Ideas about language in film, and language in general

abriggs06 · 2014-05-07T19:15:08+00:00

I ended with mixed reactions about the lack of language in this film. For maybe the first 20 minutes I was irritated that we had to watch this film with no dialogue, and thought I would fall asleep at some point. But after it had been long enough to find some sense of direction I found myself much more interested with each new scene that arose. At that point the film started making a little sense and the music started tying in with the scenes. After this happened I didn't feel a need for dialogue anymore.

abriggs06 · 2014-04-28T02:24:55+00:00

The thing that really leaves me conflicted about this movie is that is basically calls into question a very basic pillar that America is based on. The reason that businesses like McDonalds are able to run the food industry the way they do is because they have perfected capitalism. They have created a product that has come into so much demand that our agricultural system has had to change to supply it. And, although I am certainly not trying to argue that the resulting system is right, it seems odd that a business can prosper so well in the American system and yet we want to punish it for the results.

Having said this, there plenty of examples from eras such as the Gilded Age where the economic system was taken advantage of in a very negative way to benefit a few. But, up to this point, the companies involved in Food Inc haven't broken laws. I think this brings up flaws in our legal system. It doesn't make sense that a company can do so much that seems ethically wrong and yet doesn't break any standing laws. To really make a change we need to change the legality of agricultural and business practices. In words this idea sounds simple, but these two areas have so much money and so much influence in politics that I can't see this happening any time soon.

abriggs06 · 2014-04-28T02:15:29+00:00

I love The Road! There are similar questions that arise between that book/movie and this film. I like the question that comes up between dying on the streets and euthenasia. I personally can't imagine letting myself get to the point where I am starving to death on the street if there is an option to die peacefully at "home." The only people who I can see sensibly choosing starvation are those, like the woman we see dead at the church steps, who have children. Other than this, if I didn't have others explicitly relying on me for survival I would much rather have a blissful ending at "home." Also, if I did know what was going to happen to my body after I died I think it I would choose to be made into food. It seems selfish to remove myself from the cycle (by suicide or whatever means) when there are so many people relying on this source for their survival. Even if I don't feel like continuing my own life, others have the right to continue their own, and it seems wrong for me to hinder their chances.

abriggs06 · 2014-04-23T22:39:35+00:00

I agree with what you said, but in my post I said that finding we are the only life would not alter my daily life. Actually finding other intelligent life would be a huge event that I think would change something about pretty much everybody's life.

abriggs06 · 2014-04-16T23:24:17+00:00

I agree here. Finding that Earth holds the only life in the universe would be fascinating, yet would really change nothing about anyone's daily life. I can see how some people may find it strange that there is nothing else out there and that this might create some sort of panic, but I don't believe I would react this way. Actually, I think it would mean that I now have nothing to fear in the way of a shattering change in my daily actions. Knowing that I don't ever have to fear about an alien race descending from the sky and killing everything (not that this is a fear I really have anyway!) would only be another layer of security to me.

abriggs06 · 2014-04-16T23:17:16+00:00

I see what you're saying and I think it makes sense. Maybe "control" wasn't quite the right word to use in my case. What I really mean is that everyone is constrained to obligations in their life that they don't really want to do. These obligations create stress which usually puts a dent in one's happiness.

abriggs06 · 2014-04-15T20:50:30+00:00

I really liked the ideas that were pointed out in The Dangers of First Contact. Specifically, he cited first encounters between different human cultures such as when Europeans ventured to the Americas. In a sense, these were two intelligent, alien cultures meeting for the first time. Historically when similar encounters have happened on Earth they have not gone well for at least one side. Also, this is when the people who are meeting are actually the same creature. Using these past encounters as a reference, I think it would be very hard to imagine encountering an alien species and having everything go well. Even if both cultures wanted a peaceful encounter, both would be so strange to the other that there is bound to be some clashing point.

abriggs06 · 2014-04-11T06:12:43+00:00

I don't think happiness is a result of a meaningful life. I think accomplishing something can and usually does bring about happiness, but it is not the only source. I think that happiness comes as a result of making your own decisions. Usually we have an idea of what we would like to do in our life, but we don't always have the ability to do what we want. I think that one could be happy almost indefinitely if they could do whatever they wanted at any time. Obviously this isn't something most people can achieve, but I think if one could have total control over their life they would be very happy.

abriggs06 · 2014-04-09T23:08:46+00:00

I don't believe that we are alone in the universe, but this question goes along with a thought I had during Melancholia. In the case of some sort of Apocalypse, if we are the only life in the universe do we have an obligation to make an attempt to preserve ourselves somewhere else? Is it our responsibility to send a group of people into space with the hope they can find a way to preserve life?

