On the slobbering over the movie "Inception"

[Conquer or Die]

As a rule, whenever something is popular I immediately cringe at it. Part of this is narcissism, how can something that I personally haven't encountered or approved be of such popularity? Of course, these sentiments are rejected out of hand.

However, when something is popular it also means that it has attained a level of importance. This new Nolan film (the master of unimportant suspense and ridiculousness) has attained a massive popularity because it is "action that is smart." It essentially combines perverse pleasure of violence with the taint of intellectualism. This therefore makes it the highest work of art that anybody can conceive.

My problem with the film can be summed up in the ending: Dreams within dreams of manipulations of dreams might end up all being a dream. It's a cliffhanger, which means that it is a property to be exploited in the future. There is no reconciliation, there is no conclusion, there is no truth. This is why so many children have become enamored with the film. They can take the premise of Inception and jizz on it until it becomes anything they want it too, like the unending meld of the dreamworld, a person's unthoughtful emotion can be warped to derive any conclusion possible.

Inception is laziness. It is the statement, "there is no truth." It is therefore not intelligent, but solipsistic. There is no past or future, just your own emotional cum. Sex is not love, but masturbation with an object.

Let us take the example of an incredibly similar movie: Shutter Island. In terms of entertainment value and superficial mindfuck it doesn't compare favorably to Inception. In fact, Inception dominates it in every superficial category.

However, Shutter Island actually has a point, unlike Inception. Dicaprio ends Shutter Island by wanting to live in his dreamworld where he is a hero, a special person. He rejects reality for fantasy and embraces an unending loop of bullshit. In inception, Nolan makes the point that we can't ever be sure that there isn't a dreamworld somewhere in reality. Of course both can be accurate, but one suggests conditions of reality where the other says, "it doesn't really matter at all."

I'm reminded of a "cool" scene in The Dark Knight where Bale goes up and down a wall in a motorcycle. This scene is ridiculous, absurd, not compelling in any category but it is a favorite of every filmgoer because it tugs the lowest emotional impulse of humanity. Something different happens, no matter how irrelevant, and because it happens in a cool vehicle with a cool character in a cool suit and because it promises more action -no matter how irrelevant- it is cool. The artwork on your sprite bottle changes, so it is cool.

Nolan, like Zach Snyder of 300, is a fascist filmmaker. It is the image of a beautiful reality that matters and not reality itself. Let the "smart" people tell you what's right and wrong and don't think to ask questions yourself. Retreat into fantasy and all will be okay.

All the perverts of the modern age - Friedrich Nietsche, Ayn Rand, and the Marquis De Sade all had this in common - controlling the lower man, the underman, by slavery. Submission to raw strength, submission to exploitative intelligence and ruthlessness, and submission to vices. These are all in the context of "breaking free" from the chains of morality. As had been illuminated by these thinkers, however, is not "freedom" but the "freedom to be exploited" that is protected. It is nature that the strong oppress the weak.

Of course, in nature, any effete pervert following one of the above philosophies would get murdered in a cold second by any working class man or woman. It is therefore the method, the superstructure, by which these ****s can exercise their liberty to promote the liberty of a "strong" race which will enjoy life's pleasures exclusively.

Films like "Inception" encourage a denial of reality. They require you to submit to "nothing is true." They are superstructure tools. Superstructure tools enable the idea of freedom to be "enough" for the drones.

I'm tired of perversion against the working class being tolerated. I'm tired of unhappy drones not exercising their full potential in the best way possible. I'm tired of accepting "human nature" which is now in the realm of neo-eugenics sociobiology. I'm ready for blood to be spilt of these perverts by men and women of strength, who embrace reality and want to make the best of it.

Reject Inception, comrades.

[Havet]

Watch Doctor Zhivago instead. Great movie. It may also spark your interest that it was banned in Soviet Russia, from 1965 (when it first came out) until 1994 (that's five years after the fall of berlin's walls)

[Sam_b]

Nolan, like Zach Snyder of 300, is a fascist filmmaker

Evidence please, not that I particularly care.

Also, you are looking into this way too much to the point that you are rejecting entertainment on the grounds of ruling class political motives. The idea of the film being some sort of heavy indoctrination about enoucraging a rejection of reality is, frankly, absurd. This is the same argument as the drugs debate that has gone on this board for a while = that somehow workers who use drugs to get away from the stresses of the realities of capitalist life should not be doing so, that this is a way to continue ruling class control etc etc etc, really its just nonsense.

Some films are meant to be read into on political grounds, for instance groundbreakers like Kachynya's 'Kochar do Vidně', but Inception is not in this set at all. I think the use of the surreal nay absurd coupled with a psychological examination of the subconscious in a blockbuster Hollywood hit is a welcome change to the dross that is usually put out. As a film student, I haven't enjoyed such a film as much since Synedoche New York. It even has slight nods to independent filmmakers in the strong use of motifs such as the knife, replication of the avocado etc which plants even more mistrust into whether or not a situation seen as 'reality' is a dream or not.

Reject the film all you wish, though my instincts say you are hamming up a political argument as a way to justify why you didn't like the film (which you do not need to do, all of us appreciate different films). By all means picket outside cinemas about how OH NO THIS IS SUCH AN ANTICLASS FILM even though it won't make a blind bit of difference to workers who want to go out with their friends and get a break from the grind in favour of entertainment for an evening.

PS, you also seem to take the idea of the absurd as if it is a bad thing, despite it being an important feature of many groundbreaking works, in particular Central European cinema.

[synthesis]

tl;dr

It's entertainment. Of the entertainment available to us, it doesn't insult our intelligence quite as much as other media in its genre. You're calling Nolan a fascist because his movie ends ambiguously? Try again.

[RGacky3]

This should be in the chit chat

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You sound like an insufferably priggish snob.


I'm reminded of a "cool" scene in The Dark Knight where Bale goes up and down a wall in a motorcycle. This scene is ridiculous, absurd, not compelling in any category but it is a favorite of every filmgoer because it tugs the lowest emotional impulse of humanity. Something different happens, no matter how irrelevant, and because it happens in a cool vehicle with a cool character in a cool suit and because it promises more action -no matter how irrelevant- it is cool. The artwork on your sprite bottle changes, so it is cool.

It's called "entertainment". There are sound evolutionary reasons why physical spectacle generally impresses humans, and there is no harm in indulging it, whether it's an action sequence in a summer blockbuster or a circus act.


Nolan, like Zach Snyder of 300, is a fascist filmmaker. It is the image of a beautiful reality that matters and not reality itself. Let the "smart" people tell you what's right and wrong and don't think to ask questions yourself. Retreat into fantasy and all will be okay.

I've never got that impression from the Nolan films I've seen.


