The Television Thread

[djerdap]

I was taking more note of the fact that you think the depiction of the Russia/Russian people are stereotypical and propaganda whereas people from there find it the opposite.

I stated that certain scenes depicting the oppresive and willfully ignorant regime were stereotypical (none more so obvious than the party official drinking vodka and toasting "Workers of the world unite!" to Emily Watson), not of Russian people in general. I do believe that the series made a huge effort in showing the times and the culture accurately, as was conveyed in my original impressions. It is precisely because of this attention to detail that the use of English feels even more incongruous.

The Fukushima analogy was done in a facetious manner (hence the smiley) - obviously race is a crucial factor that people will not cross - my argument there was that the barrier of authenticity should go even before race, namely with language and culture. No, Skarsgard's Stalin-like make-up, or Harris speaking English while demonstrating words in clean Cyrillic, are not as laughable as a ridiculous imaginary Cloud Atlas-like Fukushima show... but to these eyes, it's not that far away (or if one needs a cleaner analogy, a Three Mile Island series in Russian? Oh lord). It didn't significantly diminish my viewing experience, but there was a constant feeling of "If this was made in Russian with Russian and Ukrainian actors, it would have been amazing" hovering over the admittedly enjoyable time I spent with the series.

[Patrick McGroin]

No. Just...no.

[Takoma1]

About as far away from prestige television as you can get, but I just finished watching the reboot of Charmed and I really enjoyed it. Kind of dumb, but at the same time very aware of the ways in which it is dumb. I never watched much of the original series (just an episode here or there--my heart belonged to Buffy), but this reboot effectively captures the serious-silliness of the WB shows I loved in the late 90s.

The series, despite it's cheesiness, also manages to integrate a pretty wide range of diversity. It has an unapologetic feminist slant (one of the sisters is literally a lesbian Women's Studies Professor), but there's a lightness to the way it delivers the occasional social message that keeps it from feeling like a misguided PSA. There's also an episode with a literal Manic Pixie Dream Girl killing off male film directors, so that's a plus.

If you were into Buffy or Angel or any of those other teen supernatural shows, your inner 14 year old might enjoy this series.

[LEAVES]

It has been many months since anyone has mentioned Bunheads, but it doesn’t appear that anyone has mentioned anything more worth talking about, so...

Bunheads?

[ThatDarnMKS]

Too Old to Die Young is transcendent TV akin to Twin Peaks: the Return. Pure cinema for the small screen and one of the few auteur driven TV properties I've ever seen. It's a conflation of everything Refn has done before and turned into his own epic. It's indulgent and borders on onanistic but it's exactly what I want. It's his Inland Empire. His Tree of Life. Refn may never be THIS Refn again but I'm glad he got to go that far at least once.

[wichares]

Haven't seen that yet, but your first sentence reminds me of Matt Lynch's comparison of the series as the Goofus to Twin Peaks' Gallant.

[ThatDarnMKS]

Haven't seen that yet, but your first sentence reminds me of Matt Lynch's comparison of the series as the Goofus to Twin Peaks' Gallant.

I could see that, as Lynch has now acquired an untouchability at this point in his career that he once lacked, while Refn is treated as being around then "Fire Walk With Me" era Lynch, who was fairly lambasted for how indulgent and masturbatory his filmmaking had become at the time.

Of course, critics (and Tarantino) were wrong and I won't be surprised if, when Refn has pushed further past anything we expect, there's also a reassessment on his post-Drive output.

I'd say Malick is also in that critical rutt post-Tree of Life, but I thought both To the Wonder and Knight of Cups were great (waiting for the right time to watch Song to Song).

But both Malick and Refn seem to remain defiantly themselves and go the opposite direction that the critics insist they should go and I admire it. Though that admiration is helped a great deal by loving their output.

[Jinnistan]

Refn is treated as being around then "Fire Walk With Me" era Lynch, who was fairly lambasted for how indulgent and masturbatory his filmmaking had become at the time.

I disagree with the "fairly" here. I'm quite a fan of Fire for the most part. It's, at least, better than most of the second half of season 2.

I'm not sure if I even agree on the presumed pejorative of "masturbatory" filmmaking. I think that a lot of great art involves somee degree of the artist being in love with their own voice, so to speak. What is Eraserhead, of not a type of self-coitus with the subconscious? (It's definitely a little asphyxiated.) Lynch, as I'm sure you know, is one of the more unapologetically uncompromising directors, one who denounces compromise of the vision as the greatest artistic sin. At his most muddled (Inland Empire, in my estimate), his esoteric tossing is still far more interesting than the far less indulgent prudes making respectably disposable narrative dry humps (rhymes with My Lai Moth...). Refn's going to be alright. (I guess I'll get around to watching this, as I didn't know it was Refn behind it.)