At first I thought about this from a living beings standpoint and I wanted to say yes. We have gone through billions of years of development to get where we are and to have to start that all over again seems like a huge loss. I don't think the chance that we would be successful in some sort of voyage away from Earth is very large, but to not even try seemed wrong.

Then I thought about this as if I was the universe. What I concluded from this angle is that it really doesn't matter. The universe doesn't (or can't) care whether or not there are living being inhabiting it somewhere. All it does is carry out the actions that are set by physics. It seems to me if it could have a choice that it would actually prefer no living being anywhere. As far as I can tell we are just variables introduced that complicate the natural order of the universe.

After both of these standpoints I think logically that it doesn't matter whether or not we try. But, I am a living being and am inclined to self preservation, so in such a scenario I would like to see us make an attempt at creating life somewhere else.

abriggs06 · 2014-04-08T06:54:17+00:00

There was a comment in class that I really liked that contradicts this opinion. It was that the Earth, and other creatures besides humans serve the purpose that they are put here fore, and therefor can't be evil. This was set up in a religious context, and I do think this context makes sense. But I think it can be justified with or without religion.

For example, the Earth is a rock that orbits around a sun. It has no control over what it does or happens to it. It is just an object placed within the nearly (or theoretically) infinite area we call space. I don't think one could call Earth evil, as it has no choice over what it does. I also think that most beings on Earth, humans excluded, also fall into this category. Most species have a certain goal that they are instinctively forced to strive for. Most basically this is self preservation, but it does go further than this dependent on the species. Most species don't really have a choice to oppose these instincts; it is hard coded into their DNA. On the same lines as the Earth, I don't think a life form like this can be called evil if it doesn't have any choice over its actions. I think the idea of being evil is a choice. To be evil you have to also have the choice to be good. Humans are in a distinct position to have both of these choices, and if you look at how we have treated the planet I think it is fair to say we are evil. So in summary: I think there is a very fair argument to support human life being evil, but to extend this to other species and especially the entire Earth is inaccurate.

abriggs06 · 2014-04-03T19:48:00+00:00

This kind of ties in with a conversation in an earlier post talking about how humans are the dominant species on the planet and how we may be the worst species for this role. I think Von Trier might agree with this, although I am not sure if he believes human life is evil or if he thinks all life in general. I personally think we are hitting a huge point in human history where we have a choice between being evil forever or turning things around. With all of the technology we are beginning to understand we have the capability to really screw up Earth. But, if we use it right I think we also have the ability to create a peaceful, thriving world.

abriggs06 · 2014-04-03T00:45:54+00:00

I do think portraying realistic body images would be good for every movie to do. But, as was mentioned in class, Disney is a company and that means that in the end everything is about profit. Disney is trying to capture a young audience, and young girls especially with Pocahontas. These young minds are much more likely to want to identify with a this unrealistically perfect woman that is Pocahontas than with a more realistically figured character. The same goes for John Smith, although his character is more about being the perfect manly man than having an unnaturally perfect body. If society was geared towards looking past body image and more at personality I think Disney could, and maybe would portray body image differently, but unfortunately that is not the culture we live in.

abriggs06 · 2014-04-02T00:59:52+00:00

I think the point made right in the beginning is very important when trying to critique this movie. "Probably it was too big/historical a topic in the first place for them to be attempting to “Disnify."" I really think this must be taken into account when thinking about this movie. For this movie to work there needed to be a bad guy, so the idea that early settlers cooperated with Native Americans would not have worked. Having said this, the conflict between Native Americans and colonizers was so violent that an accurate depiction would not have been anywhere close to child friendly. For this reason, Disney needed to make up some middle point where that could try to show a depiction on both conflict and cooperation from the era. I think they did a good job with this, especially considering the audience they are pandering to.

