Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)

reason_on's Achievements


Novice (2/7)



  1. Ah yes, Senior Spielbergo. I've gone back and forth on what I consider to be the merits of his work. I really didn't like Schindler's List at all. I reacted poorly to it, and left thinking that there just isn't anything "artistic" about the holocaust, and using cheap emotional visual aids (a la the red dress) to "drive home" the point that Germany's organized slaughter of Jews and anyone else they didn't like was horrible--wasn't a something I needed or wanted to see. There is a story somewhere, of a competition in Germany to create a memorial for one of the camps--but, at the end of the day, nothing was able to "memorialize" the horror of that place better than the place it self. So, no art-work was created. I wish Spielberg had followed the same path. I did think that Minority Report was excellent...and a great "pop culture" defence of free-will. But, I tend to think that people who glorify in such a realistic and believable ways, fear (Jaws), superstition (Close Encounter, Poltergiest) , and sacrifce (ET) are sending the wrong messages and promoting the wrong values, even they are wrapped in glossy innovative techniques. Of course, this draws attention to the distinction Rand wisely made between a work of art's "sense-of-life" and its "aesthetic" (technical) merit. This may not be the right thread for it, but I'd be really interested in an extended conversation debating the merits of Spielberg's body of work (in terms of thematic detail as well as technical expertise). RCR
  2. Yes, those were the early-early works that I was thinking of too, but couldn't recall what they were called. His progression as an artistist has certainly interesting.... LOL at that link. Too funny. RCR
  3. That is a very interesting point about Jackson. I actually haven't seen any of his early-early work, but my cine-geek (a term of endearment) pals tell me they are pretty outrageous. I did see *Beautiful Creatures* and *The Frighteners*...and I wouldn't call them "pure kitsch nihilism", although, both certainly contain elements of this (as does LOTR). It has always struck me as odd, that Jackson's earliest work would be of the quality that my pals describe (and there doesn't seem to be a lot of room for interpretation, here). The man that I sat and watched for countless hours of documentary footage, was so brilliant, bright, organized, critical, and happy, that I couldn't imagine a pure nihilist universe coming from his "pen"... I am curious--do you consider the original novels as works of Romantic fiction? I was always fascinated at how Tolkien purposefully left the setting as familiar and earthly (unlike SO many of those who followed in his footsteps) but altered time such that he could "get away with" and embrace more wildly universal subject matter. The whole thing (including The Silmarillion) is a fascinating creative curiosity to me to this day. There is a certain underscore of reverence for the best in humanity that, for me, puts his creative vision in mind with Rand's. In fact, I've always found it very interesting that both authors, ultimately, place music at the center of their earthly projections. RCR
  4. Peter Jackson, of course! I just saw KB2, and have to say that I enjoyed it much more than the first. I left the theatre after part one with a massive head-ache, mostly for reasons already detailed here in spades. I didn't really care for Pulp Fiction either. But, I did love (not without certain issues) True Romance and Rez. Dogs. I think the QT sylizations are best realized in these two plot driven films. The world is tweeked subtably, but enough to remove the picture from dreary Emil Zola naturalism. I have to say that while I still wouldn't say that I liked the whole Kill Bill thing, p2 was a much better experience than p1. It is more balanced and integrated in its stylistic wonderings, and the sense of humor is MUCH more effective. The scenes with the kung-foo master were, I thought, rather priceless. And Daryl Hannah, is something to see. She irritated the crap out of me in the first part, but she does quite well in part2. I actually thought she rivaled Uma as far as beauty and acting skill goes (Uma is also less wooden in this one). Consequently, I found her death difficult to watch. David Carradine also makes P2 MUCH more interesting to watch. He really fits the "bill" perfectly. The scene out on the chapel porch, I thought, was excellent in its strange tension. Thematically, I was a little surprised at the ending...and not so sure that I know how to take it, even in an archetypical context. But, I don't want to spoil anything for those who haven't seen it. I also think it was a mistake to chop-saki the movie in two pieces... I am also curious, would anyone here classify QT as a Romantic writer/director/artist? And heck, what about Peter Jackson? Romantic? RCR
  5. Seriously, I honestly can't believe that the single-beat 20 min track thing is still going. Maybe I've just lost connection with the really good places, but I get around enough...I mean, I understand the aerobic aspect of that type of dancing, and the need for a certain consistency, but at the same time, when you play for 2 hours, and spin a total of 3 4x4 beats and do nothing but dump a bunch of high-end tweeks to the mix--ugh..it irritates me just thinking about it. And honestly, the best "club"/"house"/'pop-n-lock"/break-dancing/"trance" dancing I've ever seen is with people who thrive on variation and not the same 'ole same 'ole. I've even theorized that that whole scene (the hard core repetitous beatz thing) has a certain malelevolence to it, (even in its "happier" House manifestations) in that it seems to do nothing but dull and diminish awareness/consciousness. It just doesn't seem the least bit healthy to me. Thanks for the list, I'll definately check them out on my next trip to the record store. Since we are all in sharing mode, I want to pass along the last few titles that I bought, they aren't House or even really Hip-Hop, but they are all electronica, and I am really happy with the lot of them. Greyboy--"soul mosaic" Mo Horizons--"Remember Tomorrow" Mo Horizons--"and the new bohemian freedom" The Dining Rooms--"versioni particolari" D. Carfagna--"Express Rising" Del Tron 3030--"The Instrumentals" RCR