All the perverts of the modern age - Friedrich Nietsche, Ayn Rand, and the Marquis De Sade all had this in common - controlling the lower man, the underman, by slavery. Submission to raw strength, submission to exploitative intelligence and ruthlessness, and submission to vices. These are all in the context of "breaking free" from the chains of morality. As had been illuminated by these thinkers, however, is not "freedom" but the "freedom to be exploited" that is protected. It is nature that the strong oppress the weak.

Of course, in nature, any effete pervert following one of the above philosophies would get murdered in a cold second by any working class man or woman. It is therefore the method, the superstructure, by which these ****s can exercise their liberty to promote the liberty of a "strong" race which will enjoy life's pleasures exclusively.

Speaking as an "effete pervert":

A) Fuck you.

B) As well as being working class myself, I've encountered many fellow members of my class who are much less judgemental and considerably more open-minded than you seem to credit.


Films like "Inception" encourage a denial of reality. They require you to submit to "nothing is true." They are superstructure tools. Superstructure tools enable the idea of freedom to be "enough" for the drones.

I'm tired of perversion against the working class being tolerated. I'm tired of unhappy drones not exercising their full potential in the best way possible. I'm tired of accepting "human nature" which is now in the realm of neo-eugenics sociobiology. I'm ready for blood to be spilt of these perverts by men and women of strength, who embrace reality and want to make the best of it.

Reject Inception, comrades.

You have a warped perception of the working class. Where did you get that from?

[Dean]

Let us take the example of an incredibly similar movie: Shutter Island. In terms of entertainment value and superficial mindfuck it doesn't compare favorably to Inception. In fact, Inception dominates it in every superficial category.

However, Shutter Island actually has a point, unlike Inception. Dicaprio ends Shutter Island by wanting to live in his dreamworld where he is a hero, a special person. He rejects reality for fantasy and embraces an unending loop of bullshit. In inception, Nolan makes the point that we can't ever be sure that there isn't a dreamworld somewhere in reality. Of course both can be accurate, but one suggests conditions of reality where the other says, "it doesn't really matter at all."

You clearly spent some time writing this out and exploring new ideas. In exploring these new ideas, however, I think you should be a bit less arrogant in your representation - or at least make you case for "perversion" a bit better.

I agree that Inception was a trash movie. Shutter Island, while I didn't like it, genuinely explored psychology, if only in a pedestrian manner primarily used to push forward the uninspired plot. I left Inception with a greater respect for Shutter Island since I saw how absurd films can be today.

Shutter Island is nothing more than the exploration of a fabled new technology which allows for shocking physics and prolonged action scenes.

Indulging in this kind of soulless art, rather than heart-felt and meaningful art less plagued by financial calculations and the profit motive (notably movies like A Serious Man and Network) is indeed a problem for society. The whole sum of recreation, entertainment and art do have political ramifications, and its ridiculous and reductionist to claim otherwise.

[RadioRaheem84]

Inception was a shitty movie in terms of it trying to be a mind bending psychological thriller. As a generic action sci-fi movie, it was pretty bad ass, I have to say. I loved it for that reason and that reason alone. I hated the countless explanations of it's plot and premise and though the philosophy behind it was pretty sophomoric.

Noxion, while Conquer was being pretty petty with some of his criticisms of the film, he is kind of right in saying that these films offer an escapism that keeps people questioning about reality in metaphysical or supernatural ways. It sort of detracts people from a materialist perspective on life.

I took my friend to go see the film and he came out of it thinking that he saw a "genius" film. I thought it was Nolan's weakest film and certainly watered down to make it a summer blockbuster. My friend later kept insisting about wanting to learn about different planes of reality and I do not blame him for wanting to, but I suggested to him that he look into the "Matrix, Inception, etc" hidden world of our own material reality. The way capital has set things up to be a world of appearance. I told him to read Chomsky, Parenti, watch Manufacturing Consent, read Capital, etc. He wasn't interested at all! I told him that this stuff is ten times more interesting than any Matrix-y philosophical cluster fuck that is put out there by Hollywood.

Then I said, fine, why don't you watch the Baader-Meinhoff Complex, because it sort of has a tinge of questioning reality and society, AND it's taken out of the pages of real life history! Still, I got nothing out him. He still insisted on researching dreams, reality within reality on a metaphysical level, etc.

He simply told me that "politics is just not his thing" :rolleyes: As if that has no bearing on his life whatsoever but somehow Eastern religious New Age, what is reality stuff does?

So in a sense I do see where Conquer is coming from and it pisses me off that movies that get people to question reality from a non-material perspective are easily shelled out over ones that do.

[Invincible Summer]

My friend later kept insisting about wanting to learn about different planes of reality and I do not blame him for wanting to, but I suggested to him that he look into the "Matrix, Inception, etc" hidden world of our own material reality. The way capital has set things up to be a world of appearance. I told him to read Chomsky, Parenti, watch Manufacturing Consent, read Capital, etc. He wasn't interested at all! I told him that this stuff is ten times more interesting than any Matrix-y philosophical cluster fuck that is put out there by Hollywood.

Then I said, fine, why don't you watch the Baader-Meinhoff Complex, because it sort of has a tinge of questioning reality and society, AND it's taken out of the pages of real life history! Still, I got nothing out him. He still insisted on researching dreams, reality within reality on a metaphysical level, etc.

You should've introduced him to post-structuralist theory... that stuff is pretty mindfucky

[durhamleft]

I quite liked the film

[Conquer or Die]

Evidence please, not that I particularly care.

Violence for violence's sake. Visual indoctrination. The image of strength vs. the reality of strength. Fascist film is about submission to the Nietschean superman. It is your responsibility to masturbate to it and accept it.


Also, you are looking into this way too much to the point that you are rejecting entertainment on the grounds of ruling class political motives. The idea of the film being some sort of heavy indoctrination about enoucraging a rejection of reality is, frankly, absurd. This is the same argument as the drugs debate that has gone on this board for a while = that somehow workers who use drugs to get away from the stresses of the realities of capitalist life should not be doing so, that this is a way to continue ruling class control etc etc etc, really its just nonsense.

It's not nonsense. It is weakness and submission. Christopher Nolan did not receive orders from General Motors or BP to make this film. He made it on his own, but it draws anti-revolutionary conclusions.


Some films are meant to be read into on political grounds, for instance groundbreakers like Kachynya's 'Kochar do Vidně', but Inception is not in this set at all. I think the use of the surreal nay absurd coupled with a psychological examination of the subconscious in a blockbuster Hollywood hit is a welcome change to the dross that is usually put out. As a film student, I haven't enjoyed such a film as much since Synedoche New York. It even has slight nods to independent filmmakers in the strong use of motifs such as the knife, replication of the avocado etc which plants even more mistrust into whether or not a situation seen as 'reality' is a dream or not.

Film student name dropping and irrelevant posturing. The film is basic and you are told what it is. There is not intelligence here. Further study of the film will just reach the same unending conclusions and anti-revolutionary rejection of reality.


