July172010
“That’s the idea, at least. With his inability to let actors occupy a scene together, Nolan couldn’t pass Pathos 101, and here he’s trying graduate seminar stuff. “The catharsis” at the center of Inception is based on Cobb’s choice: whether to go on permanent vacation with his dream-memory of Mal, or to return to real life. It’s deciding between eternity with a bitchy wraith, presumably sexless, like all of Inception’s subconscious, or … that recurring sentimental snapshot-memory of his children? Dad Michael Caine, who drifts through the production? Ellen Page, barely considered for romantic-emotional counterbalance? There’s no push-pull around Leo’s torrid emoting, and when the “We’re awake now—or are we?” kicker catches you in the pants, who cares? It’s obvious that Nolan either can’t articulate or doesn’t believe in a distinction between living feelings and dreams—and his barren Inception doesn’t capture much of either.” I changed one word. I call this:

Village Voice Wrong about Inception

his inability to to return
to real life. It’s between
eternity with a bitchy subconscious,
or … snapshot-memory
of his production? barely considered
awake, who cares? It’s obvious
either can’t articulate or doesn’t believe
in dreams—and his barren review.

reblog poetry wrong reviews 

July132010

newsweek:

“I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by brevity, over-connectedness, emotionally starving for attention, dragging themselves through virtual communities at 3 am, surrounded by stale pizza and neglected dreams, looking for angry meaning, any meaning, same hat wearing hipsters burning for shared and skeptical approval from the holographic projected dynamo in the technology of the era, who weak connections and recession wounded and directionless, sat up, micro-conversing in the supernatural darkness of Wi-Fi-enabled cafes….”

—

McSweeney’s Internet Tendency: Tweet. (via lapuravidagallery) (via cmonstah)

Though we love this, we have to say we’re disappointed that it took the Internet so long to come up with this.

brevity connectedness— starving
for 3 am, stale pizza  and hat wearing
holographic supernatural Wi-Fi

reblog poetry endisnearnotreally 

June282010
oldhollywood: via Rashomon (1950, dir. Akira Kurosawa) “[The three assistant directors on Rashomon] found the script baffling and wanted me to explain it to them. ‘Please read it again more carefully,’ I told them. ‘If you read it diligently, you should be able to understand it because it was written with the intention of being comprehensible.’ But they wouldn’t leave. ‘We believe we have read it carefully, and we still don’t understand it at all; that’s why we want you to explain it to us.’ For their persistence I gave them this simple explanation: ‘Human beings are unable to be honest with themselves about themselves. They cannot talk about themselves without embellishing. This script portrays such human beings–the kind who cannot survive without lies to make them feel they are better people than they really are. It even shows this sinful need for flattering falsehood going beyond the grave—even the character who dies cannot give up his lies when he speaks to the living through a medium. Egoism is a sin the human being carries with him from birth; it is the most difficult to redeem. This film is like a strange picture scroll that is unrolled and displayed by the ego. You say that you can’t understand this script at all, but that is because the human heart itself is impossible to understand. If you focus on the impossibility of truly understanding human psychology and read the script one more time, I think you will grasp the point of it.’” -Akira Kurosawa honest, such human beings feel sinfulflattering falsehood, the grave— givehis living a medium. a sin carries himdifficult to redeem. This film is a scroll—displayed script, but because the human heart itself is focus— impossibility human script one more time, grasp the it.

oldhollywood:

via Rashomon (1950, dir. Akira Kurosawa)

“[The three assistant directors on Rashomon] found the script baffling and wanted me to explain it to them. ‘Please read it again more carefully,’ I told them. ‘If you read it diligently, you should be able to understand it because it was written with the intention of being comprehensible.’ But they wouldn’t leave. ‘We believe we have read it carefully, and we still don’t understand it at all; that’s why we want you to explain it to us.’ For their persistence I gave them this simple explanation:

‘Human beings are unable to be honest with themselves about themselves. They cannot talk about themselves without embellishing. This script portrays such human beings–the kind who cannot survive without lies to make them feel they are better people than they really are. It even shows this sinful need for flattering falsehood going beyond the grave—even the character who dies cannot give up his lies when he speaks to the living through a medium. Egoism is a sin the human being carries with him from birth; it is the most difficult to redeem. This film is like a strange picture scroll that is unrolled and displayed by the ego. You say that you can’t understand this script at all, but that is because the human heart itself is impossible to understand. If you focus on the impossibility of truly understanding human psychology and read the script one more time, I think you will grasp the point of it.’”

-Akira Kurosawa

honest, such human beings feel sinful
flattering falsehood, the grave— give
his living a medium. a sin carries him
difficult to redeem. This film is a scroll—
displayed script, but because the human
heart itself is focus— impossibility human script
one more time, grasp the it.

reblog poetry 

Page 1 of 1