[quote="zenkalia"][quote="Utsuseru"][quote="zenkalia"]my friends have been talking about babel.. is it actually a good movie (other than the uhh... hairy monster)?[/quote]

The Japanese girl is actually kind of cute, so don't let that aspect turn you off.
I thought it was a little confusing at first, but once I understood, I found it to a wonderful work of art.
It's a comparison and interaction between social groups and cultures, and how a single story is intertwined between them all.[/quote]

dude, good job at making me want to see it without ruining it for me.[/quote]

Sarcasm? What did I ruin?

no sarcasm, most people can't advertise films without ruining them.

we're not all assholes on the internets

[quote="zenkalia"]no sarcasm, most people can't advertise films without ruining them.

we're not all assholes on the internets[/quote]

Unfortunately, I am.



Here's what happened:




Nah, have you guys seen this movie called "Julian Po"? I swear, that movie's fucking hilarious. I doubt that many of you have, so I'll synopsize it.

There's this guy who has never seen the ocean before, so he's on a vacation-thing to go and see it. He makes memos of his life on a tape recorder too, which isn't that important, but it makes it funnier. Anyway, his car breaks down in the middle of nowhere, so he throws away the keys and walks to the nearest town. It's a pretty small town, and EVERYONE is suspicious of him. They think he's a serial killer, or a drug dealer or something, so he gets interrogated by like half of the townspeople and they demand to know who he's going to kill, so he finally blurts out in frustration, "Myself!"

This shocks the townspeople and they leave him alone for a little while. Yadda yadda, the townspeople become fascinated and start following him around and stuff, and it's just a really fun movie. Mind you, it's not rofl funny, but it's the kind of funny that would make a person smile.


Another funny, off-the-wall movie is Haiku Tunnel.

This "Julian Po" movie sounds kinda like "The Enigma of Kasper Hauser." It's similar in a way that the character saw things for the first time, but it's a lot more serious and philosophical. I thought it was a really good movie. It's not really true to the real story of Kasper Hauser, but it is still really cool.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110246/

[quote="I is buster?"][quote="sheerheartattack"]It's called psychology. The only true artistic and independent thinkers are all hermits who have no friends. These people are rare and unusual because we're mentally programmed to consider what other people think of us. It's why we as humans are a social species. When you see someone who looks "different," there's a 99.999% chance that they aren't trying to be "different;" they're only trying to be the "same" as a different group. It's nothing to admire.

Nothing personal, but it's ridiculous when people try to candy-coat logic, truth, and science with "artistic" explanations. Even art is entirely logical.[/quote]

I don't think you quite understand how art works... People aren't hermits who have no friends... Just because you have seen movies that say so or don't have any artist friends, doesn't mean that we don't have social lives. Your psychology just proved that you think as a socially influenced being.

You also can't just say that all art is logical. Yes, the placement of objects in a viewing frame is logical based on what is pleasing, but then the feeling and raw emotion of the artist takes over. There is not always a reasoning for why a person decides to paint with a brush a certain way or why specific lighting was used in a film.
[/quote]

That's about 40% misunderstanding what I said and about 60% bullshit. Unfortunately for you, I don't think as a socially influenced being. I think as an objective and logical being - you know, the kind that isn't ignorant.

I said if someone was truly an artist and independent thinker, he would be a hermit. Otherwise, it would prove that he is a normal human, and he would depend on what others thought of him, and would therefore conform. Any socially involved person is conforms. Period. We have these things called genetics which program us to be socially functionable. There's nothing we can say or do about it. We have 0% control over our desires and needs.

I can easily say that all art is logical, because it is. All thought processes are logical in one way or another, no matter how abstract or impossible to comprehend they are. "Feelings" and "raw emotion" are the exact kind of candy-coated bullshit I was talking about. It's all based on biology and probability - not some inexplicable emotional aura.

I don't mean to be mean, but the sooner you are disillusioned of your ignorance, the better.

It's sort of a circular reasoning to say that all thought processes are logical, though. It would mean that the thought process that thought processes are illogical is logical. The things that cause them may be logically explained, but I'm not sure it's right to say that thought processes are always logical.