Reject the film all you wish, though my instincts say you are hamming up a political argument as a way to justify why you didn't like the film (which you do not need to do, all of us appreciate different films). By all means picket outside cinemas about how OH NO THIS IS SUCH AN ANTICLASS FILM even though it won't make a blind bit of difference to workers who want to go out with their friends and get a break from the grind in favour of entertainment for an evening.

I like the film. It is entertaining. There are pretty women in it. There is shooting and cool special effects. I'm saying it's not smart and I'm also saying it's weakening to the movement.


PS, you also seem to take the idea of the absurd as if it is a bad thing, despite it being an important feature of many groundbreaking works, in particular Central European cinema.

I don't give two fucks about central European cinema or the concept of the absurd. I'm analyzing "Inception" and its false identification as smart. The movie is not smart. The movie is stupid, and it also has a negative moral message.

I've already granted that the film has entertainment value. That condition is not enough to make it smart nor good.

[IllicitPopsicle]

As far as exploring the question of "What is reality" goes, I thought Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead did a better job of it, but then again, I'm biased towards genuine absurdism.

[Obs]

Violence for violence's sake. Visual indoctrination. The image of strength vs. the reality of strength. Fascist film is about submission to the Nietschean superman. It is your responsibility to masturbate to it and accept it.

This is the dumbest fucking thing I've read toda- wait, no, there was that Queen Victoria thread, nevermind. Still, fascism is not about "violence for violence's sake" or any of those other things you just made up. Fascism is a real political ideology with real tenets. It's not just a sticker you can put on anything you don't like and make up vague associations to, and to use it as such means that you don't appreciate how dangerous it actually is.

[Raúl Duke]

As a rule, whenever something is popular I immediately cringe at it.You sound like those insufferable (as in the kind I wouldn't want to be in the same room with; worst than 'anime LVL >9000 otakus' and 'non-stop politicos.') pretentious killjoy elitist-wannabes who scoff at "those plebes" watching that "superstructural subtle propaganda for the massses" while you go watch Casablanca, some obscure/indie (not all indie movies suck, but you get my gist) shit "masterpiece", or whatever floats your boat for the 50th time.

As I rule, I tend to ignore the opinions of those like you.

[RadioRaheem84]

Matewan would be considered an obscure indie masterpiece.

But yes, I get what you mean. At the one end, I tire of movies like Inception being hailed as brilliant (I guess the bar must be pretty low these days), while on the other end, I hate film buff snobs who only like Goddard films and cringe if your mispronounce Truffaut.

I dealt with both while living in Austin (aka Lifestylist capital of the world).

[khad]

Chris Nolan defends cops who tamper with evidence, so fuck him.

[IllicitPopsicle]

I ignore hipsters.

Fixed

[Raúl Duke]

Fixed

:lol::lol::lol:

Maybe, although I believe only a segment of hipsters fit this.
I mostly see this stuff though among those who are what a publication in NYC called "retrosexual" where they were all like 50s or 30s-era dressed/etc people.

[Conquer or Die]

You sound like those insufferable (as in the kind I wouldn't want to be in the same room with; worst than 'anime LVL >9000 otakus' and 'non-stop politicos.') pretentious killjoy elitist-wannabes who scoff at "those plebes" watching that "superstructural subtle propaganda for the massses" while you go watch Casablanca, some obscure/indie (not all indie movies suck, but you get my gist) shit "masterpiece", or whatever floats your boat for the 50th time.

As I rule, I tend to ignore the opinions of those like you.

What a stupid thing to say. Almost as stupid as you defending "some" hipsters. It is precisely the defense of "some" banality of that wack movement that is what hipsterism actually is.

I said that my narcissism can be rejected out of hand. I then make the point which I feel is based in real observation of the banality of movies like "Inception." Instead of addressing anything that I said, you ***** and moan.

Jump off a bridge.

[IllicitPopsicle]

THERE IS NOTHING TO ADDRESS.

No one gives two craps if you hate the movie. Go on hating. Have a nice day. Jeeebus.

[Raúl Duke]

Instead of addressing anything that I said, you ***** and moan.

Jump off a bridge.

:lol:

My purpose here is done.

[Conquer or Die]

THERE IS NOTHING TO ADDRESS.

No one gives two craps if you hate the movie. Go on hating. Have a nice day. Jeeebus.

Then why post? Or are you too stupid to follow through with your own opinion that opinions in general tend to not be a good or constructive thing.

[Conquer or Die]

:lol:

My purpose here is done.

Your purpose was to be a pathetic moron? I'm offended that you value yourself so little.

[Raúl Duke]

waah waahh

the purpose was to see if you would get annoyed for being exposed, which you did.

stop being a little *****, it's the only way to redeem yourself

[Ele'ill]

Oh yeah, I wish I had the $20 to go to a busy area with lots of people talking loudly- some throwing up on the floor (which I see happen every time I've ever been to a theater) - then to go sit in a dark room that smells like burnt butter and feces with lots of other people that frequently urge me to unbolt my chair from the floor and hurl it at their heads every time they open their fucking blackberries (every five seconds)- so that I can see how idiotic they actually look by the glow of their soul-sucker devices all for a shitty B multi million dollar movie that I could have topped for free while sitting in my bed with the ability to go do other things (like eat something that won't induce the vomiting of blood from the freshly created ulcers)-

[synthesis]

...which theater is that?

[Ele'ill]

...which theater is that?


Do a google maps search for 'movie theaters in your area'.

[synthesis]

I don't really see all that many movies, but when I do, I usually go to Lloyd Center, and it's not that bad. At least, there's no feces or vomit. Also, I'm gonna take a sexist stab in the dark and guess that you have a purse, in which you can put food that doesn't give you ulcers.

[Ele'ill]

I don't really see all that many movies, but when I do, I usually go to Lloyd Center, and it's not that bad.

Hello fellow Portlander. I don't go to movies that often- I went to one in the theater off of Stark- where at least they serve beer.



At least, there's no feces or vomit.

The vomit thing is probably my fault some how- it always happens. Always. (every single time I go someone throws up on the floor)



Also, I'm gonna take a sexist stab in the dark and guess that you have a purse, in which you can put food that doesn't give you ulcers.

I don't have a purse but that ulcer statement was in reference to stress. I usually just drink water if I go.

[Invincible Summer]

I went to one in the theater off of Stark- where at least they serve beer.

This may explain the vomit

[Ele'ill]

I actually didn't see any vomit- but I smelled it.

[Nachie]

that was just cheese

[Obs]

Then why post? Or are you too stupid to follow through with your own opinion that opinions in general tend to not be a good or constructive thing.


Your purpose was to be a pathetic moron? I'm offended that you value yourself so little.
Ohoho!

http://knowyourmeme.com/i/30403/original/YouMad.jpg?1260647699

Well done not addressing my point, btw.

