|
Saw this recently in Australia, really enjoyed the jokes, but I don't see how its supposed to be upbeat. The antagonist is actually the kid. The father spent obviously a great deal of time and money and love and creativity crafting immense worlds and the kid is just ruining it because he's too jealous of his dad's power and talent a la Oedipus Rex. The child created Lord Business (as a way to attack his generous and long suffering father) who, in the world his father created, established a totalitarian consumerist nightmare that is as equally devoid of cultural appreciation as the child was. In world, the child is directly responsible for all of that violence and oppression simply because he wanted to make a hamfisted strawman he could abuse. Out of that world, gluing the Lego was the direct and simple response to having all his artwork attacked. Gluing Lego as previously mentioned is a common finishing technique for sculptors. The sock puppet characters in world ascribe this as barbarism, but of course the real barbarism is destroying someone else's artwork, and the cause was the child, not the father, although the child sock puppets Lord Business to take responsibility for it because the child fails to take responsibility for anything. Imagine for a second that the father was an artist working with pencil. The kid comes into the studio and scrawls over his painstakingly beautiful renderings. The father sighs, fixes up the artwork and sprays a fixative on them so they can't be screwed up further. Explains to the kid he has his own pencils, his own paper, he can draw whatever he wants without destroying something that brings him joy. Kid draws series of mean spirited stick figure comics talking about how what a monster his dad is. Finally, the dad, overcome by the hatred his own son has for him, burns all his own drawings. The child won. The father will never again be able to sculpt the way he enjoyed again. The quiet, delicate, creative, contemplative culture of high art is conquered by ADD-fueled 'mashup culture', by convincing it to destroy itself.
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:54 |
|
|
I like how you managed to get entirely the opposite message the movie was trying to convey and sound like a crotchety old man complaining about them drat kids in the process.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
But the point is that the dad wasn't constructing art. He was just buying Legos and putting them together the way the instructions suggested to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
The movie's been out for months now, do we really need spoilers? I'd assume this were Koos-style over-analysis, but there are a few key points to remember when watching the movie: Legos are able to be deconstructed and reconstructed by design, and are at heart a toy. A sculpture or drawing cannot be similarly be broken down and recreated. The "barbaric sock puppets" is the kid trying to understand his life problems in the context of play, with the vast amount of toys. None of the Lego components are mutilated, broken, or harmed in any way (other than Benny already being busted). The son "carefully, meticulously removed the top of the tower", and treated the toys with nothing but respect. However, the father is not wrong for following directions or wanting to have his own possessions: he is cast as the villian because he wants to glue the toys together permanently, ending the potential for playing with them forever. And the strawman Lord Business is not defeated by violence or trickery but by a father and son finally speaking to each other, respecting each other, and bonding over Legos. E: Timeless Appeal posted:But the point is that the dad wasn't constructing art. He was just buying Legos and putting them together the way the instructions suggested to. Also this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:But the point is that the dad wasn't constructing art. He was just buying Legos and putting them together the way the instructions suggested to. Calling bullshit on this. Which lego set is the awesome full scale minifig sky scrapers? The meticulously detailed old west tavern? The movie is filled with countless examples of improbably fantastic Lego sets that would be way too huge to box up. Furthermore, even if the city and everywhere else were filled with nothing but actual or plausible City models, the layout of the tables would be entirely up to the father, and the entire conception of having an awesome huge basement filled with lego worlds is certainly his. He is obviously emotionally invested in the design of the thing, otherwise he wouldn't bother gluing it - or making it in the first place. He was expressing himself creatively through the design of the assembly of the pieces or the design of the assembly of the models and it is an enormously jerk move loving it up for someone else because you feel he isn't being wacky enough or inclusive enough. It is the move of a world class monster to make someone feel that they are evil for not letting you destroy their work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
chaosbreather posted:destroy their work. See this is where I gotta call bullshit on you again. The only way to "destroy" lego bricks is to break/snap/melt the individual bricks, or to render them unusable in some way. Such as supergluing them together and leaving them in the basement to gather dust. Being able to pull apart lego creations is a net positive, because it means you are able to create something wholly new from the pieces or enjoy putting the set back together again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:[Non-lego] sculpture or drawing cannot be similarly be broken down and recreated. [Lego can] Theoretically. If the father made meticulous drawings or diagrams, then yes, it could be. Even so, take a look at this:  Just an example at random. This is one train station of the scale and detail typical of the movie. It is undoubtedly a work of art. It is made from 12,000 pieces. It took over a year to build. Just because the atoms aren't damaged doesn't mean you can't do irreparable damage to the work as a whole. Even with modern building techniques like modularity and so on, if that kid decided that it didn't have enough pirates, that's months of work, IF you have the plans. If you don't, might as well start again. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the level of complexity of the creations the Dad made here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