(waiting for the right time to watch Song to Song).

It's good, but it's strange to see a Malick film that is so conjoined at the hip with one of his previous films (Cups), no doubt due to them being filmed back to back and largely ruminating through identical thematic territory. His films have been so different one from the next that it seems difficult to fully pull this one out of the shadow of its predecessor. I've wondered if I would have a similar problem had the films' releases been reversed.

[LEAVES]

...but Cups is the worst Malick film since Badlands and Song to Song is a groundbreaking singular masterpiece so...

[Ergill]

...but Cups is the worst Malick film since Badlands and Song to Song is a groundbreaking singular masterpiece so...

Badlands is stellar, so Cups must be pretty OK.

[ThatDarnMKS]

I disagree with the "fairly" here. I'm quite a fan of Fire for the most part. It's, at least, better than most of the second half of season 2.

I'm not sure if I even agree on the presumed pejorative of "masturbatory" filmmaking. I think that a lot of great art involves somee degree of the artist being in love with their own voice, so to speak. What is Eraserhead, of not a type of self-coitus with the subconscious? (It's definitely a little asphyxiated.) Lynch, as I'm sure you know, is one of the more unapologetically uncompromising directors, one who denounces compromise of the vision as the greatest artistic sin. At his most muddled (Inland Empire, in my estimate), his esoteric tossing is still far more interesting than the far less indulgent prudes making respectably disposable narrative dry humps (rhymes with My Lai Moth...). Refn's going to be alright. (I guess I'll get around to watching this, as I didn't know it was Refn behind it.)



It's good, but it's strange to see a Malick film that is so conjoined at the hip with one of his previous films (Cups), no doubt due to them being filmed back to back and largely ruminating through identical thematic territory. His films have been so different one from the next that it seems difficult to fully pull this one out of the shadow of its predecessor. I've wondered if I would have a similar problem had the films' releases been reversed.

You're trying to argue where there is none. I suppose you missed where I said the critics were wrong.

[Jinnistan]

You're trying to argue where there is none.

"I disagree with the 'fairly' here".

[Jinnistan]

...but Cups is the worst Malick film since Badlands and Song to Song is a groundbreaking singular masterpiece so...

There's not a lot of daylight between Cups and Song, either thematically or stylistically. I'm not even concerned which one is truly better, they just happen to be, moreso than any other Malick film, very closely aligned. Since I saw Cups first, it made a bigger impact on me, and Song felt like, I dunno, Amnesiac to Kid A or something.

I'm sure there must be some subjective reason for why you see such a gulf in quality between the two of them, but I honestly have no idea why. They're both meditations on vaguely successful people in vaguely selfish relationships in vaguely vapid industries.

[Olivier60]

The LA X episode was good. The Kate one was pretty bad and the last one Rachat prêt that aired yesterday was also good. It's the same old stuff with Lost, they just keep trying to shock people with plot twists and things of that sort. I like the show though.

Hello, I really agree with you

[ThatDarnMKS]

"I disagree with the 'fairly' here".

Multiple definitions for fairly.

2.
to quite a high degree.


Figured context would have implied that.

[Jinnistan]

Multiple definitions for fairly.

2.
to quite a high degree.


Figured context would have implied that.

Mm. K.

[LEAVES]

There's not a lot of daylight between Cups and Song, either thematically or stylistically. I'm not even concerned which one is truly better, they just happen to be, moreso than any other Malick film, very closely aligned. Since I saw Cups first, it made a bigger impact on me, and Song felt like, I dunno, Amnesiac to Kid A or something.

I'm sure there must be some subjective reason for why you see such a gulf in quality between the two of them, but I honestly have no idea why. They're both meditations on vaguely successful people in vaguely selfish relationships in vaguely vapid industries.

Cups may be a meditation on vaguely successful people in vaguely selfish relationships in vaguely valid industries, but Song to Song is barely even about industries or relationships at all. There’s a 20ish minute sequence late in the film where hardly a word is spoken and the shot length averages around 3 seconds. It’s the opposite of a plot-advancing montage - it is montage in lieu of plot, pure impressions of existence reigning over the constraining minutia. The principle difference between Cups and Song to Song is that the latter is about the experience and the former is about all of those horrifically boring things you named earlier. In the case of Cups, I agree fully with that categorization, but Song to Song literally decimates those things and evades them through a stream of montage consciousness. So lovely.

[LEAVES]

Badlands is stellar, so Cups must be pretty OK.

That’s your renegade youth blinding you to the reality that Malick got a lot better (until Cups, of course!) Maybe if you didn’t identify so closely with the protagonists you would have a different opinion. I’m more partial to Song to Song and The Tree of Life because I am both a rock star and a dinosaur.

