Yay you crazy fuck!
Pat Robertson is a hero. And by hero I mean evil, senile fucktard that should be put down like a sick dog. Maybe that's not the best word.
P.S. I still hate that cunt Paglia. But I've already done one of her shitty interviews here and I'm not drunk enough to repeat myself because she's still saying the same cunty things.
P.P.S. A lot.
P.P.P.S. OK, just one - Here's a quote: "My point of view on life is cinematic, as is abundantly clear from my prior books, not only my study of Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds for the British Film Institute (1998) but Sexual Personae (1990), where I argue that the cinematic "Western eye" was born in ancient Egypt. Others beside myself have noted how Plato's allegory of the cave in the Republic strangely prefigures a movie screen and theater."
Maybe because they both require you to look at things. Holy shit! Looking at things. With our eyes. Fucking amazing. They're practically identical! Nice job you snobby, stuck-up bitch.
P.P.P.P.S. Dammit I just reread it (I'm a sucker for punishment) One more quote - "As a columnist for Salon.com from its inaugural issue in 1995, I was also a pioneer of Web journalism."
You're so wonderful!
P.P.P.P.P.S. "The essence of the rebellious 1960s, in which both she and I remain grounded, was improvisation, prankishness, an experimental attitude toward life. "
Gah! You sure are a rebel. No drugs (although she somehow knew how they made you feel and think b/c she hung out with those people) and a cushy job in academia analyzing shitty poems. You certainly are an asskicker.
posted by The Head @ 3:08 PM
7 comments
7 Comments:
Looks like I conveyed the experience of actually knowing me pretty well then.
The Head:
If you think her "I'm a pioneer of web journalism" is terrible, look up the one where she says that she dislikes blogs, but that her column on Salon was the "first blog." Other, than, you know, being a column in a webzine.
However, you utterly miss her point vis-a-vis Plato. The point is not that both require you to LOOK AT THINGS WITH YOUR EYES but that both require you to look at shadows and fantasies of things and accept them as real. The allegory does have a great deal to do with our modern cinematic culture. Paglia may be a pompous asshole, but she's also brilliant.
Sigh - you missed my point Joshua.
OK, obviously I'm wasted on you people. The eyes thing was my attempt at humor. But there was a point there. The type of thing Plato was talking about is a very basic (and interesting, I won't dispute that) characteristic of the human mind. Representing things. Lots of other critters can't do that. You can strap that skill on to a TON of shit we do. People like that dumb bitch Paglia grabbing something so obvious and thinking that she's discovered something makes me want to puke. I was just saying that if you are gonna do that then, wow, you might as well say the advent of vision prefigured cinema too.
And no, she's not brilliant, the only thing I think she's getting right is some of her staces on academia.
I hate her.
Blech! Typical intellectual masturbatory twaddle.
And "stance" in my last comment.
"stances"
(need coffee)
Indeed. I really can't dispute your "scientists are assholes" thesis.
But my main problem is that they're taking something innate to humanity and co-opting it to try and explain a specific culture point.
I'm not saying that cinema dosn't reflect some aspects of "western conscious", but what Plato was talking about applies to humanity in general.
Maybe it's an order or semantics thing? Not that the western conscious "is, and always was, cinematic" but instead cinema uses certain parts of the mind that the western conscious interprets as...blah blah blah. Switch it around. I need to think about this over several drinks because I'm not making sense of why that bothers me.
It just seems to me more of the lame cocktail party intellectualism that masquerades as scholarship.
It doesn't have anything to do with movies, really, except insofar as both films and Plato's allegory reveal the same thing about human consciousness. Much of the fundamental, real truths can be discerned only (and I do mean only) by looking at their shadows. Cold, hard physical facts can tell us virtually nothing of interest. And it is not about "seeing" (which is common to all human cultures) but about the persistently alienating way that Western culture uses seeing. The cinematic eye (a specific film theory she is referring to) both distances the viewer from the action and implicates him in it -- in a way that fiction and theater can't manage. This is very similar (if not identical) to the way that we process what we see around us -- becoming both implicit in our culture and alienated from it.
Post a Comment
<< Home