Currently listening to Culture Club
whatever
fuck u
I dunno what the fuck this shit is, but i’ll see where it takes me
I un-friended somebody on Facebook because of this.
“Umm… [redacted] is drunk and was acting like a fucking dominatrix with me and my friend Brandon and then Mike freaked out and yelled at all of us and now shit’s weird”
—moments ago
“I’ve been with several women, who have within 12 months, been admitted to asylums.”
— recently
Marathon Man (1976, John Schlesinger; Cinematographer: Conrad L. Hall)
SPOILERS
“Do you think anyone cared about Victor Frankl or admired his humanity until he gave them Man’s Search for Meaning?” - David Foster Wallace (Brief Interviews With Hideous Men)
And so he runs. One man flees for his life, ensnared in a convoluted power-play of fascism, fascism that changes faces and geography but never its simple but efficient binary that turns human beings into non-entities, shells for labor, commerce, and information. In 1976, when John Schlesinger’s Marathon Man hit theaters, New York City was feeling the shift. Overwhelmed with crime, the police came harder than ever, singling out problem areas, then problem groups. Race was a factor, as it always is. Films like Death Wish and Taxi Driver confronted the power of the pistol with bloody spectacle - could violence stop violence? Has it ever?
That a pistol is the prominent motif in Marathon Man, a movie similarly controversial for its stark look at violence, suggests an ingrained fear of the weapon as agency, and as an inescapable link to the crimes of the past. Babe, played by Dustin Hoffman, keeps the pistol his father used to commit suicide, a death spurred by accusations of communist sympathies during the McCarthy era, in his dresser drawer, while he works tirelessly on a scathing thesis about tyranny. His teacher is quick to illustrate the revenge fantasy implicit in Babe’s words, and this cannot be denied, the paper on Babe’s desk is just the eloquent representation of the firearm inside of it.
The thesis and the weapon trade places halfway through the film, the former forgotten as the stakes rise and Babe tries desperately to avoid using the symbol for fascism that killed his father, and overshadowed Babe’s own life since he was a child, on his oppressors. And so he runs, hoping that like his hero, marathoner Abebe Bikila, he will eventually push through to some sort of tangible catharsis, a ribbon stretched across the road, signaling his victory, and his freedom.
But who is Babe? Is he his father’s son? Babe’s teacher explains without malice that he will never fill those footsteps, that he can only create his own, individual mark. When Babe’s brother, Doc, is murdered, Babe becomes his sibling’s facsimile, running from Doc’s pursuers, failing to answer questions and relay information that only Doc could understand. Perhaps Babe belongs to the collective Jewish diaspora. A memorable scene in which Babe is tortured at length by a former Nazi doctor links his personal crises, and continued flight, to that of the Holocaust and the Jewish exodus, but despite the repeated implications of Jewishness, never in the film does he describe himself as such. Suffocating under the weight of multitudinous identities, Babe becomes not an amalgam of his influences, but a complete rejection of them – a nothing.
Victor Frankl, a neurologist who, in Man’s Search for Meaning, documented his three years in a concentration camp, understood that there is no such thing as inherent humanity, that one must claim it. As David Foster Wallace suggested, Frankl was not, could not be, an entity until he wrote that he was one. He had gone through and seen things under the Nazi regime that should have destroyed him, but he survived with a tenacity of will that he constructed to combat the very forces that would have him deny that will’s existence. In the climax of Marathon Man, unable to outrun himself, Babe claims his own humanity. The gun goes into a reservoir, and he finally purges the object that took away both his father’s life and his own, but not before using it against his enemies, and understanding the convoluted autonomy of force - that those pulling the trigger and those running from it become equally oppressed, mirrors at the crux of tyranny.
Source: theillstills
What Happened to Canada?
The decay of Canada illustrates two things. Corporate power is global, and resistance to it cannot be restricted by national boundaries. Corporations have no regard for nation-states. They assert their power to exploit the land and the people everywhere. They play worker off of worker and nation off of nation. They control the political elites in Ottawa as they do in London, Paris and Washington. This, I suspect, is why the tactics to crush the Occupy movement around the globe have an eerie similarity—infiltrations, surveillance, the denial of public assembly, physical attempts to eradicate encampments, the use of propaganda and the press to demonize the movement, new draconian laws stripping citizens of basic rights, and increasingly harsh terms of incarceration.
This is more stuff by Chris Hedges. I typically regard his stuff with a shrug because it—usually, like this—is vague and rarely makes reference to either examples or sources or actual historical moments.
The problem here is that he doesn’t even say, exactly, what the “decay of Canada” is. Of course, there are numerous references to corporations and everything they are and aren’t, but how are we to know what this has to do with Canada? Are we simply to infer, from the fact that the evils of corporations in general and the country Canada are mentioned in the same article, what all of this means?
Let us not mistake a critique for a refutation or dispute, either—no, that’s not what I’m doing. But my problem with him is his lack of vigor. He reads more like rote Orwell or disimpassioned Edmund Burke than a Chomsky or Said and certainly isn’t hubristic enough to qualify for the likes of American Television. Neither academic nor celebritarian; neither incisive nor divisive.
He lacks the punch that someone like Hitchens had; lacks the contextualizing power of Zinn, and worse, stoops to some of the most inane criticisms: his work his noble, but poor.
If you’re going to complain about this crap to Canadians, why not complain about, and then illustrate the levers of power pulled and the means by which “corporations” or capitalism (which is it?) achieved the current state Canada is in?
I’ll tell you why: because an honest intellectual, in doing so, risks becoming a target in bringing a spotlight to such offences. He avoids this because he can’t separate himself and the attention he receives from what he’s writing. The man insulates himself from direct criticism that way: were he to be honest about who he’s talking about, he would lose the pedestal he’s on since, quite often, the objects of his rhetoric, if explicitly mentioned, would include those he’s receiving support from: CNN, MSNBC, CBC (in Canada), The New York Times, and many other large media outlets.
If you look at the trajectory of Chomsky’s publicity, for instance, it spirals into a freefall of coverage the moment he starts naming names of editors at large outlets, US and foreign government officials, or the heads of guilty companies, reducing his publicity for the last 30 years to highly marginalized, independent organizations. The cause/effect relationship in this respect is very clear and direct.
The less publicized Hedges becomes, the more I’ll care about what he says.
(via sovietbitches)
Source: truth-out.org
“There is no line between art and pornography. You can make art of anything. You can make an experimental movie with that candle or with this tape recorder. You can make a piece of art with a cat drinking milk. You can make a piece of art with people having sex. There is no line. Anything that is shot or reproduced in an unusual way is considered artistic or experimental.” - Gaspar Noe
I just wanted to point out, before we lionize this quote too much, the little part that I’ve bolded.
Strangely, Noe says anything unsual is considered artistic—not that anything unusual is art.
He’s not making an ontological claim: he’s making a perceptual claim. Moreover, it’s an external perceptual claim. Nowhere here is he saying that anything may be art, but that, somewhere—not in him—something unusual may be perceived as being “artistic”, something somewhat less than ‘art’ proper. So you see, he’s actually expressing a kind of reservation, and without the entirety of his opinion available, it’s difficult to totalize his position on the matter.
But from this, it seems as if he’s in fact quite disappointed with the (public?) perception, or appreciation, of art these days; there’s no note of celebration or revel in what he’s saying: it’s more of a lament to him, it seems, that something bordering on the pornographic may be perceived as art.
And who can’t help but notice how douchey he looks in this photograph? Now there’s an aesthetic statement I’d adjust.
Source: fuckyeahdirectors
Right.
So I just melted a hole in the back of my television.
Fuck
Source: kromapix





