list http://www.spout.com/ Philosophy of Film recent group discussions Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/groups/Philosophy_of_Film/strange_coincidences/281/17732/1/ShowPost.aspx Post Subject: strange coincidences
Group Name: Philosophy of Film
Last Post By: Risselada
Post Date: 8/9/2007 7:37:44 PM
Body: Do you ever get into that weird situation where you watch a bunch of movies in a row and they all seem to have something in common that you didn't anticipate. Like you watch three movies in a row and they all have a quirky scene involving some particular situation that you've never seen in any other movies besides these three. Or you some character says the same thing in all of them. Or maybe you didn't realize it before renting the movies but they all three have the same supporting actor.I just watched the anime series Death Note, the movie The Man of the Year, and am currently watching the anime series Witch Hunter Robin. All of these deal with normal people who get roped into a situation where they killing or eliminating "bad" people for the betterment of socieity. There is of course usually an arguement between different parties as to whether the person doing the killing is any better or if it is justifiable. Maybe this a more common theme than not, but I think it's kind of specific here.Also another shared theme. The same time I was watching Death Note, I was reading the Sherlock Holmes novel Sign of Four. Both feature detective characters who are so experienced and intellegent that they can often deduce the thought patterns and characteristics and next plan of action of people they have never met merely based on what would otherwise seem to be unimporant clues.Is the fact that we sometimes end up watching a series of movies one right after another with such similarities without planning on it a coincidence? Are the chances against this happening a lot lower than we realize so we think it's amazing? Are there so many possible factors of things that could be similar that the possibility that one of the factors is similar between all of the movies that it discounts for the high improbability of any single factor?Or might it have something to do with the fact that something subconcious is leading us to chose to watch movies that have some relavent theme in them to our lives?Probably not but it's a fun thought.
]]>Thu, 09 Aug 2007 23:37:44 GMTstrange coincidencesPhilosophy of FilmDo you ever get into that weird situation where you watch a bunch of movies in a row and they all seem to have something in common that you didn't anticipate. Like you watch three movies in a row and they all have a quirky scene involving some particular situation that you've never seen in any other movies besides these three. Or you some character says the same thing in all of them. Or maybe you didn't realize it before renting the movies but they all three have the same supporting actor.I just watched the anime series Death Note, the movie The Man of the Year, and am currently watching the anime series Witch Hunter Robin. All of these deal with normal people who get roped into a situation where they killing or eliminating "bad" people for the betterment of socieity. There is of course usually an arguement between different parties as to whether the person doing the killing is any better or if it is justifiable. Maybe this a more common theme than not, but I think it's kind of specific here.Also another shared theme. The same time I was watching Death Note, I was reading the Sherlock Holmes novel Sign of Four. Both feature detective characters who are so experienced and intellegent that they can often deduce the thought patterns and characteristics and next plan of action of people they have never met merely based on what would otherwise seem to be unimporant clues.Is the fact that we sometimes end up watching a series of movies one right after another with such similarities without planning on it a coincidence? Are the chances against this happening a lot lower than we realize so we think it's amazing? Are there so many possible factors of things that could be similar that the possibility that one of the factors is similar between all of the movies that it discounts for the high improbability of any single factor?Or might it have something to do with the fact that something subconcious is leading us to chose to watch movies that have some relavent theme in them to our lives?Probably not but it's a fun thought.8/9/2007 7:37:44 PMDo you ever get into that weird situation where you watch a bunch of movies in a row and they all seem to have something in common that you didn't anticipate. Like you watch three movies in a row and they all have a quirky scene involving some particular situation that you've never seen in any other movies besides these three. Or you some character says the same thing in all of them. Or maybe you didn't realize it before renting the movies but they all three have the same supporting actor.I just watched the anime series Death Note, the movie The Man of the Year, and am currently