Sequence of Events on the Train in "The Purge"

Well, I was never much of a fan of fart jokes or Jackass...
I agree with you that an artist has no need to justify his work to his audience, and certainly not through a discussion of motivating theory.

I love the allegory by the way. Yes! I reject asceticism as a signifier of seriousness.
The work either provides aesthetic enjoyment to an individual or it doesn't. I'd stand by the opposite proposition-- that a work stripped of an appeal to pleasing the senses is no "art" I want to have any part in.

Thanks, I've recently decided that my nearly finished psychology degree isn't worth anything and I want to be a writer. Let's hope something comes of it. :)

I suppose fart jokes and jackass are probably bad examples, I think satire is a perfect representation. If you think of Jonathan Swift's "a modest proposal," which is probably the most famous example of satire, you can see the two levels I'm talking about. On the one hand you get the very base satisfaction of witnessing someone break a society’s sacred taboos, and probably even baser is the pleasure of imagining the shock it evokes in other people, but you're heightened sense of appreciation is at the same time appeased by its clever use of irony.
I'm sure you're tired of talking about Aeon Flux, but hell, if it comes up why not? Anyway, you say that your use of irony, or have said so, was in creating a show that satirized action flicks by pushing rowdy gun violence and overt sexuality to extreme limits within Aeon Flux. Which is probably true, they're your motives and really none of my concern as a viewer, but I think the motives never got translated to the audience because they are based on a false assumption. I don't think the staple that defines an action films degeneracy is really any of its excessive qualities, but rather the thoughtless predictability of the action film's recycled plot line.
Now, why this is relevant, assuming that it is, it's late and I'm not entirely sober, is because your and forksclovetofu's extremely wordy argument seemed to eventually distill into him simultaneously complementing your endeavor to pose philosophical questions, while insulting your "copout" use of sex and violence to appeal to a supposedly sub-forksclovetofu audience. Haha, I'm just joshing you fork-man, and then resulting in you're subdued response of writing off those qualities of your work to the fault of youthful tastes and aspirations.
But I would claim that the great irony of your work, and I'm quite certain I’ve butchered that word against the wall by now, is that you were able to take the mindless sex and violence and confined them within the mechanism of not the normal action plot, but well thought out philosophical debates and clever narrative techniques.
And I don't mean to massage your ego or anything, I know how utterly useless that is to a person, but I don't think you should be apologetic for all the extremes that not only gave Aeon Flux a sort of balance, but also created an interesting universe for us alienated weirdos to revel in.
Hah, geez.

Well I'm too tired to grammar check this, and I wrote it with speech recognition software so there's bound to be something awry. Ummm, so sorry.

Well, I didn't mean to sound like I was trying to disown the AF shorts by my comments. They succeeded beyond my hopes in so many ways. I still use them often in my talks to animation students to talk about integrating personal artistic drives into a commercially viable form. The biggest problem I find in this field is the inability (or unwillingness) of professional artists to allow their deepest personal obsessions into their studio output. The result is that we get nothing but bland, impersonal, "appropriate" product. Professionalism is equated with disinterestedness.

Looking at the discussion above, the thing that ticked me off was John's first retort. I've heard that exact sentiment so many fking times, and have usually just rolled my eyes, let it slide, and walk away from whoever was making it. (like, "you just don't GET it").

By the way, I'm still not convinced that John has even watched the episode "the Purge", the original subject of this thread. "Shoot-em-up"? Huh?

My point of reference there was to the entire series; I already said that above.

Also: I'm being "joshed".

Well, in that case, since "It was my attempt to illustrate the ol' deontological vs. teleological debate on morality." referred specifically to the Purge, I repeat: Huh?

As far as: "Are you interested at all in telling a story about these sort of heady topics without the more fantastic elements? Because I'd be interested in seeing that."

The answer is no. I see no point in working in animation and placing a restriction like that on myself. I admire Takahata's "Grave of the Fireflies". I have no desire to make anything like it. As for Satoshi Kon, I find his films dull and masochistic (ascetic). I don't agree with the praise his work gets for expanding the range of the medium of animation. For me, his films do the exact opposite by being so literal-minded.

Haha, I actually love Satoshi Kon, but I guess we've already establish our differing opinions about the necessity of "literal-mindedness" when constructing a work of art back in the David Lynch thread.
I don't think I would say that he's necessarily expanding any medium, but I could argue he plays well within one or two of them.

"Also: I'm being 'joshed'."
I only pray the day comes when I'm being forked!

The jab at the praise for Kon-san is not to knock his work, but to knock the critics who fawn over him, yet who ignore the vast range of more "popular" animated output from Japan. I mention it because it illustrates what I mean by identifying seriousness with asceticism.

(Damn, its really difficult getting registered on here. That might account for the low activity lately.)

John, it seems like you need to re-watch the series. A meaty lump of carnality?? You make it sound like Heavy Metal…

Aeon Flux appreciation threads aren’t full of people raving about their favorite gun fights and how hot Aeon looks.