[LEAVES]

Justin Chang talks Song to Song pretty well, even if he holds back from the fun of trash talking Cups. He’s so professional, what a bore!

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/m ... utType=amp

[Jinnistan]

There’s a 20ish minute sequence late in the film where hardly a word is spoken and the shot length averages around 3 seconds. It’s the opposite of a plot-advancing montage - it is montage in lieu of plot, pure impressions of existence reigning over the constraining minutia.

This describes all of Malick's recent films.

The principle difference between Cups and Song to Song is that the latter is about the experience and the former is about all of those horrifically boring things you named earlier. In the case of Cups, I agree fully with that categorization, but Song to Song literally decimates those things and evades them through a stream of montage consciousness. So lovely.

Nah, not really. The destination of both films is the transcendence of these shallow trappings of the particular characters, and both films employ ample amounts of "montage consciousness" to accomplish this. If Song happened to be more cathartic for you, that's great, but it doesn't really excuse ignoring the parallels that exist in Cups.

the fun of trash talking Cups

Again, I'm sure you have your subjective motives here, maybe a fondness for Bale-bashing, but there's not a lot of criticisms of Cups that can't be directly applied to Song, or to Malick more generally. I understand having a preference, but imagining such a gulf in quality between them seems quite arbitrary.

[Jinnistan]

Justin Chang talks Song to Song pretty well

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/m ... utType=amp

I think he makes my point for me, as far as the thematic correlation of post-Tree Malick:

To watch "To the Wonder," "Knight of Cups" and "Song to Song," in that order, is to finally appreciate the full arc of that inquiry — a fall from grace, a journey through despair and finally a restoration of innocence and hope. It hasn't been an easy journey, or one immune to the traps of simplification and cliché, but even those pitfalls finally speak to Malick's deeply moving sense of abandon, his willingness to risk all in the pursuit of a vision of transcendence. The final image we see in "Song to Song" isn't a tease or a caress, but an embrace — a decisive ending that holds out the possibility of a new beginning.

And the final line of Cups? "Begin."

I also find myself defending Wonder for similar reasons, for those who see it as more of an indulgence, more meandering than the other films. I think it's important to see the rhymes here.

[Slentert]

I never really watched any of Malick's post-The Thin Red Line output, despite loving everything I've seen by him. They seem to be a bit "too much" for my taste. Once I watch them I'll probably fall in love with them.

[Popcorn Reviews]

I never really watched any of Malick's post-The Thin Red Line output, despite loving everything I've seen by him. They seem to be a bit "too much" for my taste. Once I watch them I'll probably fall in love with them.

I can't recommend The Tree of Life enough. Still my favorite film of the 21st century.

[ThatDarnMKS]

I can't recommend The Tree of Life enough. Still my favorite film of the 21st century.

Have you watched the Criterion cut? I have it and it's on my "goals for the summer" to watch it.

[Popcorn Reviews]

Have you watched the Criterion cut? I have it and it's on my "goals for the summer" to watch it.

I definitely plan on getting the Criterion disc this summer. I plan on making it a birthday present this August.

[ThatDarnMKS]

I definitely plan on getting the Criterion disc this summer. I plan on making it a birthday present this August.

It was a present I got this past winter, along with Andrei Rublev. I only found time for one gargantuan, artistic epic and chose AR. Don't regret it but I hope to watch ToL soon as I loved the original cut.

Then again, I found the time to watch 13 hours of Too Young To Die Old so I'm just a big ole phoney for my reasons of not watching it.

[Popcorn Reviews]

It was a present I got this past winter, along with Andrei Rublev. I only found time for one gargantuan, artistic epic and chose AR. Don't regret it but I hope to watch ToL soon as I loved the original cut.

Then again, I found the time to watch 13 hours of Too Young To Die Old so I'm just a big ole phoney for my reasons of not watching it.

I tend to slack a lot as well when it comes to catching up on new releases (I usually forget about them for many months), so there's that for ya.

[Jinnistan]

Have you watched the Criterion cut? I have it and it's on my "goals for the summer" to watch it.

I was only slightly disappointed in that I bought into the hype that it would be a front-to-back rebuild, a completely new edit from scratch similar to what Malick did with New World, when in fact it really is more of a proper extended cut. Virtually everything from the theatrical version is here formally intact, with a generous portion of additional scenes here and there. I'm not sure why I was expecting anything different, as I'm very happy with the theatrical version itself. I'm glad that he didn't try for some radical redux, but seeing a "whole new version" of the film was a part of a lot of the enthusiasm on its release, and, in reality and probably for the better, it's the same version+.

[Patrick McGroin]

Badlands deserves it's status as one the best debut films ever by a young director and a great American film in general. There is no groundswell of revisionism that states otherwise.

