I have been thinking more about relationships with women and directors, the idea of the muse and so fourth. I have realised that the attraction is not about power, well it is, but not all the time. It also, alot of the time is about women falling in love with the (directors) work, rather than the actual person... is this bad? what do u guys think? And don't start banging on about love grows in time, because it sometimes never does.... but anyway, then we are going to have to start defining love if we go down this path, and i dont care who u are because no one has been able to do that! I watched this Ken Russel film called Delius. A bio-pic about the classical composer Delius. I remember what he said.... "It is best to find a girl who loves you for your work".... and after seeing that film I have realised that ones work does not always reflect the personality of its creator.
filmmakers
- Thread starter Gavin
- Start date
Fantastic, if we're going down this route can we spend a little time looking at post modern critical theory?
There is no muse and no message. The director who attempts to talk through his or her work talks to no one but themselves because there is no content in the message. The language has no meaning only usages and the usages differ from curltural facet to cultural facet.
This is similar to ideas in zen where the person before you is not another individual but a mirror of yourself. In cultural terms the film you see is not the creation of the director but a mirror in which you see facets of yourself. This is not a retreat into subjectivism because the individual does not stand alone, but is merely a cell within the organism of the culture. The film therefore becomes the culture reflected back on itself.
So from Sartre we move to Derrida and Foucault, history is dead and so is literature.
To quote American existential poets the Beastie Boys "What you see is what you get and you ain't seen nothing yet"
There is no muse and no message. The director who attempts to talk through his or her work talks to no one but themselves because there is no content in the message. The language has no meaning only usages and the usages differ from curltural facet to cultural facet.
This is similar to ideas in zen where the person before you is not another individual but a mirror of yourself. In cultural terms the film you see is not the creation of the director but a mirror in which you see facets of yourself. This is not a retreat into subjectivism because the individual does not stand alone, but is merely a cell within the organism of the culture. The film therefore becomes the culture reflected back on itself.
So from Sartre we move to Derrida and Foucault, history is dead and so is literature.
To quote American existential poets the Beastie Boys "What you see is what you get and you ain't seen nothing yet"
woah - this is one huge explosion in my face! its all going off now.
i have an essay due in on the end of history referring Kant, Hegel, Marx and Fukuyama (due in 2 days ago) which I have not done yet, but just asked for more time to do it. My defence was in quoting Derrida. i said 'how can one be late to the end of history?'. they laughed in my face.
'history is dead, so is language'. - they are constantly alive as they are constantly in flux
i have an essay due in on the end of history referring Kant, Hegel, Marx and Fukuyama (due in 2 days ago) which I have not done yet, but just asked for more time to do it. My defence was in quoting Derrida. i said 'how can one be late to the end of history?'. they laughed in my face.
'history is dead, so is language'. - they are constantly alive as they are constantly in flux
clive said:
Poke
clive said:
its only shown to be mythos by the past failures of man to construct the world according to their histories. its only shown to be not history, by the past'
deconstruct that!
Where does Star Wars and Lucas fall into this?
....
What!? I was trying to at least make this somewhat interesting for us Americans.
Poke
....
What!? I was trying to at least make this somewhat interesting for us Americans.
Poke
That - That which is that, the object of discussion, is a cultural artifact. It is also the English language's most powerful perjorative.
So, "I ask you to take this" a gift, a present, an offering is tranformed in "I ask you to take that" into the passing of a burden.
"Take That" the foot in the face, the insult, the bullet from 9mm delivered to the heart, the apotheosis of boy band culture.
So, "that" is the key to understanding cutlural objectification. If you can name turn them from "this" into "that" you can then do anything to them. "That that thing out of here."
This brings us back to the discussion that spawned this debate. Compare "I want that girl" to "I want this girl" the difference (Derrida) between possesion of object and adoration of equal.
This is fun
megalothymia (object desire) and isothymia (desire for equal).
the 2 manifestations of thymos - the burning inside
this is fun - but i have a date with the end of history - and i have don't even know what to say yet.
the 2 manifestations of thymos - the burning inside
this is fun - but i have a date with the end of history - and i have don't even know what to say yet.
on star wars -
if zen is true -
then Lucas is reflecting into himself in Star Wars, and this is not subjectivism because Lucas is simply one part of the dialectical nature of the organic ontology of society
than this leaves Star Wars
up our communal/universal bottom.i think.
if zen is true -
then Lucas is reflecting into himself in Star Wars, and this is not subjectivism because Lucas is simply one part of the dialectical nature of the organic ontology of society
than this leaves Star Wars
up our communal/universal bottom.i think.
you've still got it Clive, you've still got it!