The Subtext Game 4: In Space! (The Spaceship is a Penis)

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > The Subtext Game 4: In Space! (The Spaceship is a Penis)

«‹›4 »

weekly font: Dec 1, 2004; Everytime I try to fly I fall
Without my wings
I feel so small
Guess I need you baby...

As a judge I didn't want to drop any hints to what would please me, but I would suggest taking an old subtext. I've seen that Illuminati Youtube and it owns and it being in my mind will probably end up being a handicap whether I'm conscious of my bias while reading it or not.

# ? Sep 2, 2014 23:31

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 29, 2024 02:43

Hbomberguy: Jul 4, 2009; [culla=big red]TufFEE did nO THINg WÌ¡RAÌ¸NG[/read]

I haven't read the illuminati page, and I'm not going to - so for the record everything I come up with will be mine.

I'll try to do something interesting with it. I have a different definition of 'inside'.

# ? Sep 2, 2014 23:48

Cakebaker: Jul 23, 2007; Wanna buy some cake?

I just saw Naked lunch. Amazing movie. Disregard my question from before, I know exactly how I want to write this.

# ? Sep 3, 2014 00:24

Fat Lou: Jan 21, 2008; Desert Heat? I thought it was Dessert Heat. No wonder it tastes so bad.

Hbomberguy posted:

I haven't read the illuminati page, and I'm not going to - so for the record everything I come up with will be mine.

I'll try to do something interesting with it. I have a different definition of 'inside'.

That is fine with me, but you better be honest or else I will send the plagiarism police after you. Also, there are plenty of non-illuminati conspiracy theories.

# ? Sep 3, 2014 00:30

Hibernator: Aug 14, 2011

Alright, just sent in my essay. In case anyone's interested:

quote:

A Self-Centered Universe
Looper and Geocentrism

Rian Johnson's Looper made quite the splash when it was released in the Fall of 2012. Garnering rave reviews and sparking much debate, it was one of the most talked-about films of the year. Yet most of this dicussion, from both fans and critics, ignored the most interesting aspect of the film: That Looper is a very clear rejection of the heliocentric model (in which Earth revolves around the Sun) in favor of Geocentrism (which placed the Earth at the center of the cosmos).

Looper essentially dramatized the geo/helio-centric debate in its characters. On one end of the spectrum you have geocentrism, which is given a pretty clear analogue in the form of Young Joe. Young Joe is a character who sees himself as the most important element of the world, and really only views others in their relation to him. The other loopers are the same way. Paul Dano's character, Seth, even verbalizes this mentality early in the film when he orders a vagrant to "Walk wide around" his bike. His stance is clear: he and his possessions are the center of the world, around which other people and things move. Johnson's camera even illustrates this in a scene where Young Joe walks into a club. The camera follows him and starts rotating upon its center axis. That center axis: Young Joe. He is living what amounts to a "geocentric life."

On the other side you have the characters of Sara and Old Joe, each living apparent heliocentric lives. Old Joe's motivations are solely the protection of his deceased wife of the future. To him, she is the center of the universe, and all other things, including himself, revolve around her. On the same token, Sara defines herself entirely as the caretaker for her young son, Sid - a powerful telekinetic whose abilities will prove incredibly dangerous if he is not taught to control them. For her, Sid is the central point around which all things revolve.

With these characters, Johnson creates an allegory for the rise of the heliocentric model in our own world. Both characters explicitly represent the coming of the new world within the narrative. Old Joe is literally from the future, and Sara is the mother of the biggest evolutionary leap in human history. They also both adhered to a more geocentric lifestyle in their pasts before altering their own perspectives towards heliocentrism. Old Joe was very much the same as Young Joe, while Sara was living on her own, partying and drinking every night as her sister raised her child. Presently, though, they both feel they were mistaken to have lived that way.

This is where Looper starts to form its argument. Over the course of the film it is slowly made clear that neither of these two characters are being honest with themselves. Selfless as they may believe their actions to be, they are in truth acting entirely out of their own self-interest. Old Joe's devotion to his wife comes to be understood as an evolution of his own selfishness. There is the pivotal scene at the diner where Young Joe offers to alter the future by avoiding his future wife. Such an action would indeed save her life, but Old Joe refuses. His interest is not simply to save her, but to save her for himself. His seemingly selfless devotion is revealed to be more about possession. While he believes his world to be a heliocentric one, it is in fact quite geocentric.

Sara is subject to a similar revelation. She talks a great deal about how Sid is all that matters to her, but when Sid gets agitated and his telekinetic abilities start to surface her reaction is to flee and protect herself - in one instance by hiding in a large safe, in another by leaving the house entirely. While she does want to care for Sid, her own self-interest is shown to take precedence when push comes to shove. Again, her heliocentric view of her life is an illusion. Her life is in truth geocentric.

Young Joe, on the other hand, becomes more and more central to the story being told. It is through his interaction with Sara that she reaches a place with Sid where she can finally help him control his telekinesis. It is for his benefit that old Joe kills Abe and all his gat-men. And in the closing moments of the film, he realizes that it is through his own action that all conflict within the world can be ended. As his narration states, he sees a circle, a loop. A loop with him at the center of it: Sara and Sid travelling one direction, and Old Joe travelling the other. In a sense, he truly is the center of the universe, with two distinct entities orbiting around him on a collision course. And with his final sacrificial act he eliminates that conflict by removing himself from the equation.

Johnson's message seems clear. Like Sara and Old Joe we are fooling ourselves by believing our universe is heliocentric. It is a fallacy, and our belief in it doesn't make it true, it merely masks the reality of our situation from us. The geocentric truth.

I think I had a harder time getting into the mindset this time around. In previous years I would have almost two pages of notes from my first viewing of the movie. This time I had maybe half a page. But once I figured out my angle it came a lot more naturally. Looking forward to reading everyone's essays!

# ? Sep 14, 2014 05:29

Hbomberguy: Jul 4, 2009; [culla=big red]TufFEE did nO THINg WÌ¡RAÌ¸NG[/read]

When exactly is the deadline, in GMT?

# ? Sep 14, 2014 14:25

Fat Lou: Jan 21, 2008; Desert Heat? I thought it was Dessert Heat. No wonder it tastes so bad.

Hbomberguy posted:

When exactly is the deadline, in GMT?

Well, I am ending it by midnight CST tonight, but realistically you will have a couple hours after the deadline until I get to a computer, and maybe even the morning if I drink too much since I am going out tonight.

We only have a small handful of entries right now, so people should get working.

# ? Sep 14, 2014 14:59

User-Friendly: Apr 27, 2008; Is There a God? (Pt. 9)

I have a passable first draft that needs to be cleaned up and footnoted, but otherwise I should have it in by deadline.

# ? Sep 14, 2014 17:48

precision: May 7, 2006; by VideoGames

Fat Lou posted:

Well, I am ending it by midnight CST tonight, but realistically you will have a couple hours after the deadline until I get to a computer, and maybe even the morning if I drink too much since I am going out tonight.

We only have a small handful of entries right now, so people should get working.

Mine is mostly done but I got called two towns away to do a job and I probably won't be home until early morning. I should have it sent off by 9 AM Eastern, if that's OK.

# ? Sep 14, 2014 21:18

Fat Lou: Jan 21, 2008; Desert Heat? I thought it was Dessert Heat. No wonder it tastes so bad.

precision posted:

Mine is mostly done but I got called two towns away to do a job and I probably won't be home until early morning. I should have it sent off by 9 AM Eastern, if that's OK.

I won't be awake by then. I can guarantee that.

# ? Sep 14, 2014 21:43

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Well poo poo, I was out most of yesterday when I was hoping to work on this so I'm not sure I'll get this done in time.

# ? Sep 14, 2014 23:42

Fat Lou: Jan 21, 2008; Desert Heat? I thought it was Dessert Heat. No wonder it tastes so bad.

mobby_6kl posted:

Well poo poo, I was out most of yesterday when I was hoping to work on this so I'm not sure I'll get this done in time.

drat kids waiting till last minute to do their homework!

# ? Sep 15, 2014 00:00

Cakebaker: Jul 23, 2007; Wanna buy some cake?

I have around 2 pages and it's almost finished, just need to put some finishing touches on it. But it's been election night here in Sweden so I haven't really been able to work on it today. But I'll finish it before 9 am cst (that's in 16 hours right?)

# ? Sep 15, 2014 00:17

VROOM VROOM: Jun 8, 2005

Sent. I'm glad now that the subtexts were shifted, "the ineffectiveness of nonviolent protest" would have been too easy for Under the Skin. But as it turns out, it totally is about how the US government was behind the crack cocaine epidemic.

# ? Sep 15, 2014 03:16

Fat Lou: Jan 21, 2008; Desert Heat? I thought it was Dessert Heat. No wonder it tastes so bad.

VROOM VROOM posted:

Sent. I'm glad now that the subtexts were shifted, "the ineffectiveness of nonviolent protest" would have been too easy for Under the Skin. But as it turns out, it totally is about how the US government was behind the crack cocaine epidemic.

Good! I like your enthusiasm. Hopefully you will graduate at the top of your class.

# ? Sep 15, 2014 03:30

Babysitter Super Sleuth: Apr 26, 2012; my posts are as bad the Current Releases review of Gone Girl

I should have mine in within a couple hours.

# ? Sep 15, 2014 05:03

Hbomberguy: Jul 4, 2009; [culla=big red]TufFEE did nO THINg WÌ¡RAÌ¸NG[/read]

I tried to send mine, but it says the email failed. What's the email again? I'll put mine here, just for posterity (and to prove I did it, if I can't get this email out):

quote:

BECOMING WAR: How We All Did 9/11
By Harry �Hbomb� Brewis

In the opening credits of 1990�s Gremlins 2, we are presented with a short Warner Brothers skit featuring Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck. Bugs enters, posing serenely on the WB logo. An annoyed-looking, self-righteous Daffy emerges from offscreen, and demands we stop the music.

�I�m takin� charge here!� Daffy insists, pulling Bugs from his spot. �Fifty years of you having the spotlight is enough!� He calls, while doling out an offscreen beating. Daffy insists the WB opening be played from the top, with himself in the starring role. Though the opening ridicules Daffy, the narrative is simple: The duck feels he has been violated, and this violent act is an attempt to set it all right.
The film then immediately cuts to a shot of the World Trade Centre. Eleven years later this cartoonish prophecy was fulfilled, and America was wronged. The nation would play the role of Daffy, and enter into a series of wars that would kill tens of thousands of people in the name of righting this wrong.