[synthesis]

Chris Nolan defends cops who tamper with evidence, so fuck him.

Batman as a concept has always promoted "vigilantism" (which is, in turn, implicit propaganda for the police state) but I don't remember exactly which scene you're referencing here. Jog my memory?

[Drace]

You're trying too hard mate.

The statement "there is no truth" is a powerful one. It goes against the traditional thought of morals and religion which has been a driving force in history of politics and society. Such philosophy was that of Nietzsche, whom you slander as some bourgeoisie thinker. Although honestly I don't know what the fuck your talking about there.
I actually have no idea what the fuck your talking about in your whole rant.



And shit, what's up with all the sex analogies? Lay off the porn :thumbup1:

[Obs]

It was all a piece of idealist shit of which you had to reach all the way to a Chinaman's ass to conjure.
Nothing like casual racism to lighten up the mood.

[La Comédie Noire]

In my opinion Christopher Nolan could have done so much more with the concept than he did. The movie played like a straight up action film and then ended with one mind fuck. To be honest I was starting to get so bored towards the end of it.

But at least now Christopher Nolan can get started on Batman 3.

[Conquer or Die]

waah waahh

the purpose was to see if you would get annoyed for being exposed, which you did.

stop being a little *****, it's the only way to redeem yourself

You don't have the intelligence to expose skin to sunlight, so there is no continuation with the rest of your diarrhea.

I don't need the definition of a *****: a true weak, pathetic, hipster who knows nothing and is therefore "revolutionary" to ask me to redeem myself. You are nothing.

[Conquer or Die]

This is the dumbest fucking thing I've read toda- wait, no, there was that Queen Victoria thread, nevermind. Still, fascism is not about "violence for violence's sake" or any of those other things you just made up. Fascism is a real political ideology with real tenets. It's not just a sticker you can put on anything you don't like and make up vague associations to, and to use it as such means that you don't appreciate how dangerous it actually is.

Fascist art is very much the representation of masculine violence for the sake of masculine violence. Drace mentioned Nietsche, the progenitor of National Socialism, who very much rejected reality in favor of creating pleasure out of violence and submission to authority.

My first problem with Inception is that it's not intelligent. My second problem is that it's a negative movie for the communist movement. Are people so stupid and confused to conflate their own emotional impulses with genuine revolutionary thought?

Lenin ultimately had it right, you need to cull the herd of leftists before you can achieve any success whatsoever. People who flatly reject reality are people who wear red and black as a fucking fashion statement for themselves.

[Invincible Summer]

I don't see how Inception - or any other movie really for that matter - is "a negative movie for the communist movement." Granted, they're not necessarily consciousness-raising, but not every single facet of life has to be.

Are we only allowed to watch Soviet Propaganda films?

[Obs]

Fascist art is very much the representation of masculine violence for the sake of masculine violence. Drace mentioned Nietsche, the progenitor of National Socialism, who very much rejected reality in favor of creating pleasure out of violence and submission to authority.

My first problem with Inception is that it's not intelligent. My second problem is that it's a negative movie for the communist movement. Are people so stupid and confused to conflate their own emotional impulses with genuine revolutionary thought?

Lenin ultimately had it right, you need to cull the herd of leftists before you can achieve any success whatsoever. People who flatly reject reality are people who wear red and black as a fucking fashion statement for themselves.
Shit, I've mentioned Nietzsche before, I guess I'm a fascist. Like ¡Basta! said, not everything has to be a piece of revolutionary propaganda. Sometimes a dumb movie is okay. Sure, it might not be a direct step on the path to revolution, but neither is me making a sandwich. Does that mean I'm a Fascist if I do it?

Your insistence that everything live up to your standard of "intelligence" borders on elitism.


I don't see how Inception - or any other movie really for that matter - is "a negative movie for the communist movement." Granted, they're not necessarily consciousness-raising, but not every single facet of life has to be.

Are we only allowed to watch Soviet Propaganda films?
Yes, and only pre-Khrushchev.

[khad]

It was all a piece of idealist shit of which you had to reach all the way to a Chinaman's ass to conjure. You made the largest leaps of logic to connect a corporate, budget-driven film, to something of a relic in the understanding of class conflict.

And shit, what's up with all the sex analogies? Lay off the porn :thumbup1:
Lay off the racism and enjoy your infraction.

[Drace]

It was all a piece of idealist shit of which you had to reach all the way to a Chinaman's ass to conjure.
Nothing like casual racism to lighten up the mood.
Lay off the racism, and enjoy your infraction. What's racist here? I was clearly saying that he had to make stretch of logic, and you know how China is said to be "on the other side of the world"?
Was there any actual reference to race? Why the fuck would pulling shit out of someone's ass be racist?

This is better then the time I was restricted for transphobia.

[Conquer or Die]

Shit, I've mentioned Nietzsche before, I guess I'm a fascist.

Neitzsche is a fascist philosopher. National Socialism is within his ideology.

There is no reconciliation between Nietzsche and Socialism. There is none at all.


Like ¡Basta! said, not everything has to be a piece of revolutionary propaganda. Sometimes a dumb movie is okay. Sure, it might not be a direct step on the path to revolution, but neither is me making a sandwich. Does that mean I'm a Fascist if I do it?

I guess I have no problems with somebody shutting down their mind to make a sandwich. I do have a problem with fuckers claiming something is smart or important when in fact it's as irrelevant as the sandwich you make.


Your insistence that everything live up to your standard of "intelligence" borders on elitism.

I don't have standards that need to be met. Standards already exist. Inception is not a smart movie, this is purely a factual statement.



Yes, and only pre-Khrushchev.

If you're trying to drum up revolutionary fervor that might not be a bad idea.

[Adi Shankara]

What's racist here? I was clearly saying that he had to make stretch of logic, and you know how China is said to be "on the other side of the world"?
Was there any actual reference to race? Why the fuck would pulling shit out of someone's ass be racist?

This is better then the time I was restricted for transphobia.

The term "Chinaman" is considered paternalist, chauvinist, and antiquated. it's like calling a Jewish woman a "jewess" or a black person "colored".

There are so many other ways you could've put that without saying "Chinaman's ass".

[AerodynamicOwl]

Its hard to have a positive outlook for humanity when people like the OP fail to deduce the point of entertainment. One of the few choices we really have in this society is what interests us, and what doesn't. Arent you glad you wasted your time and energy to ***** about it?

Personally there is a lot of pull for me to concepts that we can control our mind in such a manner. Ive always had my own elevator concept in my mind, and i dream about these things fairly regularly.

