Great film, but no market for it: Sorry...

[mattias]

OK but the trigger was the brain in the first place. It has changed itself then.

that's the beauty. but the reaction wouldn't be nearly as strong if the brain didn't trigger reactions in the body, which in turn change the brain.

In my opinion, the mind can even live without the body. I realy mean without the fysical brain cells too. Will I get crucified for saying this?

you won't get crucified but i disagree. i totally believe that the brain is nothing but a self teaching evaluating machine and that it could quite trivially if not easily be simulated, but it's not likely that we would be what we call us without the body.

when i become conscious in my sleep i rather visit friends who are dead or fly around a little in the alps. much more fun.

Make a film of this, Mattias. You have the talent to do that.

what do you think i'm doing? :-) see other thread about features on super 8. update: it won't be on super 8 after all.

/matt

[VideoFred]

but it's not likely that we would be what we call us without the body.

Ok but imagine what this would mean: it would mean death does not exist. Only the fysical body would die, not the mind. Now this would open some fine perspectives for human kind 8)

what do you think i'm doing? see other thread about features on super 8. update: it won't be on super 8 after all.

Good news! I have missed that thread.. Going to look at it.

Fred.

[S8 Booster]

Make a film of this, Mattias. You have the talent to do that.

what do you think i'm doing? see other thread about features on super 8. update: it won't be on super 8 after all.

/matt

hah, baling out... chicken.... ;)

if there is anyone around that should and could do it on S8 its you - with up to inhuman efforts ofcourse - but it can/could be don uknow.
just shoot every scene with DV backup and you are fine.

MiniDv costanothing and will save ur ass uknow.

who will see the difference between super8 and "patced" overcrappyfiedfilmlooked Mini DV.....

not me :lol:

[steve hyde]

I like this idea of some kind of dialectic that connects repulsion and acceptance.

The more something looks human and less like a machine the more we are willing to accept its human qualities. It is the Power of authenticity, right?

As an example we can think about how and why sexuality has been so heavily censored in the movies. (maybe not so much in Europe ) That wild-eyed psychoanalyst Zizek speaks to this in that Youtube link I posted a couple pages back. In the censored movies we shown a romantic sequence that appears to be leading to a sexual encounter - then!! cut to smoking a cigarette. Here hangs a tale of cultural hegemony.

It is politically acceptable to imagine the sexual encounter in the brain, yet it is politically unacceptable for the filmmaker to create a visual expression of sexual pleasure. That would be too authentic. Communicating sexual pleasure is subversive because it challenges the *common sense* ideology that publicly speaking about sexual pleasure is unacceptable. My assumption is that there is nothing morally wrong about sex, sexuality or speaking about it publicly. In other words, *good sense* tells me that dialog about sex is perfectly acceptable and important. Remember *cultural hegemony* is the subversion of good sense by common sense in the service of Power.

A cinema of sexual pleasure has to find its place in a puritanical landscape. We end up with two extremes: pornographies of raw sex and highly censored sex. Authentic sex exists somewhere between these two extremes.

A filmmaker working under conditions of freedom of expression will imagine and create a scene of sexual relations in open and experimental ways - perhaps striving for authenticity. The filmmaker working under the laws and constraints of puritanical cultural hegemony will look for self-censorship strategies....(like the cigarette.)

This is what I mean by politics in filmmaking.

Sure you are free to make your NC-17 movie, but kiss your career goodbye because 95% of the cinemas won't show it.

Similarly, "Iraq in fragments" finds itself being treated like an NC-17 film.
Because it is too authentic. It does not repulse in the way that it should and it creates acceptance where it shouldn't.





Steve

[npcoombs]

That wild-eyed psychoanalyst Zizek

Get a copy of Zizek's Parallax View, I'm half way through it. Great stuff.

[steve hyde]

That wild-eyed psychoanalyst Zizek

Get a copy of Zizek's Parallax View, I'm half way through it. Great stuff.

I picked up "Mapping Ideology" and "The Fright of Real Tears". I have to say that I find it difficult reading. Less the ideology book, which is an edited volume of Adorno, Althusser and others - but the TFRT book is really tough to follow. The world of psychoanalytical theory is mostly unexplored territory for me. I also ordered his book on "How to Read Lacan"
Seems like a reasonable starting point since Zizek was a student of Lacan.

just ordered the "Parallax View" as I'm writing this...hopefully I'll get some sense of where this guy is coming from and would certainly like to discuss.

Steve

[VideoFred]

cut to smoking a cigarette.

Showing someone while smoking a cigarette is more a problem here in Europe then showing sex. Yes it is a strange world we are living in.

A cinema of sexual pleasure has to find its place in a puritanical landscape. We end up with two extremes: pornographies of raw sex and highly censored sex. Authentic sex exists somewhere between these two extremes.

True! Not only for sex, but for most things, these days.
Everything has to be so extreme... I go for the midway.

The filmmaker working under the laws and constraints of puritanical cultural hegemony will look for self-censorship strategies....(like the cigarette.)

If you are a smart filmmaker, you can say a lot between the lines.
Or should I say: between the frames.


Fred.

[gilmata]

Hi all
it's true there's no market for lovely movies like L'Enfant. But isn't from the "golden era of cinema"?
someone writes that frenchs invented the cinema and americans invented how to make money with him.
i don't know really why slide-shows like Al Gore's stuff are classifeid like cinema, but it's how the people watch cinema.
i don't know if you fell the same but everytime i go to a festival i watch more interesting films in the shorts section than in the called BIG ONES.
i like the Werzog's post!!!
it's really true. i think Werzog will never understand that to.
andré

[steve hyde]

Hi all
it's true there's no market for lovely movies like L'Enfant. But isn't from the "golden era of cinema"?
someone writes that frenchs invented the cinema and americans invented how to make money with him.
i don't know really why slide-shows like Al Gore's stuff are classifeid like cinema, but it's how the people watch cinema.
i don't know if you fell the same but everytime i go to a festival i watch more interesting films in the shorts section than in the called BIG ONES.
i like the Werzog's post!!!
it's really true. i think Werzog will never understand that to.
andré

Nice post!

Yeah - it is strange that movies like Al Gore's slide show are classified as *cinema*. I thought the same thing when Michael Moore's polemic "Fahrenheit 911" won the golden palm at Cannes?!?! They are both interesting films, but in terms of artistry they are both blah..

I agree that we are entering a new era that is opening up for short films.


Steve

[James E]

Big corporations only care about one thing: Profit. It's the same with music. If they can package it and sell it for big money to the masses of asses and make big money at it then that's what they'll do. Actual talent, creativity, or real facts are not required. Al Gore is an idiot. Global warming is just the latest big hyped up pumped up junk science thing to sell. That's the sole and ONLY reason, that and he's a recognizable name, Al Bore won anything. Its trendy popular and sells. No real facts or talent required. A convenient fact of the movie and music industries.

[steve hyde]

....more Lacan stuff for those interested.:

http://www.lacan.com/


and another good link to UCS for anyone who hasn't read the science on Global Warming.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sc ... ators.html


...and this is an annotated bibliography for Zizek that is comprehensive:

http://www.lacan.com/zizekchro1.htm







STeve

[James E]

....

and another good link to UCS for anyone who hasn't read the science on Global Warming.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sc ... ators.html
STeve

Bollocks: All of it. (My Aplogies way O.T. But it's just too irratating.)
The earth has gone through various warming and cooling cycles since it's beginning. Ancient Vikings grew wheat in Iceland. Not a feat to be tried today unless inside a geothermally heated greenhouse. While I certainly agree the earth is warming, that is an irrufutable fact, the idea that it's "all our fault" is pure unadulterated hooey! What we've done to cause the warming of our planet (pollution) is perhaps 1/100th of the cause. The fact that it as been sold and bought is evidnece of the power of properly promoted and marketed junk science throughout our history. There are FAR MORE IMPORTANT reasons to reduce greenhouse gases than global warming. Let's see. Perhaps reducing-to-eliminating our dependence on forign oil and wars to keep that oil flowing. Replacing Fosself fuel buring power plants w/ photovoltaics etc etc etc.....And so on and so forth Enough said. http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1899
If you can actually proove it get $100k for doing so. http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/

[steve hyde]

....

and another good link to UCS for anyone who hasn't read the science on Global Warming.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sc ... ators.html
STeve

Bollocks: All of it. (My Aplogies way O.T. But it's just too irratating.)
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1899
If you can actually proove it get $100k for doing so. http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/

As an aside:
Right, well show us some *peer-reviewed* science and then we will take you seriously. You can't be serious about these links?!?!

Back on topic:
and you are right this global warming bit is "OT". This thread is about the politics of film marketing under the cultural and ideological effects of neoliberal governmentality. Stated differently it is a thread focused on speculations about why a humanizing and mostly non-violent and non-sexual film about everyday life and childhood in Iraq would be treated like an NC-17 film. Even after winning the Sundance film festival and being nominated for an Academy Award. This thread is focused on discussing how and why this has happened.

Steve

[steve hyde]

Here is a short film that is relevant to this discussion. It is a collaboration between Naomi Klein and Alfonso Curon and explores the themes of Naomi Klein's new book: "The Shock Doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism" out in some parts of Europe now and due for a release in the United States next week.


http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/short-film