|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Astonishing as it may seem, many people today are getting their *facts* from movies. We know they do that, in the case of the execrable Pearl Harbor and no doubt from Artificial Intelligence as well (Spielberg wouldn't lie!), but now we are seeing it from novelized documentaries. I refer to the long discussion on Dr. Death below.This has come to a head with the severe chastisement I just received from a Mr. A. Philanderer. I quote:
"If you haven't seen the film then poetic waxing over the minutiae
(i.e., the meaning of revisionism) seems a trifle moot, does it
not?... It would behoove you to investigate the source material
at least once before drawing critical conclusions or playing semantics
games, don't you think?"Well well well! Evidently a movie -- a mere *movie*, ladies and gentlemen -- now defines "the meaning of revisionism" for our inveterate and undiscriminating moviegoers. Not only that, a *movie* now constitutes original "source material"! And not having attended said *movie* subjects a soul to beratement for daring to discuss the issues raised.
It no longer matters to *moviegoers* whether one has followed the controversy in the relevant local papers, or that one has ACTUALLY READ "THE LEUCHTER REPORT" and other documents to broaden that knowledge. No, the *movie* and *only the movie* may, in our moviegoers' view, accurately inform the public today.
Follow Ups:
I also chastized clarkjohnsen a bit over this in the thread below, but it was over his impressions of the movie and not of the subject matter.But I think the difficulty stems from clarkjohnsen attempting to defend science and revisionism (done right), while the movie's focus is on one man's life story. So you're talking about X while he's talking about Y, and both side are trying to make it a discussion about Z.
Clarkjohnsen makes a good point - people shouldn't watch a documentary and then think that it's everything you need to know about the subject matter. To rehash my post below, that's a little bit of what I think the movie demonstrates about human nature.
On the other hand, should I chastize someone for talking about the state of the economy just because they don't have a PhD in economics?
"People shouldn't watch a documentary and then think that it's everything you need to know about the subject matter." Yes! Thanks for getting it!It's my *imputed* views that caused the concern. On close reading you'll not actually find my views.
Well IF that's all your trying to say, that would come under the DUH, factor.I provided MY opinion of a documentary I admired and I RECIEVED a solid load of your utter crap.
Wait, are you the same poster who expects everyone to believe in subliminal messages on Rumors, just because you say it's true. To just rely on second hand sources.
"...expects everyone to believe in subliminal messages on Rumors, just because you say it's true."No I am not.
I am, however, the poster who can *demonstrate* that a REAL (not "subliminal", you're putting words in people's mouths again) INVOCATION is present. It ain't what I "say", it's what they sing!
Of course, you can't say when/where this (ahem...) "invocation" takes place. It's not even "said", it's some kind of musical combination that beckons Stan or somebody. Yea, much less silly..
...well, whatever. Again you persist in being obtuse. It is *said* so clearly, you'd think it was unmissable. Except I had missed it, because the *music* distracts you from the real proceedings.It amuses me to think how you people won't listen for yourselves. Although come to think, isn't that why audio reviews are so popular?
Won't you please point out the specific passage on Rumors? I really don't want to waste the time listening to that hole forsaken album(actually liked it at the time) just so I can I an say "Ahhhhh".Lord knows, I may not find it on the first pass and have to go through multiple listenings. Eleven songs and 41 minutes. That is not likely to happen.
wouldn't that mean the message is HIDDEN in the music, hence subliminal.
No! Subliminal means beneath the threshold of conscious perception. The words here are hidden only in the sense that the music *distracts* you from paying close attention. As said, they are spoken quite clearly. Very clever satanists!
If you want to be accurate, the operative word in the context of this exchange is probably apprehension. When something is below one's apprehension it doesn't necessarily mean that it's beneath the "threshold of conscious perception" as you phrased it. To the contrary, it might just be below that individual's audible perception or understanding. In other words, the mere presence of something perceived as HIDDEN (i.e., ear of the beholder) based upon the differences between extraneous and intrinsic sounds, words, or whatever may be sufficient reason to describe it as subliminal.Glad to clear that up for you, Clark! ;^)
...(if you've ever heard one), especially given in English, the words may not be clear, and be covered somewhat by the orchestra, but *if you know them* they are perfectly clear.