watching the anime series Witch Hunter Robin. All of these deal with normal people who get roped into a situation where they killing or eliminating "bad" people for the betterment of socieity. There is of course usually an arguement between different parties as to whether the person doing the killing is any better or if it is justifiable. Maybe this a more common theme than not, but I think it's kind of specific here.Also another shared theme. The same time I was watching Death Note, I was reading the Sherlock Holmes novel Sign of Four. Both feature detective characters who are so experienced and intellegent that they can often deduce the thought patterns and characteristics and next plan of action of people they have never met merely based on what would otherwise seem to be unimporant clues.Is the fact that we sometimes end up watching a series of movies one right after another with such similarities without planning on it a coincidence? Are the chances against this happening a lot lower than we realize so we think it's amazing? Are there so many possible factors of things that could be similar that the possibility that one of the factors is similar between all of the movies that it discounts for the high improbability of any single factor?Or might it have something to do with the fact that something subconcious is leading us to chose to watch movies that have some relavent theme in them to our lives?Probably not but it's a fun thought. http://www.spout.com/groups/Philosophy_of_Film/Atlas_Shrugged_in_production/281/26053/1/ShowPost.aspx Post Subject: Atlas Shrugged in production
Group Name: Philosophy of Film
Last Post By: unclefestering
Post Date: 3/10/2008 6:02:26 PM
Body: Ayn Rand's philisophical novel, "Atlas Shrugged" is currently being made into a full lenth film.For those who don't know, Ayn Rand is the founder of Objectivism, a philosophy based on individualism and the importance of self interest. Other novels of her's have been converted to screen such as Fountainhead, and We The Living. None of her novel have been as influential however as Atlas Shrugged. Although I am not an objectivist, I am a big fan of her writing and hope this film lives up to it's promise. I do think that her Orwellian novella, Anthem would have made a very interesteng leap to the silver screen.
]]>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:02:26 GMTAtlas Shrugged in productionPhilosophy of FilmAyn Rand's philisophical novel, "Atlas Shrugged" is currently being made into a full lenth film.For those who don't know, Ayn Rand is the founder of Objectivism, a philosophy based on individualism and the importance of self interest. Other novels of her's have been converted to screen such as Fountainhead, and We The Living. None of her novel have been as influential however as Atlas Shrugged. Although I am not an objectivist, I am a big fan of her writing and hope this film lives up to it's promise. I do think that her Orwellian novella, Anthem would have made a very interesteng leap to the silver screen. 3/10/2008 6:02:26 PMAyn Rand's philisophical novel, "Atlas Shrugged" is currently being made into a full lenth film.For those who don't know, Ayn Rand is the founder of Objectivism, a philosophy based on individualism and the importance of self interest. Other novels of her's have been converted to screen such as Fountainhead, and We The Living. None of her novel have been as influential however as Atlas Shrugged. Although I am not an objectivist, I am a big fan of her writing and hope this film lives up to it's promise. I do think that her Orwellian novella, Anthem would have made a very interesteng leap to the silver screen. http://www.spout.com/groups/Philosophy_of_Film/How_we_talk_about_film/281/9209/1/ShowPost.aspxPost Subject: How we talk about film
Group Name: Philosophy of Film
Last Post By: rjsprague
Post Date: 5/22/2007 11:11:04 PM
Body: What is the right or best way to talk about movies. Specifically I am thinking about the grammatical tense that we use.I believe most published criticism refers to film events in the present tense. But I often find myself and others speaking about films in the past tense. I think this indicates the fact that for most people see a film as being very personal. When people speak about film in the past tense they see the film as a specific event that they observed at a particular time, even though they must know full well this same film can be replayed again and again in different places at different times and always be exactly the same (in a certain sense).Why don't people speak this same way about other forms of art that become certain events in time, such as musical recordings? Do you ever hear people speak in the past tense about musical recordings?What about other forms of art? Sculpture? Literature?There's a lot more I could say, but I'd like to hear some comments. Do you notice yourself speaking about films in different tenses at different times? Does it bug you? Do you notice which tense people are using when talking about film, or are you oblivious to it?
