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 unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


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

Friday, February 22, 2008 - 2:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I truly cannot understand the reason this movie has been getting raves.

Or, for that matter, any of the films nominated for Best Picture Oscars this year with the possible exception of “No Country for Old Men.”  It was grisly and cynical, but at least it was entertaining, which is a lot more than I can say for “There Will Be Blood.”  That had to be the most boring 5 hours I have ever spent in a movie theatre, even though the film was only 2 ½ hours long.  I would nominate “I drink your milkshake!” for one of the dumbest lines in the history of American film.

 

I didn’t see the other two.  After “Syriana”--that scrambled, bewildering, putrid apology for Islamism and the ideology of “petroleum politics--as soon as I see George Clooney’s name in the cast, I cross that movie off my list.  (I know Matt Damon was also in it, but at least his Jason Bourne films are occasionally exciting.)  “Juno” just didn’t look all that interesting, and it didn’t help when “pro-life” conservatives began singing its’ praises.

 

The two films I enjoyed the most in 2007 had no chance for an Oscar nomination.  “The Brave One” with Jodie Foster was a well-done moralistic thriller in the best tradition of Mickey Spillane (and the original "Death Wish").  It should have been titled “I, The Jury.”  And “The Kingdom,” with Jamie Foxx and Jennifer Garner, was a powerful and exciting indictment of the blind savagery of Middle Eastern terrorism from a surprisingly pro-American  point-of-view.  Themes of justice and anti-terrorism automatically disqualify movies for award season in leftist, feel-good, hand-wringing Tinsel Town.

 

In the wake of the stupid (and incredibly costly and wasteful) writer’s guild strike, I’m personally hoping this is the worst-rated Oscar show in recent television history.  Hollywood has earned it.


Post 1

Monday, February 25, 2008 - 11:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Hooray!  Who says there is no justice in this world?  Keep cranking out the cynical crud and the insufferable leftist claptrap, you self-important, hotshot, creative geniuses.  Nobody is watching.  Nobody cares what you prima donnas think!

 

Oscars are a TV ratings dud
NEW YORK – February 25, 2008--The Oscars are a ratings dud. Nielsen Media Research says preliminary ratings for the 80th annual Academy Awards telecast are 14 percent lower than the least-watched ceremony ever.

Nielsen said Monday that overnight ratings are also 21 percent lower than last year, when "The Departed" was named best picture.

The least-watched Oscars ceremony ever was in 2003, when there were 33 million viewers.

Nielsen has no estimate yet on how many people watched Sunday night, but based on ratings from the nation's biggest markets, the Oscars will be hard-pressed to avoid an ignominious record.

The show had a 21.9 rating and 33 share.

 

 

 

 


Post 2

Monday, February 25, 2008 - 2:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dennis excellent posts.

I wish 300 had gotten some nominations too, but again as you say Hollywood is run by a bunch of leftist panzies. Also I did see the "Kingdom" and I thought it was excellent except for the last line of the movie that appeared to be morally relativistic. What did you make of that?

Post 3

Monday, February 25, 2008 - 3:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No surprise about the low ratings.

Consider this: if we combine the 2007 box office gross of the 5 "best pic" nominations and think of it as one big film, it would still rank fourth in the year's totals (about $313M). Clearly, there's a disconnect between what the average movie watcher understands by the term "entertainment" and what the Hollywood establishment understands it to be.

And yes, the Coen brothers are Hollywood establishment; they have been for a long time. I gave up on them long ago when I noticed that they began "referencing" (as in directly copying) whole scenes from Preston Sturges films. Personally, I loathed "No Country For Old Men." I did manage, however, to see three other films that were even worse, all by major filmmakers: "Before The Devil Knows You're Dead" (dir. Sidney Lumet); "Cassandra's Dream" (writer/dir. Woody Allen); and "Youth Without Youth" (dir. Francis Ford Coppola).

I also watched "The Great Debaters", which should have been a great film, but fell flat for a very good reason: no dramatic conflict (unforgivable in a drama). The movie (produced by Oprah Winfrey, by the way) is based on the true story of Wiley College, a small black college in rural Texas in the 1930s, which managed to assemble a top debating team. The team had an unbroken record of wins and (in real life) managed to debate, and beat, an all-white college: University of Southern California. In the movie, USC wasn't a big enough name, so the writers made the final debate and triumph be against Harvard. The major flaw in this movie is that all the conflict is in watching actual debates; the winner has been predetermined for the viewer because he already knows that Wiley College won all the debates; and, additionally, the debating topics are all far-left talking points; e.g., "Resolved: Capitalism is immoral"...etc. The casting and the performances were very good, but Denzel Washington, in his directorial debut, appears at times not to know what to do with the camera. For example, in the final quarter of the movie, when the Wiley team is debating Harvard, the director has the camera aimlessly rove around the debating hall, no doubt to mimic the swooning feelings of the small-town Texan debate team members on the dais of such an august venue. Unfortunately, what the audience actually sees is simply an aimlessly roving camera (lesson 1: cameras can't photogaph feelings or subjective states; only objects and actions). The film deals with an interesting bit of social history -- it's a docudrama, really -- but fell far short of what it aimed for, and what it could have been. 