I will have to watch the movie again, but other than the skyscraper (which was nowhere near as complex as the model above) I recall the child only rebuilt vehicles and rearranged minifigures. Maybe there's a train smashed against the floor and an old west barn torn apart and turned into a chariot somewhere offscreen during the live action scenes but otherwise I'm willing to chalk up the mass destruction that happens in the Lego world to narrative conceit. E: Found some unused concept art for the movie from Blur Studios, and it could have been equally awesome.    e2: WOAH TABLES Triskelli fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Apr 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
Okay, but in the reality of the movie, the dad is following the instructions and keeping everything in their preset themes. It doesn't matter if the scale of his city isn't very realistic. That's the text.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
Incorrect. There are several shots with like a hundred immaculately well organised parts drawers. If he was building the models from the instructions and just plunking them down there would be no need for drawers, his entire collection would be on the table. In fact, the only reason you would need drawers like that would be if you built a lot of things yourself, so you could peruse your inventory and select the most appropriate part. Regardless, there is a difference between lego as a sculptural modelling tool, which the father explicitly states he is using it as, and not as a toy. The kid was messing with what the father stated were sculptures. That is wrong no matter the degree of the artistry nor the degree of the damage, ask any museum guard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
chaosbreather posted:There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the level of complexity of the creations the Dad made here. I think you're totally missing the point. The son wants to engage with the father's hobby. Instead over 8 years he is brushed along to play with Cloud Cuckoo box while his dad obsesses over his own creations. Yes, they were complicated, but I don't think its much of a leap to assume that all of his time went into his stuff, and never to engaging with or playing with his son. Note his surprise when he asks if the son made all this, he has no idea what his son is capable of when it comes to Lego, which is crazy considering how many play opportunities there would've been over the course of 8 years. Its okay for parents to have hobbies separate from their kids, but it can easily transfer to becoming a barrier and escape from truly engaging with them. Its an easy pattern to fall into, where you get preoccupied with 'your stuff' and don't even notice the child, who is desperately trying to find a way to engage with you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
chaosbreather posted:Incorrect. There are several shots with like a hundred immaculately well organised parts drawers. If he was building the models from the instructions and just plunking them down there would be no need for drawers, his entire collection would be on the table. In fact, the only reason you would need drawers like that would be if you built a lot of things yourself, so you could peruse your inventory and select the most appropriate part. Well then by that logic, the father is a villain. Only he can be creative with the sets and the child can go play with his scraps. The child's imagination is only being fed by table scraps, while the father has tables of food he isn't even touching, and trying to prevent anyone else from being able to enjoy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
IUG posted:Well then by that logic, the father is a villain. Only he can be creative with the sets and the child can go play with his scraps. The child's imagination is only being fed by table scraps, while the father has tables of food he isn't even touching, and trying to prevent anyone else from being able to enjoy. Yep. Parents are entirely responsible for their children. He raised a barbarian by not introducing him to basic concepts of culture soon enough, and as punishment his sanctuary is destroyed. Hence my thesis: it's a pretty tragic downbeat movie. I still loved it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
My point being, there is no harm done to the PERSONAL COLLECTION of the father. This is not a museum exhibit or a Legoland attraction. This is the father's hobby, and if I were a father I would savor the opportunity to share my hobby with my child however possible. We see this change in Will Ferrell made apparent when he says that he wants the little sister to play along. There's a reason I said "Lego is at heart a toy". Not because it appears in the toy aisle or is defined as a toy, but because the very essence of the product is to share, to create, and to play with them. The word "Lego" is itself a contraction of the Danish leg godt, meaning "play well". The lego minifigures are yellow because the color stimulates creativity. Down to their very core Lego bricks are meant to be used by children, to inspire them and provide a blank slate for their imaginations. To treat them like mere sculptures denies their very soul. Or gently caress it, you just had a lego-deprived childhood. Triskelli fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Apr 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Part of what makes the movie good is it shows a balance between the two poles. Following the instructions sometimes is okay, and sometimes the master builders' creativity gets away from them (the sub that doesn't work). That's why Business gets redeemed and the father and son reconcile. The message is ultimately "share your toys."
