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


Post 0

Sunday, June 1, 2008 - 2:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
That was a nice review, MEM.

Thanks for posting it.

Can you please edit it so the picture shows properly?


Post 1

Sunday, June 1, 2008 - 8:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Apparently Netflix doesn't have a DVD of this. Unfortunate. I would have liked to see it.

Sam


Post 2

Sunday, June 1, 2008 - 10:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke, sorry.  I tried again from Amazon, checked the Properties URL by dropping it into Notepad so I could compare it directly and then did the same via IMDB.  Both failed.  (See below.)

Sam, see above.  You can find it on Amazon in "very good" for $20 or "like new" for $40.  Prices go up from there.  I have a bootleg copy.  (Again: my apologies to the protectors of intellectual property.)  The fellow objectivist who gave this to me said that he has had "a dickens of a time finding it for sale anywhere."  Obviously, he forgot to integrate the unmeasured concept "Amazon" into the wider abstraction of "places to buy this movie."  He said, "I hate to think in terms of conspiracy theories, but when you watch this, you'll see what I mean." 

The movie has its strengths and weaknesses. 
"Why is everything like the 1950s?" Harrison asks.
"Because that was the last time that everyone was happy," replies Phillipa.
(Actually, it was because the designer found that a lot easier to do than to create the world of 2053 in toto, though I must say, they found some stunningly ugly concrete apartment complexes.  I could not decide if they filmed it in a water treatment plant or East Germany or maybe an Eastern German water treatment plant....)

Also, the movie is formulaic.  I mean, the discovery is all on the part of Harrison himself. 

As for the conspiracy angle... well... it is like The Matrix, in a way.  We all think we are running around free and perhaps we mostly are, but you can only choose from among your choices and if those are pre-determined, then the rest is irrelevant.

The strongest points of the movie are that no society can survive even statically without geniuses to hold it up and that great evil is only the reflex of great good.  People have capacities for both and all that can be controlled -- if it can -- is the capacity, not the good and evil.


Post 3

Sunday, June 1, 2008 - 9:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You guys should be careful here. The theme of Vonnegut's story is not the same as that of the movie; in fact, the story was satire, and from the descriptions of the movie I see here, the way the film was crafted is actually one of the targets of Vonnegut's satire! Accordingly, we can praise the movie for its own merits, but risk falling into the 'clueless' group rather than the 'insider' one.

The story was a satire of Americans' naive understanding of the aims of leftists, egalitarians, socialists, &c. In Harrison's world, the only goods which are equalized are intelligence and physical appearance and strength. To me this was clearly comic, a parody of the type of fear of leftists that saturated the US at the time. But some mistakenly took these seriously, interpreting the story as an earnest defense of individualism---notably Will F Buckley, this film's makers, apparently, and others...I'm sort of rambling here so I'll wrap it up. [I was sort of paraphrasing from Hattenhauer's essay, but I also knew much of what I wrote up there. just trying to not plagiarize.]

Vonnegut was possibly a socialist. The essay is certainly not pointless academic bullshit, and it's breathtaking to see it dismissed as such. um...just read the story, carefully.

Post 4

Sunday, June 1, 2008 - 11:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yeah.  All of that was in the pointless academic bullshit cited above.

The movie stands on its own.


Post 5

Monday, June 2, 2008 - 2:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike:

You are apparently correct in your assessment of Vonnegut. Through the years I have regarded him as a champion of individualism because of this story of handicapping excellence. (Sigh of disillusionment.)

Sam


Post 6

Monday, June 2, 2008 - 9:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If you read any Vonnegut, his socialism is not surprising.  His mixed-premise philosophy allows his fiction to be palatable.  I read Jail Bird and Cat's Cradle.  Both are dark.  Both offered some valuable insights. 

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/may/05/vonnegut_lawyers_could/

Archive for Thursday, May 5, 2005

Vonnegut: Lawyers could use literary lesson

Famous author drawn into debate over school finance

By Scott Rothschild  May 5, 2005
Topeka — When the Kansas Supreme Court takes up the school finance case next week, it might well ponder a futuristic story from the 1960s by science fiction satirist Kurt Vonnegut.
Attorneys representing students from the Shawnee Mission district say the story "Harrison Bergeron" shows that a world of forced equality would be a nightmare, so unequal funding of public schools is OK.
Their legal brief says capping local taxes on schools was unconstitutional, and they cited the 1961 story, which depicts a future society where everyone is made equal by forcing impediments on anyone who is better.
...
But in a telephone interview Wednesday, Vonnegut told the Journal-World that the students' attorneys may have misinterpreted his story.
"It's about intelligence and talent, and wealth is not a demonstration of either one," said Vonnegut, 82, of New York. He said he wouldn't want schoolchildren deprived of a quality education because they were
poor.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Tuesday, June 3, 2008 - 6:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think it is telling people did not know it was satire.  The reason is, it was far too close to reality to be satire.  You can't use satire when your satire matches the reality, and sadly enough the reality is that leftists have morphed slowly but surely into something resembling what Vonnegut thought was satire at the time he wrote his story. 

Post 8

Tuesday, June 3, 2008 - 7:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think Vonnegut sincerely meant to critique those leftists who try to handicap excellence in certain endeavors, while simultaneously thinking that redistribution of wealth and high taxation is somehow not also handicapping a very necessary form of excellence. That is, he seemed to me to be the kind of socialist who thought businesspeople are parasitical exploiters, and their ill-gotten gains should be taxed away and used to promote intellectual and cultural endeavors, more public education, etc. -- you know, benefit people like him.

Leftists like Vonnegut want high taxes to promote high culture, and despise the leftists who want high taxes to lavish on special ed students. He was a brilliant man who failed to see the central irony that both routes lead to handicapping excellence and less cultural achievement, that destroying commerce also destroys the cultural achievements he values, that you need wealth creation to free up time and resources so that artists can create.

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.