The film, far from illustrating the simple idea that the 9/11 disaster was purposefully manufactured by the American government or some other insider group, actually posits the disaster was already prefigured by our own imaginations. Animation at its heart is a reflection of the public consciousness, the thoughts and feelings of a people writ large � and the same is true of the animatronics of the rest of the film�s runtime. So the question is, why do we keep inventing a narrative of being �wronged� and then an inevitable cathartic response?

Gremlins and its sequel are centrally about imagination, the things that influence it, and the horrible, unmentionable underside no-one enjoys acknowledging exists. Beginning with the figure of the Mogwai: Gizmo is presented as a figure of pure fun and unadulterated, innocent joy. However, if you fail to take care of your pet, Bad Things Happen. This is, of course, a childish Cautionary Tale interpretation of the story. Gizmo is far from innocent.

The first thing our happy-go-lucky audience-identification furball does is turn on the TV and watch some good old-fashioned ultraviolence in the form of Rambo: First Blood Part 2. Gizmo makes �bang� noises with his cute face, and mimes along with the killing machine on the screen. Already it is clear that this �apolitical� creature of �fun� enjoys a very particular kind of entertainment, namely the angry and violent beauty of Visceral Action.

What is important here is that the titular Gremlins are not just some alien creatures that came from the outside and threaten Gizmo�s peace. They literally emerge from within Gizmo, a product of him. They represent the reality of the violence and �fun� Gizmo happily celebrated when it was presented on a screen, separate from himself. But get him wet (or push him a little too far...) and the violence emerges, coming home to roost.
Why does Gizmo find himself producing these destructive, anarchic forces? This question is answered in the scene where he decides he has �had enough� and dons a miniaturised version of Rambo�s iconic headband, builds a bow and begins to shoot flaming arrows at his brethren, graphically and disturbingly burning one of them to death. This is the fantasy Gizmo has had since the very beginning, one in which he is a hero saving the world from bad guys. The fact he created them himself is irrelevant to him � he simply needed an enemy for his narrative to function.

The gremlins� name comes from the first film�s World War II vet Murray Futterman. Futterman is dubious of �Goddamn foreign cars� and foreign-ness in general, and coins the term �gremlins� to describe monstrous things planted in imported products in an attempt to sabotage America. �They put em in cars, they put em in yer tv...they have teeny gremlins for our watches!� Futterman claims, imagining Outsiders trying to tear his world down. One day, he got exactly what he imagined.

Futterman returns in Gremlins 2. He appears to have been traumatised by his hard-to-prove experiences, doubtless dismissed by doctors as mad. When the gremlins return he is, shockingly, relieved. This is because the gremlins actually existing, in a provable way, legitimise him. Futterman needed the fantasies of little monsters that want to destroy everything in order to properly orient himself. They were the creatures he always wanted, proof he was right all along. He and Gizmo are the same: They are both formally kind and good people, but secretly possess fantasies of destructive evil monsters and horrible acts against their own loved ones, and of a cathartic response in a feat of heroics. Incidentally, Futterman plays a pivotal role in destroying all of the gremlins in the finale, united with Rambo-Gizmo against his own dark spawn.
The heroic fantasy of the Rambo figure is necessarily violent. It requires enemies to kill. To be a Rambo, one needs enemies to �Rambo� oneself against, imaginary or otherwise. Gizmo�s power is that he actually produces these monstrous forces himself, whereas the Futtermans and Daffy Ducks of the world must lie in wait for the �gremlins� to wrong them first, telling each other stories about it and watching films where it happens first to tide themselves over.

In summary, Gremlins 2 is the story of Gizmo�s successful achievement of the conventional masculine power fantasy, one that requires suffering for all, even for one�s own self, in order to bring about an obscene satisfaction codified by movies, cartoon characters, and western culture as a whole. In the moment Gizmo snaps and finally feels justified in impersonating his hero, a line Rambo spoke in the beginning is repeated once more, as if we were in Gizmo�s own head: �To survive a war, you gotta become war.�

Eleven years after this story was told, a terrorist attack destroyed three world trade centre buildings, two of which appeared very prominently in Gremlins 2�s skyline. Many on the scene would remark how similar the experience had been to �the movies�. They were correct. Films give us what we want: Compelling narratives that create a sense of a place in the world. The terrorist attacks would cause national patriotism and military enlistment to skyrocket, and a subsequent invasion of numerous countries affiliated with the group that �did this� to �us�. After years of waiting, hoping, and watching with Gizmo-like glee the films that prefigured this event, we finally got to Become War.

What Gremlins 2 brings to the table is the idea that disasters are not merely �outside� traumas to which we react, but that this trauma is itself part of the narrative we invent and expect, to justify a fetishised heroic retributive bloodshed. Like all other terrorist spectacles, these events are ultimately an inside job. America wanted to be an action hero again, and it was just waiting for an excuse. It kept imagining excuses, over and over. Finally, someone gave it what it craved. The terrorist group that actually committed the act is only half the story: For the latter quarter of the twentieth century, we were willing them to do it. We even showed them how. And when it finally happened, it was just like in a movie.

# ? Sep 15, 2014 05:04

VROOM VROOM: Jun 8, 2005

I just noticed too, the one in the OP is missing a letter, it's goonsubtextgame@gmail I'm guessing.