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:My point being, there is no harm done to the PERSONAL COLLECTION of the father. This is not a museum exhibit or a Legoland attraction. This is the father's hobby, and if I were a father I would savor the opportunity to share my hobby with my child however possible. We see this change in Will Ferrell made apparent when he says that he wants the little sister to play along. A lot of art is all about subverting the medium.  This is Marcel Duchamp's seminal piece of modern art sculpture, 'Fountain'. 'Fountain' is at heart a urinal. The word itself is a reference to flowing water. It is white because the colour stimulates hygiene. If you were to see it however, you would not piss in it and there would be no flowing water. The not pissing in it, indeed, is part of the work. Because it's art now, get it? It's a sculpture. That is the work, the magic trick. It goes in galleries. It's worth crazy money. Now, we can speculate all day whether the father was an artist or a sufferer of a obsessive compulsion which the child cured him of - another perfectly valid reading, by the way, that I'm surprised I didn't see anywhere. But I take issue with the idea that Lego 'should' be used by people to 'play'. Lego is a far more legitimate artistic medium than toilets, and that toilet is as legit as it gets. Lego sculpture has graced pretty much every single major art gallery out there. If we want to talk about the souls of objects, I would say that it is that very conflict that creates a soul. Art is the act of imbuing plastic or porcelain with your own soul.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
You're sort of missing the forest for the trees. Yes, the kid was taking apart his dad's painstakingly built creations, but this was partially out of an attempt to emulate his father. As Emmet in the ending sequence says to Lord Business (Which is effectively the kid talking to his dad), "You are the most talented, most interesting, and most extraordinary person in the universe, and you are capable of amazing things.". The kid idolizes his father, and wants to be a part in what he's doing. But, the father has effectively shut him out of their shared hobby, forcing his son away as he tries to build a masterpiece that only he will ever see. It's the story of a father coming to terms with his son, not of the son destroying his father's creations. After all, that's the point of Lego-even when it's all been destroyed, you can still build it all back up again. Edit: Also you are really obsessed with the idea of tiny plastic bricks being art.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
Both you and Marcel Duchamp are professional trolls, and I refuse to acknowledge potty humor. Though I will point out that someone else who hated sharing their toys was Ayn Rand. Chaosbreather, are you willing to out yourself as an objectivist? E: I apologize for misreading your post. And while I can certainly agree that Lego Sculpture can be art (and drat good art) I would argue that this is not the intended message of this movie, and you're allowing your unique worldview to taint your reading of the film. Triskelli fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Apr 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:You're sort of missing the forest for the trees. Yes, the kid was taking apart his dad's painstakingly built creations, but this was partially out of an attempt to emulate his father. As Emmet in the ending sequence says to Lord Business (Which is effectively the kid talking to his dad), "You are the most talented, most interesting, and most extraordinary person in the universe, and you are capable of amazing things.". The kid idolizes his father, and wants to be a part in what he's doing. But, the father has effectively shut him out of their shared hobby, forcing his son away as he tries to build a masterpiece that only he will ever see. It's the story of a father coming to terms with his son, not of the son destroying his father's creations. After all, that's the point of Lego-even when it's all been destroyed, you can still build it all back up again. That's a really good, valid reading too, and you've articulated it beautifully but it's not what I came away with. Mostly because I don't like kids. And, I'm more obsessed with the idea of anything being able to be used in art. But I am obsessed with Lego, too. Nothing wrong with a few dozen unmanageable life-dominating obsessions. The fact that everyone can get all these different perspectives from this film really does underline how good it is. edit: Politically? I believe everyone should be able to do anything that they want, provided it doesn't stop anyone else from doing anything they want. I believe that the 'be able' and the 'provided that' is the tricky part that people like libertarians and objectivists who want similar objectives fail to realise. I think there is a better model of