[Drace]

The term "Chinaman" is considered paternalist, chauvinist, and antiquated. it's like calling a Jewish woman a "jewess" or a black person "colored".Sorry for being ignorant of that then. You hear the term "Frenchman" quite often, and I had no idea the same mechanisms don't apply to other races. Really "Chinaman" doesn't seem like a racist term to me.
I didn't have to receive a infraction for racism and another for trolling for such a honest mistake on my part. I edited the phrase out though.


Chinaman is an English language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language) term that denotes a Chinese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China) man or person, whether by Han Chinese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Chinese) ethnicity, or as a Chinese national (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_people), or, in some cases, an indiscriminate term for a person native to geographical East Asia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asia) or of perceived East Asian race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoloid_race). The term is not listed as derogatory in older dictionaries.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinaman_%28term%29#cite_note-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinaman_%28term%29#cite_note-1) While the usage of such parallel compound terms as Englishman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Englishman), Frenchman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenchman), Irishman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irishman), Welshman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welshman) and Dutchman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutchman)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinaman_%28term%29#cite_note-2) remain unobjectionable,[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinaman_%28term%29#cite_note-3) the term Chinaman is noted as offensive by modern dictionaries, dictionaries of slurs[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] and euphemisms[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)], and guidelines for racial harassment. How the term came to be offensive, I don't know.


There are so many other ways you could've put that without saying "Chinaman's ass". I just put what came to mind. I thought, "hmm it might seem a bit racist but I think I put enough context to completely show my point"

But no, no one could of had your decency to explain my wrongdoing in a civilized manner rather than to immediately treat me like a racist scumbag.
But, please, just delete my account.

[Obs]

Neitzsche is a fascist philosopher. National Socialism is within his ideology.

There is no reconciliation between Nietzsche and Socialism. There is none at all.
Nietzsche died before there was even such a thing as Fascism. Again, you're using 'fascist' as a label for things you don't agree with. And, you know, you can agree with something a philosopher has said at some point, and then disagree with everything else he's said - bringing up something about Nietzsche isn't the same as claiming Nietzsche is a socialist philosopher.



I guess I have no problems with somebody shutting down their mind to make a sandwich. I do have a problem with fuckers claiming something is smart or important when in fact it's as irrelevant as the sandwich you make.
Don't you dare talk shit about my sandwiches.


I don't have standards that need to be met. Standards already exist. Inception is not a smart movie, this is purely a factual statement.
Oh, do tell me where these standards are outlined so that I may study them. :lol:


If you're trying to drum up revolutionary fervor that might not be a bad idea.
I have more than enough revolutionary fervour already. I don't have to watch 70-year old propaganda movies to keep myself convinced.

[Conquer or Die]

Nietzsche died before there was even such a thing as Fascism. Again, you're using 'fascist' as a label for things you don't agree with. And, you know, you can agree with something a philosopher has said at some point, and then disagree with everything else he's said - bringing up something about Nietzsche isn't the same as claiming Nietzsche is a socialist philosopher.

I can discuss corporatism all I want. Doesn't make it socialist.

Nietzshe is a fascist philosopher. It may be cool to read his text, there may even be things that seem to be true in what he writes. He still is the basis for fascist philosophy.




Don't you dare talk shit about my sandwiches.

I don't give three shits about your sandwiches. Maybe one shit, given that is the natural course of action.



Oh, do tell me where these standards are outlined so that I may study them. :lol:


Don't be a fool. Something is smart if it illuminates something unknown into the known. It's smart if it can challenge you to understand the illumination.

Inception doesn't do this. It's not smart, therefore.

1 + 1 = 2.

Does 1 + 1 = 3? No it doesn't.


I have more than enough revolutionary fervour already. I don't have to watch 70-year old propaganda movies to keep myself convinced.

You're interested in defending your sandwiches on a near useless forum board. You don't talk to me about your revolutionary fervor.

[Conquer or Die]

Personally there is a lot of pull for me to concepts that we can control our mind in such a manner. Ive always had my own elevator concept in my mind, and i dream about these things fairly regularly.

The working class cares not for your dreams.

The revolution is not Oprah - a lesson very few seldom to understand on these forums.

[Os Cangaceiros]

what an awesome review


I don't see how Inception - or any other movie really for that matter - is "a negative movie for the communist movement."

Then the bourgeoisie have already won!

[IllicitPopsicle]

I can discuss corporatism all I want. Doesn't make it socialist.

Strawman.


Nietzshe is a fascist philosopher. It may be cool to read his text, there may even be things that seem to be true in what he writes. He still is the basis for fascist philosophy.

The overman/superman philosophy is one you're referring to, right? You know he wrote about other subjects than that, right? You know Nazism took from many different conflicting philosophies that may not have even agreed with Nazism, right?

Don't have to be an absolutist all the time, jeez dude.


I don't give three shits about your sandwiches. Maybe one shit, given that is the natural course of action.

Yawn. 3/10.


Don't be a fool. Something is smart if it illuminates something unknown into the known. It's smart if it can challenge you to understand the illumination.

Inception doesn't do this. It's not smart, therefore.

1 + 1 = 2.

Does 1 + 1 = 3? No it doesn't.

Oh wow. Er, that's not a standard, that's you pulling something out of your ass (see that, I'm careful not to use racism!) in an attempt to sound intelligent.


You're interested in defending your sandwiches on a near useless forum board. You don't talk to me about your revolutionary fervor.

Why are you here then? Go run off in the hills with the rest of the hipster-primmies.

[Conquer or Die]

Strawman.

And then you defend Nietsche? Nope, no strawman. Just the facts.




The overman/superman philosophy is one you're referring to, right? You know he wrote about other subjects than that, right? You know Nazism took from many different conflicting philosophies that may not have even agreed with Nazism, right?

So Nietzsche is a fascist philosopher? What about Karl Marx? Is Karl Marx is a fascist philosopher? Or is Karl Marx a communist philosopher? Is Ayn Rand a capitalist philosopher or is she a communist philosopher?



Don't have to be an absolutist all the time, jeez dude.

There is only absolutism in ending oppression. There is only right and wrong. Capitalism is wrong.

That's it, that's all there is. There is nothing more.




Oh wow. Er, that's not a standard, that's you pulling something out of your ass (see that, I'm careful not to use racism!) in an attempt to sound intelligent.

Something that is easy to understand, something that means absolutely nothing, is not smart.

Fact. End discussion.




Why are you here then? Go run off in the hills with the rest of the hipster-primmies.

Only a "hipster-primmie" would say something so stupid.

I came here to discuss socialism with a couple of people who knew the fuck they were talking about. Being that I'm a revolutionary communist unlike a majority of the posters on this forum I'm hoping to be reinstated so I can discuss more history topics and philosophy topics with the few who are not useless.

That's why I'm still here, sweating away in OI hoping that a few people will withdraw their noses from their assholes and make this place something other than Bud Struggle one liners and the Austrian school of Economics.

[IllicitPopsicle]

Lol.

cool story bro.