... (more simply) so that it might be clearer for you:If the lyrics you *know* are the same ones written by the music's authors and recorded exactly as published, then the music, whether heard clearly or not, doesn't have subliminal content. OTOH, if the lyric content in a live or recorded performance varies from the published lines leaving it's message somewhat veiled except to those listening for it, then the music may accurately be described as having subliminal content.
n
KP
.
... but at least Dr. Errol Morris would be impressed! ;^)
Well, I certainly must have struck a nerve! BTW, it would've been nice if Mr. Johnsen had included the openning and closing sentences (i.e., in entirity) from the post he excised my comment from. No matter, he got the context pretty close, so I won't take issue with that portion of his manifesto.The most important aspect of the film about Dr. Death is that it's a DOCUMENTARY, as others have patiently pointed out on more than one occasion to Clark. The fact that Mr. Johnsen may have read "The Robin Leach Report" or whatever (FYI, that's sarcasm, Clark) doesn't negate the value of face to face interviews and opinions expressed by Dr. Morris's peers on camera.
No offense to Clark, but it saddens me that he has the apparent need to denigrate the knowledge of other inmates. I doubt that Mr. Johnsen knows what others have or haven't read, researched or experienced, but he seems quite content throwing mud on someone else's canvas and proclaiming that only now is it an inspired masterpiece.
It occurs to me that if Mr. Johnsen feels so strongly about discussing The Leuchter Report rather than the documentary film, he'd prefer taking this discussion Outside where the politics of the issue would be front and center. However, Mrs. Piggy originally asked about the filmed documentary which is more suited as a topic here.
FTR, I actually agree with Clark about the execrable Pearl Harbor, a film which may actually define "the meaning of revisionism," but what that has to do with the more valid fictional entertainment value of AI Artificial Intelligence is beyond me.
Not a need! I was simply pointing out that you seemed to have no knowledge outside the guided confines of the "documentary". Indeed that does now appear to be the case.Was I off-topic? Shivver me timbers, that's never happened *here* before! However, I must inform you that my initial comment, which so raised everyone's hackles, had to do with an indefinite antecedent in someone's post. It was simply a wry interpretation of unclear writing.
clark
For my views on "documentaries" see
Your research; your sources, are any first hand? Were you an observer during the Holocaust? Of course not! You rely on the written word and photographic evidence provided by experts and testamonies of survivors. FYI, film documentaries are no more prone to inaccuracies and biases than published opinions. I'm not intimating that there aren't biased or fictionalized documentaries produced, but filtering is part of the process of acquiring useful information. Conversely, refusal to view ANY potential source of information is anathema to the process of "broadening knowledge."While we're on this subject, one more point begs consideration: Agendas, speculations and biases may be present in print sources just as they are in film. Reading a scholorly treatise is no guarantee that one is going to be provided with a clearer picture of events just because the reader wants to believe it. OTOH, film documenteries CAN and often do get to the heart of issues in ways that print media can't, as on-camera interviews convey physical behaviors that transcend words.
> > > "Was I off-topic? Shivver me timbers, that's never happened *here* before! However, I must inform you that my initial comment, which so raised everyone's hackles, had to do with an indefinite antecedent in someone's post. It was simply a wry interpretation of unclear writing." < < <
*Indefinite antecedent!* LOL! Is that your ergot infected rye interpretation? ;^)
AuPh
And with that obtuse digression, our Mr. A. Philanderer bids farewell to rational discussion.clark
...obviously being facetious (and no, that doesn't mean he was wearing tacky uniforms and goose stepping).You weren't even an observer of the documentary in question, yet you are "someone who has studied the" -oh,wait, I'm laughing again - "entire background." Oh, there's that giggle creeping in again...
and your running circles around him, he won't get it. I think you give him way too much credit. Sometimes it's difficult for intellectual people to understand that there are some who are incapable of grasping a concept in a logical way.As my dad would say, I think Clark is talking to hear his "head roar."