[Ergill]

That’s your renegade youth blinding you to the reality that Malick got a lot better (until Cups, of course!) Maybe if you didn’t identify so closely with the protagonists you would have a different opinion. I’m more partial to Song to Song and The Tree of Life because I am both a rock star and a dinosaur.

What can I say? I'm just a girl riding shotgun, with a shotgun, writing sentences on the roof of my mouth.

[ThatDarnMKS]

I was only slightly disappointed in that I bought into the hype that it would be a front-to-back rebuild, a completely new edit from scratch similar to what Malick did with New World, when in fact it really is more of a proper extended cut. Virtually everything from the theatrical version is here formally intact, with a generous portion of additional scenes here and there. I'm not sure why I was expecting anything different, as I'm very happy with the theatrical version itself. I'm glad that he didn't try for some radical redux, but seeing a "whole new version" of the film was a part of a lot of the enthusiasm on its release, and, in reality and probably for the better, it's the same version+.

Thanks for the heads up but shit... I also have that criterion and haven't watched the new cut.

I'm surprised as everything I read compared it to TNW and said this was far more ambitious and even had the composer and Lubezki return to assist.

Guess I'll have a Malick Marathon soon.

[LEAVES]

Badlands deserves it's status as one the best debut films ever by a young director and a great American film in general. There is no groundswell of revisionism that states otherwise.

”American film” is a pejorative phrase, though!

I’m not a groundswell, I’m a person with an opinion. It is a historical fact that not everyone had the same exact opinion of the film on the day of its release, and, startlingly, the same is true today!

[LEAVES]

This describes all of Malick's recent films.

This doesn’t ring of truth to me, but rewatching just for the sake of counting shot lengths sounds awful so...

Nah, not really. The destination of both films is the transcendence of these shallow trappings of the particular characters, and both films employ ample amounts of "montage consciousness" to accomplish this. If Song happened to be more cathartic for you, that's great, but it doesn't really excuse ignoring the parallels that exist in Cups.

The content of parallels and the substance of parallels are two different things. Peter Greenaway made a film about a zoo and Matt Damon was in a film about a zoo and they are very different films. Probably more similar than Cups and STS, but you get the idea. Knights is an exploration of vapidity and STS is an embrace of passion and love. Hard to get more opposed!

As for your post referencing Chang’s writing, his writing on Cups contradicts both of us and says that it’s not at all about his career and merely about his emotional states, which agrees more with your take, but it also means that it’s just, like, all of our opinions, man.

Again, I'm sure you have your subjective motives here, maybe a fondness for Bale-bashing, but there's not a lot of criticisms of Cups that can't be directly applied to Song, or to Malick more generally. I understand having a preference, but imagining such a gulf in quality between them seems quite arbitrary.

I care so little about actors and celebrities it’s hard to even explain.

Every criticism can be applied to every film - that doesn’t mean they will make any sense to anyone. I’m as entirely sure that Cups is of a completely different type as you are that they are the same. Such are opinions. Not sure what Bale has to do with it.

[Jinnistan]

I'm surprised as everything I read compared it to TNW and said this was far more ambitious and even had the composer and Lubezki return to assist.

To be clear on New World and the set's three cuts: the major changes are between the 135 minute version and the 150 minute version, and these changes are most dramatic in the first half of the film which were edited completely differently. The 172 minute version is more like an extended version of the latter, with most of the 150 version's editing intact.

I imagine that Lubezki was required to smooth out the score for all of the additional scenes, but those scenes from the theatrical version are pretty much the same. For example, the universal digression is practically identical in both.

[Jinnistan]

Knights is an exploration of vapidity and STS is an embrace of passion and love.

Both films involve the indictment and rejection of vapidity (represented by Fassbender in the latter), and Cups was not immune from what's become a standard Malick critique of his platitudes on spiritual romance (which I find to be a trite take on the films). Both films are really about transcendence, if we have to name it. It's there in the content and substance of both films.

As for your post referencing Chang’s writing, his writing on Cups contradicts both of us and says that it’s not at all about his career and merely about his emotional states, which agrees more with your take, but it also means that it’s just, like, all of our opinions, man.

Arguably, I would say that Song has a lot more explicit material about its "scene" (the music biz) than Cups has about Hollywood. Ultimately, I don't think it matters as much as where both films end up, which is, like Wonder, in a liberation from dross.

I’m as entirely sure that Cups is of a completely different type as you are that they are the same. Such are opinions.

I haven't seen any basis for this difference. I can continue pointing out all of the stylistic, thematic, even circumstantial parallels, and you can brush them off, but since those elements you've mentioned that supposedly separate them happen to be substantially evident in both films, I remain unconvinced of these "types" you cite.

Not sure what Bale has to do with it.

Me neither. I'm not sure what anything in Cups makes it such a worse film. I'm asking. I assume it's something subjective, like maybe something you ate beforehand. I'm pretty sure it hasn't nothing to do with anything Malick did differently here than in Song.

[LEAVES]

I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything, though. That sounds fucking terrible. All human experiences are by definition subjective, so, yeah, my exoerience was. You don’t need to be convinced of it yourself, but if you’re not convinced that I have a different view, no matter how ill informed and exaggerated for fun, then I don’t know what to tell you.

[Jinnistan]

I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything, though. That sounds fucking terrible. All human experiences are by definition subjective, so, yeah, my exoerience was. You don’t need to be convinced of it yourself, but if you’re not convinced that I have a different view, no matter how ill informed and exaggerated for fun, then I don’t know what to tell you.

My assuption all along has been that it was a subjective response. Subjective experiences are still open to examination. Many, in fact, turn out to be baseless. It's a common human folly to overestimate one's intuition.

I'm not asking you to convince me of the eminence of your subjective experience. I'm not even saying that you're wrong. I'm asking about the basis for it, something evident in the film, which can be at least understood if not agreed with. As I said, in this case, the distinction seems arbitrary regarding these films, and I don't believe arbitrary to be synonymous with subjective.

[LEAVES]

My assuption all along has been that it was a subjective response. Subjective experiences are still open to examination. Many, in fact, turn out to be baseless. It's a common human folly to overestimate one's intuition.

I'm not asking you to convince me of the eminence of your subjective experience. I'm not even saying that you're wrong. I'm asking about the basis for it, something evident in the film, which can be at least understood if not agreed with. As I said, in this case, the distinction seems arbitrary regarding these films, and I don't believe arbitrary to be synonymous with subjective.

I think the differences between each person’s personal experience watching a film is literally by definition arbitrary. Where I noticed a one-of-kind extended montage in STS that I didn’t notice in Cups, you think you saw the same thing in Cups, but each was just an arbitrary extension of experience and not a systematic examination of shot durations in each film. So, yeah, my experience is arbitrary: decided by the whims of the day, not a systematic process to delineate differences between two films. It very well could be that a systematic examination would prove one of our arbitrary experiences actually correct, but there are scant few times when I am interested in anything other than the arbitrary details of another’s experience. It’s more fun that way.

[Jinnistan]

I think the differences between each person’s personal experience watching a film is literally by definition arbitrary.

I think this is highly solipsistic and would render a lot of otherwise useful discussion of any and every experience moot. But if you prefer not to articulate a dialectic to these experiences, it's no rub off my shoulders.

[LEAVES]

I think this is highly solipsistic and would render a lot of otherwise useful discussion of any and every experience moot. But if you prefer not to articulate a dialectic to these experiences, it's no rub off my shoulders.

Dialectics doesn’t work so well for aesthetic experiences since it ignores the fact that each person’s experiences may not even be based on the whole or even the actual content of the film. Each person experiences things differently, especially on first viewing of an arthouse film. To worry too much about the facts of the film is to ignore the inescapable incompleteness of each person’s actual experience. This inescapable incompleteness isn’t necessarily rectified easily with additional viewings either. This what actually makes discussions interesting, since each person can have such an individual experience.

I don’t really care if you were scared when the murderer was chasing the victim down the hallway: dialectically we can determine that the viewer is intended to identify with the victim and vicariously experience fear, but there’s very little worth talking about if everyone has the same experience. “Were you scared at the scary part?” “Yep.” “Cool.”

If something is rich beyond the possibility of having an exhaustive and uniform experience either in comparison to another viewer or in comparison to th same person’s repeat viewings - that is worth talking about. The only thing worth talking about, to me. It’s not sollipsistic, it’s a wonderful byproduct of abundance. It is surely possible that we could escape all manner of sollipsism by talking about incontrovertible aspects of worthless art, but we can also escape all manner of sollipsism and still have entirely different experiences of rich, abundant art.

Calling all differing experiences a case of sollipsism is a silly way to act. That being said, sollipsism is a very, very specific term, and pretending that any two people will often or even ever have identical experiences is hilariously nonsensical, no matter how much you agree in the dialectical facts of the case.

[Jinnistan]

Dialectics doesn’t work so well for aesthetic experiences since it ignores the fact that each person’s experiences may not even be based on the whole or even the actual content of the film. Each person experiences things differently, especially on first viewing of an arthouse film. To worry too much about the facts of the film is to ignore the inescapable incompleteness of each person’s actual experience. This inescapable incompleteness isn’t necessarily rectified easily with additional viewings either. This what actually makes discussions interesting, since each person can have such an individual experience.

Dialectics, by definition, are based on the fact of subjective experience, by the inherent inabilty for two people to have a uniform experience. Without the presumption of subjectivity, dialectics would not be a necessary bridge to communicate these differences. Or more relevant to this, it is not the role of dialectics to deny the subjective experience, either in value or significance, or to flatten out these differences into some kind of homogeneous experience. The role of dialectics is for individuals of divergent subjective experiences to relate to each other's divergent experiences, and to parse out what can be considered facts with what can be discerned as biases with what can be demonstrated as insight. There is also an ongoing dialetic between one's own subjective perceptions and objective conceptions, the analytic/intuitive, which informs both inspiration and realization. In other words, I have no idea why anyone would want to amputate one or the other. But having said that, I can gauge from experience that someone else's subjective experience can be highly informative and enriching, or less so, to my own subjective experience in ways that I could not, by necessity, have preconceived on my own. I have it on some good authority that my subjective experiences, when sympathetically articulated, have had similar results in certain others. This is not only the role of dialectics, as a critical process, but of art much more generally - to communicate and calibrate our divergent subjective experiences. I'll repeat what I thought was obvious: I'm not looking for agreement or conviction here. I have no interest in demanding my subjective standards onto anyone else. I also don't believe that there's a single opinion ever uttered that's beyond a shadow of doubt, considering how shadowy our subjective foundations ultimately rest.

Calling all differing experiences a case of sollipsism is a silly way to act. That being said, sollipsism is a very, very specific term, and pretending that any two people will often or even ever have identical experiences is hilariously nonsensical, no matter how much you agree in the dialectical facts of the case.

I'll be more clear: I think that the notion that these differences of subjective experience are arbitrary is highly solipsistic. The differences themselves are a necessity of consciousness. But these subjective impressions are not chaotic gusts that change direction on a given day. There is a contextual infrastructure to our subjectivity, and regarding the appreciation and efficacy of art, being ideally of a highly personal motive, is a representation of both the artist's and audience's presumptive infrastructures. Art is already dialectic in this sense; it's already a conversation. Brushing off subjective differences as arbitrary is to dismiss the value both in one's responsive esoteric design and in the complementary impressions of others', alternate, responses. To expect identical responses would be nonsensical. I'm glad I didn't say that. What I did say, or at least strongly imply, is that our subjective experiences are never so authoritative that they can't be enhanced by different perspectives. I'm not saying you're wrong, but that I can't see where you're coming from, and that is necessary to consider the possibility that you may be right. To call it arbitrary is to shrug off the effort - which is fine if that's what you prefer.

[LEAVES]

Dialectics, by definition, are based on the fact of subjective experience, by the inherent inabilty for two people to have a uniform experience. Without the presumption of subjectivity, dialectics would not be a necessary bridge to communicate these differences. Or more relevant to this, it is not the role of dialectics to deny the subjective experience, either in value or significance, or to flatten out these differences into some kind of homogeneous experience. The role of dialectics is for individuals of divergent subjective experiences to relate to each other's divergent experiences, and to parse out what can be considered facts with what can be discerned as biases with what can be demonstrated as insight. There is also an ongoing dialetic between one's own subjective perceptions and objective conceptions, the analytic/intuitive, which informs both inspiration and realization.

I don't think the role of dialectics is to relate to others' divergent experiences. That is the role of empathy and opinion. I don't think "what can be considered facts" is of much importance relating to opinions. I don't think the concept of an "objective conception" is coherent. A subject conceives, an objective measurement reports facts. There is no conception or opinion in objectivity.

In other words, I have no idea why anyone would want to amputate one or the other. But having said that, I can gauge from experience that someone else's subjective experience can be highly informative and enriching, or less so, to my own subjective experience in ways that I could not, by necessity, have preconceived on my own. I have it on some good authority that my subjective experiences, when sympathetically articulated, have had similar results in certain others. This is not only the role of dialectics, as a critical process, but of art much more generally - to communicate and calibrate our divergent subjective experiences.

I mean, I think that this is the role of opinion, and in the art of expressing opinions, and it has absolutely nothing to do with dialectics.

I'll repeat what I thought was obvious: I'm not looking for agreement or conviction here. I have no interest in demanding my subjective standards onto anyone else. I also don't believe that there's a single opinion ever uttered that's beyond a shadow of doubt, considering how shadowy our subjective foundations ultimately rest.

I don't think the idea of "doubt" is coherent with respect to opinions. It's impossible to even conceive of a way to speak about "doubting" an opinion except with respect to a person lying, which has nothing to do with the subject's experience and solely to do with the subject's choice to relate an opinion or not.

I'll be more clear: I think that the notion that these differences of subjective experience are arbitrary is highly solipsistic. The differences themselves are a necessity of consciousness. But these subjective impressions are not chaotic gusts that change direction on a given day. There is a contextual infrastructure to our subjectivity, and regarding the appreciation and efficacy of art, being ideally of a highly personal motive, is a representation of both the artist's and audience's presumptive infrastructures. Art is already dialectic in this sense; it's already a conversation.

Dialectics is not the same as dialogue. None of what you said above has anything to do with dialectics, and is entirely part of subjectivity, and none of it has any relationship to solipsism.

Brushing off subjective differences as arbitrary is to dismiss the value both in one's responsive esoteric design and in the complementary impressions of others', alternate, responses. To expect identical responses would be nonsensical. I'm glad I didn't say that. What I did say, or at least strongly imply, is that our subjective experiences are never so authoritative that they can't be enhanced by different perspectives. I'm not saying you're wrong, but that I can't see where you're coming from, and that is necessary to consider the possibility that you may be right. To call it arbitrary is to shrug off the effort - which is fine if that's what you prefer.

To call it arbitrary is merely to accurately categorize it with respect to the denotation of the word arbitrary. I am not using "arbitrary" as a qualitative valuation, merely a denotative statement. Thus, to say that I am "shrugging off the effort" or "dismissing the value" is not accurate. I don't think that something being arbitrary is a negative. It has a negative connotation in other contexts, certainly - contexts where it deemed important that determined choices be made - but not in all contexts. It is a terrible idea to make arbitrary choices with regard to investments. It is a totally sensible idea to encounter arbitrary experiences with respect to unknown art. Personally, I think it would in most circumstances be a bad idea to encounter prescribed, rather than arbitrary, experiences with art. I see this failure in people that dislike amazing art because instead of merely experiencing the art as the whims of the experience comes to them they, instead, prescribe that all art that is worthwhile must have, for example, a strong central narrative. Arbitrariness is openness. Is arbitrary the most oft-used word? No, because of the confusion and because synonyms are used in such a context, but that doesn't mean that the denotation of the word in this context is negative or that the word should never be used.

[Jinnistan]

I don't think the role of dialectics is to relate to others' divergent experiences. That is the role of empathy and opinion. I don't think "what can be considered facts" is of much importance relating to opinions. I don't think the concept of an "objective conception" is coherent. A subject conceives, an objective measurement reports facts. There is no conception or opinion in objectivity. I mean, I think that this is the role of opinion, and in the art of expressing opinions, and it has absolutely nothing to do with dialectics. I don't think the idea of "doubt" is coherent with respect to opinions. It's impossible to even conceive of a way to speak about "doubting" an opinion except with respect to a person lying, which has nothing to do with the subject's experience and solely to do with the subject's choice to relate an opinion or not.

Fwiw, the heliocentric system was an imagined concept before it was an objective fact; therefore objective concepts are definitely a thing.

I never thought of opinions as something that brings people together, per se. On the contrary (esp. internet culture), many people use their opinion as a way to ignore other people's opinions, a 'you go your way, I go mine', or something similarly, um, arbitrary. Opinions are useful to measure people's perspective differences, but much less so in bridging them, without the follow-up of some kind of establishment of mutual understanding between them. I also don't see how doubting anyone's, or one's own, opinion has to do with honesty, as if so many people have not been honestly mistaken on many occasions. The doubt is just the recognition of the possibility of error, god forbid. Opinions are also, thankfully, not immutable. Clarifying certain objective properties ("facts") of the thing being experienced does not have to be a threat to the quality of that experience, and ideally it should enhance it in hindsight. Another wonderful attribute of great art is that we are not done with it by sight, but we can take it with us. Solidifying our immediate impressions into fixed opinion is then pretty stultifying to how the art should evolve within us. Opinions are qualitative, and, believe me, I wish more people's opinions were less cheap.

Dialectics is not the same as dialogue. None of what you said above has anything to do with dialectics, and is entirely part of subjectivity, and none of it has any relationship to solipsism. To call it arbitrary is merely to accurately categorize it with respect to the denotation of the word arbitrary. I am not using "arbitrary" as a qualitative valuation, merely a denotative statement. Thus, to say that I am "shrugging off the effort" or "dismissing the value" is not accurate. I don't think that something being arbitrary is a negative. It has a negative connotation in other contexts, certainly - contexts where it deemed important that determined choices be made - but not in all contexts.

Dialectics are part of the dialogue, but, yes, let's stick to context. In this particular context: I'm curious why you have such a diametrically opposite opinion of the two Malick films which, to me and Justin Chang, appears to have been cut from the same thematic and stylistic cloth. You mentioned the lovely montage in the second half of Song, but I'm less interested in your preference for Song than in your contempt for Cups. When you respond that this is your opinion and opinions are arbitrary, then that has the negative connotation that suggests "shrugging off the effort".

all art that is worthwhile must have, for example, a strong central narrative.

Most art isn't narrative in nature, but I will agree that art is rarely a reliable narrator. The point being that a lot of art forces us to reevaluate our presumptions in a way that undermines our "arbitrary" impressions. A lot of art is deceptive. A lot of it deceives to reveal truth, and visa versa. Art does, in fact, a lot of things, and so do we as we experience it and ruminate over it. The facts of the matter will not ruin you and tend to improve opinion if anything.

Arbitrariness is openness.

It can certainly be arid at times.

[Patrick McGroin]

I don't know if anyone else has watched the third and final season of Jessica Jones on Netflix but I'm thinking of just going ahead and bailing after three episodes. This is terrible so far. First of all they appear to be making this whole season heavy on Patsy. And I know it's only been three or so hours but most of it has come off like filler. They're also devoting a distressing amount of time to Carrie Anne Moss' character of Jerri Hogarth and her romantic life. Maybe I'll grit my teeth and finish it out through sheer OCD.

[Deschain13]

I don't know if anyone else has watched the third and final season of Jessica Jones on Netflix but I'm thinking of just going ahead and bailing after three episodes. This is terrible so far. First of all they appear to be making this whole season heavy on Patsy. And I know it's only been three or so hours but most of it has come off like filler. They're also devoting a distressing amount of time to Carrie Anne Moss' character of Jerri Hogarth and her romantic life. Maybe I'll grit my teeth and finish it out through sheer OCD.

I was a fan of all three seasons, mainly because Jessica Jones is a terrific character and the best part of the show and Ritter portrayed her well. Season 3 started off slow but got better as it went along. If you’re not digging the Hogarth subplot it doesn’t go away but does go to some interesting places.


In other news I’ve been watching Fleabag and it’s so good. It alternates between hilarity and sadness with disturbing ease and all the characters are so fun.

[Patrick McGroin]

I was a fan of all three seasons, mainly because Jessica Jones is a terrific character and the best part of the show and Ritter portrayed her well. Season 3 started off slow but got better as it went along. If you’re not digging the Hogarth subplot it doesn’t go away but does go to some interesting places.

I like Ritter, her portrayal of and the character as well. As far as Marvel/Netflix heroes go I think hers is probably the most fully realized. I'm just frustrated by the shows focus on two of the more annoying and dull characters, Trish and her mother Dorothy (wow, just realized that's Rebecca DeMornay). But if it does get better like you say I'll give it another shot. I've always hated leaving things half done. (Or 1/4 or 2/3 done depending on if we're talking season or entire show run)

[Torgo]

I think Archer might be officially played out. And I had my DVR set to start recording NOS4A2 but stopped, erased and canceled the series after a few minutes. I remember the book didn't really get going until after

Vic's son is kidnapped

but I don't have the time to start following yet another show.

Dreamland sucked, but Danger Island and 1999 (the first two episodes, anyway) are good fun, albeit not for reasons that made me a fan of the show. It hasn't been succeeding on a humor level - the show hasn't elicited a single laugh from me since season 7 - but the artwork, storytelling and drinking game potential, such as taking a drink each time somebody says "phrasing" or "shut up," make the show worth watching.

[Takoma1]

I've been hankering for a good action movie or series, and so I watched the first season of Strike Back.

The action itself is okay and I liked the format of having storylines that ran over two or three episodes. But, as you might have guessed, I was not a fan of the show's borderline pathological need to feature full frontal extended female nudity in all of the episodes. While we are several times gifted with the sight of Sullivan Stapleton's thrusting butt, the revolving door of nude women becomes tiresome around the sixth episode. The show loses major, MAJOR points for including long "sexy" shots of women we are told are kidnap/rape victims who have been forced into prostitution.

Does the show get any better in this regard as it goes on?

[DaMU]

Season 3 of Ash vs. Evil Dead feels a step below the prior two seasons. I don't want to take the easy out and say it's because they switched showrunners, but, um, they did switch showrunners from Craig DiGregorio (Chuck, Reaper, Workaholics) to Mark Verheiden (Daredevil, Constantine, Hemlock Grove), and you can feel the dramatic shift from the lunatic black comedy to the slightly more po-faced approach, with more boilerplate dialogue, chosen-one nonsense, and forced character choices - in one of the most recent episodes, lead characters continually abandon a newbie to the team with a minimum of explanation or effort to keep the new recruit safe on their own. It's very odd.

That's not to slam the show completely, nor is it to say the show is straight-up no-chaser serious now; someone's knee grows a mouth and starts talking back, an infant puppeteers a corpse from inside like it's a controlling a Jaeger from Pacific Rim. A slimy mutant fusion of three people (in various states of dismemberment) delights with its repulsive whimsy. There's still stuff to like. Just a little less.

[ThatDarnMKS]

Yeah but Dario and his brother directed an episode of s3 so RT loyalty demands I recognize it as the best.