IanEye wrote:.....
i mean it, in my mind's eye i sort of saw this thread going this way. Once people have taken the time to see the film I am sure a stimulating discussion will unfold.
Establishing ways to 'see' a film, what to experience besides the 'cool-fun-90 minutes' is
worth the effort
if not the ad hominum chaff ahem.
I used to pick a video rental and have a good eye for non-mainstream stuff that seemed much more satisfying to watch with subtle production and subtle scripts having rich dialogue and, y'know, independent or foreign or some Coen brothers or, y'know, something with William Macy, a marker that rewarded more than disappointed.
Whatta ya got to go on?
-Title
-Video cover/poster
-genre
-previous ads
-cast
-director
-buzz reputation
Then I discovered psy-ops stuff in movies I had liked when I first watched them cold with just 'face value.'
So I started scrutinizing and researching more of the 'mainstream' movies at the megaplex and found the same devices too often...and that led me to go back and find them in even more of the movies I had once liked.
And it all made sense as I learned more of the long long history of psy-ops and the growing need for counterpropaganda to hide the ever-growing pile of political liabilities that time brings to a government.
There isn't as much difference between 'art' and 'politics' as we are led to believe regarding expression to a percieved audience through a technical group for strategic purposes.
Seems to me many folks have only an impressionistic view of an article's/movie's/book's topic keyword and might not, for time or interest reasons, spend much time searching up some contextual stuff to figure out the piece's-
original artist intent or
spook psy-ops functionor
both intentionally intertwinedor
both un-intentionally intertwined...as defined by
the social delivery network that gets it to you-
1 - as pre-theater advertising
2 - a run at the multiplex theater
3 - pre-rental advertising
4 - the rental store shelf
5 - pre-rerelease advertising
6 - rerelease as
----A a new media
----B a new script version
And that's a chain of people with differing influence and agendas synthesizing into a many-parented experience better described in the plural as 'THEM' that you add to with your own agenda, 'I.' And lots of us don't know how we got the attitudes we did
and are still figuring out what they are...
which then changes them, sometimes quite a bit.
*So that's the 'WE' side of discussing a movie we take for granted.*So on the 'coming-at-you' end one can consider lots of things about 'THEM.'-
>Timing
...year written
...for which media
...year beginning prep for different media
...year of release to public
...years of rerelease to public
>Source
...name
...biography
...politics
...allies
...enemies
...other works
...awards
...sponsors
...grants...etc.
>Cultural context of themes
...war
...elections
...institutions
...scandals
...court cases
...gender
...justice
...resources
...economics...etc....and much more as listed in this Data Dump thread-
(200+ Questions to Analyze Political Language)http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=12692To be honest, so far i am intrigued by what Hugh is not saying about "Being There", as opposed to what he is saying...
'Being There' was a helluva choice. The rich layers make a great hiding place.
I found TONS of information just online including key script lines in reviews.
There's SO much info to be add even before you stick it in the machine and hit 'play.'
Ewww. You touched a war criminal!