government out there but it hasn't been discovered yet, and anyone who claims to have discovered it is deluded or a con artist, because the moment someone does it will be so obviously better and so easy to transition to that any government that doesn't immediately change will be left in a dark age, it will be like a seed crystal (this has happened dozens of times before, esp. with feudalism and democracy). That's sort of the basis of my little thermodynamical hypothesis of socioeconomics but for now it is clear that the current bottleneck in society is lack of education and corresponding lack of political engagement; fixing that is a prerequisite for any superior form of government or indeed of humanity. chaosbreather fucked around with this message at 03:13 on Apr 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:And while I can certainly agree that Lego Sculpture can be art (and drat good art) I would argue that this is not the intended message of this movie, and you're allowing your unique worldview to taint your reading of the film. Yes, you're correct, I don't believe that was the intended message of the movie. But, the author is dead, motherfucker. My reading is just as valid as yours and the film makers' (whatever that may be). Deal with it. You're in a discussion forum that would be totally pointless if everyone saw a movie the same. That's art. It's sometimes made of Lego.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
I would like to further apologize, unique readings of films is part of what makes Cinema Discusso so great. I've never really bought the Death of the Author though, in the sense that in the majority of cases the message a film conveys either usually aligns with the author's intended message or reveals something about the author/society that the author wasn't aware of.. Triskelli fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Apr 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:I would like to further apologize, unique readings of films is part of what makes Cinema Discusso so great. That's more an indictment of the state of hollywood rather than poststructuralism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
chaosbreather posted:That's more an indictment of the state of hollywood rather than poststructuralism. Which, unfortunately, is the case with the Lego movie, in the sense that it is ultimately a product of Hollywood, and in many cases the movie relies more heavily on the shared experiences of the viewing audience than some. The character of Benny the Spaceman is universal to everyone that owned the same line of products he is from, with the crack in the helmet occurring to most of the minifigures. So it may be safer to say that the Lego Movie is attempting to convey a universal message that can apply to everyone watching the movie. Triskelli fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Apr 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
chaosbreather posted:Imagine for a second that the father was an artist working with pencil. The kid comes into the studio and scrawls over his painstakingly beautiful renderings. The father sighs, fixes up the artwork and sprays a fixative on them so they can't be screwed up further.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
chaosbreather posted:Yes, you're correct, I don't believe that was the intended message of the movie. But, the author is dead, motherfucker. My reading is just as valid as yours and the film makers' (whatever that may be). Deal with it. You're in a discussion forum that would be totally pointless if everyone saw a movie the same. That's art. It's sometimes made of Lego. No it isn't and you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what The Author is Dead means. Death of an Author doesn't mean all opinions are equally valid. It means that the author's own intentions don't instantly supersede all other readings. That doesn't mean all readings of a fictional work are given equal respect. It's entirely possible to come up with a reading of a fictional work that is drastically out of tone with the author's intended message or the popular public perception but making a good, solid and well-reasoned argument involves more than a shallow surface reading. I don't agree with the infamous Transformers overview but that person made a real serious effort into presenting their viewpoint of the movie in a way that differs from common public perception and did so by analyzing all elements of the film, including the cinematography and shot choice. Death of the Author is not a magic shield that makes all opinions equally valid and it diminishes it to try to use it that way. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Apr 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