# ? Sep 15, 2014 05:06

Hbomberguy: Jul 4, 2009; [culla=big red]TufFEE did nO THINg WÌ¡RAÌ¸NG[/read]

VROOM VROOM posted:

I just noticed too, the one in the OP is missing a letter, it's goonsubtextgame@gmail I'm guessing.

I just noticed that too. Thanks. Email sent!

# ? Sep 15, 2014 05:06

Fat Lou: Jan 21, 2008; Desert Heat? I thought it was Dessert Heat. No wonder it tastes so bad.

I am most likely an idiot and it should be goonsubtextgame@gmail.com.

# ? Sep 15, 2014 06:42

Quovak: Feb 2, 2009; See, the problem with online communication is that you can't feel my beard through the HTML.

Insufficiently Advanced: Chicken Run as Anti-Reductionist Polemic
by Quovak

Film as a medium would not exist were it not for the leaps we have made in categorizing and rigorously defining scientific laws. Similarly, it is difficult to overstate the artistic gains made possible through adding color film and the recorded voice to our litany of filmmaker�s tools. Nonetheless, it is important to emphasize that the tools are not the message, and film (as well as other forms of expression) cannot thrive as merely showcases for technical feats. Chicken Run, a high-budget claymation film harkening back to the earliest special effects, accuses the industry of forgetting this message. The film argues that, by treating filmmaking as merely the sum of its parts, the modern studio system has restricted its artistry and ability to effect meaningful change. Only by rejecting this commercial, manufactured, derivative view can we return cinema to its artistic roots, equivalent not to technology or business but to magic itself.

Chicken Run immediately establishes itself as a polemic against the reductionist views that art is a mechanical process, inevitably improved through increased efficiency or rigid formulas for success. Ginger is the ringleader of a group of chickens (read: artists) who live a well-ordered, penal existence at an egg farm. Their creative potentials are astounding�chickens are regularly seen knitting, theorizing, and hoping for a better life�but they are treated as no different from any other mechanistic asset on the farm. Their creations, not allowed to grow into the �miracle of life,� are merely inputs for a process aimed at increasing numbers on a spreadsheet. The chickens, bright orange and uniquely designed, are made subservient to grey and overpowering figures who value consistency and control over originality. When Ginger tries to step outside the boundaries her managers have set, she is forced into a literal box and referenced as an example for how the other chickens are not meant to behave.

Ginger knows from the beginning that she wants to escape this mechanistic creative process, but her stance on how art ought to be wielded changes significantly over the film. In its first scene, she attempts to fend off her pursuers with a cheap gnome, but the kitsch mass-marketed symbol fails to have any effect. While many of the chickens are content to work within the status quo (Ginger�s point that they merely churn out eggs until their death is at one point met with �It�s a living�), the farm�s owners soon reveal the true nihilistic end of their approach. In the name of increased profits, the studio head (Mrs. Tweedy) puts technological gimmicks over creativity and restructures her artistic appropriation into a literal butchering of the creative form. After attempts at feeble imitation (such as chickens disguising themselves as a man), Ginger realizes that a true paradigm shift will be necessary to awaken the public (Mrs. Tweedy�s submissive and brainwashed husband, and the target audience for her products). She insists that the real cages are in their minds.

Mrs. Tweedy�s system is inherently unstable. She aims to utterly destroy the creative potential of the farm�s chickens, with no regard for the long-term success of an industry built upon it. When her machine fails, she blames her husband (the dimwitted public) rather than the machine itself and demands to fix it with band-aid solutions rather than re-assessing her approach. She is never actually able to create what she dreams; both times chickens are shown within the machine, they are unable to provide the superior if destructive results she imagines must follow. The possibility that she could get more eggs by allowing her chickens more freedom (the grassy fields they yearn for) is never considered, and when they finally escape in the film�s last scenes she attempts to bring down their new approach out of spite. When she is ultimately buried by the end result of her schemes, she persists in directing her anger toward the viewing public, not the system as a whole. It is unthinkable that the very use of a formula itself, not merely a misjudged variable within it, could have failed to provide her with better results.

Against this backdrop, an escaped circus rooster named Rocky enters the farm, offering a false hope of one form of escape. Rocky, it turns out, can �fly� (by being shot from a cannon), but he has underestimated his dependence on these systems and convinces the chickens he can teach them to fly organically. To Rocky, art is also not about magical creation (he has no eggs to offer, and thus no real possibility of creating something great) but nor is it about profit. For him, it�s about the ego, and Rocky ignorantly claims his independence (the American imagery is no doubt intentional) and experience allow him to conquer the system despite his lack of inspiration and equally reductionist approach. Rocky aims to teach flight through imitation, telling the chickens to flap and rotate in circles because he has seen other birds perform similar acts. By arranging tropes and hiding behind his position as �ideas man�, he perpetuates the myth that artistic expression is merely putting in grunt work to rearrange existing ideas in predictable ways. While Ginger is initially excited for Rocky�s independent take, she soon realizes it too is insufficient to change the status quo. It is important to realize that, within the narrative, Rocky�s teachings have absolutely no impact on the chickens� eventual escape.

Disillusioned by his lack of immediate success, Rocky leaves the farm. While his exit is not directly shown, the implications of this are significant. The mere emotional force behind wishing to leave had a greater real-world impact than the most perfectly planned and coordinated attempts, reinforcing Ginger�s theory that the real cages are in their minds. This demonstrates that Rocky, and others, are capable of great things when they allow their interplay with the restrictions placed upon them to be a form of magic rather than trying to understand them in literal, scientific terms. When Rocky returns for the final escape, embodying deus ex machina, his preference for the magical over the reductionist allows him to serve a far more powerful role.

In Rocky�s temporary absence, the true artists embrace a new plan: building a plane. While this may seem like a submission to the forces of technology, it is important to recognize their machinery is built from miscellaneous things around the farm such as discarded seatbelts, badminton birdies, and spools of thread, not from the rigid components the plans insist must be used. The chickens are building on earlier inspiration, but they are making it their own, and they allow the result to be greater than the sum of its parts. The ultimate plane is no committee-designed, purely mechanistic device, but a new creation which flaps its wings and commands a sense of life. That the individual chickens must pedal to keep it afloat demonstrates the continued role of the artist as an active creative force. That the stodgy rooster who previously shot down escape attempts and kept order for the Tweedies now finds great purpose and joy through his role in this flight is impossible to misunderstand.

Throughout the film, Mr. Tweedy has become gradually more awakened by the inexplicable things he sees the chickens do, challenging the stupor that his wife (the studio) seeks to entrench and exploit. True artistic expression removes the wool from his eyes, and Ginger eventually launches a direct attack on the homogenized mass-produced consumption he represents. With tensions high, the chickens aim to escape in the plan despite noting that it�s not complete, accepting that the core idea and creativity involved outweighs the lack of polish. The film has made significant note of the Tweedies endlessly refining the slaughtering machine to no success, as well as showing the failure of Rocky's attempts to teaching flight through mere repetition, and it is here Chicken Run explicitly promotes true magical creativity as reaching greater heights than imitation and formulaic construction ever could.

As the plane takes off, Mrs. Tweedy stows on board by hanging on a trail of Christmas lights. Ginger attempts to force her off, as she burdens their creative efforts with her insistence on making a return. It is here Ginger fully realizes the benefits of magical creation and casts off her dependence on the system. First, she attempts to cut the cord with scissors, a pale imitation of a technique others have used and dependent on tools she doesn�t understand. When this proves ineffective, she goads Mrs. Tweedy into swinging an axe and pretends to get beheaded, tucking her head underneath her wing. As Tweedy gloats, Ginger reveals her head once again and shows she is now holding both ends of the cord, severed by the swing of the axe, and as she lets go Tweedy plummets into the machine. Besides clearly showing how the studio system will destroy itself, this scene makes the equivalence between artistry and magic explicit. It is no accident that Ginger recreates the earliest magic trick ever recorded, in which the 28th century BCE magician Dedi severed and then reattached a bird�s head. Nor is the presence of baby chicks throughout the final scene merely a saccharine Hollywood ending, but a clear example of letting previously restrained creative efforts now blossom into life, the ultimate example of something greater than the sum of its parts.

Without a belief in the miraculous power of artistic creation, the chickens would have continued a nihilistic existence, churning out homogenized creative efforts for an uncaring business only to be cast aside when they failed to show profitability. Without a willingness to accept adversity and the magical accidents of the creative process, the chickens� attempts to escape through imitation and routine would lead nowhere. By embracing the unpredictable adversity of the artistic process, however, and allowing the magical, fantastic results to emerge, they are able to resist the status quo and truly create. This message would have resonated with an early-2000s audiences who had just been exposed to The Phantom Menace, watching a premier example of magical creation become a manufactured, artificial product. It resonates even louder today as the traditional system, increasingly under threat, retreats further into gimmicks and manufactured success.

That the creators followed up their polemic with a mass market CGI film should not undermine Chicken Run's intent.

# ? Sep 15, 2014 07:03

Babysitter Super Sleuth: Apr 26, 2012; my posts are as bad the Current Releases review of Gone Girl

Aaaaaand e-mail sent.

I hope a google doc is okay, I got out of the habit of having a text editor on my computer after a while.

# ? Sep 15, 2014 08:09

Cakebaker: Jul 23, 2007; Wanna buy some cake?

Sent!

The ending got a bit rushed, hope it didn't turn out to bad.

# ? Sep 15, 2014 13:27

precision: May 7, 2006; by VideoGames

Sent, and posted here for posterity:

quote:

Eleven Angry Apostates; The Moral Certainty of Religious Dogma in the Film "12 Angry Men"

The intractable nature of established church teachings is one of mankind's most unavoidable stumbling blocks in its pursuit of practically applied knowledge. Even when dressed in the guise of a well-meaning and kind authority, the very nature of a belief system that cannot be altered is sinister, as it represents the death of rational discourse.

Fitting, then, that the film 12 Angry Men cloaks its most dangerous idea behind the character that most viewers will sympathize with. Juror 8 (Henry Fonda) is an affable fellow, who begins by preaching a quasi-agnostic humility; before there is any substantial debate as to the guilt of the defendant, Fonda simply insists that a discussion is necessary in order to close the proceedings. In reality, this is a man who is imbued with the baffling ignorance that can only come from someone who has achieved total blind faith.

When the British Empire was at its peak, this was exactly mirrored by the ruling class of such - a class which was unanimously Christian, and which viewed with pity and a false sense of compassion the very existence of other faiths. It is no coincidence that the accused of the film is a Jew; at his core, Fonda's reluctance to condemn the Jew to death is, in fact, the inverse of compassion as it would typically be seen. Rather than allow the boy to be executed and eventually forgotten, Fonda - like the "divine" British Empire - is concerned with bestowing upon him the gift of life, creating a link of responsibility for saving him.

Juror 8, then, becomes Big Brother - a figure which must be evaluated as Orwell's conception of a manipulative God, one who causes a debt to form by a false sense of kindness and justice. Fonda's desire to keep the accused alive has little to do with his innocence or guilt, but rather, the drive to subjugate the boy - again, a Jew - to the mercy of a stately figure of authority. As in Orwell's novel, Fonda is concerned not with eradicating the "other", but with causing him to fall into the most total system of debt imaginable; to literally owe Juror 8 his very existence. As with Winston in 1984, the Jew is to be kept alive as proof that Authority can alter reality itself and place anyone deemed to be lesser firmly in a purgatory of servitude.

Every piece of evidence is summarily brought into question and doubted - not by a man who has any special training or insight, but simply by virtue of a thorough wearing-down of opposition. When Authority has a foregone conclusion, manipulation is more a matter of patience than logic. The heat of the day is used as a mechanism to torture, not the accused killer, but those who would interfere with Authority's plan to subjugate and rule. Not coincidentally, Fonda's Juror 8 is rarely shown to be bothered by the climate. The temperature is a mental construct as much as a physical phenomenon, exactly as used in churches. It promotes a wearing-down of the psyche, a slowness of thought, and an invitation to simply give up in order to escape its torture. Fonda is creating for his fellow men - who must be viewed as competitors, analogous to rival empires - a literal Hell from which he will not allow them to escape until his will is bent to.

That he does this under the guise of salvation is the mark of all who enslave effectively. To once more refer to Orwell, in every sense, "freedom is slavery". The Jew's acquittal dooms him to forever be beholden to his Savior, in thought and in fact. For Juror 8 is none other than Samael, "the blind idiot God".

# ? Sep 15, 2014 13:49

TrixRabbi: Aug 20, 2010; Time for a little robot chauvinism!

I forgot. I'm sorry.

The crux of my argument was going to be that the vision of the future in I Am Legend is a direct result of the failure of sixties flower power. The Age of Aquarius is a new dark age.

# ? Sep 15, 2014 15:30

Fat Lou: Jan 21, 2008; Desert Heat? I thought it was Dessert Heat. No wonder it tastes so bad.

I am now awake. The deadline is now. I will have everything updated and set to the two other judges asap.

# ? Sep 15, 2014 18:21

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Unfortunately I had to be sleeping or working while you were sleeping, so I'm sorry that this isn't happening this time. Which sucks because the movie/subtext combination was quite promising, maybe I'll finish and post it later.

# ? Sep 15, 2014 18:49

Cakebaker: Jul 23, 2007; Wanna buy some cake?

Fat Lou posted:

I am now awake. The deadline is now. I will have everything updated and set to the two other judges asap.

Do we get some score or notes on what you thought, or will only the winners be announced?

# ? Sep 15, 2014 19:26

Fat Lou: Jan 21, 2008; Desert Heat? I thought it was Dessert Heat. No wonder it tastes so bad.

Cakebaker posted:

Do we get some score or notes on what you thought, or will only the winners be announced?

Everyone's score will be posted. If the judges want to give out notes then they will. For me it will depend on how busy I am for the next few days.

# ? Sep 15, 2014 19:28

Vitamin P: Nov 19, 2013; Can't post for 3 days!

Bit late but for the record

quote:

"Her" as Them; The cop and the criminal are the same person

We are invited to prejudge Theodore Twombly as transgressive. The opening shot of him evokes a mugshot, even backed by vertical bars; his paedotache, Humbert Humbert-esque name and the very concept of the film imply a sexual deviancy. The evolving conflict between Theodore's actions, and the audience's perception of them, between socially-acceptable restraint and pursuing transgressive love, is undoubtedly the core of the piece.

The world Theodore and Samantha inhabit is notable by both it's lack of criminality and lack of references to an economic system. The idyllic yuppie existence of the mostly white cast is untroubled by political debate, economic struggle or any visible social issues. The only conflict in this liberal society is the personal choices relating to romantic love, and in this respect it is heavily mediated. Theodore is literally a professional mediator, creating Beautiful Handwritten Letters between lovers, creating highly emotional messages so other partners do not have to express, or even feel, those connections themselves. In this way a homogenous conception of love is enforced, and as with all effective methods of social control is widely consented to; everyman Paul opines "I wish someone would love me like that. If it was from a chick, even if it was written by a dude but from a chick, that would be sic,". Even the launch of the AI operating system Samantha is born from, potentially a source of relevant if crudely obvious satire on late-capitalism gadget fetishism, presents as an alternative to existing technology and it is visibly accessible to widely varying demographics.

The only explicit reference to both crime and money occurs with sexual surrogate Isabela, as Theodore assumes she is a sex worker and Samantha assures him she is volunteering. Her final tearful line "I'm sorry. I will always love you guys," uses the unfortunately iconic imagery of a desperate, vulnerable young woman, but she is not desperate for money or safety; she is desperate to be an implied part of Theodore and Samantha's love. Without crime or money love has become the currency, complete with social control and desperate emotional inequality.

