David Fincher -- c/d?

everything 'has politics', but common sense should dictate how much we actually give a shit about these perceived politics

it really depends on the distinctions one wants to draw. it's quite simple to reduce everything, even politics and ethics, to aesthetics. to say that a particular political ideology is "really" just a pose.

one could also, just as easily, do the reverse, and imply that all aesthetic decisions are in fact, at bottom, motivated by whatever political agenda one might have.

This is simple stuff.

no one who wants to avoid being a nihilist or ideologue or absolutist wants to really occupy either of these positions permanently, because they cannot hold water ultimately.

thus we are forced to move back and forth between them, negotiating our way as seems appropriate. like on most of this thread!

^^realness

meaning ... in cinema & literature & music, takes a serious backseat to the means of its expression, which is what the debate should be centered about

On that point: NO. Meaning, philosophy, politics, conceptual content, and the world of ideas do not and should not always take a backseat to art's purely formal content. The insistence that they should be so subordinated seeks to enforce a kind of intellectual myopia, a blindness to what are often art's most interesting aspects. Arguments of the sort DN puts forth usually seem predicated on the assumption that "ordinary people" and even the artists themselves aren't engaged with such concerns, so why be all egghead about it? But I won't grant that assumption, and why should I let other people's limitations define my thoughts and perceptions, anyway?

everything 'has politics', but common sense should dictate how much we actually give a shit about these perceived politics

yes. common sense tells you you should care according to the gravity of the matter under discussion, not the effectiveness of the art in affecting same. (Marxist theory differs, as I understand it.) common sense does not tell you "this won't change anything, so there's no reason to care about its politics."

i thought grapes or wrath was boring as fuck & i imagine most people do - as literature its dry, as politics its been done better, fuck the grapes of wrath its a fucking joke

winner of the point-missing contest here

-- J0hn D.

youre right, the grapes of wrath was intentionally boring & dry as fuck, just like fight club was intentionally funny & fun as fuck xps

in the end, theyre the same thing

Again why would anyone waste a serious sentence on you?

i've deleted three or four halves already...

pearls before swine

common sense does not tell you "this won't change anything, so there's no reason to care about its politics."

Everything contains and can generate interesting ideas about almost any subject, so long as you have enough thinking power to make the connections. Sure, that says more about the human mind than about the nature of the world, but so what? Who's keeping score?

people are, contederizer

ring me when hardt & negri mean jack shit anywhere

deezus christ...

Bejamain Button typeset and PDFed up for anyone who wants to read it before watching the movie:

http://nevermindthatnow.com/index.php?/archives/tag/the+curious+case+of+benjamin+button

deeznuts sees a movie

deeznuts: That was awesome. Especially when the lights flashed and shit. Great stuff.

deeznuts' unfortunate friend: Yeah it looked great, but I thought there were some weird politics to the whole thing. I mean all those goosestepping stormtroopers kind of made me uneasy. Plus Hitler ya know. That guy's not cool.

deeznuts: SHUT UP! It's just a movie. It's not like it matters so just shut the fuck up and enjoy the pretty lights.

Godwin's Law lock thread

*crosses fingers*

hahahaha

so im nazi tool leni riefenstal because i rep for fight club

God you can't even read that right. Jesus you are fucking moron.

Seriously maybe you should like try actually thinking once or twice as your read or watch something. It might be great practice (for something.)

its really not my fault based on yr previous posts here that i didnt know you were talking about the last crusade & not triumph of the will

Haha I WAS talking about Triumph of the Will.

shhhh quiet deeznuts is about to speak

-- some dude, Wednesday, July 23, 2008 5:43 PM (5 hours ago) Bookmark Link

what is up?

http://sundbergassociates.com/newscorp/images/futurama_prof.jpg

tyler has break eggs to make an omelet attitude most of the time, but then takes care to make sure no one is in those buildings

Most of the US radical '60s folks w/ bombs, like the Weathermen, claim they tried to take similar precautions.

I'm amazed you guys have avoided the SEXUAL politics of Fight Club, as "I don't think another woman is what we need" is an oft-quoted line. A chief sociopolitical theme, perhaps moreso than anticorporatism, is probably "masculinity issues," in a Susan Faludi Backlash kinda way. And that the novel was written by a gay man and employs blatantly homoerotic imagery and language (Tyler has a gun in N's mouth for pretty much the whole book; Tyler is naked when N first meets him) complements this.

megalolz at most of this thread, A++++ would laff at again

eh I went into the film's mysogyny/homoeroticism on some other thread. had no idea Palahniuk was gay though.

Marla is much fuller than in the book thx to HBC and the script.

btw Morbz didja know there are no sexual politics its all just a bunch of pretty pictures of half-naked, sweaty guys deal with it

im sad this thread does not contain more talk about zodiac.

why does he bother having gay characters, it's not like they're gonna turn anybody gay

there's a thread for Zodiac - its long and I ramble a bit

oh yeah. i think i was rambling on it too!

had no idea Palahniuk was gay though.

a total queen. My buddy writing his thesis on his work took a picture of him and Palahniuk in feather boas (my buddy's straight).

o_0+2-2=0_o

who could have imagined that an author whose themes often concern themselves with masculinity might be gay?

well I can't say I'm surprised (based on my viewing of FC), but I'm not in the habit of investigating the sexual proclivities of authors I don't read

I've seen him read, he's a pretty rugged queen.

also, his guidebook to Portland OR is nice.

jfc

deeznuts the problem you ran into on this thread is that your argument ultimately leads to less thinking, writing and connection-making about how movies relate to their audience and to the world; as thinkers, writers and connection-makers the people on this thread took it personally!

And I think it's likely that you took people's harshness about FC - and specifically its arguably juvenile take on politics and insurrection - personally.

Anyway I agree with Michael White on this thread. Fincher has this knack for taking an interesting or shocking premise and somehow not quite making it pay off. Panic Room could have been incredible. The Game is just the kind of scam-within-a-scam-within-a-scam movie that I eat up. But they both just sort of sucked. And - this is just a personal dislike - I really can't stand the look of his movies. They ALL look like the "Express Yourself" video except when they're trying really hard not to (like with Zodiac).

dude Zodiac looks amazing

I really don't get the Zodiac love. It looked good, in the way that car commercials look good. Acting was okey. Mildly gripping procedural snooze-thrillz. Nicely ambigious ending. Nothing to hate, but not much to care about one way or the other.

i honestly didnt realize how great it was until my third viewing or so. granted, you have to WANT to see it that many times...

I loved "Panic Room".

His cinematography really is predictable in a way; the logical outcome of a certain slick 80's video/commercial style that carried over to film. Unfortunately, it's pretty much all he does.

fc was pretty influential w/ its 'look'

So was that Paula Abdul video.

"Opposites Attract"?