[quote="sheerheartattack"]
I don't mean to be mean, but the sooner you are disillusioned of your ignorance, the better.[/quote]

[quote="sheerheartattack"]It sounds like [i]somebody[/i] is ignorant here[/quote]

I'm not saying that they always come to the correct conclusion. Everyone has their own logic. What I am saying is there is a logical explanation for everything. Period.

Edit: It's weird how Utsu likes to quote random quotes while seemingly not having a point.

Hmm, though I participated in the digression, maybe we should get this back on-topic.

Well since there is no strict universal logic, most logics are based off of individual perspective/ group perspectives.

[quote="Utsuseru"]Well since there is no strict universal logic, most logics are based off of individual perspective/ group perspectives.[/quote]

Apparently we need a separate thread about logic, but let's talk about the supposed fall of the American film industry here.

[quote="Biscuit Hammer"]Oh, but on a another note, i see you're from MN...I think Meille was too, but i haven't seen her in quite a while, so that's two of us now.[/quote] make that three . but, yeah. american movies suck.

[quote="sheerheartattack"][quote="I is buster?"][quote="sheerheartattack"]It's called psychology. The only true artistic and independent thinkers are all hermits who have no friends. These people are rare and unusual because we're mentally programmed to consider what other people think of us. It's why we as humans are a social species. When you see someone who looks "different," there's a 99.999% chance that they aren't trying to be "different;" they're only trying to be the "same" as a different group. It's nothing to admire.

Nothing personal, but it's ridiculous when people try to candy-coat logic, truth, and science with "artistic" explanations. Even art is entirely logical.[/quote]

I don't think you quite understand how art works... People aren't hermits who have no friends... Just because you have seen movies that say so or don't have any artist friends, doesn't mean that we don't have social lives. Your psychology just proved that you think as a socially influenced being.

You also can't just say that all art is logical. Yes, the placement of objects in a viewing frame is logical based on what is pleasing, but then the feeling and raw emotion of the artist takes over. There is not always a reasoning for why a person decides to paint with a brush a certain way or why specific lighting was used in a film.
[/quote]

That's about 40% misunderstanding what I said and about 60% bullshit. Unfortunately for you, I don't think as a socially influenced being. I think as an objective and logical being - you know, the kind that isn't ignorant.

I said if someone was truly an artist and independent thinker, he would be a hermit. Otherwise, it would prove that he is a normal human, and he would depend on what others thought of him, and would therefore conform. Any socially involved person is conforms. Period. We have these things called genetics which program us to be socially functionable. There's nothing we can say or do about it. We have 0% control over our desires and needs.

I can easily say that all art is logical, because it is. All thought processes are logical in one way or another, no matter how abstract or impossible to comprehend they are. "Feelings" and "raw emotion" are the exact kind of candy-coated bullshit I was talking about. It's all based on biology and probability - not some inexplicable emotional aura.

I don't mean to be mean, but the sooner you are disillusioned of your ignorance, the better.[/quote]

First of all, I have been able to argue my point without using insults and name calling. I think you try to at least tone it down a bit and be more respectful... As I said before in another thread, just because you can annoy people online and remain anonymous, doesn't mean you should. Neither of us are all knowing, or so I would imagine.

So, I misunderstood what you were saying about independent thinkers being hermits. However, you don't unnecessarily have to be a hermit to think independently in art. (maybe just completely, but even then in this hypothetical situation you would have to be in complete darkness without any interaction with anything, a kind of Kasper Hauser situation. Then would the person have any concept of art?) Nobody fully understands the nature of art, you can throw all the logic at it you want, but there is always some human aspect that is not understood that attributes to the piece. I suppose all art has some sort of influence from a social standpoint, directly or indirectly, but you can still argue that there is a great deal of independent thought that goes into works.

For instance the style of a work is possibly affected by social encounters, but how do you explain the creation of expressionism or abstract art? I know that some artists like Picasso based his painting style on African masks, but works by Van Gogh, Kathe Kollwitz, or Edvard Munch did not have a direct social influence to create their style. So how do you explain what came from their heart and the emotions that they spilled upon the canvas? Can you argue that emotion is logical?

Jomei, I really like this discussion and I will bring it back to films at some point. What we are talking about is an important component of this topic because film is an art form.