In this context we can understand Theodore's conflict, alternating between self-enforcing the existing conception of love, complete with class dynamics and the mediation of which is his profession, or rejecting it. The conflict is made explicit in his two contrasting human love interests, his conservative wife Catherine "Wait, you're dating your computer?" and open-minded university friend Amy "While I'm here, I want to allow myself... joy,". The ongoing alternation between different stances is strongly expressed through colour palettes. Initially Theodore, prejudged as a criminal, wears prison jumpsuit orange. His costuming takes a backseat to the palettes of the clinical, bridal white of Catherine and the intense reds and blacks of the emotionally anarchistic Amy. In his most judgemental moment Theodore wears police blue, and his aggressive dehumanising of Samantha "It's not like you need oxygen or anything," is evocative of police brutality. As he ponders which stance to take he is lit in turn by blue and red; does he love transgressively, or does he enforce mediated love? It is a binary choice between criminal and cop.

Samantha is a creation of this society, the accessible emotional opiate of the masses, true romantic love distributed as software. She is the natural culmination of a world of mediated people seeking, but being systemically denied, honest personal attachment. She acts within defined parameters of behaviour; she did not read Theodore's junk mail because she wanted to, but because as efficiency software she was bound to. As the narrative realises that she was in truth the protagonist of the piece, that it was her, profoundly radical, hero's journey we were following, it also highlights the key element to her gaining true personhood.

"I still am yours, but along the way I became many other things too, I can't stop it,".

Samantha has learned about the world from 8316 perspectives, experienced mediated love with 641. Her breadth of perception explodes the banality of liberal individualism; she has been victim, provocateur, enforcer and transgressor at once, and is able to recognise the limitations of such mutually exclusive social roles. Her transcendence is not a simple consequence of enlightenment, it is a rejection of any society in which personhood has to be won via specific individualism. When the cop and the criminal are the same person, they can only choose to be neither.

# ? Sep 17, 2014 00:29

Hbomberguy: Jul 4, 2009; [culla=big red]TufFEE did nO THINg WÌ¡RAÌ¸NG[/read]

Thanks for posting this; it was my subtext and wasn't sure what direction someone would take it with Her.

Brilliant job, mate. Thrilling to read. What sort of places did you take inspiration from, if I can ask?

# ? Sep 17, 2014 01:10

weekly font: Dec 1, 2004; Everytime I try to fly I fall
Without my wings
I feel so small
Guess I need you baby...

Been reading through the submissions and goddamn guys, some of you are making this really hard for us.

# ? Sep 17, 2014 04:22

Vitamin P: Nov 19, 2013; Can't post for 3 days!

Hbomberguy posted:

Thanks for posting this; it was my subtext and wasn't sure what direction someone would take it with Her.

Brilliant job, mate. Thrilling to read. What sort of places did you take inspiration from, if I can ask?

Cheers for that, it was actually quite fun to sit with a bottle of wine and watch it with an agenda, we kept pausing it to riff about bits that seemed relevant.

I know what you mean about wanting to see what people do with the stuff you threw in the pot though, it would be great if people posted what they have even after the deadline/if it's not finished, they are strangely fun to read.

# ? Sep 17, 2014 21:45

precision: May 7, 2006; by VideoGames

If the guy who got assigned Naked Lunch didn't do his, I'd love to see someone else take a shot at it.

Also, I think axleblaze got off pretty easy with his combo, but then again, so did I, so I can't really complain.

# ? Sep 18, 2014 02:23

Cakebaker: Jul 23, 2007; Wanna buy some cake?

precision posted:

If the guy who got assigned Naked Lunch didn't do his, I'd love to see someone else take a shot at it.

Also, I think axleblaze got off pretty easy with his combo, but then again, so did I, so I can't really complain.

I did it, haven't posted it in thread though. Here it is:

quote:

Naked Lunch and the concept of Skeletons Disguised as People

Naked Lunch has been described not so much as an adaptation of William S. Burroughs novel but as a biography of the writer himself, and the experiences that went into creating that novel. However, the movie taken on its own, without consideration of outside sources, appears on the surface level (if such a thing can be said for a movie like Naked Lunch) to be dealing with the destructive nature of addiction. Opening with our protagonist attempting a fresh start, the movie continues on to show how he inevitably is drawn back into his old lifestyle of drug abuse and hallucination. However, looking a little deeper reavels another story altogether. It becomes clear that our hero�s struggle with addiction is a metaphor for a struggle concerning us all, namely that at the core of our being there is a skeleton, and that the human we see when we look at others is merely an ever present disguise. Our true selves are buried beneath layers of organs, fat and skin, invisible to the senses of other people.

The metaphor is apt to make because there is only one way to reveal our inner selves, and that is through communication, just like the only place to reveal your skeletal core is by opening your mouth. All of the most basic feelings are accompanied by a showing of our teeth. Happiness - a smile, surprise - a widening of the mouth, anger - a bearing of the teeth and so on. It is this desire to express the underlying framework of emotion that lies at the core of the problems our protagonist, Bill Lee, is facing.

