"Dahlgren" is still in print: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375 706682/qid=1080242914/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/104-360833 6-5300754?v=glance&s=books
- I have a habit of doing it too, but it's worth repeating: Don't conflate biology and software. Biology evolves and lacks intentionality, software is always modified by some human agent. - IANAB, but it's clear from any text on the subject that much of the human immune system co-evolved with its viral/bacterial attackers over millions of years, and that vaccines only excite/exploit features of the existing system. It's about as silly to say "we use them to get rid of infections" as it would be to say that "we use jet airplanes traveling eastward to make the sun rise more quickly". - It's more useful to consider: Exactly how is this free software/service different from the software/service Symantec/McAfee/etc. sell?
Huh...well, OK. I suppose my take on the movie is intemperate and your mild and reasonable reply shows that up. Reggio does tend to focus on the ugly/nasty a lot, especially in Koyannisqatsi, don't you think? That's why I liked Baraka a lot better: Although it used many of the same techniques; it showed the beautiful and mysterious along with the ugly and squalid, and emphasized the harmony of all creatures. For me, the signature shot of Koyannisqatsi was a long, slow-mo take of an obviously poverty-stricken old man staring straight at the camera, looking miserable and suspicious. In Baraka, it was the opening sequence: A white-haired primate sitting in a hot spring, looking exactly like an old monk and doing what I can only think of as meditating.
It makes you think, is all Oh really? About what, precisely? That any human activity or construction (including a Hopi village, I'll bet) shown at five times normal speed, in super-slow motion, or extreme closeup will always appear comical/meaningless/sad/squalid? That human endeavors and constructions are inherently less wholesome than those of "natural" processes? I agree that the qatsi pictures are powerful, bravura pieces of wordless, totally kinetic filmmaking. I also love Philip Glass's music. And I am concerned about what we are doing to our unrecoverable resources. But in both films so far, Reggio has applied the music and his hypnotic editing technique in service of a message that really adds up to not much more than "humanity is a dirty infestation on the face of a lovely planet". We belong here too, dammit! When is he going to address that?
I just have to wonder... is the same question asked of Microsoft.. why do you close your source? Why not extend that to intellectual property in general? The whole existence of the Open Source movement is a counter-argument to the commonly cited justification for patent regs: That innovation will cease unless innovators are remunerated. Can anyone here say "surplus value"....?
The "sentimentalism" you deride as a Ridley Scott "creation" is actually one of the two central themes explored in practically every one of Philip K. Dick's published works: "What is Reality?" and "What Does it Mean to be Human?". No wonder Dick was so pleased by Scott's interpretation -- at last, someone understood him and didn't deride the work as "sentimental". And can anyone tell me why Dick, who is (arguably) the most "interior" Science Fiction author of them all, is so popular with film directors? Re-read "Do Androids Dream..." or "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale" and explain to me how anyone in this universe could have made successful films of these works.
Slashdot Mirror
"Dahlgren" is still in print: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375 706682/qid=1080242914/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/104-360833 6-5300754?v=glance&s=books
If it was Chip Delaney, the book was probably "Dahlgren".
Some guy breaks into my house, steals my kitchen knives, uses them to serially murder dozens of other people, and *I* get penalized?
I don't have the tongue to answer that level of idiocy....
- I have a habit of doing it too, but it's worth repeating: Don't conflate biology and software. Biology evolves and lacks intentionality, software is always modified by some human agent.
- IANAB, but it's clear from any text on the subject that much of the human immune system co-evolved with its viral/bacterial attackers over millions of years, and that vaccines only excite/exploit features of the existing system. It's about as silly to say "we use them to get rid of infections" as it would be to say that "we use jet airplanes traveling eastward to make the sun rise more quickly".
- It's more useful to consider: Exactly how is this free software/service different from the software/service Symantec/McAfee/etc. sell?
Add to that: Charging $30 for a lifetime subscription with "unlimited access to all the thousands movies on The Internet": GetMoviesOnline.com
Oh for heaven's sake, the Spinsanity "debunking" is just argumentative claptrap with a right-wing agenda.
Huh...well, OK. I suppose my take on the movie is intemperate and your mild and reasonable reply shows that up. Reggio does tend to focus on the ugly/nasty a lot, especially in Koyannisqatsi, don't you think? That's why I liked Baraka a lot better: Although it used many of the same techniques; it showed the beautiful and mysterious along with the ugly and squalid, and emphasized the harmony of all creatures. For me, the signature shot of Koyannisqatsi was a long, slow-mo take of an obviously poverty-stricken old man staring straight at the camera, looking miserable and suspicious. In Baraka, it was the opening sequence: A white-haired primate sitting in a hot spring, looking exactly like an old monk and doing what I can only think of as meditating.
It makes you think, is all
Oh really? About what, precisely? That any human activity or construction (including a Hopi village, I'll bet) shown at five times normal speed, in super-slow motion, or extreme closeup will always appear comical/meaningless/sad/squalid? That human endeavors and constructions are inherently less wholesome than those of "natural" processes?
I agree that the qatsi pictures are powerful, bravura pieces of wordless, totally kinetic filmmaking. I also love Philip Glass's music. And I am concerned about what we are doing to our unrecoverable resources. But in both films so far, Reggio has applied the music and his hypnotic editing technique in service of a message that really adds up to not much more than "humanity is a dirty infestation on the face of a lovely planet". We belong here too, dammit! When is he going to address that?
It doesn't do Sandscript (sic)
Is anyone doing reviews literate anymore?
I prefer the other one: "Humanity won't be happy until the last capitalist is hung with the guts of the last bureaucrat."
"...so the lady squid says to her husband, 'Not tonight, dear, I have a haddock'..."
"Come on, people, I know you're out there, I can hear you swimming...."
I just have to wonder... is the same question asked of Microsoft.. why do you close your source?
Why not extend that to intellectual property in general? The whole existence of the Open Source movement is a counter-argument to the commonly cited justification for patent regs: That innovation will cease unless innovators are remunerated. Can anyone here say "surplus value"....?
The "sentimentalism" you deride as a Ridley Scott "creation" is actually one of the two central themes explored in practically every one of Philip K. Dick's published works: "What is Reality?" and "What Does it Mean to be Human?". No wonder Dick was so pleased by Scott's interpretation -- at last, someone understood him and didn't deride the work as "sentimental". And can anyone tell me why Dick, who is (arguably) the most "interior" Science Fiction author of them all, is so popular with film directors? Re-read "Do Androids Dream..." or "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale" and explain to me how anyone in this universe could have made successful films of these works.