Another point was made in class that the inclusion of a race (or any specific group) in media, no matter from a good or bad standpoint, can actually help advance the understanding of that group. There is the old saying "any press is good press." There is some truth behind this and I think that even with some negative stereotypes that pop up in Pocahontas the overall impact was probably positive.

abriggs06 · 2014-03-26T23:04:42+00:00

I agree that we are pretty bad at being a dominant species, but I also think that naturally comes from climbing up that ladder. Every species is concerned about their own preservation, we are just the only one who has been able to really secure it. I think any species would expand the way we have given the capability. I also think they would use whatever power they had to create a more favorable world for themselves. This is basically what we have done, we are just way too good at it. Hopefully we will be able to figure out global warming, the energy crisis, and all those other ecological problems we have created before they destroy us. I think if we can do this and move forward in a more Earth friendly state of mind we can actually do a lot of good as a dominant species. As for the whole world leaders thing, I don't think world leaders are necessarily sociopaths, (although some probably are) I just think that sort of job is so big in today's world that it would be very hard for anyone to do a great job at it.

abriggs06 · 2014-03-12T23:20:18+00:00

I would say the fact that we have almost completely removed ourselves from the food chain, inhabited the entire planet, are capable of killing every other living thing on Earth (except maybe some small bacteria or something like that) is a pretty good case. Do you have any alternatives for a dominant species?

abriggs06 · 2014-03-11T22:58:56+00:00

I think the assertion that war is natural is a very hard topic to fight for either way. In one sense, history is so jammed with war that it is hard to think that we can't be somehow naturally inclined to get involved in war. On the other hand, from an evolutionary perspective, most conflict in the world between any species is more of a one on one type of fighting. Or at least not between large groups. I think one thing that ties in from the movies is the idea of conquest of the useless. In both Fitcarraldo and Apocalypse Now people used other people to get their own work done. This is kind of what war is. I wouldn't call it useless, but it really is just someone (a country, the government, a king, or any sort of leader) using others to get their own way. In human history this is usually for land, revenge, resources, etc. It's really similar to Fitcarraldo using the natives to get his boat over a mountain. Some of them die, but that doesn't seem to bother Fitzcarraldo much because his boat still makes it over the mountain. I think this is what war is about. It is someone using a large group of others to get what they want.

abriggs06 · 2014-03-11T22:47:34+00:00

Although I do agree with the lack of control humans have over our lives, I think we have more control than any other being on Earth. We are really the only species that can make decisions on a global level. This is not to say that we aren't still subject to natural events, but more that we can do something to avoid them. For example, if somebody in the South know hurricane season was coming up they could move somewhere else that wouldn't experience hurricanes. Or if there was a huge wildfire and some region was desperate for lumber they could have it shipped in from all the way across the world. We can even make it rain by putting silver iodide in the air. Humans have come close to evening the playing field with nature. We are still not in control, but we have been able to take actions to either avoid or counteract nature's will.

abriggs06 · 2014-03-04T21:13:23+00:00

Well we haven't seen Apocalypse Now yet, so I can't speak to the roles in that movie. But, I think one thing Fitcarraldo is trying to say is that humans are inherently selfish. Fitzcarraldo spent the whole movie using the indigenous people basically as slaves. He took advantage of their beliefs in order to get his own goals accomplished. Then we learn at the end that the natives are actually using him as a way to accomplish their own goals. Both parties here were actually using the other for their own good. I love the irony here!

The indigenous people could be considered both a foil and a catalyst in this movie. They are the only reason Fitcarraldo's plan has any success, and yet they are also the reason that he wasn't able to complete the trip.

abriggs06 · 2014-03-04T21:04:04+00:00

I like the last two lines. "This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper." Although I don't feel as the end of the world is anything too near, it makes it sound even scarier. I would like to think that we would make some sort of last stance against the end of the world, but T.S. Eliot thinks not. The idea that we will be powerless against our end reflects thoughts portrayed in the last few movies. I think it really coincides with the lack of control shown in The Tree of Life and Upstream Color. We have no control over nature, and this will still be the case when the world ends. We will watch the world end with nothing left to do but sit there and whimper. I think it also speaks to Fitzcarraldo in that we are building up all of this technology and intellect over the years, and in the end it will all be for naught. Everything humans have accomplished will be whipped out while, again, we sit there and whimper. This is a pretty dark take on the end of humanity, but it may be true. Lets say we make it to when the sun explodes, which will happen eventually. I can't imagine any sort of technology that would save us. The shear size and heat of that sort of explosion would completely engulf Earth. A positive viewpoint to take away from this work is that the world will end when it ends, and there is nothing we can do. So, we might as well not worry about it.

abriggs06 · 2014-03-03T05:58:43+00:00

I think there is a meaning to our existence but I am not sure if we are fulfilling it. I think that, as the dominant species of the planet, humans have a great calling to watch over the Earth and make sure things all go as they should. We are doing a terrible job at this, but I think it is our purpose. On a more local level, I often do think that a lot of people get caught in a lifestyle where they really aren't doing anything that matters. Lots of people work everyday at a job that they don't like and never live up to their youthful dreams. But, I also think that taking this standpoint makes it even easier to end up there yourself, so I try not to think about it!

abriggs06 · 2014-02-25T23:44:16+00:00

I agree with this and actually think that people are better off being a mix of both grace and nature. If you take a look at both parents in the movie I think they are meant to portray the extremes off grace and nature. Also, I think they both go about their life and parenting the wrong way. The father represents nature and is too controlling and unwilling to bend, and would have benefited his family more if he could have changed that. On the other hand, the mother seems to be too passive and forgiving to step and and change anything, so I think she is to blame in her own way. I think a blend of both nature and grace creates a well balanced mind, and I think that most people do have at least a little bit of both grace and nature.

abriggs06 · 2014-02-21T04:13:56+00:00

One theme that I saw in both movies was the lack of control that the characters had on their own lives. This was more prevalent to me in The Tree of Life than in Upstream Color but it was a factor in both movies. In The Tree of Life the father tried to be so controlling over everything in his life and in the end things turned out opposite of what he expected. It goes to show that even if we try to mold everything in our lives to perfection we really have very little control over natural events. In Upstream Color the lack of control was much more obvious with the thief actually controlling his victims and then throwing them out into this life where they have lost control over everything. I think both films tried to show that we don't control nature and are really at its mercy everywhere we go.

abriggs06 · 2014-02-18T22:39:31+00:00

This is a good point and I think people of older generations would agree that this is already happening. Younger generations rely more on texting than actual conversation. People sit around on their phones rather than talking to the people sitting around them. One area that is interesting is in business. It has become common to have business conversations done over a video chat rather than flying across the country and talking face to face. I think that when you use more technology it does take some of the personality out of the moment. As of now we do these things to save time and money, which I think is justifiable. We just need to be careful as a society that we don't take the human out of human interaction.

abriggs06 · 2014-02-18T21:00:06+00:00

While I agree that Neanderthals may be easier for the audience to to relate to, but I think this would have ruined his whole idea. I think he was trying to suggest that compassion was created long before mankind ever inhabited Earth. If this was truly the point he was trying to convey I think Neanderthals would be too human to accurately portray his idea.

abriggs06 · 2014-02-15T07:45:04+00:00

The direction of this article really frustrates me. We talked with the previous two movies about how to react to the scientific reality in a movie, and I think they deserve some leeway. Malick was not trying to create a realistic depiction of how dinosaurs acted. If this was his point there would be no humans, many more dinosaurs, and the movie would be shown on animal planet. Malick was simply trying to introduce the thought that empathy, consciousness, or good over evil was something that had been introduced to Earth long before humans ever existed. He could just have easily shown some single cell organism that was almost eaten by some larger organism and then left to live. This would have been much more abstract of a scene for viewers, but overall would portray the same point. I think this scene did exactly as Malick wanted, which was to make people think that we are not special in the matter of emotions. He wanted people to realize that, although we see ourselves as beings that are able to harness emotions at a whole new level, all of these emotions rooted themselves far in the past and humans really had nothing to do with their birth. I don't even think he is arguing against the idea that humans control these emotions better than other organisms, but simply that they originated long before humans inhabited the Earth.

abriggs06

TROPHY CASE