Not Taking the Bait [Archive]

Spook

03-23-2006, 12:38 PM

As always Devin, excellent article on the intersection between cinema and society.

The tide, as they say, is turning, and these movies aren’t the white foamy part of that wave, they’re the bit where you see that your attempt to do a little body surfing is about to get disastrous, and you start holding your breath.

I wish I could be as optimistic as you are. I honestly don't think the tide is turning. This is just one of the many reprieves the right has had in the past 6 years. Come election time, I think that, sadly, Republicans will win. Democrats may make some gains, but they won't attain majority.

It may very well be that Bush has reached his nadir, but how is this any different than 2004? Yes, Iraq is worse and Katrina proved how incompetent the Federal government has become under GW, but didn't we know all of this in 2004? Has there really been a sufficient change in public perception that will make the mass who support the regular-joe-cum-President come-hell-or-high-water think differently? Say what you will about the man, but he always finds a way to get ordinary people (not just crazy fundies) to rally around him when it matters the most.

At this point I think you need to have Jesus taking it up the ass from an AIDS patient to get the Right riled up (studios, contact me for the full deetz on that particular idea.

Pretty much. As I was walking out from V for Vendetta, I noticed from the conversations nearby that the political allegory had totally passed over the heads of most of the audience. V for Vendetta was anything but subtle. I think these "political" films aren't making any impact because the hoi polloi has been lulled to intellectual death through FOX News journalism and yellow ribbons.

devincf

03-23-2006, 12:42 PM

devincf

03-23-2006, 12:44 PM

PS, I just got this email

Devin,

I've been visiting CHUD.com for some time now--and I always enjoy it as a
source for something I care more about than anything else--movies. But, I
believe it's time you took a step back. Your attacks on right-wing
conservatives have gone too far. You're entitled to your opinion--but using
lines like "having Jesus take it up the ass" is just arrogant, tasteless,
and downright wrong. Stick to what you're good at--providing useful movie
information--you're better than this.

BTW, I would call myself a middle of the road, SOMEWHAT conservative
Christian--and I was at the March 16 screening of "V FOR VENDETTA." I, for
one, happened to enjoy the film--so stop lumping people into a category.
Get over yourself.

My reply:

Why is Jesus taking it up the ass wrong? Do you believe he would be a top?

d

PsycheOut00

03-23-2006, 12:47 PM

Well, I loved American Dreamz. Problem is my company distributes it here, so consider me biased. I'm curious though as what would you americans will think of it as it makes (quite candid) fun of most of your so-called-totems.

Heavy-handed? Yeah, and broad. But to me, satire also works that way. Being considered the most pro-american guy here in the company (family ties, whaddya know), I got way more jokes than the rest of the screening room, but to be fair, it also got a mixed response here.

Greg Clark

03-23-2006, 12:48 PM

Why is Jesus taking it up the ass wrong? Do you believe he would be a top?

Well, yeah. What do you think being "Giver of Life" and all that means? He dispenses the juices, he doesn't take them.

Spook

03-23-2006, 12:51 PM

I don't paint it as Republican and Democrat anymore. I don't believe in those political institutions. I have accepted the Right's cry of culture war, and I believe that's what it comes down to now.

So for me it isn't about the elections, it's about the people who are waking up to the fact that this system is hopelessly, irredeemably broken, and are starting to realize that the Right in this country are truly awful.

I'll give you that. But how do you take the Jesus (politicians' preferred method of control) away from the Soccer Moms and NASCAR dads who inevitably decided elections? The system works within the confines of the electoral system. Change can't come unless the politicians that pander to the right-wing are ousted from office--short of donning Guy Fawkes masks and blowing up Congress, I don't see any other way.

Whatever message we (and by "we" I mean people who value individual thought, democracy, etc...) give them (NASCAR Dads, Soccer Moms) by way of political allegory is countered by politicians who appeal to their religious fervor through sideline issues like abortion, homosexual marriage, etc...

Krauthammer was going on and on today in the Post on how polymagy can't be far behind if America, as a society, legalizes gay marriage. It's hard to explain the subtle creep of fascism in America when the message is so easily scrambled by icky anal sex, which brings us back full-circle to Jesus ;-).

devincf

03-23-2006, 12:55 PM

fabfunk

03-23-2006, 12:56 PM

Couldn't you argue that a lot of the right wingers have given up on Hollywood and just accepted it as this bizarro, abortion-lovin', euthenasia-sponsoring hellhole? I mean, this is the worst sort of situation, because at least when blowhards slag on "liberal" Hollywood, they're at least talking about it, which is the key. Even if they, like Fox News, make mistakes like claiming Saddam Hussein is a character in "Syriana"?

Spook

03-23-2006, 01:06 PM

It seems like it, doesn't it? Hollywood is now the new way of saying liberal with the added bonus of implying sexual deviance, elitism, etc... Maybe they've gotten wise to the business aspects of it. Just talk about Narnia and The Passion and hopefully all of the other supposed "liberal" movies will go away.

Poprob

03-23-2006, 01:06 PM

I was just talking about this today with a friend of mine. I used something Dan Whitehead said and put the reasoning behind V for Vendetta not getting a big reaction from the Right is because it's a double-edged sword. For them to get pissed off by it, they first have to admit the similarities.

Milkyway

03-23-2006, 01:12 PM

Well said Devin, keep up the excellent editorials.

D. Richard

03-23-2006, 01:40 PM

I think one way to win the battle for the hearts and minds of easily lead Americans is to help the Christian Right see the errors of their ways. Because when it comes down to it, they've been pandered to since their merge with the GOP. GOP makes promises the Dems won't, the Right follows and fights. But what have they been given other than rhetoric? The GOP has never really delivered on their many promises to them. There are a lot of good Christians being led astray by their leadership. If it can be argued that their are bigger fish to fry than abortion doctors and gay men, you'd see a re-awakening for bible thumpers.

As for the conservative punditry not giving away free publicity for liberal-leaning films... I think they've smartened up in that dept. Now if we can get Keith Olbermann to give props to V, then maybe we can make some headway.

Slater

03-23-2006, 01:51 PM

I think one way to win the battle for the hearts and minds of easily lead Americans is to help the Christian Right see the errors of their ways.

If religious people could be swayed by logic and facts, they wouldn't be religious.

Chris Miller

03-23-2006, 01:51 PM

I made a comment on this in the V thread a while back, noting that the people that need to see movies like V won't, and thus potentially important movies like this will end up continuously preaching to the choir. At the time I compared it to F911, though Millette pointed out (correctly) that 911 wasn't a political film disguised as a cool matrix-like action movie to bring in all comers.
Maybe lefty film makers need to be even more subversive. Create a film that on all surfaces appears to appeal to the religious right, with a sucker punch at the end.

Spook

03-23-2006, 02:01 PM

I thought about that... something closer to The Last Temptation of Christ?

The problem is that once you give them the sucker punch, they will disregard it; another attack by Hollywood against Christianity. Why would this movie be any different than all the other ones that have derided their "Faith"?

GOP makes promises the Dems won't, the Right follows and fights. But what have they been given other than rhetoric? The GOP has never really delivered on their many promises to them. There are a lot of good Christians being led astray by their leadership. If it can be argued that their are bigger fish to fry than abortion doctors and gay men, you'd see a re-awakening for bible thumpers.

I agree with Devin. These people are lost. Abortion and gay-marriage ARE the end-all-and-be-all. This cartoon (http://cartoonbox.slate.com/hottopic/?topicid=11&image=0) sums it up quite well.

D. Richard

03-23-2006, 02:14 PM

Yeah I've seen that one too. My argument is that there is a flock out there that can be won over. Their shepards have aligned their morals with the immoral in order to win on a couple issues. Call me idealistic, but I think there are minds to convince. You can vote for campaign finance and still call yourself an Evangeilcal shit-throwing nutbag. That's all I'm saying.

Angelo Mike

03-23-2006, 02:20 PM

Ah, liberal myopia. Always good for a laugh. Thank God himself that he sent angels in the form of Democrats who somehow aren't just as big invaders of our rights as Republicans are.

D. Richard

03-23-2006, 02:39 PM

You think there's nothing hypocritical with the Christian Right's dependence on the richest and greediest and most corrupt of American politicians to do their bidding? While conservatives are laughing and handing Judas the money, liberals are pissed off and destroying the market.

Andrew Clarke

03-23-2006, 02:42 PM

Careful Devin, next thing you'll be calling it a crusade.

Chris Wood

03-23-2006, 02:48 PM

The power of movies to win the hearts and minds of fanatics is miniscule at best. I'm far more interested in whether V was an enjoyable movie than in what the red states (how did they let that moniker stick anyway? What happened to "better dead than red"?) may or may not have thought about it.

Hammerhead

03-23-2006, 02:55 PM

Re: Jesus + ass: The Feederz had your number 20 years ago (http://media-server.amazon.com/media/B000059YRF001008/Jesus.mp3). NSFW.

Matt Goldberg

03-23-2006, 03:29 PM

Those people are lost. We have to take their children. That's part of what a culture warrior should be doing - recruiting and corrupting the young. We don't need the 60s to come back in terms of protests and stuff, we need it to come back in terms of the counterculture.

I find this statement kind of chilling.

I have to say that I disagree with this editorial because it makes the left look just as bad as the right in that if they're not taking the bait, then it implies that we're actively baiting them instead of just trying to make art and get people thinking. If someone made a film about Jesus taking it up the ass from an AIDS patient in order to inflame the right, I would dislike the film not because of its content, but because it's inflammatory for the sake of being inflammatory. It may be good for a laugh, but it's just shock value and nothing more.

Rob Rocco

03-23-2006, 03:33 PM

If religious people could be swayed by logic and facts, they wouldn't be religious.
Slater takes the square. Good article, Devin.

devincf

03-23-2006, 03:33 PM

Why exactly is that "chilling?"

Chris Wood

03-23-2006, 03:35 PM

Matt Goldberg

03-23-2006, 03:38 PM

Why exactly is that "chilling?"

"We have to take their children"?

devincf

03-23-2006, 03:39 PM

I know you didn't read that literally.

The Rain Dog

03-23-2006, 03:45 PM

I know you didn't read that literally.

So we don't kidnap their children and lock them in the cellar?

So what the fuck am I supposed to do with all these freeze-dried astronaut bars???

Another top-notch editorial Dev.

Kudos.

Brad Millette

03-23-2006, 03:47 PM

Why exactly is that "chilling?"
It does sort of paint you as creeping from house to house at night, stealing wee babes from their crib, and forcing them to listen to Anti-Flag for hours without end.

Hot Black

03-23-2006, 03:51 PM

Heh, that Slate cartoon has the same problems as the movies Devin's talking about. Which is to say that most people just aren't paying any attention to them. Think about the state of mind of this nation. A nation that's what, like 90% Christians who act/think like a persecuted minority? People have begun to insulate and cocoon themselves with their faith, and beliefs, and nothing is going to get in. Likewise, the leftists have developed their own siege mentality. And you're never going to get to their kids, man. You're never going to top the conditioning they'll get at home and at church.

Especially as the Christians and the liberal PC police remove all semblance of rational thought and critical thinking from the school curriculum. The facts ain't good. Just as this country enters the most mentally challenging period of its history, the populace has become drooling, navel gazing, credulous doops. The USA isn't likely to last the century, if it even really exists now, IMO. That's OK though. A nice nation-fracturing shake up may be just what we need (better learn how to "rough it" city folk).

The Rain Dog

03-23-2006, 03:54 PM

It does sort of paint you as creeping from house to house at night, stealing wee babes from their crib, and forcing them to listen to Anti-Flag for hours without end.

Like some leftist Grinch ruining Soccer-Mom Christmas. :D

Dalyn

03-23-2006, 03:57 PM

I remember most of the early reviews for V coming out of ButtNumbAThon on AICN kept saying this movie would be a political firestorm, for the most part. I'm actually not surprised that there is little to no shitfest about this movie.

Andrew Clarke

03-23-2006, 04:03 PM

devincf

03-23-2006, 04:05 PM

Surely the problem is Devin taking up the rhetoric of those he disagrees with - battles, enemies, wars. Haven't they won if you are seeing the world in the 'for us or against us' light that they are pushing?

Why? Do the invaders win when the defenders take up arms? You're talking the defeatist talk of the Lame Left. This isn't a personality contest. We don't have to be "better than them." They really, honestly want to destroy the freedoms that we love. They want to return to a mindset that includes racial segregation, homosexual repression, female inequality, etc etc etc. This isn't a game. It's not an argument. It's a struggle for whose vision is going to guide the free world through the most difficult challenge it's had in the last two decades.

Johnny Daywalker

03-23-2006, 04:07 PM

I find this statement kind of chilling.

I have to say that I disagree with this editorial because it makes the left look just as bad as the right in that if they're not taking the bait, then it implies that we're actively baiting them instead of just trying to make art and get people thinking. If someone made a film about Jesus taking it up the ass from an AIDS patient in order to inflame the right, I would dislike the film not because of its content, but because it's inflammatory for the sake of being inflammatory. It may be good for a laugh, but it's just shock value and nothing more.

Perfectly said. The Right has wised up they don't take the bait? Why does that really matter either way? If anything i'd say the left doesn't either (thats one of the reasons the Passion blew up the lefts outrage and Farenheit on the right side). People are tired of the fanatics on all sides.

Try the Jesus bit only replace it with Mohammed and see how quickly the firestorm starts in the muslim world. Thats part of the problem not freedom of speech but the baiting of people who are easily offended (can you blame them when they love, respect and follow the teachings of these figures?). We need less antagonism and more dialogue. Its all a war of ideas and values. In an age of MoveOn.org, Fox News and billions of McDonalds serving their shit to people continually its gonna take more than a few pieces or art (movies, music or whatnot) to move the masses.

Besides its all manipulation and I think people are exhausted by it. Whether its the TV and the news, the commercials or informertials or the protester on the streets they are tired of being sold a bill of goods. Apathetic which of course is a problem.

Chris Wood

03-23-2006, 04:07 PM

Like some leftist Grinch ruining Soccer-Mom Christmas. :D

Wow, get Hollywood on the line. That would be a riot. Who could we get to play the Grinch though? Bill Maher?

Andrew Clarke

03-23-2006, 04:23 PM

Why? Do the invaders win when the defenders take up arms? You're talking the defeatist talk of the Lame Left. This isn't a personality contest. We don't have to be "better than them." They really, honestly want to destroy the freedoms that we love. They want to return to a mindset that includes racial segregation, homosexual repression, female inequality, etc etc etc. This isn't a game. It's not an argument. It's a struggle for whose vision is going to guide the free world through the most difficult challenge it's had in the last two decades.

Sure. Saying 'hey! that's not fair!' isn't going to do anything. I'm trying to get at the underlying problems with the Right's strategies. All the racism and homophobia seems only a symptom of creating the 'other' to hate and fear so as to keep your constituency on your side. Is there a problem with taking on that 'us vs them' approach while fighting for an 'everyone is in this together' approach? You are fighting on thier terms. Haven't they already won by you agreeing to their rules of battle?

Matt Goldberg

03-23-2006, 04:25 PM

I know you didn't read that literally.

I know you didn't mean that literally. But it seemed implied that you want to indoctrinate children with a particular ideology and I find that creepy.

devincf

03-23-2006, 04:27 PM

Sure. Saying 'hey! that's not fair!' isn't going to do anything. I'm trying to get at the underlying problems with the Right's strategies. All the racism and homophobia seems only a symptom of creating the 'other' to hate and fear so as to keep your constituency on your side. Is there a problem with taking on that 'us vs them' approach while fighting for an 'everyone is in this together' approach? You are fighting on thier terms. Haven't they already won by you agreeing to their rules of battle?

Not if we beat them at it. Again, that's defeatist thinking. It's the thinking that the authorities want people to believe, an extension of the "non-violent at all costs" thinking that neuters serious movements.

And I'm not interested in an 'everyone is in this together' approach. No one should be. What this world needs is a serious counterculture that will attempt to replace the awful one that exists now. A counterculture, by definition, can't include everybody.

devincf

03-23-2006, 04:28 PM

I know you didn't mean that literally. But it seemed implied that you want to indoctrinate children with a particular ideology and I find that creepy.

Why? You don't think children should be indoctrinate with ideologies of freedom, equality, fairness, sharing, etc? You're saying stuff that makes no sense.

Matt Goldberg

03-23-2006, 04:29 PM

devincf

03-23-2006, 04:32 PM

This is like fascist rhetoric without the fascism.

So it's not fascist rhetoric. Why not say it's like Nazi rhetoric without the Nazism, or hate speech without the hate or an opera without the opera?

Dr. Necessiter

03-23-2006, 04:37 PM

Maybe most folks (right or left) don't dig certain types of films for the same reason they don't dig certain types of film commentary websites. That is, they just want to go see/read about a movie and not be proselytized or insulted by people who get paid (or not) to wear fun clothes and make believe that they are other people or guys whose greatest intellectual achievement to date is rating the hot pick blurb on Rotten Tomatoes.

I'm just saying, I don't see many people on the right taking your bait just now either, king troll.

Matt Goldberg

03-23-2006, 04:38 PM

Why? You don't think children should be indoctrinate with ideologies of freedom, equality, fairness, sharing, etc? You're saying stuff that makes no sense.

The fact that you think "freedom" and "equality" are equal values shows that you have no idea how to pursue such indoctrination.

What is freedom? What is equality? In this political climate, freedom is the watchword of conservatives. "Freedom" is small government allows people to live their lives without government interference. I think such a concept is utterly ridiculous in a country of 300 million people, but some people think that more government limits what people are allowed to do and how they're allowed to do it. If you advocate this kind of freedom, then you're probably against gun control, campaign finance reform, and other such restrictions.

What is equality? For liberals, it requires a large government which can put laws into place so that everyone has equal opportunity. I think this is the right way to go but at the same time, we're not all equal, we weren't born equal, and we won't die equal. But we can have equal rights for everyone and I do strongly advocate that.

But you can see how these two vague concepts can sit in opposition to one another. So how do you take children and give them these incredibly vague terms and therefore suddenly save America? I don't think I'm being the illogical one in this debate.

Matt Goldberg

03-23-2006, 04:40 PM

So it's not fascist rhetoric. Why not say it's like Nazi rhetoric without the Nazism, or hate speech without the hate or an opera without the opera?

I would not be surprised to find the phrase "It's a struggle for whose vision is going to guide the free world," in a speech by Mussolini. You're not advocating facist ideals, but you're using similar rhetoric of depicting an ultimate battle between good and evil.

devincf

03-23-2006, 04:42 PM

Matt Goldberg

03-23-2006, 04:42 PM

Not if we beat them at it. Again, that's defeatist thinking. It's the thinking that the authorities want people to believe, an extension of the "non-violent at all costs" thinking that neuters serious movements.

And I'm not interested in an 'everyone is in this together' approach. No one should be. What this world needs is a serious counterculture that will attempt to replace the awful one that exists now. A counterculture, by definition, can't include everybody.

Viva la revolucion!

Van Jones

03-23-2006, 04:42 PM

I think the danger is that if the Right think some movies are just bait to get them angry (or if some movies *are* just bait to get them angry), they'll stop thinking about movies in general, and so the really good ones that should get through instead just bounce off their armour. At that point, nothing will make any difference because they simply won't be listening anymore. It's the 'once bitten twice shy' rule.

devincf

03-23-2006, 04:43 PM

I would not be surprised to find the phrase "It's a struggle for whose vision is going to guide the free world," in a speech by Mussolini. You're not advocating facist ideals, but you're using similar rhetoric of depicting an ultimate battle between good and evil.

Yeah but if that's what it is, who cares? There really IS an evil military-industrial complex that runs this country, that uses child labor, that wages unfair wars, that is working to limit our personal freedoms daily. That's not just rhetoric.

devincf

03-23-2006, 04:44 PM

Viva la revolucion!

Honestly, the overwhelming number of hours you spend sitting in front of a TV render all of your responses in this thread obvious.

Matt Goldberg

03-23-2006, 04:46 PM

You're talking about the same old same old. I'm talking about alternative concepts of living, new versions of communities. A lot of dumb shit came out of the 60s counterculture, but there was a lot of good stuff, too, and we should be learning from that stuff instead of just using it as soundtracks for commercials.

You're talking within the basic assumptions of the society as it exists now, and I am saying that maybe it's time to reject those basic assumptions. For instance there's an interesting article in the new Village Voice about mutant bike gangs, who practice very non-consumerist lifestyles, to a radical degree. Maybe they're extreme in what they do, but it's when people push the edge that we redefine what is the center.

And I believe that's what progress should be. Someone has to put forward the big idea and right now conservatives are offering up big ideas but in the opposite direction of history. They want us to go back instead of forward.

However, you can't advocate rejecting the basic assumptions of society and still want to use that model as a basis for shifting the cultural paradigm. You can't push the edge of something that isn't there.

Matt Goldberg

03-23-2006, 04:48 PM

Honestly, the overwhelming number of hours you spend sitting in front of a TV render all of your responses in this thread obvious.

Honestly, the overwhelming assumptions you make about people you know based solely on their message board postings make your insults empty and tiresome.

devincf

03-23-2006, 04:51 PM

Matt Goldberg

03-23-2006, 04:56 PM

Yeah but if that's what it is, who cares? There really IS an evil military-industrial complex that runs this country, that uses child labor, that wages unfair wars, that is working to limit our personal freedoms daily. That's not just rhetoric.

Of course not. But where does it begin and end? Yes, there is an evil military-industrial complex that runs this country but their are lots of evil corporations in the world. Will you abandon every product that comes from a questionable moral background? If you discover that Coca-Cola supposedely crushes unions in their Columbian bottling plant, will you stop drinking all Coke products?

How uncomfortable are you willing to be for what you believe in? If you're willing to put yourself into a black and white world, then honestly, you're just as frightening as those you rail against. Yes, you may be force of good and they the force of evil but you'll both be painted with an extremist brush and then who will take you seriously?

devincf

03-23-2006, 05:01 PM

Of course not. But where does it begin and end? Yes, there is an evil military-industrial complex that runs this country but their are lots of evil corporations in the world. Will you abandon every product that comes from a questionable moral background? If you discover that Coca-Cola supposedely crushes unions in their Columbian bottling plant, will you stop drinking all Coke products?

How uncomfortable are you willing to be for what you believe in? If you're willing to put yourself into a black and white world, then honestly, you're just as frightening as those you rail against. Yes, you may be force of good and they the force of evil but you'll both be painted with an extremist brush and then who will take you seriously?

Again, you're thinking in old ways. By creating a new society, a new culture, you create people who will market to that society and culture. These things aren't inherently bad, and the problem with every counterculture has been that they get co-opted instead of the other way around. But look at the juice market today - it didn't exist twenty years ago. Corporations will bend over backwards to get you. If people really rose up and demanded an end to cruel products, they would be over.

You're thinking like a slave, someone who just takes what's given. That's the illusion we suffer under. The reality is that we're the powerful ones. We've just allowed ourselves to be shackled.

Pop Zeus

03-23-2006, 05:01 PM

Not that he needs my support, but I'm with Devin on this one. Things are fundamentally broken and need to be fixed. If a different (some would say radical but I prefer innovative) approach isn't used, does anyone honestly think things will get better by themselves?

The hippy, or 60s counterculture generation got co-opted, consumed, whatever, by the mainstream. That's not so bad. What is bad is that they forgot what they fought for in the first place.

Things are slowly changing, but I firmly believe that things will have to get worse before they get better. Its the nature of things. The question remains: How low is the bottom?

Matt Goldberg

03-23-2006, 05:02 PM

You're the Good Liberal. You're happy to sit in front of the TV for what must be at least 20 hours a week and address the symptoms of what's wrong, not the real problems. It's a very, very sick society, and the problems are very, very deep.

Again, you're talking about things you know nothing about in an attempt to paint me as someone I'm not. Yes, I probably spend more than 20 hours a week in front of the TV. I also spend more than 20 hours reading books and I spend 16 hours a week in classes and then I spend more time writing papers, writing articles, and talking with fine gents like yourself.

It's absolutely a very sick society and the problems are very deep. They only get deeper when you advocate vague radicalist ideals instead of trying to come up with solutions to these "very real problems".

Also, what's wrong with addressing the symptoms? I advocate Affirmative Action even though it's a response to the real problem of economic racism in our country. So do I stop supporting AA, join the socialist party, and try to tear down the country so that there will be no more rich people and poor people?

And if this previous paragraph confuses or irritates you, it's only because you speak of "sickness" and "problems" and you just assume everyone should know what you're talking about and if they don't, fuck 'em. How do you plan to educate children when you apparently have no desire to educate the people who are willing to engage you?

Kevin Matchstick

03-23-2006, 05:05 PM

Don't take the bait, Goldberg.

Matt Goldberg

03-23-2006, 05:10 PM

Again, you're thinking in old ways. By creating a new society, a new culture, you create people who will market to that society and culture. These things aren't inherently bad, and the problem with every counterculture has been that they get co-opted instead of the other way around. But look at the juice market today - it didn't exist twenty years ago. Corporations will bend over backwards to get you. If people really rose up and demanded an end to cruel products, they would be over.

You're thinking like a slave, someone who just takes what's given. That's the illusion we suffer under. The reality is that we're the powerful ones. We've just allowed ourselves to be shackled.

Thanks, Morpheus.

So how do we create this new society, this new culture, and get rid of the evil corporations? You're assuming that people want corporations to act morally when in truth, people will settle for the appearance of morality.

devincf

03-23-2006, 05:10 PM

We create it by living it.

Matt Goldberg

03-23-2006, 05:13 PM

We create it by living it.

So how do we break the cycle? How do you plan on convincing people that World A is better than World B?

AMH

03-23-2006, 05:15 PM

So how do we break the cycle? How do you plan on convincing people that World A is better than World B?

Retcon it?

devincf

03-23-2006, 05:17 PM

By living it and showing them.

Do some serious reading on the counterculture of the 60s. The Yippies and the Diggers, especially. They were fucked up in a lot of ways, but they had great ideas and were doing great things - such great things that they were crushed by the government.

Matt Goldberg

03-23-2006, 05:18 PM

Any recommendations on particular books?

devincf

03-23-2006, 05:25 PM

www.google.com

Overlord

03-23-2006, 05:26 PM

So for me it isn't about the elections, it's about the people who are waking up to the fact that this system is hopelessly, irredeemably broken, and are starting to realize that the Right in this country are truly awful.

Those people are lost. We have to take their children. That's part of what a culture warrior should be doing - recruiting and corrupting the young. We don't need the 60s to come back in terms of protests and stuff, we need it to come back in terms of the counterculture.

You're talking about the same old same old. I'm talking about alternative concepts of living, new versions of communities. A lot of dumb shit came out of the 60s counterculture, but there was a lot of good stuff, too, and we should be learning from that stuff instead of just using it as soundtracks for commercials.

You're talking within the basic assumptions of the society as it exists now, and I am saying that maybe it's time to reject those basic assumptions. For instance there's an interesting article in the new Village Voice about mutant bike gangs, who practice very non-consumerist lifestyles, to a radical degree. Maybe they're extreme in what they do, but it's when people push the edge that we redefine what is the center.

......provocative.....it's amusing that you're calling for a return to the mind-set of the 60's, when the leftist concepts from that decade have largely failed or been rejected en masse.

devincf

03-23-2006, 05:30 PM

......provocative.....it's amusing that you're calling for a return to the mind-set of the 60's, when the leftist concepts from that decade have largely failed or rejected en masse.

No, they didn't fail. They were gutted by the Reagan Revolution. That's what failed. It's like pointing at the fact that we have poverty today and claiming the New Deal failed. It's a serious lie that is repeated so often people take it for truth.

Progressive programs didn't fail, they were underfunded and abandoned in favor of the military and the rich.

Kevin Matchstick

03-23-2006, 05:33 PM

I have no idea why Goldberg set himself up for that last one.

devincf

03-23-2006, 05:33 PM

You know what DIDN'T work in the 60s? Wars of aggression. Government crackdowns on civil liberties. Tyrannical presidents. Massive government corruption. Yet your side is all about those things today.

AMH

03-23-2006, 05:33 PM

...I'm just saying, I don't see many people on the right taking your bait just now either, king troll.
Devin is King Troll, now? I miss John Shade already.

Alex B

03-23-2006, 05:38 PM

So is Devin gonna put on the Guy Fawkes mask and get the ball rolling?

Arguably, those things did succeed in the 60s, how else did people get to this state of apathy and allow wars of aggression, erosion of civil liberties and government corruption to recur?

Pop Zeus

03-23-2006, 05:40 PM

I have no idea why Goldberg set himself up for that last one.

He took the red pill.

Hot Black

03-23-2006, 05:40 PM

Ewige Blumenkraft!

Keith F

03-23-2006, 05:47 PM

So what exactly do you advocate, Devin? I'm being serious. What is the answer? Should we all take to the streets? What I find interesting is that you seem to be advocating some vague notion of power to the people, the majority of which you seem to clearly despise.

Before the feeding frenzy starts, let me say again that I harbor no hate or resentment of Devin, his writing, or his political beliefs.

devincf

03-23-2006, 05:49 PM

Keith F

03-23-2006, 05:57 PM

I feel like you didn't read all of my posts in this thread.

Yes, I did. The problem is that for the most part I agree with what you're saying, there is a culture war waging in America, what I'm asking is how do we go about winning it? I'm just not convinced that scrapping society as we know it is the answer.

EDIT: What I should say, is how do we go about practically winning it, how do we put the lofty ideas in motion?

D. Richard

03-23-2006, 05:58 PM

Devin, how much do you think complete and enforced Campaign Finance Reform & Restriction would help in renewing a truer and more honest representation of morals and goals of the American citizenry? It occurs to me that the biggest problems in this country stem from what its politicans are willing to do to get elected and re-elected. Either elongating terms and limiting the opportunities for re-election or choking the flow of cash to smear campaigns, I believe both are solutions that scare the rich and powerful.

Pop Zeus

03-23-2006, 06:01 PM

Devin isn't talking about elections per se, but more of a culture thing that effects everything. But to answer your question, I think public financing of elections is a good place to start.

Patrick Ripoll

03-23-2006, 06:04 PM

If only it was as exciting as you make it sound.

Werbal_Kint

03-23-2006, 06:10 PM

VENDETTA had two things about it that allowed it to fly under the Right-wing psycho-blogs' radar.

1. It's sci-fi, which the old folk opiners like O'reilly don't pay attention to. Also, the "facist future" is such an ingrained archetype no one pays attention to it anymore.

2. The country in question isn't America. If this film had had a Bush look-alike spouting all the stuff next to America flags instead of Neo-Naziesque crosses, you can be certain it would have pissed people off.

Sure, there's a lot of overt references to America's current situation, but the Right is anything but subtle. Small touches or ideas not enough - FARENHEIT was anything but subtle in its content and intent, so they couldn't ignore it. It's the nature of group outrage.

Overlord

03-23-2006, 07:11 PM

No, they didn't fail. They were gutted by the Reagan Revolution. That's what failed. It's like pointing at the fact that we have poverty today and claiming the New Deal failed. It's a serious lie that is repeated so often people take it for truth.

Progressive programs didn't fail, they were underfunded and abandoned in favor of the military and the rich.

The New Deal spawned massive entitlement programs, the worst of which is Social Security. The entitlement era ushered in by the New Deal is a catastrophe of such gigantic proportions it boggles the mind. The concepts of duplicative taxation that took hold during the New Deal also continues to plague us.

WWII and the massive expenditures and jobs created by it were much more significant in ending the Depression than the New Deal.

You know what DIDN'T work in the 60s? Wars of aggression. Government crackdowns on civil liberties. Tyrannical presidents. Massive government corruption. Yet your side is all about those things today.

I don't know, the Viet Cong's war of aggression was pretty darned successful. Probably because they fought to win.

The "big government" 60's mentality has failed because it is based on invalid and fantasy based, rather than empirically based, beliefs about the nature of how society and individuals organize themselves; by their very nature, the type of programs leftists favor can NEVER have enough funding, because the behavior and attitudes these programs foster among the recipients of the largess (which includes government workers) actually worsen rather than improve the underlying problem. Government bureaucracies are inefficient, unmanagabeable nightmares that themselves turn into entitlement programs because it is nearly impossible to eliminate large departments.

Given your extraordinary close-mindedness, radical positions, and constant name-calling you've basically doomed yourself to howl into the Internet void.

Chris Wood

03-23-2006, 07:25 PM

I don't know, the Viet Cong's war of aggression was pretty darned successful. Probably because they fought to win.

Does a civil war count as a war of aggression? Either way, it's much easier to win support for a fight for independence than for a hunt for the Communist boogeyman.

Werbal_Kint

03-23-2006, 07:55 PM

Rightist revisionism is so fucked up. FDR is a bad guy, and Joe McCarthy is underrated/overhated.

Pop Zeus

03-23-2006, 08:16 PM

Rightist revisionism is so fucked up. FDR is a bad guy, and Joe McCarthy is underrated/overhated.

But they unequivocably love the part where FDR inadvertantly spawns the military-industrial complex.

Keith F

03-23-2006, 08:17 PM

I loved Joe McCarthy in Mannequin. He is underrated. And Dreamy.

The Rain Dog

03-23-2006, 08:43 PM

The New Deal spawned massive entitlement programs, the worst of which is Social Security. The entitlement era ushered in by the New Deal is a catastrophe of such gigantic proportions it boggles the mind. The concepts of duplicative taxation that took hold during the New Deal also continues to plague us.

WWII and the massive expenditures and jobs created by it were much more significant in ending the Depression than the New Deal.

I don't know, the Viet Cong's war of aggression was pretty darned successful. Probably because they fought to win.

The "big government" 60's mentality has failed because it is based on invalid and fantasy based, rather than empirically based, beliefs about the nature of how society and individuals organize themselves; by their very nature, the type of programs leftists favor can NEVER have enough funding, because the behavior and attitudes these programs foster among the recipients of the largess (which includes government workers) actually worsen rather than improve the underlying problem. Government bureaucracies are inefficient, unmanagabeable nightmares that themselves turn into entitlement programs because it is nearly impossible to eliminate large departments.

Given your extraordinary close-mindedness, radical positions, and constant name-calling you've basically doomed yourself to howl into the Internet void.

Jesus wept.

Remember whn Bob Roberts used to be a mockumentary?!?!

Nighttrap38

03-23-2006, 08:49 PM

I think the Right has not taken the "bait" because the Left has failed time and again to present a consistent idea of how things should be. This has been the strength of the American Right and weakness of the American Left for decade. Republicans can enjoy "V" just as well as Democrats because the films portrays a tolitarian regime, examples of which exist on both the Left and Right side of the political spectrum. What's Orwell's "1984" if not modern-day North Korea? When it comes to problems, we always go with the guy who says he has an idea how to fix them versus the one who just complains and has no solutions. The Democrats won't win the next election because they have some much hate and vitriol (deserved and undeserved) invested Bush that they'll probably be mystified as how to campaign when he's gone. He's their Straw Man, their Iblis and without him they're in dissarray.

Matt Goldberg

03-23-2006, 09:49 PM

www.google.com

I asked for YOUR recommendations, idiot.

And this is why you're full of shit. Someone tries to actually engage you, learn from you, and you tell them to piss off. Honestly, how hard would it have been to just say "check out these couple of titles". I'm sure there are tons of books out there on 60s counterculture so I'm asking for a RECOMMENDATION. But no, you obviously prefer to be snide which defeats your entire argument. You want people to change and yet you're either too lazy or too much of a prick to recommend a couple books that would help your argument.

I think it's pretty clear that as far as politics and social reform are concerned, you're worthless.

Matt Goldberg

03-23-2006, 09:51 PM

I have no idea why Goldberg set himself up for that last one.

I made the mistake that Devin actually believed in what he was saying.

Werbal_Kint

03-23-2006, 10:06 PM

I just miss the "Can't Pray the Gay Away" user text.

devincf

03-23-2006, 10:11 PM

Poprob

03-23-2006, 10:13 PM

How was American Dreamz?

devincf

03-23-2006, 10:14 PM

Sort of pointless.

Werbal_Kint

03-23-2006, 10:22 PM

What you want is for someone else to do the legwork on the information.

To be fair, he just wanted a few title names, not a Cliffs Notes on something.

devincf

03-23-2006, 10:25 PM

To be fair, he just wanted a few title names, not a Cliffs Notes on something.

Maybe, but I am sick of the way I see people NOT using the internet. I must use Google a hundred times a day, for spelling, for word choice, for fact checks or just because I see a concept or an event or whatever that I never heard of before and want to know more. Hell, at least use Wikipedia. All I'm going to do is give sources that back up my point of view, which is sort of useless.

Matt Goldberg

03-23-2006, 10:52 PM

I do believe in what I'm saying. And part of what I believe is that you shouldn't have your hand held. I don't believe that a person who truly wants to learn about something would be pissed off when they're told to go learn about it. What you want is for someone else to do the legwork on the information.

I asked for the titles of books. I didn't ask what they were about, for an indepth review, or for anything other than recommendations for particular books.

And apparently, this qualifies as "legwork"? Are you serious?

Matt Goldberg

03-23-2006, 10:57 PM

I poke badgers with spoons

03-23-2006, 11:42 PM

It's unbelievable that you would be such a prick about someone valuing your opinion enough to ask for book recommendations that would help people better engage your ideas.

Based solely on this thread, I find it hard to believe that Devin thinks you value his opinion and were asking for sources in earnest.

*edited to add that I only have 99 posts, so what do I know?

lifelikebrian

03-24-2006, 01:21 AM

Maybe, but I am sick of the way I see people NOT using the internet. I must use Google a hundred times a day, for spelling, for word choice, for fact checks or just because I see a concept or an event or whatever that I never heard of before and want to know more. Hell, at least use Wikipedia. All I'm going to do is give sources that back up my point of view, which is sort of useless.

I think Bill Clinton and every other liberal you support rapes goats. I'd offer proof but all I would be doing is give sources that back up my point of view, which is sort of useless. You are truly priceless Devin. You are berating anyone and everyone who disagrees with you, screaming from the rooftops that you are right about everything relating to how society functions. Yet, when someone asks for something as simple as a book title, you throw a hissy fit rather than provide a simple book title to back up your absolute statements.

My problem is that you advocate doing exactly what you condemn the "right" for doing. Putting out crap like 'The indoctrinated religous masses in this country need to be stopped, we have to take their children, there is no arguing or reasoning with them because they are lost.' You are as bad as the people you piss and moan about. So I have one question. You apparently feel very strongly about the subject. Those that disagree with you feel strongly as well. Isn't it within the realm of possibilty that it is you who are wrong? From what I can tell, you and the fundamentalists you condemn are two sides of the same coin.

Hammerhead

03-24-2006, 01:56 AM

I think Bill Clinton and every other liberal you support rapes goats.

If everyone would preface such statements with "I think", a civilized discourse would still be possible. It's never too late to dig up the old quote: "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Chris Wood

03-24-2006, 02:22 AM

Yes, but why goats? They're noisy and might kick you in the nuts. Too much like Hillary. I'm thinking Bill would go for a more discreet mammal. A sloth perhaps?

Death Surge

03-24-2006, 07:44 AM

I do believe in what I'm saying. And part of what I believe is that you shouldn't have your hand held. I don't believe that a person who truly wants to learn about something would be pissed off when they're told to go learn about it. What you want is for someone else to do the legwork on the information.

You've continously espoused social programs, affirmative action, and all sorts of liberal "hand-holding" agendas, but find that someone should "work for it" when asked what possible book titles you feel are indicitive of your thoughts and educational to your purpose.

Fascinating dichotomy...

Dr. Necessiter

03-24-2006, 11:34 AM

If I had to guess, I'd say Devin has something of a Howard Stern thing going. You know, he says things that even he knows are jarring, reactionary and retarded because it appeals to an extremely disturbed fanbase. It's the sort of calculated pandering ya get from a certain type of desperately insecure "celebrity". I've considered the possibility that he actually believes the things he's saying, but I don't think he's that dumb.

The people who agree with him, on the other hand...yikes.

Doug

03-24-2006, 11:49 AM

How was American Dreamz?
Google it, you lazy fuck. Don't make devin do your legwork.

birdie

03-24-2006, 03:02 PM

Devin, in what ways, exactly, are you living this counterculture that you advocate?

jerrystr113

03-24-2006, 04:22 PM

I have been visiting CHUD for quite a while, although I have never before posted to the boards, or even read any of them. So, I guess you could say that I was a dedicated casual visitor to your site. I enjoyed learning about the rumors of upcoming films, the notifications of new trailers, the interviews, and I appreciated the joy which the writers obviously have for film. This is something I share, although not to degree of you guys. I see movies as a fun escape, a relaxing (if increasingly expensive) method to spend a couple hours. (I was even inspired to post, on my office door, my own short reviews of movies I see, which evokes some fun discussion with my coworkers. ;) )

Unfortunately, CHUD has decided to add political discourse to a film web site, and it is of a decidedly leftist and spiteful bent. I have no problem with people discussing politics, left or right, on political web sites, or even on the message boards here at CHUD. I can avoid them and just enjoy the film information on the site.

And that's the reason I visited CHUD - to learn about imminent and new movies, most of which all Americans can enjoy. And even for those movies that aren't for everyone (I find slasher/horror movies, such as Hills Have Eyes, to be far too sick and gruesome for my tastes, for example), CHUD is good place to learn whether or not I want to see them. It informs visitors, and helps us make good viewing choices, whatever genre preferences we might have.

I do not come to CHUD to read articles that insult my political viewpoint or bait me with outrageously prurient and immature suggestions designed solely to offend me. Unlike some, I do not find controversy and offensiveness for the sake of controversy and offensiveness to be artistic, clever, or even useful.

I realize that some people might enjoy steeping every aspect of their lives in political angst and have a deep-seated need to rail and lament. I hope you realize that some of us do not feel the same, nor do we enjoy reading it on a movie information site.

Some of the more extreme posters might suggest that I need to be kept aware of this or that political viewpoint or event. You may be correct, but I doubt that the best place for it is an internet movie site. And what if I don't want to be aware? What if all I want is movie information from my movie information site? Is that such a stretch?

Perhaps some of you might suggest that I have thin skin. Do I? Or would I like one little bit of my day - when I want to learn more about the movies I love, when I want to escape from the humdrums of reality and normal life, when I want to fantasize about exciting locales and heroes and peril and galactic bounty hunters and space lizards and dragons and ninjas and zombie pirates and talking action figures and giant robots, when I just want to have fun - to be free from spiteful political acrimony that drags me back from my imagination?

I know this won't matter to someone like Devin, who obviously rejoices in offending and insulting those who do not share his views, but I hope someone at your site will stop and think a moment. Do you want to alienate 50% of your potential visitors? Is venting political angst to such an excessive degree really worth it? You are a movie review and rumor site, not a left-wing blog. Or are you? Perhaps Devin should start up his own blog and express his political discontent there. It would certainly be a more appropriate venue.

I assume that some will think that last statement of mine is an attempt at censorship. It's not. All I'm suggesting is that you concentrate on what you're good at: movies. Leave the political ranting for another site or the message boards. Or do you really hate all conservatives so much that you don't want to let them share in the joy of cinema?

devincf

03-24-2006, 04:34 PM

You can't go to the movies anymore?

This is an op ed piece. Obviously. There's no news in this piece. At all. It doesn't claim to be a news piece. I run op ed pieces every couple of weeks or so, pieces that are just my opinion or my thoughts on a subject. This is no different. Sadly for you, my opinion is what it is, and I like to give it.

Further, CHUD is an opinion-oriented site. We have this argument every few months, when people suddenly get up in arms that we took a shot at a director they like or a movie they like or whatever. Other sites can give you the news that we do - Coming Soon will give it to you faster and without the opinion or humor, in fact. What we try to do is make our stuff worth reading because it has something more than a cut and paste from Variety.

But here's the thing about opinion - it doesn't always have to be the same as yours. I like plenty of writers whose opinions I think suck. Thomas Friedman's a dipshit and I read him in the Times all the time. I have gotten emails about this op ed piece that complain there's no competing conservative voice about cinema - so go be that voice! That's the beauty of the web. You too can be a movie website and write what you want.

Finally, these are politically momentous times in which we live. I'm not just injecting politics where it doesn't exist - American Dreamz IS a political movie. So was Good Night, And Good Luck. So was Brokeback, in many ways. Art is and should be political. It should be reflecting the world we live in, commenting on it. I believe in film as art, and that means I believe it should have something to say. Whether that's something personal or social or political, I don't care - I want it to mean something. And I want to write about that meaning.

Do yourself a favor - don't read my Henry Rollins interview next week. It's a three parter where we discuss the war in Iraq. Don't read my Beastie Boys interview next week - we talk about pop culture speaking out against the war. Don't read my upcoming interview with Ellen Page, the new Shadowcat in X3 and star of Hard Candy - we talk about feminism.

If you want movie news that has nothing to it, check out Coming Soon. If you want movie news that I HOPE will be provocative and thought provoking and infuriating and if I'm lucky occasionally funny, this is your site. If you're the kind of person who thinks that movies should only have titties and explosions so you can forget about your 40 hours at the job, maybe we're not ideally suited for you, because we like movies that have something a little more.

Dr. Necessiter

03-24-2006, 04:34 PM

well said, jerry.

caineabel2

03-24-2006, 04:34 PM

I feel your pain. I do not agree with your exact characterizations but I would offer you this website as a place to start to gather information that would probably support much of what you feel.

www.theimmoralminority.blogspot.com

The guy is a northerner with a huge chip on his shoulder and the intellect to back up his opinions.

birdie

03-24-2006, 04:35 PM

Or do you really hate all conservatives so much that you don't want to let them share in the joy of cinema?

Damn straight!

Jacob Singer

03-24-2006, 04:41 PM

I think that's pretty much Game, Set, and Match for Devin.

Ron Vogel

03-24-2006, 05:12 PM

Damn straight!
Are you kidding me? Argue Devin's points, fine, but acting like a victim that's just been robbed of cinema because he wrote a fucking op-ed piece? I've never seen such a pathetic cry-baby reaction before.

Dr. Necessiter

03-24-2006, 05:24 PM

You can't go to the movies anymore?

This is an op ed piece. Obviously. There's no news in this piece. At all. It doesn't claim to be a news piece. I run op ed pieces every couple of weeks or so, pieces that are just my opinion or my thoughts on a subject. This is no different. Sadly for you, my opinion is what it is, and I like to give it.

But here's the thing about opinion - it doesn't always have to be the same as yours. I like plenty of writers whose opinions I think suck. Thomas Friedman's a dipshit and I read him in the Times all the time. I have gotten emails about this op ed piece that complain there's no competing conservative voice about cinema - so go be that voice! That's the beauty of the web. You too can be a movie website and write what you want.

Finally, these are politically momentous times in which we live. I'm not just injecting politics where it doesn't exist - American Dreamz IS a political movie. So was Good Night, And Good Luck. So was Brokeback, in many ways. Art is and should be political. It should be reflecting the world we live in, commenting on it. I believe in film as art, and that means I believe it should have something to say. Whether that's something personal or social or political, I don't care - I want it to mean something. And I want to write about that meaning.

If you want movie news that has nothing to it, check out Coming Soon. If you want movie news that I HOPE will be provocative and thought provoking and infuriating and if I'm lucky occasionally funny, this is your site. If you're the kind of person who thinks that movies should only have titties and explosions so you can forget about your 40 hours at the job, maybe we're not ideally suited for you, because we like movies that have something a little more.

Devin, I'd like point out that there do exist folks who manage to be intelligent, incisive, humorous and even inspired without resorting to the sort of low brow prick peddling common in your "op-ed" manifesto-style shenanigans. Your writings in the vein are effective only inasmuch as they incite the like minded and piss off the sort of people who feel the need to be pissed off. You don't provoke thought. The sort of folks you provoke to agreement or argument aren't really the thinking types, I suspect. You're just shooting ducks in barrel.

I don't know how you can pretend to a free-speech mentality in one breath and be so mean-spirited, solipsistic and childish with another. I don't see how you can grab onto such a low, mongering mind and then hide behind the most obviously ridiculous defenses (A guy thinks a statement about anally raping Jesus is neither intelligent nor productive!! He must hate art and only dig tittie films!!!) unless you're just taking a piss on it all.

At times, you behave like a normal person. But, I have to say, almost every time I've ever seen you raise your head around here, you choose to go out of your way to be a dick to people. Some folks can do that and be funny, even endearing, I guess. I don't think that you have that gift. You should cut it out.

devincf

03-24-2006, 05:31 PM

Quickly -

I never said anything about Jesus being raped. You're either misrepresenting or your own sexual issues are getting in the way. But on top of that, I wasn't advocating this or something - I was using extreme imagery to make a joke. If I said "To really piss off the cat lovers you'd have to make a movie about kittens getting stomped to death in a bag," it might be tasteless but it's not somehow advocating such activity or anything. This is a metaphorical statement meant to show HOW EXTREME a movie would have to be to piss off the Righties. You know that this is the case, but since most of your posts are attacks on me, you're ignoring the obvious reality.

Second, if you don't like what I do, or how I write DO NOT READ IT. I like to mix high and low brow elements. That's me. That's me in real life as well as when writing on the web. I like to make polarizing statements. IF YOU DO NOT LIKE THIS, DO NOT READ IT. I don't understand why you think I owe you something in my stories. I try to write what I think will be funny and interesting. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. I am churning out lots of content here, so I don't always have the time to hone something the way I would like. But again, if you don't like it, stop fucking reading it. It isn't like this is some new direction CHUD has gone in. I have been writing like this for about FIVE YEARS. I have been providing a lion's share of the content for almost TWO YEARS. If it's taken this long for you to get your panties in a wad, I should have been more focused on being offensive earlier.

NONE OF THIS IS REMOTELY NEW.

jerrystr113

03-24-2006, 05:47 PM

First, Devin, thanks for suggesting an alternative that will probably be more to my liking. I will check out Coming Soon.

Part of my enjoyment of cinema is more than going to see the movies. It's reading about them, expecting them, theorizing them, and so on. Apparently, you did not glean that from my previous post. So, your off-the-cuff response of "You can't go see movies anymore?" doesn't address the issue.

I was complaining about the insults and offensive material in some of the content of the site, not that someone talked about the political ramifications of a movie. The political commentary on the site frequently stoops to name calling and disparagement. I am quite able to read this or that opposing political viewpoint. I prefer not to be insulted or offended in the process. My post was merely feedback, hopefully resulting in a mollification of the main site's content.

Thanks for explaining that others can have opinions different than mine. But, I must admit, I already knew that. I also read opinions that I disagree with. The difference between those opinions and your opinions is that they refrain from invective. They have the capacity to argue their opinions without it.

I wasn't asking for a conservative voice. I was asking for a retreat from the offensive and insulting comments.

Art CAN be political, but it doesn't have to be. And, fortunately, most art isn't. If every piece of art had to comment on some political issue, art would be in a very sad state. I prefer the non-political art. Does that make me less of a movie fan that you?

I'm the kind of person that wants to be entertained by movies and movie sites, not infuriated. And, there are better ways to provoke thought than insulting someone's viewpoint with profanity and insolence.

So, again, thanks for informing me of your reasons and plans to continue your current methods. Thanks for letting me know that there is no place for movie fans such as myself on CHUD. I will, sadly, take your advice and move on to other sites.

birdie

03-24-2006, 05:48 PM

Are you kidding me? Argue Devin's points, fine, but acting like a victim that's just been robbed of cinema because he wrote a fucking op-ed piece? I've never seen such a pathetic cry-baby reaction before.

I meant, damn sraight I hate conservatives so much they can go elsewhere for their movie news.

That okay for you, or do I have to ask your permission next time I post?

JGButler

03-24-2006, 05:51 PM

I think that's pretty much Game, Set, and Match for Devin.

Indeed.

Dr. Necessiter

03-24-2006, 05:57 PM

Quickly -

I never said anything about Jesus being raped. You're either misrepresenting or your own sexual issues are getting in the way.

...

At this point I think you need to have Jesus taking it up the ass from an AIDS patient to get the Right riled up (studios, contact me for the full deetz on that particular idea. I have a whole scriptment).

I guess you could have been suggesting consensual anal sex with an AIDS patient. Surely, my "Sexual issues" are the culprit in that particular misunderstanding...

Honing has nothing to do with it. You say what you mean to say. Waffling is sort of insulting, at this point.

I appreciate your contribution to content. Some of it is very much worthwhile. That being said, you can choose to stop being such a deliberate wanker at any time. When a person who does a certain kind of thing always seems really angry to be doing it, you kind of have to conclude that said person doesn't really enjoy the sort of things that said person is called upon to do. If you fancy yourself some sort of pundit, have the confidence to allow your work a space in which to work. As it is, anything interesting you might have to say gets drowned out in slackwit showmanship.

If you don't like your job, quit. Find something that calls out the best in you. If you do like it, lighten up. Never hurts to smile once in a while.

The new jerry is right. Insults do not constitute political commentary. They're just insults. The use of the word "hate" sort of works to terminate all discussion.

devincf

03-24-2006, 06:00 PM

I like my job. I don't like the people like you who only exist to give me shit, but that comes with the territory of being good and successful at what I do.

birdie

03-24-2006, 06:03 PM

Where have all these conservatives and Christians interested in watching movies other than Disney flicks suddenly sprung from?

Dr. Necessiter

03-24-2006, 06:11 PM

I like my job. I don't like the people like you who only exist to give me shit, but that comes with the territory of being good and successful at what I do.

Dude, look at you. I came to CHUD because of the community. I stay IN SPITE of you, not because of you. CHUD was better than AICN, not because of you...because of the community. Back then, AICN had (still has I suppose) some fine writers. I wouldn't trade one Du Pont or Moriarty for a dozen Devins. What AICN didn't have was a place where reasonable adults could discuss films that they did or did not enjoy.

Let's get this straight. Your persona is the most AICN-like thing about CHUD. At least Harry, for all his faults, was generally good natured and likable. The very fact that you think the folks who hang out here exist to prey upon or be delighted by your antics is the very attitude that made the AICN talkbacks pretty much an insufferable satire of adolescent obscenity.

Get over yourself, man.

Graynadian

03-24-2006, 06:18 PM

evil

That's where you lost me. Greed, ignorance, prejudice, IMO these are all characteristics of the military-industrial complex, but there is no evil, no baseless urge to destroy others. There is no such thing as evil, it is an imaginary concept inherently understood to be without clear motivations, designed to set your side against another side.

I will agree that the greed, ignorance, and prejudice in others often appears irrational and unmotivated, but it's just not. Even Hitler had his reasons, as insane as they were.

birdie

03-24-2006, 06:19 PM

The very fact that you think the folks who hang out here exist to prey upon or be delighted by your antics is the very attitude that made the AICN talkbacks pretty much an insufferable satire of adolescent obscenity

So ya got a choice of juvenile 'firsts' or pseudo-intellectual film snob bullies.

Is either case attribuatable to the site writers. Discuss.

devincf

03-24-2006, 06:23 PM

That's where you lost me. Greed, ignorance, prejudice, IMO these are all characteristics of the military-industrial complex, but there is no evil, no baseless urge to destroy others. There is no such thing as evil, it is an imaginary concept inherently understood to be without clear motivations, designed to set your side against another side.

I will agree that the greed, ignorance, and prejudice in others often appears irrational and unmotivated, but it's just not. Even Hitler had his reasons, as insane as they were.

e·vil (ē'vəl) pronunciation
adj., e·vil·er, e·vil·est.

1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

n.

1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
2. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
3. An evil force, power, or personification.
4. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.

I see nothing about "for no reason".

Ron Vogel

03-24-2006, 06:34 PM

I meant, damn sraight I hate conservatives so much they can go elsewhere for their movie news.

That okay for you, or do I have to ask your permission next time I post?
Next time you might not want to quote someone you apparently disagree with and say "damn straight!" But maybe that's just me and my silly notions of conversation.

JGButler

03-24-2006, 06:43 PM

I see nothing about "for no reason".

Next you're gonna see someone jump in and say that the dictionary shouldn't be the final word on the definition of certain words.

devincf

03-24-2006, 06:49 PM

I don't think it should, but you need to have some sort of basic beginning of understanding. I mean, someone may think evil solely means "against God," which is obviously not how the word is being used.

birdie

03-24-2006, 06:50 PM

Next time you might not want to quote someone you apparently disagree with and say "damn straight!" But maybe that's just me and my silly notions of conversation.

You're right. Mixed messages around here can be fatal.

birdie

03-24-2006, 06:53 PM

Back on topic, I'm still interested in hearing Devin's personal counter-cultural experience.

devincf

03-24-2006, 07:05 PM

Back on topic, I'm still interested in hearing Devin's personal counter-cultural experience.

I'm not interested in discussing much of my private life here.

lifelikebrian

03-24-2006, 07:46 PM

I'm not interested in discussing much of my private life here.

In other words, "Do as I say, not as I do"?

birdie

03-24-2006, 07:55 PM

So no further reading, no leading by example, and some, at best, waffly alluding to biker lifestyles and hippy ideology. The revolution of the vague and 'don't ask me'. Sounds like a winner.

Jesse Custer

03-24-2006, 07:59 PM

"I'm still interested in hearing Devin's personal counter-cultural experience." -Birdie

Whereas I'm more interested in hearing about how reading about mutant bike gangs in the Village Voice does anything to shift societal paradigms.

In seriousness, I think Devin makes some good points, but so does Goldberg. Vaguely citing the ideas of the 1960's helps no one. Devin can complain about needing new ideas, or about taking older ideas that were solid and reapplying them, but without any attempt to explain what they are or why they're necessary to the people who don't understand or initially agree, its just so much hot air.

I say this as a pretty liberal guy.

People talk a lot about how this country's going in the wrong direction, or about how our culture/political system needs total overhaul, but for all the jabs at the amount of TV-watching Goldberg does, I don't see Devin castigating himself for spending umpteen hours on a movie messageboard.

Without an effort to engage/challenge others in a way that doesn't also alienate them, no success in making inclusive change is possible. What's possible is the creation of smaller, divisive movements that usually a) cease to matter, in terms of power when faced by the monolithic face of average society or, b) are absorbed either passively or aggressively into the culture at large, through exposure and "hype" (See: the Village Voice's reporting on mutant bike gangs).

devincf

03-24-2006, 08:45 PM

I'm not in this thread to preach or lead. I was responding to critiques of my editorial. My editorial has nothing about counterculture, bike gangs or the Yippies. I mistakenly allowed myself to be taken in directions that I shouldn't have gone in this thread. That has no bearing on any beliefs or ideologies I have beyond anything discussed in the editorial. My life is my own to live as I will, and to share as I will.

Werbal_Kint

03-24-2006, 08:59 PM

Back on topic, I'm still interested in hearing Devin's personal counter-cultural experience.

Fucking narc.

Jesse Custer

03-24-2006, 09:13 PM

Fat Dragon

03-24-2006, 10:46 PM

Mmmmmm. Community make me feel all warm and stuff.

NoahtheStud

03-24-2006, 11:15 PM

Seeing Fahrenheit 911 became an obligation for anyone who opposed the President and his grotesque attacks on liberty and law (which, it turns out, were just getting started. What a shitty couple of years democracy has had), mostly because the talking heads on the Right got so pissed off about it.

I keep hearing how horrible this country has become under Bush, but personally my life hasn't changed one bit for the worse.

Devin, could you give some specifics on how the Bush Administration has personally affected your freedoms you experience in your day to day life? What did you use to do or say in 1999 that you can't do today? These grotesque attacks on liberty and law must have affected your life somehow.

What's so shitty for democracy in the world? Even if you discount replacing two authoritarian regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan with elected governments, there were three other popular democratic revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia and Lebanon in the last couple of years. Sounds the opposite of shitty to me.

Slater

03-24-2006, 11:25 PM

And awaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay we go!

ElCapitanAmerica

03-24-2006, 11:51 PM

devin;
... and it’s because the Right knows it’s losing.
Losing?

The "right" controls all 3 branches of government in this country, and the opposition is so politically incompetent it can't even win elections when we have a mess of a war and horrible economic conditions in place. I'm not sure if low approval ratings mean anything more than a lame duck president who people have realized doesn't seem to know what's going on or what to do on almost every issue.

I think the "right" is not losing when you see them set the tone of the debate. The last election we saw a man who actually serve in the war painted as some kind of traitor when running against a guy who basically dodged the draft.

The "right" is not losing when they attract religious people to their side, even when they don't agree with a lot of their policies, because the more intolerant "liberals" (great examples in this thread) think all religious people are fanatics that can't even be reasoned with and don't want to engage them.

Whey aren't these movies causing more outrage? I think a lot of people who disagree with them just ignore them, they don't watch them. At work I encounter this all the time, even with movies that you'd think are not controversial at all. The more "Republican" guy in my job didn't want to watch Munich because he read on some blogs that it took the side of the terrorist. On Kingdom of Heaven he read that it was an anti Christian film (and this guy is not religious btw). Brokeback Mountain ... I think he said something about the "gay agenda". He's just going to ignore these movies, and when I talk to him he says their low box office numbers just show how out of touch Hollywood is.

Out of sight, out of mind.

Dan Benenson

03-25-2006, 01:29 AM

I keep hearing how horrible this country has become under Bush, but personally my life hasn't changed one bit for the worse.

Devin, could you give some specifics on how the Bush Administration has personally affected your freedoms you experience in your day to day life? What did you use to do or say in 1999 that you can't do today? These grotesque attacks on liberty and law must have affected your life somehow.

What's so shitty for democracy in the world? Even if you discount replacing two authoritarian regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan with elected governments, there were three other popular democratic revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia and Lebanon in the last couple of years. Sounds the opposite of shitty to me.

because he has to be personally affected by something negative in order to be outraged by it...

actually, forget it. I was getting ready to launch into a whole tirade but I think it would just be a waste of time.

Adam Warren

03-25-2006, 02:29 AM

That's where you lost me. Greed, ignorance, prejudice, IMO these are all characteristics of the military-industrial complex, but there is no evil, no baseless urge to destroy others.

If you want to go all V, the complex is an idea, just like personal liberty. The idea — the reason for being— of the military industrial complex is patently evil; the whole thing about billions of people having shitty lives so a few million people can live in sin: evil. Just because we aren't evil; and I say "we" because we're all essentially benefactors out west; that fact doesn't imply that our existence isn't facilitated by the reifiction of evil ideas, or that we don't play a role in evil acts .

I think it's apt to call the big picture of western society evil, at least in term of HOW it manages progress. But the notion that this extends to individual parts, which is easy to assume, and may or may not be implied — that's a bunch of misguided malarky.

Jesse Custer

03-25-2006, 09:58 AM

I keep hearing how horrible this country has become under Bush, but personally my life hasn't changed one bit for the worse.

Devin, could you give some specifics on how the Bush Administration has personally affected your freedoms you experience in your day to day life? What did you use to do or say in 1999 that you can't do today? These grotesque attacks on liberty and law must have affected your life somehow.

What's so shitty for democracy in the world? Even if you discount replacing two authoritarian regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan with elected governments, there were three other popular democratic revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia and Lebanon in the last couple of years. Sounds the opposite of shitty to me.

I'm not going to rise to this bait either, tempting as it is.

I'll just echo the sentiments already expressed: Just because YOUR little life in San Diego hasn't been affected doesn't mean that everything's hunky dory.

The sheer overwhelming selfishness of the modern American is breathtaking, and anger-inducing to the extreme.

Fat Dragon

03-25-2006, 12:12 PM

I do think at times the line between "This is the kind of personality that makes Chud unique" and "this would be better served in someone's blog" gets blurred quite often.

Yes we know Chud is an opinionated media site, but I can understand how people get tired of someone's viewpoint overshadowing what should be good writing.

I often tire of reading simple reviews(on the web in general) of music/film/etc. and in the first few lines it's obvious the writer thinks it's more important to interject more of their lifestyle and views than actually reviewing the piece.

Horrible Analogy Time: It's the same feeling I get when I used to plunk down a cd at an indie record store and the clerk picks up the disc and gives the cd a smirk. Just ring me up uber-hipster, I don't NEED your approval!

Discussions like this might be better served in Political Discourse or NationsPunched.

NoahtheStud

03-29-2006, 10:30 PM

I'm not going to rise to this bait either, tempting as it is.

I'll just echo the sentiments already expressed: Just because YOUR little life in San Diego hasn't been affected doesn't mean that everything's hunky dory.

The sheer overwhelming selfishness of the modern American is breathtaking, and anger-inducing to the extreme.

The true selfishness is from whiny privileged americans who complain about grotesque attacks on their liberty and law that they have to suffer under from that cruel tyrant, George Bush. Waah! Cry me a river!

I keep my petty little "San Diego" problems to myself and worry more about real threats to democracy in the world, like in Russia where the government is buying up all the media to control it, provincial governors have returned to being appointed by the President, businessmen who support the opposition party get thrown in prison and journalists who write the wrong article get shot in doorways. They are the ones who have had some shitty years for democracy, not us.

Seabass Inna Bun

03-30-2006, 08:48 AM

Someone please explain to me how masturbating onto a portrait of George Bush and babbling on about Russia's internal woes validates Mr. Stud's fallacy of using a sample of one in determining how 285 million people have been affected by the Bush administration. Perhaps the reasoning will become clear when it's laid before me, all orderly-like.

Ian

03-30-2006, 10:13 AM

The true selfishness is from whiny privileged americans who complain about grotesque attacks on their liberty and law that they have to suffer under from that cruel tyrant, George Bush. Waah! Cry me a river!

I keep my petty little "San Diego" problems to myself and worry more about real threats to democracy in the world, like in Russia where the government is buying up all the media to control it, provincial governors have returned to being appointed by the President, businessmen who support the opposition party get thrown in prison and journalists who write the wrong article get shot in doorways. They are the ones who have had some shitty years for democracy, not us.

Do you really think The George gives a shit whether Rasputin Q. Public can read how much Putin sucks without fear of being scuttled away in the night? I mean, seriously. You think it's okay to ignore your own country's shortcomings as long as a)they don't affect you, and b)there are worse places in the world?

Dave Jarvie

03-30-2006, 07:07 PM

personally, i enjoyed the article.

first: Its an OPINION article. perhaps each time devin writes one, it should be prefaced with the word OPINION so that people who don't wanna hear it, don't have to. its an easy one click and 2 secons of your life and you never have to worry about the bad words invading your head

second: i think one of the issues that we don't realize is that yes, this is the situation we...(well you americans, we canadians are lucky in that our own gov't, while still retarded, is alot more removed from our day to day lives, and abit quicker on the uptake (Example: see Katrina and New Orleans flooding, vrs Calgary's summer floods last year. much better responce overall))
this is the situation you are in, and its gotten that way due to many many years of subtle decisions and actions That you don't really hear about about, or hear about for one day, then the next big celebrity trial overtakes all media outlets pushing any real political discourse onto the back burner

when it comes to culture, there is a culture war going on, between the 'right' and the 'left', but unfortuenetly, the line is blurring so much these days (one person will approve be pro-life, but at the same time be pro-gay marriage) that its hard to know where you sit.

the problem with 'fighting against cultural assimilation' is that large corporations have turned 'rebellion' into the new 'chic' y'know? i mean theres a fricken 'revolutionary' Soda with Che Guevara's picture on it
nothing like throwing those ideals out the door in the name of making a buck
its hard to fight a battle when your tools are turned against you.

now if you want some reading material for your perusal

No Logo - Naomi Watts
Fast Food Nation - Eric Schlosser
Do you Believe in Magic - Annie Gottileb (a take on the 60's and its cultural impact on teh world today)

now you wanna know how i do my part?
i realize that in my current position, i'm not going to be able to make any changes from a global perspective, BUT i can make a difference in the here and now
how?
i find the first step is to CUT TV OUT. you wanna watch a show? buy the dvd.
you wanna find out what new 'products' and 'stuff' are out there? LEAVE THE FUCKING HOUSE and go find it. talk to people, learn.
this way, you can make your own decisions based on person-to-person interactions rather then being told whats what by a stupid box

everything is choice. thats what i comes down to.
and i think my biggest issue is that every day, your ability to choose gets shortned...juuuust alittle bit. so much that you don't notice

but wait 10 years and suddenly you'll wonder wtf happened.

NoahtheStud

03-31-2006, 08:04 PM

You think it's okay to ignore your own country's shortcomings as long as a)they don't affect you, and b)there are worse places in the world?

There is nothing wrong trying to improve your country in a civil and calm manner. I just have a problem with people who use whiny exaggerated rhetoric like "grotesque attacks on liberty and law" to pursue politics of fear.

Face facts, when a Republican government is in power they are going to pursue policies that Democrats don't like and vice-versa. Not everyone is going to be happy all the time and I am tired of the political rhetoric from both sides, the Clinton-Haters during the last presidency and now the Bush-Haters, that claim the country is going down the toilet whenever the opposite party is in power.

I voted for Gore but I didn't turn into a cry-baby when Bush won. Grow up, we get to vote for a new president every 4 years and America has an effective system of checks and balances that has served this country well.