Photos
 |
merrymoon
Website:
-
Find Me On:
|
Latest Comments
Comments
Fair enough—this is a humor blog, and I shouldn’t expect much else. (And like I mentioned in response to Trevor, this post probably was not the best place to express these thoughts.)
However, I get the sense that sometimes it wants to be something more, and some people might imagine that it is something more. I think I mostly get this sense because for quite a while I was impressed that most commenters seemed quite genuine, and concluded that this place was unaffected by the immaturity and insincerity that is so rampant online. I was a little bit disillusioned when I realized that videogum is also pervaded by insincerity (only here it thinks that it justifies itself sometimes by pretending that it hides sincerity somewhere within.) I guess I am somewhat disappointed, because videogum is not what I thought it was, and I concluded that neither is it what it thinks it is.
If I am the only one who made this mistake, then my thoughts are unnecessary. It very well may be that this is the case; I admit that I am not as mature as I sometimes think I am (and even this admission carries the same threat against which I am pontificating—that I might be trying to prove my maturity by announcing my immaturity—but I think I’d rather accept that threat or even experience that error than be crippled by self-doubt, because the fact that we cannot act entirely without selfishness does not mean that actions are all unworthy) and consequently I might be taking issue with a doubt that you’ve already come to terms with.
Good point. I think that what I posted is probably warranted less in this thread than in many others—it just sprang to mind and I felt compelled to say it.
More on topic, I thought that this video was great. It illustrates really well how an artist grows: from inspiration to plagiarism to existential despair to originality. This guy should keep making movies.
These comments are really fascinating. One of the things I find slightly disappointing about this blog is how it usually sits and comments comfortably from the standpoint of aloof irony. Rarely (not never, but rarely) does someone attempt to engage directly and sincerely with real emotions, feelings, ideals, etc. Usually it sarcastically employs a dogmatic tone, leaving the assumption that the principles being joked about are really truly important but rarely confronting them head-on (because let’s face it, that’s really uncomfortable. I certainly won’t deny that, and I don’t want to imply that I am exempt from this criticism because I avoid sincerity too.)
Kelly’s commentary above, however, comes fairly close to sincerity, and I expected the video to prompt similar reactions from the comment section. Instead, every comment so far is steeped in that trademark monster “fishing for upvotes through sarcastically sincere sarcasm.” I don’t think every comment is posted with the intention of garnering approval (and I doubt that very many have ONLY that intent) but I think that it’s really hard to avoid taking that into consideration when commenting.
This community of monsters loves to love itself, and really it should somewhat—there are precious few communities on the internet that even try to be nice—but I guess what I want to say is that we should all try to remember more that life is pretty static, and pretty unsatisfying, when we relegate ourselves to mere comfort. Growth occurs best when we are willing to engage directly (even at risk of losing your current conception of yourself) with this flawed, infinitely beautiful world.
I am legitimately uncertain whether this comment will be appreciated or not, but it’s something I’ve been thinking about for a while and I thought that I should at least present it for consideration.
You might be surprised how much thought went into that startup sound. Maybe it’s not a “song,” but it’s not far off… Here’s an interview with Brian Eno where he discusses composing it: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1996/06/02/PK70006.DTL
“Religion … should not attempt to dispute what science has actually proved; and science should not claim to know what it does not know, it should not confuse theory and knowledge, and it should not disavow any claim on what is empirically unknowable.” – Wendell Berry
I’m holding out a faint hope for Immortals. It’s directed by Tarsem Singh! You guys remember The Fall? Because, if you don’t, then you should see it. It’s so great! Probably the most visually fascinating, well-executed high-concept movie I have ever seen.
However, the reason why my hope is only faint is because the trailer did look pretty disappointing. I have a feeling that Tarsem was under a lot of pressure from the studio to make it marketable, and consequently they pushed it too far into ’300′ territory…
Armond White : Movie Critics : : WBC : Christianity
Hating on things, diatribes, and lambasting opponents (I’d rather not limit it to politics) are not necessarily bigoted in the same way that lighting your neighbor’s house on fire doesn’t necessarily make you an arsonist. I doubt whether any of us can ever judge another person with fairness: it is impossible to know every factor that deserves consideration. I will not say who is a good man. However, if someone frequently roams suburbia with an arsenal of molotov cocktails, it is fair to assume until proven otherwise that he is going to commit arson.
Why does Fox news need to be disagreed with? Because they are prejudiced against your ideals. The KKK? Because they are prejudiced against your ideals, and they act on this prejudice.
We ought to hate hate, not haters. Hateful words are rarely directed toward the problem but often toward the people who propagate the problem. The tragic irony is that people who fight intolerance often become hugely intolerant of intolerant people.
Angry, hateful words are not necessarily bigotry, but they are a common symptom of bigotry.
I have failed to communicate my thoughts clearly to you for a few posts now: if my Nietzche quote (of which I was so proud) and this post are still insufficient then I think I’m done. I tried my best.
That is not at all my point, and I was concerned that people might misunderstand me. It looks like that is the case, due to my unclarity. “Hating ON” something, or launching a diatribe, is intrinsically one-sided and aggressive.
To put it succinctly, The KKK is horrifying but I think it is worth noting that the reason views like theirs propagate is bigotry itself. Of course you’re prejudiced against them, and of course I am too. But as far as I know, it is impossible to solve a problem like this by fighting fire with fire—you’re only going to burn everything down.
“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster.” –Nietzche
Basically I am trying to say that we all ought to take prejudice and partisanship very seriously, because this is much closer to the root of the problem than a lot of people realize.
Bigoted: “obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one’s own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions.”
So yes, it is bigoted to hate on the KKK.
Imagine the situation. What outcomes could result from (verbally) attacking the KKK? If anything, I imagine you’d inflame their indignation and accomplish little else. Opposition would probably harden their prejudice against others and ignite self-righteous sentiments.
There is a right and effective way to voice your opinions against your opponents, and it is not with bigotry (which makes situations murkier and charges them with emotions culled from one’s own set of varyingly prejudiced beliefs.) I think if we were interested in finding truth in conflicts, instead of securing our own victory, then we could rise above a great many ills.
For what it’s worth, I find that it’s nearly always counterproductive to lambast ideological opponents: it’s often hard to notice, but accusing people of bigotry is one of the most bigoted things we are capable of.
Nice profile picture!
I don’t know if you were deliberately copying me or not (probably not, since I’ve only commented here like 5 times.)
I’d fight you for it, but I don’t think it’s worth it.
Full disclosure: I actually enjoyed this movie very much. I saw it twice (once in the theater) and even felt that I sympathized with Tom.
That said, I really think that the style of criticism used in this review (and a lot of others on this site) is absurd and misleading. It is not fair to any film to strip it of all but its most basic plot points and then recite those mockingly (which could very easily make any film sound awful): in good movies (as far as I know) the plot is secondary to the characters, and a result of their characterizations instead of the core of the story. Granted, not every movie is a good movie. Some are made with mainly the intent of profit, and these are the ones that often start with plot archetypes and work (often unsuccessfully) from that point. However, the fact that a movie’s plot is slightly ludicrous does not prove that it is a bad movie, and it is unfair to judge every movie as if it were a bad one.
The critique of the characters as being “unlovable” completely baffled me. If people fall in love with other people, it is not because they are lovable. It is because they see beauty in them, whether in their actions, their eyes, or that nearly indefinable presence that they carry. When you see beauty in someone and they see beauty in you, it causes something that doesn’t make sense to anyone but them, because logic is not made for matters such as these.
This movie had too many gimmicks, but I saw a thread of sincerity. The actors were good, the script and direction were solid, and it made me smile often as I watched. Thus I enjoyed it.
I just watched Punch-Drunk Love for the first time and Adam Sandler is actually a very good actor!
I feel sorry (only slightly, because it’s pretty much their own fault?) for talented actors who get typecast in awful roles.
ADORABLE
Nicolas Cage as the love interest!
Shown here: Keanu Reeves, after being mistaken for a hobo and forcefully removed from a french Mcdonald’s.
Sources say the infamous hamburger chain is already working to update their new slogan. Among the proposed ideas: “Come as you are, unless you look like a homeless person.”
Ok so I just read two lines and this was definitely sarcasm. I will leave now, head (and yogurt cup) hung low in shame.
Is that from 4chan? 4chan is a wretched hive of scum and villainy, so don’t be too sad. At least not until you’ve fact-checked somewhere else.
Or maybe you were being sarcastic, my sarcasmoscanner is not very good.
Upvote, because the National is the best ever. Though I think “Sorrow” might be more fitting:
“It’s in my sandwich, it’s in my drink… don’t leave my hyper heart alone on the park bench.”
So this site turns trolls into productive, appreciated members.
I can’t help but think this is far more significant than we realize. This is the only website I have ever seen that defies the laws of internet animosity. Somehow, the world ended up with an irregular lumping of kind and humorous people right here at videogum.
Ladies and dudes, this is the anti-internet. And since I hardly ever get opportunities to propose new portmanteaus, we’ll go ahead and call it the anternet.
(I would sit next to her at dinners and clench the sides of my chair, trying not to yell something like “GWYN STOP TRYING TO BE CUTE, IT IS THE WORST.”)
Ok, so as a latecomer I never understood all this Paltrow business.
Until I heard her say the word “donesville.”
And it makes me sad, because she seems like the type of person whose nonsense I would put up with. I would be friends with her, and I would be annoyed by her quirks, and I would never tell her how I felt, and I might pretend to lose invitations to her parties.
Does the last joke sound familiar to anyone else? Parks and Rec (I forget which episode), Ron Swanson: “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Don’t teach a man to fish, and you feed yourself. He’s a grown man. Fishing’s not that hard.”