#bothsides
ALEX GARLAND: I would question your use of the word politics, because the use you are using of politics is a politics which is defined by left and right. And the one I’m talking about is not left versus right. It’s extremist versus centrist.
Mao killed a lot of people too ya know!
Ugh. What a privileged asshat.
did I seriously do that? Im not trying to convince anyone to see it, Im just giving my thoughts on it. and depending on how uninterested some fellow bbsers in this movie are, they sure write a lot about it.
its a good film but yeah, its not a masterpiece and the hype is certainly overblown. and weirdly enough, thats just my opinion.
Hmm. I had Seattle and its proles marked down as a more Bookchin kinda town. What’d I miss?
Did they pivot to Varoufakis and his technofeudalism pitch?
I mean… that Microsoft’s HQ is right there as part of Seattle.
ETA: grammar
There was definitely a civil war moment there during the Battle of Seattle.
“Lest we forget!” “Remember the Alamo!” “Chop wood, carry water!”
Btw, feeling really old right now.
Yeah, I remember that. It felt like a watershed moment, and then 9/11 ended up being a real distraction from the concerns of the protesters there.
did I wrote anywhere “you have to see it!”, “its such an important work!” or “its a friggin masterpiece!”?
Mindy, I’m sure you mean well. We might both agree that the timing for the release of this film is akin to throwing gas on a fire which is my one true criticism of it.
BB’s own Yoy Luadha lands on my end of the spectrum: it’s a film that skips overt polemics and instead drops us into the perilous world of war journalism. It’s that simple.
Despite that, and knowing you’re expounding on a film you haven’t seen, it’s blatantly obvious the film is referencing the bitter racism of America’s white supremacists in the scene with red sunglasses psychopath Jesse Plemons committing mass murder of nonwhites. But you wouldn’t know that, not having seen the film you’re so stridently panning.
How about we just disagree on this? That would be nice. I don’t want to be banished to the cornfield.
I’m sorry, but WTF are you talking about?
No; you (and others) just seem to be acting as though it somehow makes you more open minded or outright better than others, because you chose to watch a film.
That’s beyond off-putting to me.
As someone wiser than myself opined:
I do not need help in deepening my anxiety, surprisingly. Some things I want to watch on my own terms or not at all. It’s an entertainment… product… ultimately, after all.
If someone states that they have no interest in seeing a piece of entertainment, that’s their choice.
That seems to be the status quo already; the only ones not accepting that people DO have different tastes and that it’s okay to be disinterested are the people who seem to be signaling their ‘virtues’ incessantly.
In trying times like these, I personally find no appeal in fiction that will only make me feel even worse.
I have a policy that, if I am going to spend time and money to see a movie, it needs to make me happy or take me someplace fantastic. This sounds very much like neither. My mental health does not need this.
Im trying to discuss a film here which I saw. thats it. and others here discuss what keeps them from watching it. thats my impression. and may I add that this is actually a thread under a bb-post which discusses the film?
and speaking of “overzealousness”;
sure. and write a lot about it. if thats smug of me so be it.
Quite a while back a transphobe wrote a book. He’d written many transphobic papers previously, the title was dubious click bait and the cover photo was blatantly transphobic. Yet people told me I needed to read it to express an opinion.
I neither bought, read nor refrained from challenging the ideas expressed in that book.
YMMV
This reminds me of the avid Peterson stans who insist that one MUST watch all of his videos in order have an opinion on his philosophy.
[sigh]
Yes.
On January 16, 2004, the city of Seattle settled with 157 individuals arrested outside of the no-protest zone during the WTO events, agreeing to pay them a total of $250,000.[39] On January 30, 2007, a federal jury found that the city had violated protesters’ Fourth Amendment constitutional rights by arresting them without probable cause or evidence.[40][41]
Inspired by these protests, a similar one occurred in Prague in September 2000.[42] Around 12,000 activists gathered to protest during the International Monetary Fund and World Bank summit on September 27, 2000.[43]
Carry on, Praha, carry on!
How much are they offering to pay me? Because lottery level money would be required to even consider abusing my soul that badly.
Moral equivalency