[Os Cangaceiros]

So Nietzsche is a fascist philosopher? What about Karl Marx? Is Karl Marx is a fascist philosopher? Or is Karl Marx a communist philosopher? Is Ayn Rand a capitalist philosopher or is she a communist philosopher?

Those are pretty bad comparisons. Karl Marx was a communist because he labelled himself that way, and explicitely endorsed the ideology. Ayn Rand strived to be the "Karl Marx of capitalism", and published works like Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

This stands in stark comparison to Nietzsche, who never endorsed or labelled himself as a follower of Fascism. In fact, the idea of following any socio-political movement, Fascism or otherwise, probably would've repulsed him.

[AerodynamicOwl]

The working class cares not for your dreams.

The revolution is not Oprah - a lesson very few seldom to understand on these forums.

Im not trying to get you to "care for my dreams" im still schooling you because you dont understand. People like things they can relate to. Nobody cares that you cant wrap your head around the concept.

[x371322]

The working class cares not for your dreams.

The working class cares not for your lame shit movie review.
I just can't believe you pulled this thread 3 pages out of your ass. You make me sad at the world.

[Drace]

The overman/superman philosophy is one you're referring to, right? You know he wrote about other subjects than that, right? You know Nazism took from many different conflicting philosophies that may not have even agreed with Nazism, right?

Don't have to be an absolutist all the time, jeez dude.

So what specific writing or ideology of Nietzsche leads you to believe that he was a fascist?
I do believe her Nazi sister actually altered a lot of his works.

[Dimentio]

Chris Nolan defends cops who tamper with evidence, so fuck him.

?Qué?

[Nial Fossjet]

Actually, the Matrix was a pretty revolutionary series.

[Dimentio]

I cannot understand this need for some communists to judge everything in terms of arts with the class conflict and assume that all who aren't communists are doing it as well from their perspectives. Thats undoubtly true in some movies, but most movies are just made to be enjoyable to watch in order to earn money to the corporations.

Actually, I haven't seen so much pro-conservative or pro-capitalist propaganda in films. When films take a political stance, its most usually "these are bad things which must be abolished by the good guys". The Soviets for example are not generally seen as evil because they are commies, but commies are seen as evil because they are "pesky foreign empire".

[M-26-7]

The Soviets for example are not generally seen as evil because they are commies, but commies are seen as evil because they are "pesky foreign empire".

Umm....what?

[Obs]

Everything you say
lol forever

Also, my insistence on defending my sandwiches happens to have been brought on by your insistence on slandering them.

[RadioRaheem84]

The Soviets for example are not generally seen as evil because they are commies, but commies are seen as evil because they are "pesky foreign empire"

I think now they're seen as pesky foreign empire. Has anyone seen Salt? Good grief, what it America's obsession with Russia?

[Dean]

I cannot understand this need for some communists to judge everything in terms of arts with the class conflict and assume that all who aren't communists are doing it as well from their perspectives. Thats undoubtly true in some movies, but most movies are just made to be enjoyable to watch in order to earn money to the corporations.
You don't think this has social and economic ramifications, especially in terms of content?


Actually, I haven't seen so much pro-conservative or pro-capitalist propaganda in films.
By supporting a return to old, safer ways (the plot for most action films) it is both conservative and capitalist. I wouldn't blast them as primary ideological sources for the conservative-capitalist paradigm, but they absolutely do support the regimes.


When films take a political stance, its most usually "these are bad things which must be abolished by the good guys". The Soviets for example are not generally seen as evil because they are commies, but commies are seen as evil because they are "pesky foreign empire".
I think this is where you started to realize that movies do, in fact, have political character. You cite rather bold examples of xenophobia/nationalism/conservatism - are you saying these aren't politically relevant topics?!


A lot of people would look at a couple making food and eating dinner and say "they're just doing normal things to get food to their plate." But the leftist tendencies have always questioned such seemingly mundane activities in order to find underlying meaning and exploitation - such as overburden of labor to the females in such situations.


There is no reason the same analysis of media and entertainment can't take place. While some of Conquer or Die's post was excessive and a bit speculative, other parts - such as the generalized metaphysical obfuscation in the film - make perfect sense.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You don't think this has social and economic ramifications, especially in terms of content?

Why should it? Not every studio, script writer, director or anyone else involved in the creative genesis of a film accepts the capitalist/anti-capitalist paradigm and accordingly places themselves on the capitalist side.

Certainly when the subject comes up one would obviously expect opinion to have a tendency to fall on the pro-capitalist side, but to expect each and every film ever made to be some form of insidious anti-communist propaganda is absurd.


By supporting a return to old, safer ways (the plot for most action films) it is both conservative and capitalist. I wouldn't blast them as primary ideological sources for the conservative-capitalist paradigm, but they absolutely do support the regimes.

That may be true most of the time, but I reckon this has more to do with the desire to turn a profit than to disseminate officially-approved propaganda.


I think this is where you started to realize that movies do, in fact, have political character. You cite rather bold examples of xenophobia/nationalism/conservatism - are you saying these aren't politically relevant topics?!

They may be "politically relevant" in terms of subject matter, but the way the subject matter is treated is more important. Hollywood movies are not noted for their political incisiveness no matter what stance they take, and it doesn't take a communist to notice that.


A lot of people would look at a couple making food and eating dinner and say "they're just doing normal things to get food to their plate." But the leftist tendencies have always questioned such seemingly mundane activities in order to find underlying meaning and exploitation - such as overburden of labor to the females in such situations.

The first sentence implicitly assumes that:

A) The couple is heterosexual

B) the female partner is doing the majority of the work

Which tells me more about you than anything else.


There is no reason the same analysis of media and entertainment can't take place. While some of Conquer or Die's post was excessive and a bit speculative, other parts - such as the generalized metaphysical obfuscation in the film - make perfect sense.

Sounded like a load of pretentious bollocks to me. I have no desire to shut him up, but I think such avante garde modishness needs to be heckled for its own good.

[Dimentio]

Umm....what?

In US films where the antagonists are the Soviets, the Soviets are generally not seen as evil because of their ideology, but because they are a rival empire.

[M-26-7]

In US films where the antagonists are the Soviets, the Soviets are generally not seen as evil because of their ideology, but because they are a rival empire.

I get it, I just thought it was incredibly mistaken, and was hoping for some examples.

[Dean]

Why should it? Not every studio, script writer, director or anyone else involved in the creative genesis of a film accepts the capitalist/anti-capitalist paradigm and accordingly places themselves on the capitalist side.

Certainly when the subject comes up one would obviously expect opinion to have a tendency to fall on the pro-capitalist side, but to expect each and every film ever made to be some form of insidious anti-communist propaganda is absurd.



That may be true most of the time, but I reckon this has more to do with the desire to turn a profit than to disseminate officially-approved propaganda.



