kyle and Stan are based off of Trey Parker and Matt Stone, Cartman is basically your brainwashed patriotic American Fox-News-fan type, and Kenny is just there for comic relief. Cartman was the one talking shit about Family Guy, Stan and Kyle both thought the show was funny.
I think the problem is that
you didn't get the
Family Guy episode. Cartman is
very clearly voicing the sentiments of Trey and Matt, who hate
Family Guy just like Cartman and for precisely the reasons voiced by Cartman. Kyle, meanwhile, serves as the
South Park fan who also likes
Family Guy (part of why Trey and Matt hate
Family Guy is no doubt the fact that it so mercilessly crushed them in the ratings for so long, so with that in mind, they didn't want to alienate their bipartisan fans).
The writing in South Park is much more complex than you give it credit for.
Even if this is true, I think it's even more demonstrably true that
Family Guy is much more complex than you give it credit for, and that, between the two of us, I give
South Park far more credit than you give
Family Guy.
they burn traitors at the stake... traitors to mankind.
It's not
what they do, it's
how they do it that bugs me. In any event, I think it's worth pointing out here that, if there's any point where we could draw a fundamental division that illuminates the split between the two shows and their creative prerogatives, it'd be that
South Park (and, by extension, Trey and Matt) is/are ultimately negative whereas
Family Guy (and, by extension, Seth) is/are ultimately positive. Trey and Matt can't wait to
trash people/movies/etc., whereas Seth can't wait to
celebrate people/movies/etc. Trey and Matt always bring up what they
hate, whereas Seth always brings up what he
likes.
I certainly love a good burning at the stake, but there are two sides to the coin.
Those who sell their ethics for fame and fortune. Trey and Matt do things on their own terms, and they deserve to feel better about themselves for it. Phil did a Disney Tarzan movie for crying out loud, it was a cash grab
They (and you) are so quick to say why other people do what they do, and while the ivory tower presumptuousness is affronting enough, it's how painfully off the mark they (and you) are that adds insult to injury. Do you know how insanely rich Phil Collins was then/is now? The last thing he needs is a "cash grab." He's got all the cash he could ever want to grab. He does shit because he wants to. And he wanted to do
Tarzan for his kids, and "You'll Be In My Heart" in particular was for his daughter Lily. And if you, Trey, and Matt don't like that, then you can suck his Sussudio
@Bullitt68 in your opinion, what is the best season of
Hannibal? Which one did you like the most.
I can't decide between 1 and 2. I think I liked parts of 2, like ep9-13, the best, but that season 1 might be better overall.
Season 2 for sure. It'd be harder for me to pick between 1 and 3, but it's not hard at all to pick 2 overall. From the second it started to the season-long flashback structure to every moment in between, there wasn't a single false note.
