User123abc on 18/3/2007 at 05:19
Quote Posted by Thirith
It is definitely not a simple, one-to-one brainwashing we get, but culture does influence our thinking, just as our thinking influences culture.
Psst. Culture
is thinking. Thought on paper, on record, on film. The most apparent function of art, especially pop art specifically tailored to appeal to the largest number of consumers, is that it speeds up the spread of prexisting mass-ideas - kind of pushing more and more people to conform.
That's actually little more than a restatement of what you said, but it's a good way to look at it. Is it the root of all evil? I don't think so, and I don't think any hypothetical regulation of art would do anything but slow a trend.
Pavlov.. it's hard to say if there's been a change in general mindset over time, but it sure feels that way, and it's pretty interesting to think about.
I'm starting to think that, as societies get more advanced, more complex on a small scale, they become more primitive, closer to basic human impulses, on a large scale. The trend seems to be towards casting off the elaborate structures of tradition as they become unnecesary. I can think of a few examples like sexual liberation (that's the big one to me), the slow dissolution of caste systems, the spread of democratic government. Compare modern New York with Puritan New York, or with Elizabethian London, or some tribal village in pre-colonial Africa.
Maybe it has to do with an increase in individual freedoms across the board leading to the breakup of artifial, restrictive ways of thought. What you're left with then is a culture that reflects the basic impulses of individuals now encouraged to express themselves. Or, maybe it's the opposite, and it has to do with luxury, opulence, and comfort, leading to stagnation. In other words, we've lost touch with what really matters to the still very primitive human psyche, and we're either overcompensating, or we've lost our sense of reality. My personal experience would suggest the second one - spending enough time away from my everyday life drastically changes the way I think, generally making me happier and a little less schizophrenic.
In other words, yeah, THAT'S PROGRESS. To say if it's good or bad is hard, guess it depends on your view of human nature. We might kill each other, we might construct a (communist) utopia.
Plus, for better or worse, I'd personally like a society that lets me satisfy my need to see blood, or my purely hypothetical fetish for rubber bands.
What's this thread about again? Comic books?
TheAlbaniac on 18/3/2007 at 13:20
Sin City lacked story, but it did so intentionally. Sin City was very gory, but it fit in the strange, disjointed context. Sin City was like a stylish film-noir comic book, with nice dialogue.
300 tried to have a plot, but it sucked. 300 tried to make the violence serve some kind of purpose or meaning, but in the end felt empty and gratuitous. 300 was stylish, but just for the sake of it, and the dialogue was atrocious.
I won't claim that Sin City was a masterpiece, or that its violence wasn't gratuitous. But somehow it felt like a consistent whole, where everything served the purpose of making it an original, beautiful, stylish film, and an artistic masterpiece. 300 just felt like it took all these elements individually to make some money.
Maybe it's just that Sin City did it 'first', and was original. I don't know. I just know that I didn't care much about 300 beyond the occasional 'oh, cool. FATALITY' and 'ooo pretty picture' moments. Sin City was amazing from beginning to end, some of the images still stick with me, and I would like to see it again at least once.
Starrfall on 18/3/2007 at 15:14
Quote Posted by TheAlbaniac
300 tried to have a plot, but it sucked. 300 tried to make the violence serve some kind of purpose or meaning, but in the end felt empty and gratuitous.
It's about a big ass fight. That's that plot and it involves violence. Did you want them to sit down and talk about the ramifications a violent lifestyle has for society as a whole or something?
BEAR on 18/3/2007 at 16:02
Star has a point, that pretty much was the plot.
Swiss Mercenary on 18/3/2007 at 17:20
Quote:
My main point was not the amount of media coverage, but that most violent actions from the past have a modern day equivalent.
To which I agree. What I don't agree is that we have more violence then before.
Quote:
You must live in an idyllic place where these things don't intrude into your life.
And they would have intruded just as well fifty, or seventy, or one hundred, or one thousand years ago. If not moreso.
Quote:
How about fearing for your good friend's school child because some idiot decided to shoot up the school?
Unless you've got those happening on a daily basis, they don't contribute much, if anything to the statistics.
Quote:
How about a friend beaten to death in a parking lot by her ex-boyfriend who was let out of jail on bail because beating up on your girlfriend isn't that serious?
Domestic... Or rather not-so-domestic abuse, fatal, even, isn't a 21st century invention.
Quote:
Environment is a key factor. You & I live in two different realities. You don't live with every day violence, so you can't truly understand what it is like to live in fear to the point where violence becomes expected. You're more amazed that nobody was killed this week than if 10 people were killed. I've lived in places where I didn't leave the house after dark and never alone. You are more fortunate. Thankfully, we are now living in a much safer place, but I still don't stay home alone without the monitored security system armed & ready. Fear is a hard habit to break.
Of course there are better and worse places to live. Of course violence hasn't went away. But I'd be hard-pressed to argue that we have
more of it on a national scale, then we did ten, fifty, a hundred, or a thousand years ago.
Vigil on 18/3/2007 at 17:32
I get the feeling you were meant to sympathise and then shut up rather than rebut her points one by one.
SD on 18/3/2007 at 17:47
What a shame people of Persian descent aren't even half as vocal about the horrendous human rights situation in modern-day Persia as they are about a goddamn popcorn flick.
Aerothorn on 18/3/2007 at 17:52
What a shame you feel the need to comment on articles before you've even read them.
And what evidence do you have that people of Persian descent are all okay with the way Iran is doing things?
SD on 18/3/2007 at 18:03
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
What a shame you feel the need to comment on articles
before you've even read them.
What? I read the article before posting you buttmunch. Twice.
Quote:
And what evidence do you have that people of Persian descent are all okay with the way Iran is doing things?
Well, for one thing, try reading the article :rolleyes:
Quote:
I contend that this film has been specifically timed for release and designed to consciously or subconsciously appeal to people to draw obvious parallels between Persians (Middle Easterners) vs. Spartans (Americans) during a time in our history when there is a very real conflict between the two cultures, and the very real threat of an invasion of Iran by the US.
You think he sounds like he's excited by the prospect of Iran being liberated from tyranny? No, me either.