chaosbreather posted:Mostly because I don't like kids. To be honest, while you're entitled to your opinion, I feel its less of a reading of the films text and subtext, and rather a rejection of what the text and subtext is telling you, all projected through the mindset of seeing kids as 'touching our stuff', small people who should stay to the sidelines. Fine if you don't want kids, that type of mindset should not be held by parents though, and its disappointing how often it is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
chaosbreather posted:That's more an indictment of the state of hollywood rather than poststructuralism. I really feel that you missed several points of the movie, but if you keep buying Legos and keeping the Co. up and allowing me to buy more, I'm willing to tolerate a bit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:E: Found some unused concept art for the movie from Blur Studios, and it could have been equally awesome. I'm glad we didn't get this movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 09:03
|
|
|
So you're saying we gotta krazy glue the predesigned interpretation of the movie down so other people can't feel different things and play with meaning in ways outside the dictated rules of film analysis, to preserve the sacred institutions of art and culture? Otherwise it's unmanageable chaos from less informed, less skilled even unwanted contributors?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
chaosbreather posted:So you're saying we gotta krazy glue the predesigned interpretation of the movie down so other people can't feel different things and play with meaning in ways outside the dictated rules of film analysis, to preserve the sacred institutions of art and culture? Otherwise it's unmanageable chaos from less informed, less skilled even unwanted contributors?  I have no idea what you're even trying to say right now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
chaosbreather posted:So you're saying we gotta krazy glue the predesigned interpretation of the movie down so other people can't feel different things and play with meaning in ways outside the dictated rules of film analysis, to preserve the sacred institutions of art and culture? Otherwise it's unmanageable chaos from less informed, less skilled even unwanted contributors? No, he's saying your opinion is bad and you should feel bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
Listen, I agree with your assessment that Lego can be art, but I think it's disingenuous to ignore the whole reminder at the beginning of the film to always follow the instructions which is clearly Finn interpreting his father's view of the Legos into President Business's view of the world. It's not a matter of Legos potentially being art or not. It's a matter of art being about discovery.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
I desperately want this thread to do a father/son/art breakdown on Real Steel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
The dad in the movie isn't an rear end in a top hat because LEGOs are always toys. He's an rear end in a top hat because LEGOs are seen as toys to kids. And if playing with a bunch of toys without letting your kid play with them too ISN'T an rear end in a top hat thing to do and is actually being an artist or something, then I don't know what the gently caress. If the boy in the story wasn't a boy but instead another adult, then chaosbreather might have a point. But if you want to be all beep boop black and white situation without context about it, then you may just be a cynical rear end in a top hat too. Either that, or you hate children.....in which case you probably shouldn't be seeing animated movies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
The Lego Movie: No You Shut The gently caress Up Dad
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:The dad in the movie isn't an rear end in a top hat because LEGOs are always toys. He's an rear end in a top hat because LEGOs are seen as toys to kids. I don't even think that dad is even really an rear end in a top hat, although I will freely admit that this movie made me, as a dad, feel like an rear end in a top hat. I have a 6-yo son, and I also have a shitton of Star Wars Lego. All of it bought, assembled and promptly put on a shelf and never played with like they were models, long before he was born and even before I met my wife. And he always wants to play spaceships, and I never want to let him because every time we do, I end up having to get out the instructions and put them back together. Because they're my toys, and they need to be put back my way. He has his own Lego, and they're not even crappy handmedown hodgepodge Lego (which would probably be more fun, but still). He has about 20 different Lego City sets. Car Carrier, Police Chase, Logging Truck, Garbage Truck, Monster Truck and Semi, F1 Car and Semi/Trailer (and he has a couple of the movie sets now, too). And they're constantly in pieces and I get asked constantly "dad, will you help me put them back together." Because he's a boy, and if he can crash something together then