The best movie I saw in 2007 was the brilliant Pixar animation "Ratatouille", written and directed by Brad Bird. Perhaps not as action-packed as his 2004 film "The Incredibles," it's nevertheless just as good, and perhaps, a bit more urbane. (It's about a rat who can cook, and, befriending a human -- well, a Frenchman -- becomes the greatest chef in France.)

Like "The Incredibles," "Ratatouille" has to do with identity, achievement, and the overcoming of obstacles imposed by those who believe that one must keep to a prescribed station in life. The dialogue is witty; the characterizations, sharp; and the story, compelling. The technical aspects of the 3-D animation are (as usual from Pixar) stupendous.

The only other films I liked this year were "Charlie Wilson's War" (mainly for Philip Seymour Hoffman's sharp performance as a rogue CIA agent) directed by Mike Nichols, and "The Bucket List", with Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman, and directed by Rob Reiner. The latter movie was actually the best written of all the live-action features, and despite being about dying, it's quite humorous and uplifting. The chemistry between Nicholson and Freeman occasionally reached the same heights as that between Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau.


Post 4

Monday, February 25, 2008 - 3:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I recommend the following blog post (and a couple of the comments) from Liberty and Culture (taken mostly from Libertas)

Andrew Klavan on Hollywood Then and Now

Post 5

Monday, February 25, 2008 - 3:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Those ideals were embodied by the characters themselves—by their rough, easygoing demeanor, their friendly interaction over ethnic and class lines, and their suspicion of fascist strongmen. Mussolini “kinda thinks he’s God, don’t he?” says a cynical Humphrey Bogart in Sahara. “Someday that guy’s gonna blow up and bust.”

Funny the blogger should quote that. The screenplay for "Sahara" was written by John Howard Lawson, who was a communist and one of the infamous "Hollywood Ten." Lawson went to to prison for refusing to cooperate with HUAC.


Post 6

Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 12:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John,

I wish 300 had gotten some nominations too, but again as you say Hollywood is run by a bunch of leftist panzies. Also I did see the "Kingdom" and I thought it was excellent except for the last line of the movie that appeared to be morally relativistic. What did you make of that?

Thanks for the feedback. I also enjoyed "The 300."  It had several inspiring moments that Objectivists could admire.  I especially liked the scene where King Leonidas, as he is about to die, tells the traitor Ephialtes, “May you have a long life.”  That really underscored the film’s theme of morality and freedom as requirements for man’s life on earth.

 

I don’t recall the last line in “The Kingdom.”  Perhaps I blanked it out to preserve my selfish enjoyment of the film’s virtues.  What was it?   


Post 7

Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 7:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I especially liked the scene where King Leonidas, as he is about to die, tells the traitor Ephialtes, “May you have a long life.”  That really underscored the film’s theme of morality and freedom as requirements for man’s life on earth.

I also liked "300", but I'm not quite sure I understand your assertion. "Ephialtes" was a deformed hunchback, who suffered not only from his physical condition, but from the fact that he was disallowed to serve with the Spartans in combat. To say "May you have a long life" was a back-handed compliment: it clearly meant "May you live long so that you can suffer long." How does that underscore ideas of morality and freedom as requirements for man's life on earth?


Post 8

Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 8:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Ephialtes" was a deformed hunchback, who suffered not only from his physical condition, but from the fact that he was disallowed to serve with the Spartans in combat. To say "May you have a long life" was a back-handed compliment: it clearly meant "May you live long so that you can suffer long."

Considering the spicy scene preceding it, where the hunchback was offered lots of really hot women in exchange for his betrayal of the Spartans, I don't think he was suffering inordinately.  Perhaps Leonidas was unaware of this reward, and thought the hunchback would suffer pangs of conscience over his betrayal.

Am I the only heretic who thought the hunchback was behaving like a rational Objectivist, maximizing his personal advantage, rather than sacrificing himself for people who, from his perspective, had treated him rather shabbily, and who lived in a thoroughly socialistic state (Sparta) that wasn't particularly worth saving?


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 10:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dennis the line I was referring to was when one of the FBI agents asked the Jamie Fox character what did you whisper in her ear (the female FBI agent) he said "We're going to kill them all" and then the next scene shows the muslim mother asking her son what did his terrorist grandfather whisper to him before he died and he also replied "we're going to kill them all". Didn't know quite what to make of that other than some kind of implicit message that there was moral equivalence between the US and Islamic extremists. I thought it was odd considering the entire length of the movie showed a clear distinction between the protagonists and the antagonists.