]]>Wed, 23 May 2007 03:11:04 GMTHow we talk about filmPhilosophy of FilmWhat is the right or best way to talk about movies. Specifically I am thinking about the grammatical tense that we use.I believe most published criticism refers to film events in the present tense. But I often find myself and others speaking about films in the past tense. I think this indicates the fact that for most people see a film as being very personal. When people speak about film in the past tense they see the film as a specific event that they observed at a particular time, even though they must know full well this same film can be replayed again and again in different places at different times and always be exactly the same (in a certain sense).Why don't people speak this same way about other forms of art that become certain events in time, such as musical recordings? Do you ever hear people speak in the past tense about musical recordings?What about other forms of art? Sculpture? Literature?There's a lot more I could say, but I'd like to hear some comments. Do you notice yourself speaking about films in different tenses at different times? Does it bug you? Do you notice which tense people are using when talking about film, or are you oblivious to it?5/22/2007 11:11:04 PMWhat is the right or best way to talk about movies. Specifically I am thinking about the grammatical tense that we use.I believe most published criticism refers to film events in the present tense. But I often find myself and others speaking about films in the past tense. I think this indicates the fact that for most people see a film as being very personal. When people speak about film in the past tense they see the film as a specific event that they observed at a particular time, even though they must know full well this same film can be replayed again and again in different places at different times and always be exactly the same (in a certain sense).Why don't people speak this same way about other forms of art that become certain events in time, such as musical recordings? Do you ever hear people speak in the past tense about musical recordings?What about other forms of art? Sculpture? Literature?There's a lot more I could say, but I'd like to hear some comments. Do you notice yourself speaking about films in different tenses at different times? Does it bug you? Do you notice which tense people are using when talking about film, or are you oblivious to it? http://www.spout.com/groups/Philosophy_of_Film/Making_Money_Or_Making_Art/281/22755/1/ShowPost.aspx Post Subject: Making Money Or Making Art.
Group Name: Philosophy of Film
Last Post By: unemployedwaif
Post Date: 12/12/2007 10:04:07 PM
Body: Recently had an good question of opinion presented to me.I caught the ad for Alvin and The Chipmunks on TV, and thought to my self. Jason Lee is pretty much a wanker for doing this movie. Directly after the ad, another popped up for an animated kids movie, starring Jason As voice talent.I have more respect for Jason Lee doing voice for an animated kids movie, than I would for him acting as silly as he sounds in a live adaptation of a ridiculous kids cartoon from the 80s. What do you think?
]]>Thu, 13 Dec 2007 03:04:07 GMTMaking Money Or Making Art.Philosophy of FilmRecently had an good question of opinion presented to me.I caught the ad for Alvin and The Chipmunks on TV, and thought to my self. Jason Lee is pretty much a wanker for doing this movie. Directly after the ad, another popped up for an animated kids movie, starring Jason As voice talent.I have more respect for Jason Lee doing voice for an animated kids movie, than I would for him acting as silly as he sounds in a live adaptation of a ridiculous kids cartoon from the 80s. What do you think? 12/12/2007 10:04:07 PMRecently had an good question of opinion presented to me.I caught the ad for Alvin and The Chipmunks on TV, and thought to my self. Jason Lee is pretty much a wanker for doing this movie. Directly after the ad, another popped up for an animated kids movie, starring Jason As voice talent.I have more respect for Jason Lee doing voice for an animated kids movie, than I would for him acting as silly as he sounds in a live adaptation of a ridiculous kids cartoon from the 80s. What do you think? http://www.spout.com/groups/Philosophy_of_Film/Determining_Favorite_Movies_the_Existential_Way/281/18032/1/ShowPost.aspxPost Subject: Determining Favorite Movies the Existential Way
Group Name: Philosophy of Film
Last Post By: pippin06
Post Date: 8/14/2007 3:13:45 AM
Body: I'm not an expert on Existentialist thought or anything, but using the concept of 'Bad Faith' as a means of making a personal favorite movies list is an interesting idea. Bad Faith, as I understand it, comes into play whenever an individual behaves in such a way that their authentic self is betrayed. Because people are entirely free to make their own decisions in life, a person who does not act on this freedom is not being authentic. No person has a defined role or purpose, and so there is no excuse to limit one's self to a particular course of action based on artificially created boundaries.The way see it, anyone who determines their favorite movies based on any criteria beyond what is personally enjoyable is acting in Bad Faith. For example, many people feel obligated to include movies such as Citizen Kane or The Godfather among their favorites, even though there are many other movies that they enjoy more on a personal level. There is nothing requiring anyone to actually like Citizen Kane, but many people see it on some Greatest Movie List and feel pressured to include it as a favorite. Or perhaps they feel validated by including it. I've seen numerous people post their favorites list on websites and then other people offer criticisms of the list. Frequently lists with the most familiar and widely regarded movies recieve the strongest approval, and the same movies tend to pop up on each list in various combinations. Of course, there is nothing wrong with liking a familiar, widely regarded movie, but it seems absurd that these movies show up so often. Certainly, out of all the many movies released, there must be movies more personally rewarding than The Godfather. Fine, The Godfather is a classic, but too many people stop at the classics and don't look any further for a more personally rewarding movie. To create a list of movies and label them as favorites, but not watch anything outside the realm of 'Great Movies' is acting in Bad Faith. The only real criticism of someone's favorites list that might be valid is that it's not personal enough.