by god it will get crashed together. Every hot wheels car he owns is dented and missing paint. This movie seriously made me cry at the end. Because every time that I tell him that I don't want to play spaceships because he breaks "daddy's legos", every time that I tell him that I'm not going to help him put his truck back together again because he can't stop chasing it with the police car and crashing when it goes over the spike strip, I'm forgetting that the entire loving point of Lego is to build stuff, break stuff and then rebuild it again, maybe the same, maybe differently. Who gives a poo poo if it's broken, who cares if it takes you an hour to find the one piece you're missing from a 300 piece set to finish building it. Hell, who cares if that piece is lost to the mists of time in the bowels of the heating vent under the bed. Because now my Star Wars Lego (with two exceptions) are in pieces in an old plastic Home Depot tool box in his bedroom. He got them within an hour of coming home from the weekend trip to my parent's house where they watched his baby sister so we could see the movie. Because the joy is in the play, whether it breaks what you're playing with or not. And the joy is in the building, not in looking at them. Like so many other things in my generation, we take our nostalgic possessions too seriously and forget that they are toys, and toys are meant to be played with. The dad in the movie is so tied up in the nostalgia of his own childhood that he's forgotten that. And his son, through the story of the movie, helps him remember. Toy Story 2 came out before I was married and had kids, and I didn't really get that message. The Lego Movie is Toy Story 2 for me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
This page is loving hilarious But I do applaud playing spaceships with your children. Just go buy another one if you feel the need to display. Plus putting those back together after all the pieces have been mixed into a general box is like upping the difficulty. Edit: And my gals half sister and brother promptly came home and browbeat me into tearing up my star wars tattooine skiff set when they got home from the movie so you aren't alone. I protested, but did not cry. Intel&Sebastian fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Apr 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Really, the end is less about the right way to do it being crazy mashup land, and more about the right way to do it being together. And, yeah, if your child is into crazy mashup land, that's probably going to happen to some extent, but the joy is in the sharing. This is especially apparent if you look at the lyrics and feelings behind the two major uses of Everything Is Awesome. In the first, it's talking about how you should accept imposed, top-down authority and do what you're told with the others who are told to do the same thing. At the end of the movie, the song has taken on an entirely different meaning. It's about how the very act of creation is fun, and it's exponentially more fun when you share it with people you love.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
CommanderApaul posted:I don't even think that dad is even really an rear end in a top hat, although I will freely admit that this movie made me, as a dad, feel like an rear end in a top hat. Great post.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:54 |
|
|
Triskelli posted:My point being, there is no harm done to the PERSONAL COLLECTION of the father. This is not a museum exhibit or a Legoland attraction. This is the father's hobby, and if I were a father I would savor the opportunity to share my hobby with my child however possible. We see this change in Will Ferrell made apparent when he says that he wants the little sister to play along. Found it! http://www.kenmorethompson.com/index.php/the-2002-nba-all-stars-lando-calrissian-and-the-lego-race-question More an assumption I guess, but still interesting reading about Lando. Maluco Marinero posted:To be honest, while you're entitled to your opinion, I feel its less of a reading of the films text and subtext, and rather a rejection of what the text and subtext is telling you, all projected through the mindset of seeing kids as 'touching our stuff', small people who should stay to the sidelines. About the parent as an artist (or not) argument, whether he followed instructions or not is a moot point. It's more a matter of being his stuff and not playing together and specifically about Lego, stopping the building process. And to take the art angle, I'd say the process itself is just as important (if not moreso) than the final product in this case, the whole point of Lego is just putting them together into whatever you want, following instructions or not. The father was disrespecting the medium  (or subverting it  )
japtor fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Apr 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 22:55
|
|