They may be "politically relevant" in terms of subject matter, but the way the subject matter is treated is more important. Hollywood movies are not noted for their political incisiveness no matter what stance they take, and it doesn't take a communist to notice that.
The point was never to indite the film as a primary source of propaganda. The point was to explain its character in the context of a capitalist system, a point which you've simply reinforced in the emboldened parts.


The first sentence implicitly assumes that:

A) The couple is heterosexual

B) the female partner is doing the majority of the work

Which tells me more about you than anything else.
I don't think I have to tiptoe around the issue of same-sex relationships in order to make a point about the exploitation of women. This is a rather pitiful attempt to draw aspersions on my character to that end.


Sounded like a load of pretentious bollocks to me. I have no desire to shut him up, but I think such avante garde modishness needs to be heckled for its own good.
Maybe you should read these two statements again - don't you think you're being a bit pretentious here? (not that he isn't, mind you)

[Nial Fossjet]

I get it, I just thought it was incredibly mistaken, and was hoping for some examples.

In the recent film Salt, there are evil Russians who are holdovers from the Soviet Union and appear to be simply ardent nationalists who want to "make Russia great again." I'm pretty sure every single neo-Soviet villain in films or video games (Metal Gear Solid 2) just want to "make Russia great." Which doesn't really diss communism unless you accept the implication that communism strengthens Russia for petty nationalistic reasons.

[Sam_b]

Violence for violence's sake. Visual indoctrination. The image of strength vs. the reality of strength. Fascist film is about submission to the Nietschean superman. It is your responsibility to masturbate to it and accept it.

This is not a definition of fascism in the slightest, i'm afraid.


It's not nonsense. It is weakness and submission. Christopher Nolan did not receive orders from General Motors or BP to make this film. He made it on his own, but it draws anti-revolutionary conclusions.

No it doesn't



Film student name dropping and irrelevant posturing. The film is basic and you are told what it is. There is not intelligence here. Further study of the film will just reach the same unending conclusions and anti-revolutionary rejection of reality.

I sense you are calling it 'film student name dropping and irrelevant posturing' because you haven't actualy got a clue of what i'm on about.



I like the film. It is entertaining. There are pretty women in it. There is shooting and cool special effects. I'm saying it's not smart and I'm also saying it's weakening to the movement.

I think that there are a lot of real serious issues that are 'weakening to the movement' than that of a film. This statement in itself damages the movement because you, like it or not, put it as 'weakening' on a parallel with the likes of anti-union legislation. Indeed, I happen to think a lot of workers are smart enough to not take the line you do on its apparent 'message'. What you are doing here is the equivalent of those who blamed Marilyn Manson's music on the Columbine massacre: its shaky evidence to say the least.



I don't give two fucks about central European cinema or the concept of the absurd.

Aye, and it shows. I don't see why you're taking some sort of pride in such a statement, as it is valuable work.


I'm analyzing "Inception" and its false identification as smart. The movie is not smart. The movie is stupid, and it also has a negative moral message.

Moral message? What church are you preaching from, pastor?

[human strike]

I struggle to take issue with a film that encourages people to question/doubt their perceived reality. Seems almost revolutionary, no?

As for the ending, the spinning top wobbles, I'm fairly sure it was explained earlier in the film that if it wobbles then he's not dreaming (of course he could have been dreaming when that was explained so meh w/e).

[M-26-7]

In the recent film Salt, there are evil Russians who are holdovers from the Soviet Union and appear to be simply ardent nationalists who want to "make Russia great again." I'm pretty sure every single neo-Soviet villain in films or video games (Metal Gear Solid 2) just want to "make Russia great." Which doesn't really diss communism unless you accept the implication that communism strengthens Russia for petty nationalistic reasons.

I think it goes without saying that when Russia is no longer Communist, the Russians in films will no longer be Communist, if the films are set in the present. It seemed to me that Dimentio was talking about Cold War films (hence he referred to them as "Soviets" not "Russians").

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The point was never to indite the film as a primary source of propaganda. The point was to explain its character in the context of a capitalist system, a point which you've simply reinforced in the emboldened parts.

Nope, as I remember the OP was going on about how the film is bunch of solipsist fascist propaganda, rather than just another engine for Hollywood to make money.


I don't think I have to tiptoe around the issue of same-sex relationships in order to make a point about the exploitation of women. This is a rather pitiful attempt to draw aspersions on my character to that end.

Aright, so for the purposes of the hypothetical let us say that the couple is heterosexual, and the woman is doing all the work. I still don't see the relevance of a major social issue to a pompous film review.


Maybe you should read these two statements again - don't you think you're being a bit pretentious here? (not that he isn't, mind you)

No I don't, I think I'm just bad at explaining myself. Arty-farty philosophising with a political bent, especially on incredibly narrow subjects such as one Hollywood film, really gets on my tits. I also find the whole concept of such "reviews" to be absurd - since art is more like a mirror (albeit distorted) held up to society than anything else, criticising art in such a fashion strikes me as something akin to calling one's reflection ugly. It may indeed be true, given any distortions, but what exactly is it supposed to achieve other than to give the author some kind of pseudo-intellectual "street cred"?

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

Actually, 'Inception' is a counter-revolutionary film because it wasn't in 3D.

3D is progress, quite simply.

[human strike]

3D is counter-revolutionary. 3D is the progression of the spectacle.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

3D is counter-revolutionary. 3D is the progression of the spectacle.

Just you wait until they can make 3D films without those wonky glasses. There'll be no more spectacles then!

[Conquer or Die]

This is not a definition of fascism in the slightest, i'm afraid.

It's quite a definition of fascism. Shall we actually consider the example of fascist cinema in our analysis of fascism? Or is fascism what your superficial reading of a wikipedia page tells you?



I sense you are calling it 'film student name dropping and irrelevant posturing' because you haven't actualy got a clue of what i'm on about.

No, because you haven't said anything relevant to the discussion. So you may have a clue as to what you're on about, but you've told nobody but yourself which makes it hard for another person to judge what you've tried to say. Or is the fact that nobody can understand your own mind proof that the film is relevant? Isn't that what aboriginal cinema in the mid 20th century has taught us?



I think that there are a lot of real serious issues that are 'weakening to the movement' than that of a film. This statement in itself damages the movement because you, like it or not, put it as 'weakening' on a parallel with the likes of anti-union legislation. Indeed, I happen to think a lot of workers are smart enough to not take the line you do on its apparent 'message'. What you are doing here is the equivalent of those who blamed Marilyn Manson's music on the Columbine massacre: its shaky evidence to say the least.