]]>Tue, 14 Aug 2007 07:13:45 GMTDetermining Favorite Movies the Existential WayPhilosophy of FilmI'm not an expert on Existentialist thought or anything, but using the concept of 'Bad Faith' as a means of making a personal favorite movies list is an interesting idea. Bad Faith, as I understand it, comes into play whenever an individual behaves in such a way that their authentic self is betrayed. Because people are entirely free to make their own decisions in life, a person who does not act on this freedom is not being authentic. No person has a defined role or purpose, and so there is no excuse to limit one's self to a particular course of action based on artificially created boundaries.The way see it, anyone who determines their favorite movies based on any criteria beyond what is personally enjoyable is acting in Bad Faith. For example, many people feel obligated to include movies such as Citizen Kane or The Godfather among their favorites, even though there are many other movies that they enjoy more on a personal level. There is nothing requiring anyone to actually like Citizen Kane, but many people see it on some Greatest Movie List and feel pressured to include it as a favorite. Or perhaps they feel validated by including it. I've seen numerous people post their favorites list on websites and then other people offer criticisms of the list. Frequently lists with the most familiar and widely regarded movies recieve the strongest approval, and the same movies tend to pop up on each list in various combinations. Of course, there is nothing wrong with liking a familiar, widely regarded movie, but it seems absurd that these movies show up so often. Certainly, out of all the many movies released, there must be movies more personally rewarding than The Godfather. Fine, The Godfather is a classic, but too many people stop at the classics and don't look any further for a more personally rewarding movie. To create a list of movies and label them as favorites, but not watch anything outside the realm of 'Great Movies' is acting in Bad Faith. The only real criticism of someone's favorites list that might be valid is that it's not personal enough. 8/14/2007 3:13:45 AMI'm not an expert on Existentialist thought or anything, but using the concept of 'Bad Faith' as a means of making a personal favorite movies list is an interesting idea. Bad Faith, as I understand it, comes into play whenever an individual behaves in such a way that their authentic self is betrayed. Because people are entirely free to make their own decisions in life, a person who does not act on this freedom is not being authentic. No person has a defined role or purpose, and so there is no excuse to limit one's self to a particular course of action based on artificially created boundaries.The way see it, anyone who determines their favorite movies based on any criteria beyond what is personally enjoyable is acting in Bad Faith. For example, many people feel obligated to include movies such as Citizen Kane or The Godfather among their favorites, even though there are many other movies that they enjoy more on a personal level. There is nothing requiring anyone to actually like Citizen Kane, but many people see it on some Greatest Movie List and feel pressured to include it as a favorite. Or perhaps they feel validated by including it. I've seen numerous people post their favorites list on websites and then other people offer criticisms of the list. Frequently lists with the most familiar and widely regarded movies recieve the strongest approval, and the same movies tend to pop up on each list in various combinations. Of course, there is nothing wrong with liking a familiar, widely regarded movie, but it seems absurd that these movies show up so often. Certainly, out of all the many movies released, there must be movies more personally rewarding than The Godfather. Fine, The Godfather is a classic, but too many people stop at the classics and don't look any further for a more personally rewarding movie. To create a list of movies and label them as favorites, but not watch anything outside the realm of 'Great Movies' is acting in Bad Faith. The only real criticism of someone's favorites list that might be valid is that it's not personal enough. http://www.spout.com/groups/Philosophy_of_Film/Memory_and_identity_in_Eternal_Sunshine_of_the_Spo/281/13606/1/ShowPost.aspx Post Subject: Memory and identity in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
Group Name: Philosophy of Film
Last Post By: ShaunHuston
Post Date: 7/10/2007 2:27:06 PM