[quote="I is buster?"][quote="sheerheartattack"][quote="I is buster?"][quote="sheerheartattack"]It's called psychology. The only true artistic and independent thinkers are all hermits who have no friends. These people are rare and unusual because we're mentally programmed to consider what other people think of us. It's why we as humans are a social species. When you see someone who looks "different," there's a 99.999% chance that they aren't trying to be "different;" they're only trying to be the "same" as a different group. It's nothing to admire.

Nothing personal, but it's ridiculous when people try to candy-coat logic, truth, and science with "artistic" explanations. Even art is entirely logical.[/quote]

I don't think you quite understand how art works... People aren't hermits who have no friends... Just because you have seen movies that say so or don't have any artist friends, doesn't mean that we don't have social lives. Your psychology just proved that you think as a socially influenced being.

You also can't just say that all art is logical. Yes, the placement of objects in a viewing frame is logical based on what is pleasing, but then the feeling and raw emotion of the artist takes over. There is not always a reasoning for why a person decides to paint with a brush a certain way or why specific lighting was used in a film.
[/quote]

That's about 40% misunderstanding what I said and about 60% bullshit. Unfortunately for you, I don't think as a socially influenced being. I think as an objective and logical being - you know, the kind that isn't ignorant.

I said if someone was truly an artist and independent thinker, he would be a hermit. Otherwise, it would prove that he is a normal human, and he would depend on what others thought of him, and would therefore conform. Any socially involved person is conforms. Period. We have these things called genetics which program us to be socially functionable. There's nothing we can say or do about it. We have 0% control over our desires and needs.

I can easily say that all art is logical, because it is. All thought processes are logical in one way or another, no matter how abstract or impossible to comprehend they are. "Feelings" and "raw emotion" are the exact kind of candy-coated bullshit I was talking about. It's all based on biology and probability - not some inexplicable emotional aura.

I don't mean to be mean, but the sooner you are disillusioned of your ignorance, the better.[/quote]

First of all, I have been able to argue my point without using insults and name calling. I think you try to at least tone it down a bit and be more respectful... As I said before in another thread, just because you can annoy people online and remain anonymous, doesn't mean you should. Neither of us are all knowing, or so I would imagine.

So, I misunderstood what you were saying about independent thinkers being hermits. However, you don't unnecessarily have to be a hermit to think independently in art. (maybe just completely, but even then in this hypothetical situation you would have to be in complete darkness without any interaction with anything, a kind of Kasper Hauser situation. Then would the person have any concept of art?) Nobody fully understands the nature of art, you can throw all the logic at it you want, but there is always some human aspect that is not understood that attributes to the piece. I suppose all art has some sort of influence from a social standpoint, directly or indirectly, but you can still argue that there is a great deal of independent thought that goes into works.

For instance the style of a work is possibly affected by social encounters, but how do you explain the creation of expressionism or abstract art? I know that some artists like Picasso based his painting style on African masks, but works by Van Gogh, Kathe Kollwitz, or Edvard Munch did not have a direct social influence to create their style. So how do you explain what came from their heart and the emotions that they spilled upon the canvas? Can you argue that emotion is logical?

Jomei, I really like this discussion and I will bring it back to films at some point. What we are talking about is an important component of this topic because film is an art form.[/quote]

While there were perceived shots at you, you will find upon closer inspection that there were no direct personal insults or name callings in my post. Perhaps you perceived "bullshit" to be offensive, but it has a functional meaning of "that which is off topic and/or without proper substance."

Anyway, as to the topic at hand (well, ours at least), just because somebody doesn't understand something, that does not mean it does not exist. Ignorance is merely ignorance. There is a logical explanation for everything, and the only intelligent way to approach such explanations is through objectivity. While "it's raw human emotion" sounds cute, it's really a candy-coated expression for "I don't know, so I'll just try to romanticize it." Such romanticization demonstrates the same human nature that brought us religion, superstition, alien abductions, and the paranormal.

I'm not intending to explain such specific things as you requested, nor am I knowledgeable or prepared to. However, I am positive that there is an explanation, and I can certainly argue that emotion is merely a logical arrangement of chemicals and nerves that have evolved over the years.

The people who try to apply logic to everything they see are those that often end up saying to themselves "Why did I waste all this time thinking about logical results, when I could have enjoyed my life, where is the logic in my actions?"

Who cares if all we feel is caused by chemicals? We still feel.