Inception is calamitous for any person professing to overturn capitalism in some way. I don't care about throwaway art, I do care when throwaway art is considered something important or needing to be analyzed. There are technical aspects of the film to be analyzed, but there is no substance to the story or its message. Since the movie was labeled "smart" it needs to be valued as to whether or not it actually is smart, and it's not, and therefore it's damaging to have this film be understood as anything other than throwaway entertainment. That is the problem, fully articulated, and I will not stand any more obfuscation on your part.





Aye, and it shows. I don't see why you're taking some sort of pride in such a statement, as it is valuable work.

I'm judging Inception, not central European cinema. There is no value in Inception, so Central European cinema is either worthless or irrelevant in this context.




Moral message? What church are you preaching from, pastor?

This is more confusion. You misconstrue morality with what a preacher says in a specific pulpit.

Don't confuse terms and their meaning. If we are on this site honestly, then we see a problem with the system and with capitalism. There can only be a problem if something is wrong. If there is no wrong, and no right, then there is no reason for this site to exist at all except as a mere tool of masturbation.

Ironically, phoney comrades (notably Anarchists) see my attack on this film as a deviation from the real story - the real story being that they just want to watch bourgeios movies and enjoy them without anybody making a judgement on whether or not said movie is actually just shit.

Shit is shit, and it smells. Sometimes shit tastes good, but that's not smart, that's just shit that tastes good.

[Obs]

Shit is shit, and it smells. Sometimes shit tastes good, but that's not smart, that's just shit that tastes good.

Hahahahaha, what?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Ironically, phoney comrades (notably Anarchists) see my attack on this film as a deviation from the real story - the real story being that they just want to watch bourgeios movies and enjoy them without anybody making a judgement on whether or not said movie is actually just shit.

Shit is shit, and it smells. Sometimes shit tastes good, but that's not smart, that's just shit that tastes good.

Someone is forgetting that taste in movies, unlike real feces, can be subjective. I wouldn't be surprised at all if there was a film that you gushed over like a lovesick teenager that I would consider a shit-tastic snoozefest.

[Conquer or Die]

Someone is forgetting that taste in movies, unlike real feces, can be subjective. I wouldn't be surprised at all if there was a film that you gushed over like a lovesick teenager that I would consider a shit-tastic snoozefest.

I actually have near flawless taste in film, that's not the point, that's not what I claimed was the problem.

I said this film is not smart or important, and that it serves no revolutionary purpose or talking points outside of the masturbation of 19 year olds. It should be regarded as such and rejected out of hand by Communists as having no value whatsoever, and is silently complicit in the bourg.

[AerodynamicOwl]

I actually have near flawless taste in film, that's not the point, that's not what I claimed was the problem.

I said this film is not smart or important, and that it serves no revolutionary purpose or talking points outside of the masturbation of 19 year olds. It should be regarded as such and rejected out of hand by Communists as having no value whatsoever, and is silently complicit in the bourg.

Art is Subjective. Deal with it. you have your own beliefs and we have ours.

My life is not about subjecting everything i do to the revolution, but the development of a thinking mind is something seldom seen in this world. i love this movie because it makes us think just a little bit more about the relative reality in which we all live.

i don't see that as a negative thing.

[Peace on Earth]

I actually have near flawless taste in film, that's not the point, that's not what I claimed was the problem.

I said this film is not smart or important, and that it serves no revolutionary purpose or talking points outside of the masturbation of 19 year olds. It should be regarded as such and rejected out of hand by Communists as having no value whatsoever, and is silently complicit in the bourg.
Communists can't enjoy things not directly related to revolution? In that case, stop watching any television, listing to radio or music, reading, or engaging in any conversation or interaction with anyone, unless any of it deals directly with the overthrow of the capitalist system.

Dude, get a grip. Seriously.

[synthesis]

I actually have near flawless taste in film, that's not the point, that's not what I claimed was the problem.

I said this film is not smart or important, and that it serves no revolutionary purpose or talking points outside of the masturbation of 19 year olds. It should be regarded as such and rejected out of hand by Communists as having no value whatsoever, and is silently complicit in the bourg.

It doesn't have to be "smart" or "important" - both subjective measures - to be entertaining and stimulating. Why does it "have no value whatsoever" simply because it "serves no revolutionary purpose"? Neither does the Canterbury Tales, but I don't see you wasting your time criticizing Chaucer. There are better ways of seeking attention.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Actually, 'Inception' is a counter-revolutionary film because it wasn't in 3D.

3D is progress, quite simply.

I can't wait for Shrooms 2, in 3D (http://shocktillyoudrop.com/news/topnews.php?id=16163). It's gonna be epic.

[Conquer or Die]

It doesn't have to be "smart" or "important" - both subjective measures - to be entertaining and stimulating. Why does it "have no value whatsoever" simply because it "serves no revolutionary purpose"? Neither does the Canterbury Tales, but I don't see you wasting your time criticizing Chaucer. There are better ways of seeking attention.

Canterbury Tales is in fact one of the most revolutionary things ever written, actually. It's also poetry.

People on this thread are acting like children - Revleft needs to cull this pathetic herd until we can get some real revolutionaries on this site.

[synthesis]

What makes you a "real revolutionary"? Your self-hatred?

[Manifesto]

Watch Doctor Zhivago instead. Great movie. It may also spark your interest that it was banned in Soviet Russia, from 1965 (when it first came out) until 1994 (that's five years after the fall of berlin's walls)

That movie just went "Look at the evil commies! Look at how they lie, murder, steal and invade your lives by knowing everything about you!" just horribly cliche and could they have played that damn theme any longer? I wouldn't doubt it if it was half an hour total! Don't even say anything about bias, my friend (who is practically a Nazi, I know...) thought that movie was boring as fuck too.

[AerodynamicOwl]

Canterbury Tales is in fact one of the most revolutionary things ever written, actually. It's also poetry.

People on this thread are acting like children - Revleft needs to cull this pathetic herd until we can get some real revolutionaries on this site.

Do tell us what makes one a "real" Revolutionary.

[IllicitPopsicle]

I actually have near flawless taste in film, that's not the point, that's not what I claimed was the problem.

I said I am not smart or important, and that I serve no revolutionary purpose or talking points outside of the masturbation of 19 year olds. I should be regarded as such and rejected out of hand by Communists as having no value whatsoever, and am silently complicit in the bourg.

What?

Anyway, proof of the subjectivity of art is the enjoyment I find in punk rock. If looked at from afar, it's pretty glaringly obvious that punk is shit (for the most part). Your film tastes may fit you, but I doubt they fit anyone else.

Also, Inception is better than The Expendables/any Sylvester Stallone movie ever, "IMO".

[Obs]

People on this thread are acting like children - Revleft needs to cull this pathetic herd until we can get some real revolutionaries on this site.
Notably, you are restricted.

[human strike]

Surely revolutionaries should oppose the spectacle rather than, well, spectate? I'm not saying that one should never consume art and culture that serves no revolutionary purpose, but it should be treated as what it is, i.e. spectacular.