By the way,
I admire your intellect and your tenacity.mp
IMHO, Clark likes to push buttons, but when things get heated he reminds me of a little kid who sets off a stink bomb in class then tries to pretend it's the other guy's fault. I've found that humor is the best defuser of errant stink-bombers. :o)> > > "I admire your intellect and your tenacity." < < <
You are too kind, but I guess I am a bit tenacious; it comes from going long rounds with Clark & others debating various political issues Outside. The Film Asylum is rarely as contentious.
had to pick on him, poor guy, my heart bleeds. He is SO misunderstood.And I don't know what your talking about, we were discussing a documentary, not a movie. And documentaries are an excellent way to
learn about people, and can be JUST as effective as an article/print.It all depends quality of the information and people involved, wether the medium is film of print.
Thank you for that! My point precisely! The movies have led you to trust a category of propagandist-provocateur high-falutingly called "film documentarian". And seeing is believing!Dare I say, neither you nor any other of my opponents in this discussion have read a word on the topic from original sources?
Documentaries, you add, are "an excellent way to learn about people." OK, but who's discussing people? I was concentrating on the *issues*, otherwise known as "science". Plus I was upbraiding folks for believing what they see *through an advocate's lens and editing table*.
It shouldn't surprise you to learn -- although it will -- that the director played the movie around extensively before release, fine-tuning it to various objections that were raised. I'll leave it to your imagination what those might have been. Because of the extensive re-editing, the submitting to pressure, I refused to watch the thing.
It doesn't surprise me, I would imagine that would be the job of a director, don't magazine and print writers have editors.I would claim that it was neccessary, because so many of the victims close relatives are still alive, so it would be imperative to PRESESENT, these ideas in a very humane and respectful manner. Which probably shouldn't surprise you, but it will.
Your original source argument is laughable, you are discussing a film you havn't seen, and just assuming it contains misinformation based on the print you read.
"You are... just assuming it contains misinformation based on the print you read." No! I am saying that anyone who relies on a movie, for the whole of his knowledge on a topic, and then argues the issues with someone who has studied the entire background, and who then chastises him for lack of knowledge, is a walking talking writing case of *hubris*.As for "[presenting] ideas in a very humane and respectful manner" because relatives are still alive -- a concept you think will surprise me -- tell that to a certain backwards-cap-wearing, smirking "film documentarian", not me.
...for someone who relies on a movie the haven't even seen, yet they decide they are experts on the subject matter contained within. Did you read some sort of Cliff Notes?"someone who has studied the entire background."
Now that's hubris.I will remind you the question at hand was "what is this documentary called."
Somehow (maybe you read it backwards, or at a 45 degree angle) you've managed to warp it into a discussion on some undefined Universal Truth (you seem to like absolutes, so I will play along).
It did give you chance to post random ambiguous statements about your great wealth of knowledge "studied the entire background", I have to write that again becuase that is funny. Not one iota of actual knowledge, mind you.(Hubris again; let's play with today's Word-de-Jour).
Mr. Death (not "Dr. Death") is a documentary full of long interviews with the original participants in the controversy. It's not a cartoon and it's not some kind of reinactment. As far as accuracy goes, it's probably at least as good as the sources you mentioned."Not only that, a *movie* now constitutes original "source material"! And not having attended said *movie* subjects a soul to beratement for daring to discuss the issues raised."
Since the issue raised was the content of the movie in question, I would definitely say that you would need to have seen the movie to make an intelligent comment on it.
Until you actual see the documentary, your criticism of the content of the film is just a lot of hot air.
there's a Itchy and Scratchy cartoon in it.Of course, I haven't seen it and I can't tell you were.
But it's there, all right.
This is, and has been, not a "new" concept. It's as old as cave drawings.Seeing is believing, but any moron who gets his history, solely, from audio, and or, visual media, gets what they deserve!
f
I'm a little dubious having double checked his numbers. :o)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: