Perhaps this is why I have shunned 99% of television shows (old and contemporary alike) and have focused on films often based upon literary classics. Films with sterling casts of characters, screenplay writers who were also the authors and with the added depth of brilliant and memorable film scores.
I watch (observe) very few contemporary films as the greater part of them are simply substandard.
My film collection spans 3 centuries, from "Fred Ott's Sneeze" and "Stuyvesant's Horse" to modern classics. It ends abruptly in about 2009, with precious few exceptions. I do not own a television and I haven't been to the cinema in 6 years or more. That's not to say I am unaware of the latest drivel, but I don't watch it so much as study it like bacteria in a Petri dish. The quality of the art declined sharply when names like Graham Greene, Tom Stoppard and Earnest Hemingway stopped appearing in the credits. In fact, I can't think of the last time a single writer credit appeared on a film, much less a "based on" credit. Now there are entire phone books of "writers" cobbling story salads together out of the literary shredder. It is sad that our culture has devolved into political sermons and force-fed idiologies, and that our performers (not actors) have no latent or emotional depth. Now where was my copy of "To Have and Have Not"?
Ooh! Good call. I haven't seen that one in ages, and a quick check says it's not in my collection, either. I shall remedy both situations forthwith. Asquith (director) also did a fine rendering of "Pygmalion," which became the basis for "My Fair Lady," and of course Bernard Shaw is listed in the writing credits.
Quality entertainment would require quality people to produce scripts and scenes on quality themes. Modernism is against traditional culture and postmodernism is against the idea of culture. Postmodernism is also rabidly against any standards of human behaviour, any measurements of success, any preference for virtue over evil.
It might be possible to tell a story with postmodern themes that remained interesting, but I have never heard of it. Woke garbage is an attack on tradition, culture, decency, humanity, and God. So it doesn't prosper in any way. "No weapon formed against you shall prosper." Isaiah 54:17
Woak is a cloak that is worn, not a style that is borne. The superficiality of Woak is its own worst enemy.
There are examples of postmodernist art, such as Camus, Huxley, Kafka, and Orwell, the the art generally takes the form of a warning, rather than virtuous behavior. It seems to me, however, we have passed the postmodernist world and landed solidly in the absurdist realms of Pinter, Beckett and Ionesco, without the style and depth. "Rhinoceros" seems particularly apropos.
Perhaps Burroughs, Vonnegut, Pynchon, and Eco would be more to your taste? I certainly find "The Crying of Lot 49" to be among my favorites in the genre.
I've been saying that for years, but it doesn't seem to be working. What's worse, there are screens everywhere now. I am a media professional and I don't own a TV. That should tell you something. That crap is not allowed in my house.
One does not park a truck in the living room. Not having a truck in the living room does not mean one is ignorant of how it functions, only that one choses to maintain a space separate from the truck.
The Hayes Commission ruined film. Modern film, TV, and stage are all proscribed from describing real life. We all know it. Film, TV, and stage are escapes from our reality. That's it. Nothing more.
When I watch TV, rarely, the people I would be with would comment on the private lives of the actors shown on screen or how much money the movie made or lost or whether the TV show was going to be canceled.
Just watching 5 minutes newsotainment tells you the 4th wall is gone. It's no longer objective (that it ever was), but now they literally tell you want to believe and think. The Puritanical censorship of the Hayes Commission, along with Prohibition, ruined Merka. It's been pretty much straight to hell since then. There was a brief glimmer of hope in the early days of cablevision, but that's been shot through the heart, as well. All the fine arts are perverted beyond recognition. There's still hope out here in the unwashed world, but the Bumbledicks are pushing hard to export their insanity.
Rufus, I watched a documentary about the American Civil War a couple weeks ago. The documentary blamed the war on religion. The Yankees followed a Puritan faith (Unitarian). The South followed a more relaxed form of Christianity.
It seems far-fetched to me, but it's plausible I suppose.
I'm reading "The Demon of Unrest" by Erik Larson about the beginnings of the Americans Civil War. The author blames the war on slavery, slavery, slavery, and more slavery. Larson dismisses the tariffs and duties put on the South by the Yankees. He never mentions religion.
Life is complicated. People's motivations can't be predicted.
The War of Northern Aggression was fought over State's Rights, pure and simple. While the South was run by Damn Democrats, it doesn't change the fact that Northern industrialists wanted cheap raw materials from the South, and the South was fetching far better prices from the European markets. All other issues were secondary or simply revisionist history trying to blame capitalism for the actions of slimy Robber Barons, who used Congress and the Executive to wage economic war against the Southern States. The Southern dependence on slave labor to produce cheap materials for profit was their tragic flaw, but it was not the cause of the war.
It should also be noted that the Wall Street slave market was still in operation in the early 1870s, proving that slavery was not the issue, only greed.
Rufus, I agree, but Erik Larson in his book writes a whole paragraph about how it wasn't tariffs, taxes, duties on the South that caused the war, only slavery. Larson writes that he doesn't want to hear the revisionist historians saying the war was about state's rights or tariffs.
I am forcing myself to finish the book as Larson's research does tell me new details of those days, but his writing bias is very irritating.
The American Civil War was an economic war (almost all wars are economic wars) of the Northern Yankee bankers and industrialists against the agrarian South.
Perhaps this is why I have shunned 99% of television shows (old and contemporary alike) and have focused on films often based upon literary classics. Films with sterling casts of characters, screenplay writers who were also the authors and with the added depth of brilliant and memorable film scores.
I watch (observe) very few contemporary films as the greater part of them are simply substandard.
Hear! Hear!
My film collection spans 3 centuries, from "Fred Ott's Sneeze" and "Stuyvesant's Horse" to modern classics. It ends abruptly in about 2009, with precious few exceptions. I do not own a television and I haven't been to the cinema in 6 years or more. That's not to say I am unaware of the latest drivel, but I don't watch it so much as study it like bacteria in a Petri dish. The quality of the art declined sharply when names like Graham Greene, Tom Stoppard and Earnest Hemingway stopped appearing in the credits. In fact, I can't think of the last time a single writer credit appeared on a film, much less a "based on" credit. Now there are entire phone books of "writers" cobbling story salads together out of the literary shredder. It is sad that our culture has devolved into political sermons and force-fed idiologies, and that our performers (not actors) have no latent or emotional depth. Now where was my copy of "To Have and Have Not"?
I am completely in agreement with you.
For a taste of excellence try "The Browning Version" written by Terrence Rattigan, starring Michael Redgrave and Joan Kent.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043362/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_2_tt_8_nm_0_q_the%2520browning%2520version
Ooh! Good call. I haven't seen that one in ages, and a quick check says it's not in my collection, either. I shall remedy both situations forthwith. Asquith (director) also did a fine rendering of "Pygmalion," which became the basis for "My Fair Lady," and of course Bernard Shaw is listed in the writing credits.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0030637/?ref_=nm_knf_t_2
Quality entertainment would require quality people to produce scripts and scenes on quality themes. Modernism is against traditional culture and postmodernism is against the idea of culture. Postmodernism is also rabidly against any standards of human behaviour, any measurements of success, any preference for virtue over evil.
It might be possible to tell a story with postmodern themes that remained interesting, but I have never heard of it. Woke garbage is an attack on tradition, culture, decency, humanity, and God. So it doesn't prosper in any way. "No weapon formed against you shall prosper." Isaiah 54:17
Woak is a cloak that is worn, not a style that is borne. The superficiality of Woak is its own worst enemy.
There are examples of postmodernist art, such as Camus, Huxley, Kafka, and Orwell, the the art generally takes the form of a warning, rather than virtuous behavior. It seems to me, however, we have passed the postmodernist world and landed solidly in the absurdist realms of Pinter, Beckett and Ionesco, without the style and depth. "Rhinoceros" seems particularly apropos.
I have no idea how Orwell time travelled to become postmodern.
Perhaps Burroughs, Vonnegut, Pynchon, and Eco would be more to your taste? I certainly find "The Crying of Lot 49" to be among my favorites in the genre.
The best way to end media manipulation of the human mind is to turn off the television.
Since my last television was stolen in 1987, I can't.
I've been saying that for years, but it doesn't seem to be working. What's worse, there are screens everywhere now. I am a media professional and I don't own a TV. That should tell you something. That crap is not allowed in my house.
Working in media in its absence is like driving a truck you've never been in.
*chuckles in full self drive
One does not park a truck in the living room. Not having a truck in the living room does not mean one is ignorant of how it functions, only that one choses to maintain a space separate from the truck.
Are you trying to prove that analogies are lost on yourself?
Actually, I was expanding on it.
You were trying to get more lost?
The Hayes Commission ruined film. Modern film, TV, and stage are all proscribed from describing real life. We all know it. Film, TV, and stage are escapes from our reality. That's it. Nothing more.
When I watch TV, rarely, the people I would be with would comment on the private lives of the actors shown on screen or how much money the movie made or lost or whether the TV show was going to be canceled.
Yeah, the fourth wall no longer exists.
Just watching 5 minutes newsotainment tells you the 4th wall is gone. It's no longer objective (that it ever was), but now they literally tell you want to believe and think. The Puritanical censorship of the Hayes Commission, along with Prohibition, ruined Merka. It's been pretty much straight to hell since then. There was a brief glimmer of hope in the early days of cablevision, but that's been shot through the heart, as well. All the fine arts are perverted beyond recognition. There's still hope out here in the unwashed world, but the Bumbledicks are pushing hard to export their insanity.
Rufus, I can't stand Puritans. I wish they'd stayed in England.
I'll drink to that!
The law is a blunt instrument, and using it to foist a believe system on the society at large will always generate an equal and opposite reaction.
Rufus, I watched a documentary about the American Civil War a couple weeks ago. The documentary blamed the war on religion. The Yankees followed a Puritan faith (Unitarian). The South followed a more relaxed form of Christianity.
It seems far-fetched to me, but it's plausible I suppose.
I'm reading "The Demon of Unrest" by Erik Larson about the beginnings of the Americans Civil War. The author blames the war on slavery, slavery, slavery, and more slavery. Larson dismisses the tariffs and duties put on the South by the Yankees. He never mentions religion.
Life is complicated. People's motivations can't be predicted.
The War of Northern Aggression was fought over State's Rights, pure and simple. While the South was run by Damn Democrats, it doesn't change the fact that Northern industrialists wanted cheap raw materials from the South, and the South was fetching far better prices from the European markets. All other issues were secondary or simply revisionist history trying to blame capitalism for the actions of slimy Robber Barons, who used Congress and the Executive to wage economic war against the Southern States. The Southern dependence on slave labor to produce cheap materials for profit was their tragic flaw, but it was not the cause of the war.
It should also be noted that the Wall Street slave market was still in operation in the early 1870s, proving that slavery was not the issue, only greed.
Rufus, I agree, but Erik Larson in his book writes a whole paragraph about how it wasn't tariffs, taxes, duties on the South that caused the war, only slavery. Larson writes that he doesn't want to hear the revisionist historians saying the war was about state's rights or tariffs.
I am forcing myself to finish the book as Larson's research does tell me new details of those days, but his writing bias is very irritating.
The American Civil War was an economic war (almost all wars are economic wars) of the Northern Yankee bankers and industrialists against the agrarian South.