And Jim

Considering the spicy scene preceding it, where the hunchback was offered lots of really hot women in exchange for his betrayal of the Spartans, I don't think he was suffering inordinately. Perhaps Leonidas was unaware of this reward, and thought the hunchback would suffer pangs of conscience over his betrayal.

Am I the only heretic who thought the hunchback was behaving like a rational Objectivist,



So you think Objectivism is about range of the moment decisions with no long term forethought to giving up one's freedom to be a slave in return for sexual favors and a uniform? To receive more than what one is worth through the deaths of your fellow man fighting for their freedom? You think that's what builds one's self-esteem and happiness? So you think Objectivism is hedonism? That there is no harmony of interests between men, and better to live as a tyrant's servant who shower you with riches because you betrayed them rather than live freely amongst your peers? Yes, you are the only one here who thinks he was behaving like a rational Objectivist and for good reason, because you don't understand Objectivism. It is not a hedonistic philosophy.


...maximizing his personal advantage, rather than sacrificing himself for people who, from his perspective, had treated him rather shabbily,


He was? He was offered a job by King Leonidas to supply water to the injured soldiers. If by "shabbily" you mean rejected to be part of the Spartan army because otherwise he would've put Spartan soldiers at great risk because of his shortcoming? On the contrary this represented what Rand said "to each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced."

-Atlas Shrugged


and who lived in a thoroughly socialistic state (Sparta) that wasn't particularly worth saving?


The film was not about portraying Sparta as she was but rather as romanticized ideal, just as how art should be. Please read Rand's "Romantic Manifesto", Spartan man in this work of fiction was portrayed not as he was but as he ought to be; physically perfect, morally absolute, passionate and intelligent, emotive and rational.

Might I also remind you the film had monsters? If you honestly think this was meant to be an accurate portrayal of history I think you missed a lot.

Post 10

Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 11:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Claude,

 

To say "May you have a long life" was a back-handed compliment: it clearly meant "May you live long so that you can suffer long." How does that underscore ideas of morality and freedom as requirements for man's life on earth?

 

Ephialtes had been grossly immoral to betray Sparta and the value of freedom.  The longer he lived, the more obvious and painful it would be that he had forfeited the values that make life worthwhile.  I find it puzzling to have to explain that.

 

John,

 

Didn't know quite what to make of that other than some kind of implicit message that there was moral equivalence between the US and Islamic extremists.

 

I vaguely remember something like that.  You may be right about the implied message.  It wouldn’t be the first time that a Hollywood movie ended with a cowardly apology, as if to say, “we didn’t really mean it.”  (I cannot think of other examples offhand, but I seem to recall similar reactions.)

 

BTW, your answer to Jim was perfect…

 

Yes, you are the only one here who thinks he was behaving like a rational Objectivist and for good reason, because you don't understand Objectivism.

 

Thanks for that.  Saves me a whole lot of keystrokes.   


Post 11

Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 12:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Am I the only heretic who thought the hunchback was behaving like a rational Objectivist, maximizing his personal advantage, rather than sacrificing himself


Jim, would you sell your child for riches? Would you sell your wife for lifelong comfort?

Ephialtis betrayed that which he valued most, Sparta, for short term hedonistic rewards as a slave. And just as a man who betrays his highest values would be tortured by that as long as he lives, Leonidas was condemning Ephialtis to a life full of self torture (as evidenced by Ephialti's tortured change in expression upon hearing Leonidas curse, he knew what he did)

Post 12

Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 2:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The film was not about portraying Sparta as she was but rather as romanticized ideal, just as how art should be. Please read Rand's "Romantic Manifesto", Spartan man in this work of fiction was portrayed not as he was but as he ought to be; physically perfect, morally absolute, passionate and intelligent, emotive and rational.

John, Dennis, and Michael -- thanks for explaining the hidden context of the movie for me.  While I was watching the film, I was thinking in terms of the historical Sparta, where the citizens were arguably less free than under the Persians.  In that context, loyalty to a horrifically oppressive state wasn't a value that seemed worth fighting and dying for.  While I was watching the movie, I was thinking that the writers were playing fast and loose with the truth to push a certain agenda, taking advantage of the audience's ignorance of what Sparta was really like, and thus glorifying subjection to a state where they conveniently chose not to point the camera at the ugly reality of Sparta and expose the brutal tyranny of that state.

But, in the context of a willing suspension of disbelief where one imagines a thoroughly fictionalized Sparta, and the fictionalized nobility of the Spartan protagonists, then, yes, Ephialtis made a horrible betrayal of values he should have held dear.

