Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Movie Philosophy

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3
AuthorMessage
Drome



Gender : Male Cancer Posts : 88
Join date : 2015-02-19
Age : 30
Location : Sweden

PostSubject: Re: Movie Philosophy Wed Apr 29, 2015 3:13 pm

Not sure if this fits, but I'll try. I have always loved the first three Star Wars movies that came out,though Im not a hardcore fan or have special knowledge about it, and I always viewed the Jedi as the ultimate source of good and an order I would gladly join. Train for combat against evil people and do good in general? Sure.
But , after coming to this forum basically, I find the Jedi less appealing. They moralise alot. Alot. Im still unsure how to describe them properly, but they seem to basically hold a Sword of Moral Judgement over everyones necks, almost killing or destroying (resources) at will whenever something they deem "evil" shows up.

They habitually use their "mind trick" to get people to 'better' themselves, which is terrifying. It's the #1 power modern man/nihilists would like to have. I think if the jedi order would follow its own convictions, they would absolutely forbid the use of the mind trick. Among other powers, pherhaps.

Im I have been involved in some stoicism and buddhist groups on FB and they all seem to hold the jedi very highly, for their various qualities - either stoic or buddhist/samurai-like ethos. But I can't help but think that most people would rather live like Sith - imagining themselves more powerful/resilient then they really are - rather then the harsh life of jedi monk.

Are jedi maybe the ultimate "moderns"?

Even so, I still find the idea of some kind of "Order" - like the jedi - would be awesome to see in action/real life. I just am not sure what would make such an order truly useful to the elite that serves it. But I do like all elite societies like that - Samurai, Knights, spartans, Indian warrior societies throughout time, Sacred band and even the legions I suppose.

This would perhaps be an improvement:

Jedi: Individualistic, emotional, rebels, 'peaceful' [not pacifist]
Sith: Collectivistic, emotion-less, follow orders, power-mad

Then the sith would be the moralising ones, following dogma, "because orders" or "conviction".

Why Jedis are Terrifying

Why Jedis might be Villains

Sith vs Jedi comparison





Trailers to the new movie coming up this christmas:




Back to top Go down
View user profile
OhFortunae

avatar

Gender : Male Scorpio Posts : 2479
Join date : 2013-10-26
Age : 24
Location : Land of Dance and Song

PostSubject: Re: Movie Philosophy Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:58 pm

I find this comment very summing:


Back to top Go down
View user profile https://plus.google.com/u/0/109705167311303906720/posts
OhFortunae

avatar

Gender : Male Scorpio Posts : 2479
Join date : 2013-10-26
Age : 24
Location : Land of Dance and Song

PostSubject: Re: Movie Philosophy Wed Oct 12, 2016 1:57 pm

A movie which portrays the frictional Balkan wars.

The main character: His family got killed by Islamic terrorism; to escape the law and to have his own revenge continuing, he sides with the Serbs against the other Balkan countries, of which a few have Muslim populations.

This movie is so personal to me, as it had such a decisive impact on me as a teen. That it, - next to the great moments in my life and some great works of philosophy and allegoric literature that I have read, - shaped me and my worldview in a very impressionate manner, which will remain with me to the end.

Though, from my love for Serbia back then, I now have a love for all the Balkan peoples and cultures.


Back to top Go down
View user profile https://plus.google.com/u/0/109705167311303906720/posts
Hrodeberto

avatar

Gender : Male Capricorn Posts : 1348
Join date : 2014-07-14
Age : 31
Location : UA2 2 Rjoyhalty via Njobhilitie

PostSubject: Re: Movie Philosophy Wed Oct 12, 2016 4:45 pm

Saviour

It's been awhile since I last saw it, but I believe he was a mercenary, not really siding with any side per se..
The film did alright at portraying an impartial view of all sides involved in the conflict, even if that meant doing more vilifying than nullifying..
As for the characters, the Saviour represented the impulsive, soldier mentality, almost womanly or is it manly: act now, the consequences don't really matter, because even if you can see ahead, someone else can save your arse instead...the quickest, least resistant way to expel and repel whatever happened in the past...sacrifice others for yourself..
the Saved was more like the Saviour: farsighted (evinced in scenes when standing up boldly to her familial affairs and nourishing and eventually sacrificing for her little one), all exemplary strength in dealing with the past as it was..

