One would think that you, of all people, would jump on the most insulting facet of the Oxfordian theory: It is entirely based on the notion that only the born-wealthy and private-school-educated can create great works of art, and individual achievement potential is determined by social class.That is literally the ONLY "evidence" offered by most proponents of the theory. I'm serious; the entire extent of their rationale consists of, "But... surely a PEASANT couldn't write those masterworks!"
@ Sylocat:What are you on about? No really?@ Bob:It's made by the Gattaca guy? Fuck, this movie just got way more interesting, and I really wanted to see it before. Will also be checking out Lord of War, so thanks for that shoutout too.Gattaca is an amazing film, and anybody and everybody should check it out. It's incredibly empowering to watch, and my go-to movie if I'm feeling down.
I liked all of his movies, including S1mone. Sure it's not as good as his others but it was still fun.
@Mads:@Sylocat is talking about Anonymous. Why he has chosen to do that here rather than on the Escapist comment thread associated with Intermission (I wonder if Bobs seen the film Intermission. Its a great film starring a younger Cillian Murphy) is beyond me.And by the way I think Lord of War is a supremely underrated film, that has one of the greatest opening credits sequences in the history of film. Normally I wouldn't say that when reccomending a film to someone, but in this case it REALLY deserves a mention.And finally, to say what I had intended to say before I felt the need to sort out that confusion:WHY NO TINTIN!? U NO LIKE CRIME SOLVING BELGIAN TEEN JOURNALISTS?
I don't think Tintin has been released Stateside yet, and won't be for a couple of months.Took a look at IMDb page, looks like the same group of trolls who ran the Scott Pilgrim board into the ground are dead set against it. Yep, it looks like it’s going to be good.
@ Sylocat Have you even watched Bob's videos? He's always seemed to think that the intellectual and artistic elite were superior to the "rif-raf". I mean, this is the guy who went on about how "Idiocracy" was a plausible scenario. I would not at all be surprised if he thought a mere uneducated "peasant" wasn't capable of writing Shakespeare's works.
I just don't get that. Even in Bob's I'm-so-great world, a big part of it is transcending the circumstances of your birth (they make it sound so easy, after all). Wasn't there a whole thing about that a few threads back?Or maybe he just didn't think of it.
Bob,Bob,BOB!Cronenburg, Viggo Mortinson, Keirra Knightly.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1571222/
I assume Sylo is commenting on it here, for the same reason I have, in the past: I don't want to make an account on The Escapist, just to comment. I already have a Google account, so I will comment here, about Intermission articles.I never put any stock in the idea that Shakespeare didn't write his own material. And if the proponents' main argument really is the one of education, my rebuttal would be, simply, to point out how many mega-corporations were started by people who didn't even graduate high school.Education is no measure of intelligence. The easiest examples of that, are some of the politicians from the last 20, or so years. Sadly, is seems, success (including formal education) is more connected to who-you-know, than actual ability.No, I'm not bitter. Who told you that?
Oh, now it all makes sense!Shoulda thought to check up on intermission.@ SylocatConsidering how Shakespeare portrayed historical figures himself in plays such as Julius Caesar, I think a modern day portrayal of Shakespeare with a few additional dramatic weaves is very appropriate.I don't think you should necessarily jump on the notions of social-class-stereotyping when the results are something like this...sometimes the benefits of using the stereotypes in a work are incredibly beneficial. After all, stereotypes within a work (even without the framing device employed here) do not necessarily reflect the sympathies of the authors, and here, the stereotype is very clearly not the point, it's just an assumption that you need to roll with, whether you agree it's valid or not.Such an assumption is a strike against the work, sure, but if the work is as good as Bob seems to think it is, it should only be a really minor point of criticism.
After all, stereotypes within a work (even without the framing device employed here) do not necessarily reflect the sympathies of the authors, and here, the stereotype is very clearly not the point, it's just an assumption that you need to roll with, whether you agree it's valid or not.Except, the film's producers are MAKING it the point, since they are also producing a full-blown documentary trumping up these charges as "promotional material" (IE, a shameless PR stunt), and they're even trying to distribute teaching materials to schools.
ok. It sounds mainly like a promotional angle, and do we know exactly what they're distributing to school?At the end of the day, the movie couldn't exist without the presumption, so within the context of the work it would be impossible to see if it was chosen in bad faith....and the fact that the absense of the presumption would eliminate the work still means it's a weird point of criticism since, to fix it, the movie would have to not exist...But ok, the school thing may be worth getting a bit up in arms over...although again, it depends on what the materials actually say.
adding lord of war to the 'flix queue...
I saw this movie last night, and it has a lot of great things going for it; no overzealous artistry/commotion (budget cinema but with a nice flavour/art direction to make it work distinctly) a pertinent theme (capitalism, class divide etc) and some good acting (Seyfried is a bit weak but JT is definitely as good as most others in the game...)It just feel flat on too many areas that should have really added something a bit more powerful to the film. It does reek a bit of distributor cuts rather then writing badness, but still, it grates... It could have been really good.Why is the father even mentioned? It goes nowhere? Why do we care at all about the timekeeper and why does it end like that?I like the commentary that you can only do soooo much and in a couple of generations the system will(should?) reset, but seriously... Why did they not spice it up a bit with some sort of gotcha moment about possibly meeting his dad,(timekeeper perhaps?) why is there no holed up old person bucking the trend - (a super, super upper elite old class??) and why oh why was there no mention at all about the timekeeper being from the ghetto etc until the end, as before he just seemed a slightly more determined (ie. older - as that is all that distinguished him from his buddies) detective.Let alone the plot gaps about getting on weis security, why no one would pillage the mission with 1000000 years, why time is stored in those block things when one can hold everything, why time isn't remotely controlled (a la - it is obviously analogous to $$$ - and we have eftpos), why is there no overweight/really ugly people in the ghetto, why is that guy from I am Number Four so bad (for real, not the character), why not go the whole way and actually say immortality is enabled full stop - no accidents/death (via cloning/robots?? -[I dunno]) so that the only way to die IS to actually hit zero. (Oh I know why... action scenes!) and why is arm wrestling (or should I say twisting???) a retarded form of competition/strength??The costumes were decent, the sets were great, the acting was ok and the story had the juicy bits of a Phil K Dick short story, but without any interesting kicker to boot it home for you...It was a good movie - and I do recommend it, but it is nowhere near as critical or damning and or interesting as Gattaca in general and I think it would have been almost relatively easy to make it have a little extra zing, Robin Hood mentality and silly bank heist ending aside.
Post a Comment