  6. LOL again. Well, now all is understood. RCR
  7. LOL! Well, give me a few titles that you love these days, and I'll check them out. Good House is tough to discover, because DJs tend to turn the tracks (even the best) into repetitious nightmares. One of my ALL time favorite bands is BranVan 3000 and they sometimes fall into House...but, ususally not for more than a min. or two! RCR
  8. Answer: HECK YEAH!!! I've got quite a wide group of musican friends here in Chicago (I also play keys in a nascent band, and compose electonica). Chicago really is an amazing "scene"...from the house-parties w/live acts, to the live shows at local bars/clubs, there is rarely a time when something incredibly cool and positive isn't happening here. Actually, I have very good friends in both of these fantanstic up and coming bands.. http://www.small-change.net http://www.abstractgiants.com And if you are in Chicago, and you like hip-hop/funk, you'd be crazy to miss their CD release party at The Metro (May 13th). I just realized that you probably meant House (as in the style) Music and not house music...I do get around to some of the house House party's, don't go clubbing much anymore, my good friends occationally throw big DJ parties, and I know some guys who own a record store that speciallizes in DJ House wax...but, me personally, I generally stay away from "House", since it generally bores the living pants off me. I still *love* the first Soul-II-Soul album, but that's about it. Sorry about mis-identifying the vegatable on top of your head. Is it a Mario thing? Also, now I understand the "Ugh" from before...thx for clarifying.
  9. I have to say that with Blackalicious, the CD experience is far superior to the live experience. Both, NIA and BLAZING ARROW are two of my hip-hop favs, but the live presentation went a little to far down thug-lane, and I left a little disappointed. Del the Funky Homosapien has his moments. The Handsome Boy Modeling School CD is also one of my favorites. I really love the "universal" and "integrative" styles of these bands (and others), not to mention the energy and playfulness that usually comes along with it. I would think that someone who wears a turnip hat, might appreciate that. RCR
  10. based on your tastes above........if you haven't already, make sure to check out "South"'s first album, and the Flamming Lips "Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots"..I am also told that a band called "Muse" is doing great things too. RCR
  11. Hi Dinesh, I am a fan of hip-hop too (the right kind). In fact, I just saw the whole Quanumm (dj shadow, lyrics born, blackalicious, etc) crew do a kickin' show here in Chicago... It really is a shame that like with Pop music, the intellegent practicioners of hip-hop style music are almost always buried by the no talent LCD (lowest common denomenator) bunch, a la Britteny Spears in the pop world. RCR
  12. Well, I see from the spay of old-school bromidic and bitter retorts, that the randroid rationalization machine is still in good working order. Ah, well. Ayn Rand taught that one shouldn't argue with those who aren't disposed to reason. I am going heed her wise words, and leave this dandelion-stew to its own devises! Have fun kids. RCR
  13. This is interesting. I've often argued with friends that when it comes to songs, the music is really all that matters...(my english major friends always argued that the lyrics make the song). I like singing, and I like singers...but, the older I get, the more I want just the pure music, or just the beats (a la electronica). It seems that when ever lyrics are involved the tendency is for the music to get dumbed down (not always, of course). Opera (which I normally don't care for) could probably be an acception to this. Lyrics v. music is interesting too, since music is the one art form without conceptual content, and yet we've gone to such lengths to add it in through words and singing. It would be an interesting project (I've sure someone has already done it) to trace the development of actual lyrics (as opposed to just vocal tones) being integrated in with the "language" of music. RCR
  14. True, Rand did eventually tell Frank that she was cheating on him with a man almost half his age (it was not the first time Rand showed an special interest in a handsome young stranger, either). Rand's belated "honesty" with Frank (and Branden's with Barbara) doesn't change the fact that both Branden and Rand committed "adultery" on their respective spouses and created an absolutely insane situation for both Frank and Barbara--not to mention themselves--that could not possibly last (and one that ultimately contributed heavily to Frank's depression and alcoholism). I think it is completely unjustified to suggest that Branden has tried to "blame everything" on Rand. In fact, I'd say one of the main purposes of his book, *My Years with Ayn Rand*, was to take responsibility, quite publicly, for that which was his to take. Afterall, and let us be perfectly clear on this, Objectivists don't accept unearned guilt. Branden took responsibility--and ownership--for his choices and decisions. He did as much as he could then as a young man in that horrific moment with nothing but Rand's unchecked "woman-scorned" rage. He did again, as an older man, in his book *Judgement Day*, and again with more mature refinement with *My Years with Ayn Rand*. It was, tragically, Rand (and subsequently those who can not see outside of her shadow) who neglected to achieve this personal breakthrough. RCR
  15. Whew~ Now that is a bitter, bitter mouthful! LOL. You do realize that Ayn Rand was *married* to Frank O'Connor when she started sleeping with Nathaniel, don't you? If you can't see how your claim above is totally and almost incomprehensibly absurd, then you've got a few principles to re-examine. LOL. --Because people find in Nathaniel Branden (Rand's GALT) a happy, generous, intelligent man, who has spent an entire lifetime devoted to the passion of man's greatness. People admire him, his productive capacity, his work, and his many accomplishments (including the founding of the organized Objectivist movement). I don't think it is really all that very difficult to understand. R. Christian Ross http://www.nathanielbranden.com
  • Create New...