MovieChat Forums > Owlwise > Replies
Owlwise's Replies
I've been re-reading them lately, and they not only hold up beyond any nostalgia factor, so much of what he has to say seems all the more timely. The novels are still wonderful, but I'm especially enjoying the non-fiction collections of articles, essays, reviews & talks. I don't find him dated in the least. An essential American writer!
I disagree.
I agree. Whatever its flaws—and it certainly has some, mainly amateurish more than anything else—its a film that remains rewarding decades later, as it gets the engaged viewer to join the conversation & continue it afterward.
And these days, it also serves as a reminder that there's more to life than just mindless entertainment. Wondering about the meaning of life—or the meaning of one's own life—isn't all that popular now. ("Pretentious! Navel-gazing! Self-indulgent! Pseudo-intellectual!") But it's all the more needed for that very reason.
Really looking forward to seeing this! For those who already have seen nit & liked it, I'd also recommend tracking down the HBO drama Conspiracy: The Trial of the Chicago Eight, which featured the actual participants some 20 years later, standing on the set & commenting on the details of the trail, while actors reenacted it. Sometimes they stood right behind the actors portraying them, which made for an interesting juxtaposition. Robert Loggia was especially good as William Kunstler.
He suffered from undiagnosed bipolar disorder, what was then called manic-depression, sad to say.
You know, as much as I enjoy casual attire, there's something to be said for a little more formality on some occasions. And there's a difference between being casual but still looking nicely dressed, and just being an absolute slob in public.
I have to admit, it's nice to be able to discuss this film with someone else who appreciates it, as it obviously doesn't get much love or attention otherwise. So much of it seems just as relevant now as it was 30 years ago—and maybe even more so.
Beautifully & truthfully said, brux. :)
As to how little we know about what is in our heads? e.e. cummings said it well:
“When skies are hanged and oceans drowned, the single secret will still be man.”
The late English philosopher Mary Midgley has written extensively about the mythic aspect of science—or more accurately, scientism. She is far from despising science, rightly regarding it as the best means of resolving many questions. But she also has concerns about its claims to answer everything, including questions of deeply personal meaning & personal experience, by reducing all of human life to "nothing but—"
Consider Charles Dickens' Mr. Gradgrind:
"Now, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else. And root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them. This is the principle on which I bring up my own children, and this is the principle on which I bring up these children. Stick to Facts, sir! ... In this life, we want nothing but Facts, sir: nothing but Facts!"
Except that human life is more than just a conglomeration of Facts.
You're absolutely right, a great cover!
No one was trying to establish intellectual superiority over you. I was just offering William Blake as an example, because he's actually known to a great many people, not just serious students of English literature. His name can be Googled easily enough these days, for those unfamiliar with him. And Andre references him in the movie itself, so I'm only referring to something that's already there anyway.
This isn't a matter of superiority & inferiority. It's simply a discussion. You have your opinion of Andre, others have theirs & attempt to back it up . As I've said more than once here, a discussion with differing viewpoints is one of the things this film is all about in the first place. Certainly Andre & Wally differ on a lot of things! But they do so without rancor or insult.
The government then would have liked nothing more than to blame it all on the protestors & to exonerate the police. If they could have done so, they would have. But they couldn't, because the overwhelming evidence led them to judge that it was indeed a police riot. You don't seem to have any real historical understanding of the culture & the politics in 1968, probably because you're just too young. It was a very different country then, all across the political & cultural spectrum. Trying to read it through 2020 eyes won't & can't work. You have to be able to put yourself in the period as best you can, based on a fairly extensive study of all factors then & disregard the current politics & culture of today.
An American treasure. I hope that he'll have a swift & full recovery.
I guess if you were on trial for a murder you didn't commit, you wouldn't want the testimony of dozens of eyewitnesses who said you were innocent, since witnesses have very low reliability.
And yet the official verdict by the official inquiry was police riot.
R_Kane, as you can see from the OP's response, he's got his mind fixed on his own "truth" and doesn't want to hear from people who were living witnesses to the actual truth.
Try searching out actual books from the period & after, and read in depth. Take a few actual history course that cover the period. It was judged a police riot when all the dust had finally cleared, not a protester riot. There's nothing more to be said on that particular subject.
There were countless photographers & TV news reporters with cameras filming it live & recording it, for one thing. You weren't alive then, were you? I was. I watched it as it happened live on TV. The protesters were chanting, "The whole world is watching! The whole world is watching!" And it was. Not just American journalists, but journalists from all around the world, were covering that story as it happened.
Read a little history & see for yourself.
As trial testimony showed, there were also Government provocateurs who deliberately stirred up violence in what was otherwise a peaceful protest. This was common practice to disrupt & discredit the antiwar & civil rights movements then. That it was a police riot is not up for debate. It would have remained peaceful if not for the police. Standard practice from the police back then. I was alive then, and we all knew it then.