I’ve been meaning to post something about The Big Bang Theory for a while now but it’s taken me ‘till now to really understand what it is about the show that makes me uncomfortable. I’m not exactly a believer in the whole “only write about the things you like, don’t trash the things you don’t” trend which seems to be plaguing comments sections in negative articles lately, but I wanted to be able to really examine why I don’t like TBBT rather than just slagging it off. My main questions being - Why don’t I like this anymore? Why do I feel uncomfortable watching it? And why do I get so annoyed when I see people sing its praises online? The thing which really sparked this post was seeing a raft of comments on Facebook, below the last round of voting in Television Without Pity’s Tubey Awards, claiming The Big Bang Theory to be “the best comedy on TV”. This made me angry so instead of posting an impulsive comment calling out their bad taste which I’d probably regret later, I decided to really analyse why seeing comments like that made me so mad when previously, although I didn’t really love the show, I’d never considered myself as disliking The Big Bang Theory.
Hell, I even have season one on dvd, it’s sitting right between Battlestar Galactica and Bored To Death in my alphabetised collection.
And here, I think, is where my problem with The Big Bang Theory lies…
d. by Michelangelo Antonioni
As this was my first viewing of the film, I must say, I have difficulties on grasping it. Surely, with some more views some things might get clearer.
Anyway, I struggle with the intention of the movie.
I know Antonioni is one of those directors with “image and design” over “plot and character development” but still the movie feels a bit vague.
My take on it: David Locke, frustrated with his life and a job he clearly doesn’t love(the discussion with his wife on his car sums it up perfectly) finds an opportunity to escape from himself and enter freedom as a new man with a fresh start. Soon he realizes that he did not enter freedom, but was indeed trapped with the gun-smuggling thing.
If I can draw some paralels, I see this as an “easy way out” real-life scenario. The identity switch represents escapism, except that Locke did not consider the consequences. Surely, it can make you start fresh but you have to have a purpose, an integrity and our main character lacks this. As I read somewhere, freedom without integrity is spiritual death. And this is what happened to Locke.
That’s my best I could get from the moral of the story. But, there are some things I didn’t really understand. Like, why didn’t Locke run away with the money and The Girl right away but he kept on pursuing these “inexistent” appointments? Also, the beauty of the famous last take at the end, kind of overshadowed the plot there, although I agree it’s one of the finest pieces of cinematography.
And non-linear ambiguous cinematography is Antonioni’s main strength. Jack Nicholson was at the top of his game as usual, but I am reserved about Maria Schneider. I understand that she is playing the “walking mystery” but she is not convincing at all. Some poorly delivered OK-s at the end didn’t help her cause.
All in all, I definitely need to watch this movie again (but not very soon) and maybe I’ll come to different conclusions. Looking forward hearing some other takes on the movie.
— Carl Sagan
Well, this was a bit delayed but it was a very nice experience. I saw the Director’s Cut so I heard there is more character development involved.
This is a tale of deism, and its confrontation. There are several perspectives to this movie. Christianity is tackled a lot here, and we see paganism emerge later on the loathed Summerisle. It reflects a man strong belief on its faith and his reluctance to accept other “diversity groups” which eventually turn to be a dangerous cult of murderers. If seen from a Christian(it is too general to say religion) perspective, Sgt Howie was a man of faith and an ultimate winner, for staying loyal to his beliefs and not giving up on the madness of the Islanders, who were also strong believers.
And this is the main message of the movie, for me. We see that Summerisle was bought by people who were labeled as progressive, scientists and freethinkers but ultimately they get so invested on their idea, turning it into a cult and ultimately ending up being raving mad, uncomparable to any monotheist religion(not that there is something wrong with religion, just trying to get as areligious as possible).
While I don’t think the Summerisle sacrilege and rituals were meant to defy paganism, there are definitely elements of it, and we all know some cults are a derivative of a similar mindframe. It’s a modern tribute to Freemasonery, Illuminati, Scientology, take your pick.
The ending of the movie, was breathtaking filmmaking. When Howie shouts for God, it looked so desperate and real, it was hard not to feel for him. We suspect that he is having his doubts now, but he quickly recovers like many previous times in the movie and dies with a hope of eternal life in heaven.
All in all, it was a great movie, discussing very relevant themes, a bit Christian biased but that made the point of the movie very clear and important.
Well, if you’ve seen too many Japanese films this won’t come as surreal as it is taken it from a Western perspective. Nonetheless, i am a fan of symbolism but this was a bit too much for me. I mean, i understand the cult following it got since in the time this movie was made most films were dealing with realism. Also the art direction and its techniques were really good.
Imo the whole movie is based on the experience of the viewer, not really taking it too seriously, playing with the mainstream genders like its cliche horror setup or its parody of the genre. The film is not long and sometimes it feels Obayashi tried to make it as action packed as possible. This kinda put me off. As I mentioned earlier I like symbolism in film but this goes a bit overboard trying to enable as much perceptions as possible therefore tiring the viewer for no real valuable outcome or message.
I like the idea of 7 girlfriends with value-based names. It shows the transformation from girl to woman and things you lose during that process. But I didn’t get the bananas and the most of the other things.
It was a definitely a treat that expands your perceptions on different film cultures and since this is the objective of this club I can say it was totally worth it.