Back to top Go down
View user profile
OhFortunae

avatar

Gender : Male Scorpio Posts : 2479
Join date : 2013-10-26
Age : 24
Location : Land of Dance and Song

PostSubject: Re: Movie Philosophy Wed Oct 12, 2016 5:12 pm

I did not say ''he sided with the Serbs because of nationalist motives''. I wrote ''he sides with the Serbs against the other Balkan countries, of which a few have Muslim populations.'' Correlating ''muslim populations'' in my sentence, as to say, he wants to fight indiscriminate against muslims (due to his loss), and the Serbs happened to be on that side who fought muslims (as well against Catholic Croats)..

Different perspective then. As I can't see a single indicator of him (considering) ''being saved'' out of any mess. He endures. Strive, drama, loss, finding.
Without him, the baby would have been killed, by her. Or else by the fellow soldier, the Serb.

I have to write some day a detailed review.
Back to top Go down
View user profile https://plus.google.com/u/0/109705167311303906720/posts
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Movie Philosophy Wed Nov 02, 2016 5:15 pm

Lynch and Lethe-argy.

Zizek wrote:
"Lynch's entire 'ontology' is based upon the discordance between reality, observed from a safe distance, and the absolute proximity of the Real. His elementary procedure involves moving forward from the establishing shot of reality to a disturbing proximity that renders visible the disgusting substance of enjoyment, the crawling and glistening of indestructible life. l Suffice it to recall the opening sequence of Blue velvet. After the vignettes of the idyllic American small town and the heart attack of the hero's father as he waters the lawn (when he collapses, the jet of hose water uncannily recalls surrealistic, heavy urination), the camera noses into the lawn, disclosing the bursting life there: the crawling insects and beetles, their rattling and devouring of the grass. . . . At the very beginning of Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me, we encounter the opposite procedure, which amounts to the same effect: first we see abstract white protoplasmic shapes floating in a blue background, a kind of elementary form of life in its primordial twinkling; then, as the camera moves slowly away, we gradually become aware that what we saw was the extreme close-up of a IV screen. Here we come to recognize the fundamental feature of postmodernist 'hyperrealism': the overproximity to reality brings about the 'loss of reality'; uncanny details stick out and perturb the pacifying effect of the overall picture.

The second feature, closely linked to the first, resides in the very designation 'Pre-Raphaelitism': the reaffirmation ofrendering things as they 'really are', not yet distorted by the rules of academic painting first established by Raphael. However, the Pre-Raphaelites' own practice belies this naive ideology of returning to the 'natural' way of painting. The first thing about their paintings that strikes the eye is their flatness. This feature necessarily appears to us, accustomed as we are to modern perspective-realism, as a sign of clumsiness: Pre-Raphaelite paintings somehow lack the 'depth' that pertains to space organized along perspective lines which meet at a distant point - it is as if the very 'reality' these paintings depict is not a 'true' reality but, rather, a reality structured as in bas-relief. (Another aspect of this same feature is the 'dollish', mechanically composite, artificial quality that clings to the depicted individuals: they somehow lack the abyssal depth of personality that we usually associate with the notion of 'subject'.) The designation 'Pre-Raphaelitism' is thus to be taken literally: as indicating the shift from Renaissance perspectivism to the 'closed' medieval universe.

In Lynch's films, this 'flatness' of depicted reality, which effectively cancels the perspective ofinfinite openness, finds its precise counterpart at the level of sound. Let us return to the opening sequence of Blue Velvet: its crucial feature is the uncanny noise that emerges when we approach the Real. This noise is difficult to locate in reality; in order to determine its status one is tempted to invoke contemporary cosmology, which speaks of the noises at the borders of the universe. Such noises are not simply internal to the universe; they are the remainders, the last echoes, of the Big Bang that created the universe itself. The ontological status of this noise is more interesting than it may seem, since it subverts the fundamental notion of the ' open ' , infinite universe that defines the space of Newtonian physics.

This modern notion of the 'open' universe is based on the hypothesis that every positive entity (noise, matter) occupies some (empty) space: it hinges on the difference between space qua void and positive entities occupying space, 'filling it out'. Here space is phenomenologically viewed as something existing prior to the entities that 'fill it out': ifwe destroy or remove the matter occupying a given space, the space qua void still remains. But the primordial noise, the last remainder of the Big Bang, is constitutive ofspace itself. it is not a noise 'in' space, but a noise that keeps space open as such. If, therefore, we were to erase this noise, we would not get the 'empty space' that the noise filled out: space itself, the receptacle for every 'inner-worldly' entity, would vanish. This noise is therefore, in a sense, the very ' sound of silence'. Along the same lines, the fundamental noise in Lynch's films is not simply caused by objects that are part of reality; instead, this noise forms the ontological horizon, the frame of reality itself, the very texture that holds reality together - if this noise were to be eradicated, reality itself would collapse. From the 'open' infinite universe of Cartesian-Newtonian physics, we thus revert to the pre-modern 'closed' universe, bounded by a fundamental 'noise'. The reversal of reality into the Real corresponds to the reversal of the look (of the subject peering at reality) into the gaze - that is, this reversal occurs when we enter the ' black hole ' , the tear in the fabric ofreality.