If I had dozed off in history class and been ignorant of the real Sparta (or at least read Rand's "Romantic Manifesto"), "300" would have been much less aggravating to watch -- sort of like watching the movie "Erin Brockovich", which might actually be enjoyable to watch if you haven't googled Brockovich beforehand and realized that she is in fact a scumbag trial attorney who was shaking down a company that arguably hadn't inflicted any discernable harm to the townspeople.



Post 13

Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 6:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ephialtes had been grossly immoral to betray Sparta and the value of freedom.

True.

The longer he lived, the more obvious and painful it would be that he had forfeited the values that make life worthwhile.

Untrue...at least as far as the psychology of the character in question is concerned. There is no evidence for that statement in the picture: not in the plot, not in the characterization of Ephialtes, and not in the final line of Leonides. It's simply psychologizing on your part.

And I am not puzzled that I should have to point that out.

Post 14

Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 6:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Claude I would have to disagree with you. When Leonidas told Ephialtes "may you have a long life" Ephialtes' facial expression was clearly one of agony as he grimaced and cringed when hearing it. Considering the context of these lines as well (Ephialtes looking up to Spartan society originally) I think it made perfect sense.

Post 15

Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 10:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John -- can you point to a scene showing that "Ephialtes' facial expression ... of agony as he grimaced and cringed" is due to his realization that he should not have betrayed Sparta, rather than a realization that he had betrayed his friends huddled in that hemisphere of shields? Is there a scene early in the movie where Ephialtes definitively declares his love for Sparta, as opposed to just a loyalty to human beings he admires? And even then, how can you definitively show that his loyalties have not since shifted to Persia, because they treated him better than Sparta?

I read somewhere that soldiers in intense combat rarely fight for their country, but rather fight to preserve the lives of their fellow soldiers with whom they have bonded. If this is so, wouldn't that cast some ambiguity on your interpretation of Ephialtes' grimace and cringe?
(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 2/26, 10:59pm)


Post 16

Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 11:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Claude,
The longer he lived, the more obvious and painful it would be that he had forfeited the values that make life worthwhile.

Untrue...at least as far as the psychology of the character in question is concerned. There is no evidence for that statement in the picture: not in the plot, not in the characterization of Ephialtes, and not in the final line of Leonides. It's simply psychologizing on your part.

Hmmmm.  “Psychologizing” a fictional character?   I think you mean projection.

 

Not sure we saw the same movie, Claude.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - 1:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim

Is there a scene early in the movie where Ephialtes definitively declares his love for Sparta, as opposed to just a loyalty to human beings he admires?



Those men depicted were a depiction of Spartan society. Remember individuals make up society, and a society is judged by the actions of those individuals. They embodied the Spartan ethos. That was what Ephialtes wanted to be, a Spartan soldier, someone who was strong, passionate, intelligent, but he wanted something unearned. The honor of being what was considered the finest soldier the world had ever seen, while not being qualified to be a Spartan solider. He sought an unearned value, an anti-Objectivist concept. So because he couldn't deal with what abilities he had, and instead use whatever talents he had to aide the men he admired because they embodied qualities he admired, he decided to give up that value to receive something unearned, something that can never be "given" to you by a tyrant or from anyone else, the honor to call oneself part of the finest soldiers' the world had ever seen. He wanted a "uniform", he wanted to go through the motions of being a soldier one could admire without actually being one. Ephialtes thought he was getting honor but he realized he was nothing more than a fraud.

So now you're asking to provide "proof" that Ephialtes expression was a reaction to him realizing he betrayed Spartan soldiers rather than betraying Spartan society, and I offer to you there was no difference in that value, as the Spartan soldier represented the ideal for Spartan society.
(Edited by John Armaos on 2/27, 1:20pm)

(Edited by John Armaos on 2/27, 4:33pm)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 18

Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - 2:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
response to #7


Do you know what the -real- Sparta was like? For starters they got rid of defective infants by exposure (Sparta was not unique in this regard). They took males away from their families at age 7 and brutally trained them to become Spartan Hoplites. The training was so brutal many of the boys died in the process. Let us put it this way, compared to Spartan training, Marine basic training is an exercise for pansies and wusses.

In addition to the brutality shown to Spartans, the treatment of the Helots (slave-serfs) was brutal. Helots were subject to beating a killing just on whim and any Helot showing rebellious tendencies was killed, probably by bludgeoning.

Bottom line: Sparta made Stalinist Russia look positively benign. Frank Miller's Sparta was a comic book fantasy. The real Sparta had nothing to do with personal liberty. It was all about subordinating both citizen and slave to the State.

Bob Kolker


Post 19

Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - 3:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John, thanks for explaining "300" from an Objectivist perspective.  I appreciate that.  Now, if you were inclined to remove the opening snark in response to someone asking a more knowledgeable person a question about something they don't entirely understand, in the hopes of gaining a bit of enlightenment, that would be a really great post.  Your call.  I sanctioned it despite the opening sentence.

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.