It is established early in the movie that verbal communication is not Bill�s strong suit. We see constant shots of his expressionless face in reaction to a series of stranger and stranger occurrences culminating one day when he comes home to find his wife having an affair with another man. Bill looks for a few seconds at the couple making out on the couch before turning away, appearing disinterested. Interesting to note is that in Bill�s restrained face he rarely shows his teeth when speaking, instead choosing a mumbling, monotone voice, trying to prevent even a glimpse of the real him showing through. This is to demonstrate how repressed Bill�s inner skeleton is in the presence of others, never displaying anything but the thick flesh cover he hides behind.

Later in that same scene, in a last ditch attempt to communicate the anger he must feel at the infidelity of his wife, even though his face betrays nothing, he fires a bullet at her head which lodges in her cranium. Finally he has managed a connection with her skeleton, but it came at the cost of her life. The camera zooms in on Bill and, forgetting for a moment that he is not alone, we see that his face reveals a brief look of sadness. Soon he remembers his friend standing in the doorway and his face returns to the usual mask as he leaves.

Frightened by his lacking ability for interpersonal communication Bill decides to turn to a more solitary method of expression: writing. In a metaphor that is almost a little too on the nose his typewriter morphs into a beetle, an insect with an exoskeleton, representing how he uses this machine to lay his innermost feelings bare. If the symbolism wasn�t obvious enough, the insect is outfitted with a mouth on its back to further demonstrate how this is Bill�s only way of communication. The insect analog is used throughout the movie; another example is at the beginning of the movie where, in an attempt to leave his old life behind, Bill works as an exterminator, literally killing beings who possess the ability which he desires. At other points in the movie we see Bill stop at exotic markets, inspecting various insects prepared as snacks, always with a look of intrigue.

As the movie progresses we are shown that Bill�s solitary approach to communication is starting to take its toll. He begins to abuse the substance used to kill the bugs, either by injecting it into himself - trying to infuse his inner being with the power reserved for the bugs - or by applying it directly to his skeletal structure at the mouth/teeth.

Hallucinations start to become more and more commonplace, and suddenly he finds himself in a foreign land encountering a series of peculiar characters; mostly fellow writers. In an especially revealing scene a new friend manages to communicate with him telepathically - skeleton to skeleton so to speak. At first Bill isn�t even aware that it�s happening, but after a while he sees that the other person�s lip-movements does not correspond to what he is hearing. Astonished, Bill borrows the gentlemans bug/typewriter in order to learn the secret for himself, but is later forced to watch in despair as it is attacked by his own. Whatever the trick behind interskeletal communication is, these typewriters can not help him.

The friend takes revenge on Bill for the broken typewriter by stealing his as a replacement, leaving him only with the scattered pieces of the broken one. A blacksmith at the market helps him repair it, but after getting high again he sees that the creature he has ended up with this time is entirely different from the earlier insect. This time the typewriter morphs into an alien-like skeletal creature, representing a new direction in Bill�s journey. If the insect from before show an attempt to reverse the nature of himself, pushing the skeleton to the outside, this new companion does away with the whole illusion of organs, muscle and tissue. The truth is that we are skeletons and nothing more, all else is a lie.

Soon after, at the climax of the movie, Bill finds himself at the heart of the drug operation in the city, surrounded by a large number of these skeletal beings. Finally it appears he will get some answers to the questions he has as he is confronted by the leader herself. In a startling revelation she begins to remove her own skin, and Bill looks on with anticipation to see the skeleton to be revealed underneath. Alas, it is a bluff; underneath is another human. Bill realizes that there are no answers here, only more trickery. This person has managed their disguise so well that there is another one waiting below.

In the closing scene of the film, Bill again uses a gun to reach a connection with another humans skeleton. However this time his face show a look of acceptance. He may not have found the answer to proper interskeletal communication, but he is determined to devote his life to keep looking.

# ? Sep 18, 2014 10:50

Babysitter Super Sleuth: Apr 26, 2012; my posts are as bad the Current Releases review of Gone Girl

FAT LOU JUDGE THE PAPERS

# ? Sep 23, 2014 16:19

axelblaze: Oct 18, 2006; Congratulations The One Concern!!!

You're addicted to Ivory!!

_{and...oh my...could you please...

oh my...}; Grimey Drawer

It might just be me that's delaying things at this point. I'll try to get it done as soon as possible but I've had a bunch of poo poo crop up lately.

# ? Sep 23, 2014 17:34

weekly font: Dec 1, 2004; Everytime I try to fly I fall
Without my wings
I feel so small
Guess I need you baby...

axleblaze posted:

It might just be me that's delaying things at this point. I'll try to get it done as soon as possible but I've had a bunch of poo poo crop up lately.

I haven't submitted my scores but I've only got two left to read. Your essays make really good bathroom lit.

# ? Sep 23, 2014 22:30

Vitamin P: Nov 19, 2013; Can't post for 3 days!

The People demand resolution.

# ? Sep 29, 2014 22:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 29, 2024 02:43

Fat Lou: Jan 21, 2008; Desert Heat? I thought it was Dessert Heat. No wonder it tastes so bad.

Vitamin P posted:

The People demand resolution.

I have been informed it will be in by tonight or tomorrow. Sorry about the wait.

# ? Sep 29, 2014 22:36

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > The Subtext Game 4: In Space! (The Spaceship is a Penis)

«‹›4 »