Drug related movies are something I am skeptical about since sometimes they can be full of cliches, but Oslo, 31 August took my breath away and I can see why it was upvoted so much. Anders determination to find a purpose after all these wasted years isn’t necessary lazy but everything he thought would comprise a happy life, it actually isn’t. His best friend is not enthusiastic about his marriage life. His sister isn’t having the best of times with his parents. His job interview is too annoying focusing on his addiction. He is raw, after all those years in rehab who wouldn’t, his sense of guilt has made him impatient, he only needs something to cling on his life but everything he thought made life complete, have fallen apart just in front of him. It’s a collective struggle. He just is more sentimental about it. That last play on piano sums it up perfectly. Throughout the movie we realize that drugs isn’t a factor to Anders life, it’s merely an excuse to fill his void.
I can relate his lack of connection with other people on his treatment as a child. He says that his parents never said NO to him, they left him too much privacy. This lack of empathy and reciprocity on their relationship was one of the reasons why Anders was so uninterested in getting attached with people. The subject of existentialism and capitalist society are very relevant in this film.
Information is power. But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for themselves. The world’s entire scientific and cultural heritage, published over centuries in books and journals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of private corporations. Want to read the papers featuring the most famous results of the sciences? You’ll need to send enormous amounts to publishers like Reed Elsevier.
There are those struggling to change this. The Open Access Movement has fought valiantly to ensure that scientists do not sign their copyrights away but instead ensure their work is published on the Internet, under terms that allow anyone to access it. But even under the best scenarios, their work will only apply to things published in the future. Everything up until now will have been lost.
That is too high a price to pay. Forcing academics to pay money to read the work of their colleagues? Scanning entire libraries but only allowing the folks at Google to read them? Providing scientific articles to those at elite universities in the First World, but not to children in the Global South? It’s outrageous and unacceptable.
“I agree,” many say, “but what can we do? The companies hold the copyrights, they make enormous amounts of money by charging for access, and it’s perfectly legal — there’s nothing we can do to stop them.” But there is something we can, something that’s already being done: we can fight back.
Those with access to these resources — students, librarians, scientists — you have been given a privilege. You get to feed at this banquet of knowledge while the rest of the world is locked out. But you need not — indeed, morally, you cannot — keep this privilege for yourselves. You have a duty to share it with the world. And you have: trading passwords with colleagues, filling download requests for friends.
Meanwhile, those who have been locked out are not standing idly by. You have been sneaking through holes and climbing over fences, liberating the information locked up by the publishers and sharing them with your friends.
But all of this action goes on in the dark, hidden underground. It’s called stealing or piracy, as if sharing a wealth of knowledge were the moral equivalent of plundering a ship and murdering its crew. But sharing isn’t immoral — it’s a moral imperative. Only those blinded by greed would refuse to let a friend make a copy.
Large corporations, of course, are blinded by greed. The laws under which they operate require it — their shareholders would revolt at anything less. And the politicians they have bought off back them, passing laws giving them the exclusive power to decide who can make copies.
There is no justice in following unjust laws. It’s time to come into the light and, in the grand tradition of civil disobedience, declare our opposition to this private theft of public culture.
We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with the world. We need to take stuff that’s out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need to buy secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific journals and upload them to file sharing networks. We need to fight for Guerilla Open Access.
With enough of us, around the world, we’ll not just send a strong message opposing the privatization of knowledge — we’ll make it a thing of the past. Will you join us?
July 2008, Eremo, Italy
Here are my favorite tracks of the past year. Some of them, probably won’t stand the test of time but there you go.
25. Freelance Whales - Follow Through
24. Frank Ocean - Thinkin Bout You
23. Juicy J - Bandz a Make Her Dance
22. Hot Chip - Motion Sickness
21. Twin Shadow - Golden Light
20. Danny Brown - Grown Up
19. The xx - Chained
18. Grizzly Bear - Yet Again
17. Kidnap Kid - Vehl
16. Hot Chip - How Do You Do?
15. The Killers - Runaways
14. DIIV - Doused
13. Tame Impala - Why Won’t They Talk To Me?
12. Frank Ocean - Pink Matter (feat. Andre 3000)
11. The Walkmen - The Love You Love
10. Bat For Lashes - Laura
9. Alt-J - Breezeblocks
8. Grizzly Bear - Speak In Rounds
7. Twin Shadow - Five Seconds
6. Kishi Bashi - Bright Whites
5. Kendrick Lamar - Swimming Pools (Drank)
4. Geographer - Blinders
3. The Killers - Flesh & Bone
2. Tame Impala - Feels Like We Only Go Backwards
1. Frank Ocean - Pyramids
If you want to hear all the songs on a single playlist go here, http://8tracks.com/kida/tracks-of-the-year-2012
Who are we?
I’d like to try to answer that question.
We are a country whose leaders officially sanction and carry out acts of violence as a means to often an immoral end. We invade countries who didn’t attack us. We’re currently using drones in a half-dozen countries, often killing civilians.
This probably shouldn’t come as a surprise to us as we are a nation founded on genocide and built on the backs of slaves. We slaughtered 600,000 of each other in a civil war. We “tamed the Wild West with a six-shooter,” and we rape and beat and kill our women without mercy and at a staggering rate: every three hours a women is murdered in the USA (half the time by an ex or a current); every three minutes a woman is raped in the USA; and every 15 seconds a woman is beaten in the USA."
— Michael Moore on USA