About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 8:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The only good scene is when Sandra Oh beats up Thomas Haden Church after finding out that he was engaged to be married. Aside from that, it seems to be a celebration of the ethically bankrupt. The worst part is the whole pinot noir speech. It was such a disgusting attempt to take the protagonists drastic flaws and glorify them with a comparison to fragile grapes. This is the last movie I expected to see reviewed on an Objectivist site.

I still love a lot of rock and pop songs that are pretty sick in their philosophies but Sideways made me feel hung over without the benefit of a nice pinot noir.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 8:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
-RANT ON

What I really fucking hate is that tried and true old turn of phrase "this is the last thing I expected to (see/hear/say/etc) on an Objectivist site." As if the value of anything was intrinsic. Jeeeez!

-RANT OFF


Post 2

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 9:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
On the other hand, there are things - and movies - which are inimical to the wellbeing of a human, so in that respect is closest to be intrinsically negative...

Post 3

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 10:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
 Robert, I never thought I'd hear anything like that on an Objectivist website!
(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 10/04, 10:18am)


Post 4

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 10:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ah yes, but will it ever get popular sanction the SOL-Objectivist website - that is the real litmus test...

Post 5

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 10:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh, and I'm sure that Sideways is inimical to human wellbeing. :-)

closest to be intrinsically negative...
Closest, maybe, but the value of something presuposes the whole "of value to whom" issue. Once can, at the very least, view one of these nearly intrisically negative things and still gain value from it, even if that value is simply a deeper understanding of just how bad the "enemy" is.

Ethan





Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 10:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This movie really really really SUCKED!

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 11:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
While I mostly agree with Bill Sipes's first post here, I thought the movie was good enough simply as a comedy and a satire of California wine-tasting aficionados to be enjoyed on those terms. I mean, really, who could resist laughing his ass off during the scene where Miles has to retrieve his friend's wallet?

Post 8

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 11:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"No! If anyone orders a fucking merlot I'm leaving!!"
That line from the movie almost had me falling off the sofa laughing.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 3:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
When you spend your teen years reading We the Living, Anthem, The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged--*repeatedly*--then mix in copious amounts of Fleming's Bond & a wide assortment of science fiction, you end up having a quite romantic, black & white view of the human condition. At least I did.

[And, I'm sure that's fairly true of a lot of objectivists.]

Romanticism is one thing, but there's also a real world out there that doesn't conform, not by a long shot, to the template of the romantic. That's not to say you celebrate or kowtow to the non-heroic or the pathos-inflicted (note, I didn't say *anti*-heroic or *pathetic*) but we all, at times & to a greater or lesser degree, fail to live up to our own standards or those we know to be objectively proper. That doesn't make us any less capable of rising above the mire or of doing great things, it just means we're fallible & often in need of a wake-up call.

The two leads in Sideways, Miles, the despondent enophile & Jack, the immature fiancee, aren't meant to be Hank Reardens or John Galts. As I said in this article:

http://solohq.com/Articles/Elliot/Good_Guys,_Not_Superheroes.shtml

"Gods never go through puberty." & "We live our less-than-perfect lives through illness, arguments, tragedy, destitution and heartache. We're defined not by these hurdles, but by how we overcome them, by how we use our minds and our passion... to live decently and triumphantly."

In Sideways, Miles & Jack *do* redeem themselves within the context of their own lives. Sure, the scale of the redemption may be small & flawed, but unless you require every denouement to depict a Galtian sermon, crucifixion & resurrection, then Sideways isn't exactly a depiction of wasted humanity.

Ross



Post 10

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - 7:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I definately can not say that every bit of art that I enjoy is on par with Randian expectations. I enjoyed a lot of the writing, acting, and camera work from Sideways. I was just repulsed by the characters.
For me to say this movie was one of the "last movies I expect to see reviewed on an Objectivist site" is no more cliche than disputing an opinion by calling it cliche.

 What I really fucking hate is that tried and true old turn of phrase "this is the last thing I expected to (see/hear/say/etc) on an Objectivist site." As if the value of anything was intrinsic. Jeeeez!

If I were to present "The Stranger" by Albert Camus as a novel that contributed heavily to my mindset, I am pretty sure that many members on this site would have a few questions for me. Is Existentialism intrinsically bad?

When all is said and done, the ocassional laughs in Sideways won't compell me to watch it again. "Harold and Kumar go to White Castle" has more laughs, more nudity, and it doesn't try to make me empathize with ethically bankrupt protagonists.




Post 11

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - 7:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Bill,

Sorry that my quote seemed pointed at you. It's just a pet peave of mine! Crap, I hope I've never used that line......

As far as Camus book goes, I haven't read it, but it's the last thing I'd expect an Objectivist to read!

Ethan

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 10/05, 9:31am)


Post 12

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - 9:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If one wants a good wine movie, why not try "Eating Raul"...

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.