Dubstepforum.com

@ Node:

i dont think its post-modern in that sense at all tho man, i think he presents a one-sided case, but its not a case without truth-value, or him saying 'it COULD be this way, but i spose its how you interpret it...'

its him saying very definitively this is my unique vision of how certain events influenced each other and all coalesced into this particular conclusion, namely that man is so appalled by the depth and scope of the consequences of his own action, that he has as such retreated from responsibility. in that respect, its directly opposite to a post-modern approach, its purely existential... he makes his own case, and he is represented by it. he takes responsibility for the conclusion that he presents.

Alright but the evidence is weak then, he cherry picks interviews with people to support his hypotesis and gives little credit to anything outside of that area that would problematise his arguement. In that case as a piece of television it's thought provoking yet flawed from what I have been told about the times that he talks about. If it's an arguement he stands by then it would fall flat under interogation from what I can gather. Specifically the first episode. I can't speak for the rest but it just unsettles me that if he is willing to brush over a lot of evidence in order to come to the conclusion he does. Essentially the hypothsis that "man is so appalled by the depth and scope of the consequences of his own action, that he has as such retreated from responsibility" is not something I can agree with so I find it flawed. He's not done enough to convince me now knowing some more about that time from speaking to my dad who's a social scientist. Personally it made me question how I would sit back and let the documentary wash over me with its nice music and choice footage and just accept it because the execution was so expertly done. When I think about the ideas he's putting forward I can't really accept that we as a species have all just sat back and retreated from reponsibility. And its all too convenient how he jumps from certain characters like Ayn Rand and pretty much gives so much scope for their prescience. He does that over and over for certain people in history while dismissing whole other movements that had people in them with different ideas. It's very easy to go back and join the dots, interview people and include the ones who back up the arguement while leaving out or just not interviewing other people that may have other views. Essentially I don't agree about it not being like an essay where you put forward an arguement for and against. When I stuidied documentary thats exactly what we're encouraged to do. I admire the way that Curtis puts forward some engaging ideas, no doubt. Anything that gets broadcast on TV at the moment that is thought provoking I have a lot of time for. It's fair enough he then can stand by his arguement and take responsibility for it. But to me it just looks like a shaky arguement but a very enjoyable watch nonetheless.

yeh k so i can see why balance is important definitely, its something i'd agree with, i dont however, agree that when someone wants to make a piece of art, they have to go at it like a scientist

also,i think he's done it because his angle has never been done before, his angle is a response to other social commentaries about those times, and i think its a fantastic way of linking up certain idea's which is why i found it so enjoyable

i genuinely believe he's made a strong argument to point at the conclusion, im sure we've sat and talked about the very same thing tbh, people have so much available to them that they can blame anything they like for a state of affairs they can see as being wrong, simply dont know how to go about fixing them

im not saying they're flawless, but im also not saying i found them in any way disappointing which is where i suppose our difference lies

Just saw pulp fiction for the first time.

beverly hills cop

dididub wrote:Just saw pulp fiction for the first time.

What did you think?

Can't believe I've never seen Baraka! Beautiful film.

Not what you are lead to expect from the plot summary, lots of twists, surprising revelations and ending. Still not sure how I feel about it.

documentary about bruce lee called 'i am bruce lee'. its fuckin sick. everyone watch

Redderious wrote:

dididub wrote:Just saw pulp fiction for the first time.

What did you think?

It's a fucking cool movie, the dialogue is class.

The bit with the gimp was a bit weird though. The structure was great though with the flashbacks.

It was late and i was tired and it was TCM. Exactly what you would expect. 4/10

badlands

faust.dtc wrote:

Not what you are lead to expect from the plot summary, lots of twists, surprising revelations and ending. Still not sure how I feel about it.

from the director of Martyrs! Wow I need to see this. I'm worried though, especially after the director of Switchblade romance made piranhas 3d ffs

capo ultra wrote:the director of Switchblade romance made piranhas 3d ffs

What?

faust.dtc wrote:

Not what you are lead to expect from the plot summary, lots of twists, surprising revelations and ending. Still not sure how I feel about it.

Is that about that Slenderman myth?

No, not really. There was a lot of talk on IMDB about this film ripping off slender man but it bears no similarities from what i know of the myth.

Ah alright. I see. Might watch it then.

Action! Drama! Laffs! Nudity! Sylvester Stallone's ass, god dayum! This is it, the near perfect movie, this is the epitome of cinema! This is Hollywood! I feel bad for you guys arguing about post-modernism, while i'm hear watching Kurt Russell in drag!

9/10!*

* Would have been 10/10 but Kurt Russell's ass wasn't great.

best kurt russell movie is big trouble in little china. escape from new york is up there too. i'm not gonna lie though there's a lot of great ones.

I quite like Escape From LA also.

Watched the new Total Recall, liked it.
Also it has a Chasing Shadows tune in it.


...