Body: A film that engages me philosophically is Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004). It is a movie that seems, ultimately, to be a meditation on memory and identity, and one that represents both in interesting and challenging ways.To me, Eternal Sunshine conceptualizes memory in spatial terms, both in the sense that memories are seen as being tied to places in the exterior world – Montauk, the Charles – and that they are located in different parts of our brain. Lacuna Inc's procedure is predicated on the idea of mapping, and this is extended to Joel's (Jim Carrey) “movement” between his memories, especially when seeking new “places” to stash Clementine (Kate Winslett). The connection between our interior and exterior geographies seems to present one of the central flaws in Lacuna's erasure service because our memories of places are larger than our memories of individual people. This would help to explain how Clementine and Joel both end up back at Montauk after their procedures and why Clementine is so unsettled by Patrick's (Elijah Wood) mimicking of Joel on the Charles.What makes this geographic conception of memory interesting is that I think we most commonly conceive of memory as a matter of time, rather than place or space, as in “remember when” or “memory fades,” but Eternal Sunshine seems to be suggesting that we can also think of memory in terms of “remember where” or “memory grows distant” in ways that are explicitly spatial and not just as metaphors for the passage of time.The Lacuna procedure is also rooted in the contention that memories, and who we are to each other, which raises the question of identity, are bound up in things – photos, gifts, items that have some particular connection to someone else. This challenges the tendency towards thinking about ourselves as coming from somewhere deep inside, as in “I should be true to myself,” a sentiment that suggests that my exterior life – the clothes I wear, how I cut and color my hair – can be judged according to how closely it matches my real self, which comes from inside me. I think that Eternal Sunshine can be read as implying that our identities are actually the product of interrelationships between people and things, and not simply the product of our individual interior selves coming to the surface. The impossibility of entirely removing the material evidence of others becomes another subtle flaw in Lacuna's system of memory erasure.Interestingly I think that Joel and Clementine's repeated attraction to each other can be read as either affirming an interior view of identity or moving in the direction of a more outward-looking or exterior view. If they reunite because of fate, that implies a more interior view of the self, as in who we are and what we do is somehow inevitable because we are who we are that can never change. If they reunite because, say, they both love Montauk, or because Joel, upon “first meeting,” will always see Clementine as someone who can introduce a wildness into his life and Clementine will see Joel as introducing sensitivity into hers, that implies a more outwardlooking view (these kinds of judgments necessarily being based on what we make of how people look, sound, carry themselves).Three other movies that come to mind in this realm of identity and memory are Vertigo, Memento, and The Lookout.Beyond noting that the title comes from the Alexander Pope quote cited in the film, I don't know much about what, if any, scientific or philosophical sources informed Charlie Kaufman's script for Eternal Sunshine.
]]>Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:27:06 GMTMemory and identity in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)Philosophy of FilmA film that engages me philosophically is Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004). It is a movie that seems, ultimately, to be a meditation on memory and identity, and one that represents both in interesting and challenging ways.To me, Eternal Sunshine conceptualizes memory in spatial terms, both in the sense that memories are seen as being tied to places in the exterior world – Montauk, the Charles – and that they are located in different parts of our brain. Lacuna Inc's procedure is predicated on the idea of mapping, and this is extended to Joel's (Jim Carrey) “movement” between his memories, especially when seeking new “places” to stash Clementine (Kate Winslett). The connection between our interior and exterior geographies seems to present one of the central flaws in Lacuna's erasure service because our memories of places are larger than our memories of individual people. This would help to explain how Clementine and Joel both end up back at Montauk after their procedures and why Clementine is so unsettled by Patrick's (Elijah Wood) mimicking of Joel on the Charles.What makes this geographic conception of memory interesting is that I think we most commonly conceive of memory as a matter of time, rather than place or space, as in “remember when” or “memory fades,” but Eternal Sunshine seems to be suggesting that we can also think of memory in terms of “remember where” or “memory grows distant” in ways that are explicitly spatial and not just as metaphors for the passage of time.The Lacuna procedure is also rooted in the contention that memories, and who we are to each other, which raises the question of identity, are bound up in things – photos, gifts, items that have some particular connection to someone else. This challenges the tendency towards thinking about ourselves as coming from somewhere deep inside, as in “I should be true to myself,” a sentiment that suggests that my exterior life – the clothes I wear, how I cut and color my hair – can be judged according to how closely it matches my real self, which comes from inside me. I think that Eternal Sunshine can be read as implying that our identities are actually the product of interrelationships between people and things, and not simply the product of our individual interior selves coming to the surface. The impossibility of entirely removing the material evidence of others becomes another subtle flaw in Lacuna's system of memory erasure.Interestingly I think that Joel and Clementine's repeated attraction to each other can be read as either affirming an interior view of identity or moving in the direction of a more outward-looking or exterior view. If they reunite because of fate, that implies a more interior view of the self, as in who we are and what we do is somehow inevitable because we are who we are that can never change. If they reunite because, say, they both love Montauk, or because Joel, upon “first meeting,” will always see Clementine as someone who can introduce a wildness into his life and Clementine will see Joel as introducing sensitivity into hers, that implies a more outwardlooking view (these kinds of judgments necessarily being based on what we make of how people look, sound, carry themselves).Three other movies that come to mind in this realm of identity and memory are Vertigo, Memento, and The Lookout.Beyond noting that the title comes from the Alexander Pope quote cited in the film, I don't know much about what, if any, scientific or philosophical sources informed Charlie Kaufman's script for Eternal Sunshine.7/10/2007 2:27:06 PMA film that engages me philosophically is Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004). It is a movie that seems, ultimately, to be a meditation on memory and identity, and one that represents both in interesting and challenging ways.To me, Eternal Sunshine conceptualizes memory in spatial terms, both in the sense that memories are seen as being tied to places in the exterior world – Montauk, the Charles – and that they are located in different parts of our brain. Lacuna Inc's procedure is predicated on the idea of mapping, and this is extended to Joel's (Jim Carrey) “movement” between his memories, especially when seeking new “places” to stash Clementine (Kate Winslett). The connection between our interior and exterior geographies seems to present one of the central flaws in Lacuna's erasure service because our memories of places are larger than our memories of individual people. This would help to explain how Clementine and Joel both end up back at Montauk after their procedures and why Clementine is so unsettled by Patrick's (Elijah Wood) mimicking of Joel on the Charles.What makes this geographic conception of memory interesting is that I think we most commonly conceive of memory as a matter of time, rather than place or space, as in “remember when” or “memory fades,” but Eternal Sunshine seems to be suggesting that we can also think of memory in terms of “remember where” or “memory grows distant” in ways that are explicitly spatial and not just as metaphors for the passage of time.The Lacuna procedure is also rooted in the contention that memories, and who we are to each other, which raises the question of identity, are bound up in things – photos, gifts, items that have some particular connection to someone else. This challenges the tendency towards thinking about ourselves as coming from somewhere deep inside, as in “I should be true to myself,” a sentiment that suggests that my exterior life – the clothes I wear, how I cut and color my hair – can be judged according to how closely it matches my real self, which comes from inside me. I think that Eternal Sunshine can be read as implying that our identities are actually the product of interrelationships between people and things, and not simply the product of our individual interior selves coming to the surface. The impossibility of entirely removing the material evidence of others becomes another subtle flaw in Lacuna's system of memory erasure.Interestingly I think that Joel and Clementine's repeated attraction to each other can be read as either affirming an interior view of identity or moving in the direction of a more outward-looking or exterior view. If they reunite because of fate, that implies a more interior view of the self, as in who we are and what we do is somehow inevitable because we are who we are that can never change. If they reunite because, say, they both love Montauk, or because Joel, upon “first meeting,” will always see Clementine as someone who can introduce a wildness into his life and Clementine will see Joel as introducing sensitivity into hers, that implies a more outwardlooking view (these kinds of judgments necessarily being based on what we make of how people look, sound, carry themselves).Three other movies that come to mind in this realm of identity and memory are Vertigo, Memento, and The Lookout.Beyond noting that the title comes from the Alexander Pope quote cited in the film, I don't know much about what, if any, scientific or philosophical sources informed Charlie Kaufman's script for Eternal Sunshine. http://www.spout.com/groups/Philosophy_of_Film/Deception/281/6721/1/ShowPost.aspx Post Subject: Deception
Group Name: Philosophy of Film
Last Post By: indieabby88
Post Date: 4/4/2007 3:04:25 PM
Body: I got into a conversation with my friends Adam (SkyPilot) and Noah a couple weeks ago. We were sitting around drinking and chatting and playing cards, and I put in the Fargo DVD. I played some of the special features, and then put on the movie while we chatted. There was some dicussion in the special features in the film and among us about the fact that the beginning of the movie starts off with a screen of text that reads:"THIS IS A TRUE STORY. The events depicted in this film took place in Minnesota in 1987. At the request of the survivors, the names have been changed. Out of respect for the dead, the rest has been told exactly as it occurred."Since then as far as can be shown, there was no such event. The Coen brothers have been recorded answering inquiries about this, but the various responses they have given have been cryptic or contradicting, which is standard for the brothers. They have claimed at times that it was absolutely true, other times have said that various parts of the movie are all true but taken from different true events and pieced together. Some people who worked with the Coens on the movie including William H. Macy in the specials features on the DVD comment that the Coens told them flat out that the whole story was fabricated and that the claim at the beginning of the movie is basically a lie. When Macy told them that they couldn't do that, they asked him why not.There were many comments and reactions and stories about all of this. One of many I might mention was that there was an unusual news story about a woman who apparently traveled from Japan to Minnesota after seeing Fargo to find the money that the character of Carl Showalter buries in the snow by a fence in a field. She was found dead from exposure several days later. I only just found out now when writing this post that that this story was also in a way fabricated. There was a real event about a woman from Tokyo coming to Minnesota and dying, but the story about her seeing Fargo was made up. Her death was actually a documented suicide apparently. The fact that I just discovered that story itself was fabricated gives me another unusual insight on the issue.When we talked about this, my friend Adam was upset about it. He thought it was deceptive and immoral (later we continued to talk about it and indicated that he had thought about it more and possibly took a new perspective on it). I don't want to lay out everything that we talked about because there was a lot, and the conversation went into many different directions. But I have thought a lot on this subject and find it interesting.I am now asking you to comment on what your immediate reactions to this situation is. I have a lot more to say, but it's much easier and more fun in a dialogue rather than a monologue format.
]]>Wed, 04 Apr 2007 19:04:25 GMTDeceptionPhilosophy of FilmI got into a conversation with my friends Adam (SkyPilot) and Noah a couple weeks ago. We were sitting around drinking and chatting and playing cards, and I put in the Fargo DVD. I played some of the special features, and then put on the movie while we chatted. There was some dicussion in the special features in the film and among us about the fact that the beginning of the movie starts off with a screen of text that reads:"THIS IS A TRUE STORY. The events depicted in this film took place in Minnesota in 1987. At the request of the survivors, the names have been changed. Out of respect for the dead, the rest has been told exactly as it occurred."Since then as far as can be shown, there was no such event. The Coen brothers have been recorded answering inquiries about this, but the various responses they have given have been cryptic or contradicting, which is standard for the brothers. They have claimed at times that it was absolutely true, other times have said that various parts of the movie are all true but taken from different true events and pieced together. Some people who worked with the Coens on the movie including William H. Macy in the specials features on the DVD comment that the Coens told them flat out that the whole story was fabricated and that the claim at the beginning of the movie is basically a lie. When Macy told them that they couldn't do that, they asked him why not.There were many comments and reactions and stories about all of this. One of many I might mention was that there was an unusual news story about a woman who apparently traveled from Japan to Minnesota after seeing Fargo to find the money that the character of Carl Showalter buries in the snow by a fence in a field. She was found dead from exposure several days later. I only just found out now when writing this post that that this story was also in a way fabricated. There was a real event about a woman from Tokyo coming to Minnesota and dying, but the story about her seeing Fargo was made up. Her death was actually a documented suicide apparently. The fact that I just discovered that story itself was fabricated gives me another unusual insight on the issue.When we talked about this, my friend Adam was upset about it. He thought it was deceptive and immoral (later we continued to talk about it and indicated that he had thought about it more and possibly took a new perspective on it). I don't want to lay out everything that we talked about because there was a lot, and the conversation went into many different directions. But I have thought a lot on this subject and find it interesting.I am now asking you to comment on what your immediate reactions to this situation is. I have a lot more to say, but it's much easier and more fun in a dialogue rather than a monologue format.4/4/2007 3:04:25 PMI got into a conversation with my friends Adam (SkyPilot) and Noah a couple weeks ago. We were sitting around drinking and chatting and playing cards, and I put in the Fargo DVD. I played some of the special features, and then put on the movie while we chatted. There was some dicussion in the special features in the film and among us about the fact that the beginning of the movie starts off with a screen of text that reads:"THIS IS A TRUE STORY. The events depicted in this film took place in Minnesota in 1987. At the request of the survivors, the names have been changed. Out of respect for the dead, the rest has been told exactly as it occurred."Since then as far as can be shown, there was no such event. The Coen brothers have been recorded answering inquiries about this, but the various responses they have given have been cryptic or contradicting, which is standard for the brothers. They have claimed at times that it was absolutely true, other times have said that various parts of the movie are all true but taken from different true events and pieced together. Some people who worked with the Coens on the movie including William H. Macy in the specials features on the DVD comment that the Coens told them flat out that the whole story was fabricated and that the claim at the beginning of the movie is basically a lie. When Macy told them that they couldn't do that, they asked him why not.There were many comments and reactions and stories about all of this. One of many I might mention was that there was an unusual news story about a woman who apparently traveled from Japan to Minnesota after seeing Fargo to find the money that the character of Carl Showalter buries in the snow by a fence in a field. She was found dead from exposure several days later. I only just found out now when writing this post that that this story was also in a way fabricated. There was a real event about a woman from Tokyo coming to Minnesota and dying, but the story about her seeing Fargo was made up. Her death was actually a documented suicide apparently. The fact that I just discovered that story itself was fabricated gives me another unusual insight on the issue.When we talked about this, my friend Adam was upset about it. He thought it was deceptive and immoral (later we continued to talk about it and indicated that he had thought about it more and possibly took a new perspective on it). I don't want to lay out everything that we talked about because there was a lot, and the conversation went into many different directions. But I have thought a lot on this subject and find it interesting.I am now asking you to comment on what your immediate reactions to this situation is. I have a lot more to say, but it's much easier and more fun in a dialogue rather than a monologue format. http://www.spout.com/groups/Philosophy_of_Film/Waking_Life_An_animated_Philosophy_101/281/6732/1/ShowPost.aspx Post Subject: Waking Life: An animated Philosophy 101?
Group Name: Philosophy of Film
Last Post By: Puhnner
Post Date: 4/4/2007 8:03:12 PM
Body: The topic of this discussion might more aptly be "Philosophy in Film" rather than "Philosophy of Film," but oh well. When I first saw Richard Linklater's Waking Life I absolutely loved it. Ideas! Talking! Dreams! Rotoscoping! But now I'm not so sure. I've heard it called "an animated philosophy 101 class," and "intellectual masturbation." These criticisms are starting to seem viable. What does everyone think, does all the idea-talk do anything beyond waxing philosophical about, ya know, life and stuff?
]]>Thu, 05 Apr 2007 00:03:12 GMTWaking Life: An animated Philosophy 101?Philosophy of FilmThe topic of this discussion might more aptly be "Philosophy in Film" rather than "Philosophy of Film," but oh well. When I first saw Richard Linklater's Waking Life I absolutely loved it. Ideas! Talking! Dreams! Rotoscoping! But now I'm not so sure. I've heard it called "an animated philosophy 101 class," and "intellectual masturbation." These criticisms are starting to seem viable. What does everyone think, does all the idea-talk do anything beyond waxing philosophical about, ya know, life and stuff?4/4/2007 8:03:12 PMThe topic of this discussion might more aptly be "Philosophy in Film" rather than "Philosophy of Film," but oh well. When I first saw Richard Linklater's Waking Life I absolutely loved it. Ideas! Talking! Dreams! Rotoscoping! But now I'm not so sure. I've heard it called "an animated philosophy 101 class," and "intellectual masturbation." These criticisms are starting to seem viable. What does everyone think, does all the idea-talk do anything beyond waxing philosophical about, ya know, life and stuff?