What we encounter in this 'black hole' is simply the body stripped of its skin. That is to say, Lynch perturbs our most elementary phenomeno­ logical relationship to the living body, which is based on the radical separation between the surface of the skin and what lies beneath it. Let us recall the uncanniness, even disgust, we experience when we endeavour to imagine what goes onjust under the surface ofa beautiful naked body - muscles, organs, veins. . . . In short, relating to the body implies suspending what goes on beneath the surface. This suspension is an effect of the symbolic order; it can occur only in so far as our bodily reality is structured by language. In the symbolic order, even when we are undressed, we are not really naked, since skin itself functions as the 'dress of the flesh'. This suspension excludes the Real of the life­ substance.

How, then, does Lynch perturb our most elementary phenomeno­ logical relationship to the bodily surface? By means of voice, of a word that 'kills', breaking through the skin surface to cut directly into raw flesh - in short, by means of a word whose status is that of the Real. This feature is most expressive in Lynch's version of Herbert's Dune. Suffice it to recall the members of the space-guild who, because they have overindulged in 'spice', the mysterious drug around which the story revolves, have became distorted beings with gigantic heads; as worm-like creatures made of skinless, raw flesh, they represent the indestructible life-substance, the pure embodiment of enjoyment.

What we have here is the typical Lynch child-fantasy notion of the human body as a balloon, a form made of inflated skin, with no solid substance inside. . . .
The skulls ofthe space-guild servants also start to crack when they run out of the spice - again a case of distorted, fractured surfaces.

What is crucial here is the correlation between these cracks in the skull and the distorted voice: the guild-servant utters unintelligible whispers, which are transformed into articulated speech only by passing through the microphone - or, in Lacanian terms, by passing through the medium of the big Other.

At the centre of Blue Velvet (and of Lynch's entire oeuvre) lies the enigma of woman's depression.  

What if depression is the original fact, what if it comes first, and all subsequent activity - Frank's terrorizing of Dorothy - far from being the cause of her malaise, is, rather, a desperate 'therapeutic' attempt to prevent the woman from sliding into the abyss of absolute depression, a kind of 'electroshock' therapy that endeavours to focus her attention?The crudeness of his 'treatment' (kidnapping her husband and son; cutting off the husband's ear; requiring her participation in the sadistic sexual game) simply corresponds to the depth of her depression: only such raw shocks can keep her active.

In this sense Lynch can be said to be truly anti-Weininger: if, in Otto Weininger's Sex and Character, the paradigm of modern anti-feminism, woman presents herself to man, endeavouring to fascinate his gaze and thus to drag him down from the spiritual heights into the pit of sexual debauchery - if, then, for Weininger, the 'original fact' is man's spirituality, whereas his fascination with a woman results from his Fall - with Lynch, the 'original fact' is the woman's depression, her sliding into the abyss of self-annihilation, of absolute lethargy; whereas, on the 'contrary, it is man who presents himself to woman as the object of her gaze. Man 'bombards' her with shocks in order to arouse her attention and thereby pull her out of her numbness - in short, in order to reinstate her in the 'proper' order of causality.

The tradition of a deadened, lethargic woman aroused from her numbness by a man 's call was well under way in the nineteenth century: suffice it to recall Kundry from Wagner's Parsifal who, at the beginning of Act II and Act III, is awakened from a catatonic sleep (first through Klingsor's rude summons, then through Gurnemanz's kind care , or ­ from 'real ' life - the unique figure of jane Morris, wife of William Morris and mistress of Dante Gabriel Rossetti.

The fundamental axis of Lynch's universe consists of the tension between the abyss of ' feminine' depth and the pure skin surface of the symbolic order: bodily depth constantly invades the surface and threat­ens to swallow it." [Metastases of Enjoyment]

_________________


"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Movie Philosophy Mon May 08, 2017 7:54 pm


_________________


"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Movie Philosophy

Back to top Go down
 
Movie Philosophy
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 3 of 3Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3
 Similar topics
-
» Movie Philosophy
» cash movie
» Saint John The Apocalypse 2002 (Revelations) MOVIE
» A movie type dream
» White House Down (Movie)

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA :: THEATER-
Jump to: