Have we discussed this movie on here yet? I watched it for the third time last night. Having gone to an anti-intellectual high school, I think a lot of Judge's calls are right on, though I don't think it would take 500 years. The Wikipedia article mentions it was not released widely, and there is some thought that it is do to the slander of Starbucks, Fuddruckers, Costco, Gatorade, and on and on.
There is an enormous amount in the background in this movie--almost worth going through it frame-by-frame. But relevant to RI is the intriguing portrayal of the police state in the background--despite the idiocy in the society at large and the government, the repressive element functions very well. It is revealing that "Rehabilitation" is spelled correctly, whereas just about everything else is not.
Thoughts?
Idiocracy
Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
-
bubblefunk
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 4:09 pm
yup!
Yup, been done. Hope this link works. Or try the search function, it was pretty easy.
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/v ... =idiocracy
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/v ... =idiocracy
-
FourthBase
- Posts: 7057
- Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
The last few months whenever someone who hasn't seen Idiocracy wants to rent a movie, I always recommend Idiocracy even though I've now seen it about 7 times. It is truly a movie that rewards 7 (or more) viewings. So much hilarious surface idiocy on the 1st viewing, and by the 7th you're really noticing the painstakingly witty and meaningful background props and set design. Also discovered this weekend that Idiocracy and Human Nature (the Kaufman film) make a great double feature, especially for someone who has seen neither, especially for people who like to use movies as conversational launching pads.
“Joy is a current of energy in your body, like chlorophyll or sunlight,
that fills you up and makes you naturally want to do your best.” - Bill Russell
that fills you up and makes you naturally want to do your best.” - Bill Russell
-
overcoming hope
- Posts: 489
- Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:32 pm
-
norton ash
- Posts: 4067
- Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:46 pm
- Location: Canada
-
overcoming hope
- Posts: 489
- Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:32 pm
Re: errrrrm
norton ash wrote:That's "whose ass is it." Who's going to stop the march toward Idiocracy?
-
norton ash
- Posts: 4067
- Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:46 pm
- Location: Canada
Sorry for the snark
Sorry for the snark... couldn't resist.
I handle letters and e-mails for a living, and some of the wowzers I get from people with university degrees and/or high-powered jobs convince me that "Idiocracy" has arrived.
I handle letters and e-mails for a living, and some of the wowzers I get from people with university degrees and/or high-powered jobs convince me that "Idiocracy" has arrived.
Zen horse
-
norton ash
- Posts: 4067
- Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:46 pm
- Location: Canada
-
annie aronburg
- Posts: 1406
- Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 8:57 pm
- Location: Smokanagan
-
overcoming hope
- Posts: 489
- Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:32 pm
-
AlicetheKurious
- Posts: 5348
- Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
- Location: Egypt
norton ash said:
Speaking of political intelligence ... take a little stroll with Alice through the American wonderland ... just for laughs
"This war [in Iraq] is the most important liberal, revolutionary U.S. democracy-building project since the Marshall Plan. ... it is one of the noblest things this country has ever attempted abroad."
-- Thomas Friedman, much-acclaimed New York Times foreign-affairs analyst, November 2003[2]
"President Bush has placed human rights at the center of his foreign policy agenda in unprecedented ways."
-- Michael Gerson, columnist for the Washington Post, 2007[3]
The war in Iraq "is one of the noblest endeavors the United States, or any great power, has ever undertaken."
-- David Brooks, New York Times columnist and National Public Radio (NPR) commentator (2007)[4]
If this is what leading American public intellectuals believe and impart to their audiences, is it any wonder that the media can short circuit people's critical faculties altogether? It should as well be noted that these three journalists are all with "liberal" media.
And when Hillary Clinton says in the January 31 debate with Barack Obama:
"We bombed them [Iraq] for days in 1998 because Saddam Hussein threw out inspectors," and the fact is that the UN withdrew its weapons inspectors because the Clinton administration had made it clear that it was about to start bombing Iraq ...
Obama didn't correct her. Neither did any of the eminent journalists on the panel, though this particular piece of disinformation has been repeated again and again in the media...
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e19272.htm
Word."...Idiocracy" has arrived.
Speaking of political intelligence ... take a little stroll with Alice through the American wonderland ... just for laughs
"This war [in Iraq] is the most important liberal, revolutionary U.S. democracy-building project since the Marshall Plan. ... it is one of the noblest things this country has ever attempted abroad."
-- Thomas Friedman, much-acclaimed New York Times foreign-affairs analyst, November 2003[2]
"President Bush has placed human rights at the center of his foreign policy agenda in unprecedented ways."
-- Michael Gerson, columnist for the Washington Post, 2007[3]
The war in Iraq "is one of the noblest endeavors the United States, or any great power, has ever undertaken."
-- David Brooks, New York Times columnist and National Public Radio (NPR) commentator (2007)[4]
If this is what leading American public intellectuals believe and impart to their audiences, is it any wonder that the media can short circuit people's critical faculties altogether? It should as well be noted that these three journalists are all with "liberal" media.
And when Hillary Clinton says in the January 31 debate with Barack Obama:
"We bombed them [Iraq] for days in 1998 because Saddam Hussein threw out inspectors," and the fact is that the UN withdrew its weapons inspectors because the Clinton administration had made it clear that it was about to start bombing Iraq ...
Obama didn't correct her. Neither did any of the eminent journalists on the panel, though this particular piece of disinformation has been repeated again and again in the media...
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e19272.htm
-
overcoming hope
- Posts: 489
- Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:32 pm
Quarter of Brits think Churchill was myth: poll
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080204/od ... oryoffbeat
Quarter of Brits think Churchill was myth: poll
Sun Feb 3, 7:12 PM ET
LONDON (AFP) - Britons are losing their grip on reality, according to a poll out Monday which showed that nearly a quarter think Winston Churchill was a myth while the majority reckon Sherlock Holmes was real.
ADVERTISEMENT
The survey found that 47 percent thought the 12th century English king Richard the Lionheart was a myth.
And 23 percent thought World War II prime minister Churchill was made up. The same percentage thought Crimean War nurse Florence Nightingale did not actually exist.
Three percent thought Charles Dickens, one of Britain's most famous writers, is a work of fiction himself.
Indian political leader Mahatma Gandhi and Battle of Waterloo victor the Duke of Wellington also appeared in the top 10 of people thought to be myths.
Meanwhile, 58 percent thought Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional detective Holmes actually existed; 33 percent thought the same of W. E. Johns' fictional pilot and adventurer Biggles.
UKTV Gold television surveyed 3,000 people.
Quarter of Brits think Churchill was myth: poll
Sun Feb 3, 7:12 PM ET
LONDON (AFP) - Britons are losing their grip on reality, according to a poll out Monday which showed that nearly a quarter think Winston Churchill was a myth while the majority reckon Sherlock Holmes was real.
ADVERTISEMENT
The survey found that 47 percent thought the 12th century English king Richard the Lionheart was a myth.
And 23 percent thought World War II prime minister Churchill was made up. The same percentage thought Crimean War nurse Florence Nightingale did not actually exist.
Three percent thought Charles Dickens, one of Britain's most famous writers, is a work of fiction himself.
Indian political leader Mahatma Gandhi and Battle of Waterloo victor the Duke of Wellington also appeared in the top 10 of people thought to be myths.
Meanwhile, 58 percent thought Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional detective Holmes actually existed; 33 percent thought the same of W. E. Johns' fictional pilot and adventurer Biggles.
UKTV Gold television surveyed 3,000 people.
-
JackRiddler
- Posts: 16007
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
- Location: New York City
My problem with Idiocracy was in the pseudo-documentary narrative explaining how the future dystopia arose: the smart yuppies are too busy being careerist to make babies, while the white trash breed. (Who was that voice supposed to be, God?)
But the popular culture's ongoing descent into trivial, sexed-up stupidity* is not due to too many stupid people breeding, and I doubt Mike Judge thinks so, because everything else about the movie extrapolates or exaggerates trends in capitalism and consumerism that operate independently of inherited intelligence.
Since most of any U.S. audience is going to identify as middle class (even if they live in a trailer), the history given in the film distances them from their own complicity. I won't belabor that the racialization of class categories is odious, because the only practical upshot of the idea is to render the film harmless as a critique of present conditions.
And the sappy admonition to read more books really falls flat as a moral. The film itself is not a product of Idiocracy, to be sure, but of Middlebrow.
* NOTE:
They keep you doped with religion and sex and TV
But you think you're so clever and classless and free
But you're still fucking peasants far as I can see
A working class hero is something to be!
Which reminds me - Idiocracy also avoided the reality that organized religions are among the biggest stupidity generators in the culture. Once again this helps in crafting a film that all Americans can enjoy, even though it's about how stupid they are.
But the popular culture's ongoing descent into trivial, sexed-up stupidity* is not due to too many stupid people breeding, and I doubt Mike Judge thinks so, because everything else about the movie extrapolates or exaggerates trends in capitalism and consumerism that operate independently of inherited intelligence.
Since most of any U.S. audience is going to identify as middle class (even if they live in a trailer), the history given in the film distances them from their own complicity. I won't belabor that the racialization of class categories is odious, because the only practical upshot of the idea is to render the film harmless as a critique of present conditions.
And the sappy admonition to read more books really falls flat as a moral. The film itself is not a product of Idiocracy, to be sure, but of Middlebrow.
* NOTE:
They keep you doped with religion and sex and TV
But you think you're so clever and classless and free
But you're still fucking peasants far as I can see
A working class hero is something to be!
Which reminds me - Idiocracy also avoided the reality that organized religions are among the biggest stupidity generators in the culture. Once again this helps in crafting a film that all Americans can enjoy, even though it's about how stupid they are.
-
JackRiddler
- Posts: 16007
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
- Location: New York City