There is a remarkable wealth of stimulation to be derived from Aeon Flux besides shallow carnal offerings, and any one who tuned in hoping to dose up on the simpler pleasures would unlikely find enough of them to be distracted from the remaining content, which is, among other things intellectual - and they may or may not be drawn to these things instead.

You have said that P.K. Dick manages to effectively combine ‘meaty carnality’ and intellectual merit, where I assume you feel Aeon flux does not. If it’s your opinion that Aeon Flux fails at effectively delivering intellectual points, you’re obviously welcome to it. But if you want to discredit the shows ability to effectively deliver intellectual points, why don’t you try doing so in a way that utilizes and ideally demonstrates you have a grasp of the show beyond the limited one you've offered so far.

Well, this discussion may well be over anyway. But I wrote that way earlier and thought I'd post it anyway.

Joshed again.

I can't believe Peter Chung actually posts on here; Aeon Flux is one of my favorites

I finally saw Ratatouille. A very nicely crafted little film. That's about all I have to say about it.

However, I can't let the death of Michelangelo Antonioni pass without some comment.
I can honestly say that a day rarely goes by in which I don't think about his films.

At first glance, the rigor and discipline of his work may seem like precisely the "asceticism" I decry. I know I thought so the first time I saw L'Avventura as a teenager. That's only natural, since his films are, in the truest sense of the phrase, for adults.

They exemplify a soaring ambitiousness regarding the potential of film as an artistic medium which is what I'm always hoping and praying for everytime I decide to commit a couple of hours, sit down, and watch a movie. Not to mention how full of humor they are (OK, maybe not Red Desert).

Here's the thing-- a movie like Ratatouille is easily within the realm of what we'd predict a talented director might realize given its setting, characters and plot. L'Avventura, La Notte, L'Eclisse, Blow Up and The Passenger also begin with simple and familiar elements. What Antonioni does with them-- the places he takes us-- is off the map. It isn't a matter of possessing a higher degree of skill (which, by the way, he does too-- look at the more conventional Le Amici or The Lady Without Camelias) -- it's imagination of a different order.

Just keeping the discussion alive.

In the posts above, I've said enough times "I have no desire to make films like so-and-so". And it's a pretty snooty comment, no doubt, so here's the missing rejoinder:

The thought of ever approaching Antonioni's achievements, using my chosen medium of animation-- that is what keeps me going.

He sounds neat. I'll try to check him out.

"I can honestly say that a day rarely goes by in which I don't think about his films."
Come to think of it, there's a couple of shots in Tomb Raider Revisioned ep 1 where I swiped compositions from L'Eclisse-- the matching pair of eclipses using Lara's and Heinrich's heads during their argument.

Thanks as always for your thoughts, Peter. I remember you speaking of Antonioni in the past, and after hearing and seeing some more of him after his death, I think I'll have to check him out in earnest.

By the way, the sequence you speak of in the Tomb Raider segment was probably my favorite scene. I love the zealousness and ecstasy Heinrich exhibits after seeing the afterlife -- it's one thing to be a zealot when you're just presuming to know what happens after death, but if you've really been there and "lived to tell about it"... hehe... that kind of changes everything, doesn't it?

Well, for anyone approaching Antonioni for the first time, I'd recommend starting with Blow-Up, which is probably the easiest to "get", plus it's in English and in Color. Starting with L'Avventura might just kill any desire to proceed from the get-go.

Also, Blow-Up sheds a lot of light on L'Avventura's methods. I understood L'Avventura much better in the context of his later films. So I'd go:

Blow-Up
L'Avventura
La Notte
L'Ecclisse
Red Desert
Zabriskie Point
The Passenger

Then back to:
Le Amiche
Il Grido (I prefer the Lady without Camelias, but it's not on video)

His later films, like Identification of a Woman, are not as sharply made, but by that time in his career, I'd say he'd more than earned the right to rest on his laurels.

As for my personal favorite, it's hard for me to decide between L'Avventura and La Notte. L'Avventura is the stately, ground-breaking masterpiece. La Notte is the most purely enjoyable.

Wow, thanks for going through the effort of compiling that list, Peter. I plan on starting on it as soon as I get a chance.

I had heard that his later films were not as well-appreciated, and that he based his main characters from this period on himself a little to literally. (This was from an NPR story on his passing.) I had always assumed that artists only further refined their craft as they got older, but I found it interesting (and a little sad) that the opposite might actually be true. I guess, like everything in life, it's a matter of being in the right place, time and atmosphere for it to click. There are some moments and eras we'll never get back, but people will always continue to pine for them...

L'Avventura came out in 1960, which means he was 48. That was when he had his first breakthrough hit. His output during his 50s were further refined than those made in his 30s and early 40s. He made his last great film, The Passenger while in his 60s. You could say he lost his touch (or his motivation) after that, but he was hardly an early bloomer.