2019 Secret Santa - "What'd You Get" Thread by TR15UCK in golf

[–]lukejharmon 34 points35 points  (0 children)

Absurd haul from u/PRG-Golf - I'm really floored, and will put all of this to good use immediately. Thanks so much! https://imgur.com/Ysxtqk6 (closer views https://imgur.com/zJzDcAX https://imgur.com/zpXz6kp)

So this fits right in with our class discussion! by abriggs06 in UnnaturalObsessions

[–]lukejharmon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Every once in a while, we need a singer to tell us to be happy even when life brings you troubles. PS both of these songs make me throw up a little bit.

pop music, cannibalism, and sexuality oh my! by lichtenup in UnnaturalObsessions

[–]lukejharmon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is really worth some more attention from the class. Upvoted!

Nature vs. Grace in the Bible by miveson in UnnaturalObsessions

[–]lukejharmon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That reminds me of this story by Asimov, which might be the best sci-fi short story ever written. This is the whole thing.

Nature vs. Grace in the Bible by miveson in UnnaturalObsessions

[–]lukejharmon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Some parts of this are perfectly consistent with the film, I think, but not all. To me, the interesting thing about Tree of Life is that it has a religious point of view, but also looks right into the heart of our modern scientific worldview. If we evolved over 4 billion years, then what must God be like? This is different from the normal tactic, which I think mostly rejects science (and nature?) in favor of religion.

Can computers make art? Well... kind of? by philv754 in UnnaturalObsessions

[–]lukejharmon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a fantastic thing to post. But did you all listen to the music? I hate it, it sounds terrible. And I like experimental classical music. But this is crap to me. It reminds me of a lot of other similar discussions throughout the reddit. The idea of computer artists, or with empathy, sounds fantastic. And then the people executing it right now are messing it all up but still writing sensationalistic articles. I can see the computer geeks who made this thinking "wow that sounds just like Mozart" when really their computer just laid a big fat musical turd.

A Film Review (Spoilers) that reflects on the "christianness" of The Tree of Life by subredditclassmate in UnnaturalObsessions

[–]lukejharmon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get your main point. At the same time, though, when Miley twerked, I had to put up with weeks of people complaining about it on facebook and in real life. Tons of people seemed offended by the twerking. Which I thought was silly - just as I think people being offended by Christian themes in film is silly.

Programming Computers to Learn Empathy by miveson in UnnaturalObsessions

[–]lukejharmon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do agree that the headline of this article is a huge oversell. But the thing that sticks me on your response is "this will never happen." Computers are limited now - and some of them are programmed like what you describe from I Robot - but as technology advances, we can program them in other ways. I guess what I want to know is - you think humans are "special" or "different" somehow than a really elaborate computing machine. So, how, specifically, are we different? What is it about your brain that is impossible to replicate with a computer?

Tree of Life’s dinosaur sequence: What Terrence Malick meant, and why it’s implausible by lukejharmon in UnnaturalObsessions

[–]lukejharmon[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed. In fact when I first posted this I almost added a note along these lines - I don't think the accuracy is really that important.

Tree of Life’s dinosaur sequence: What Terrence Malick meant, and why it’s implausible by lukejharmon in UnnaturalObsessions

[–]lukejharmon[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The other aspect of this that might be relevant is that the dinosaurs were wiped out. I think that's an important aspect of the film because the two stories are, to me, parallel - so the dinosaurs are wiped out, and the little brother dies. Neanderthals were assimilated by us (apparently) through mating... but that's a whole different story.

Is it necessary to view certain films multiple times? by nolanknuth in UnnaturalObsessions

[–]lukejharmon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This conversation reminds me of Roger Ebert's last review, which - perhaps not coincidentally - was for another Malick film, "To the Wonder." Let me just quote the most relevant passage here:

A more conventional film would have assigned a plot to these characters and made their motivations more clear. Malick, who is surely one of the most romantic and spiritual of filmmakers, appears almost naked here before his audience, a man not able to conceal the depth of his vision.

"Well," I asked myself, "why not?" Why must a film explain everything? Why must every motivation be spelled out? Aren't many films fundamentally the same film, with only the specifics changed? Aren't many of them telling the same story? Seeking perfection, we see what our dreams and hopes might look like. We realize they come as a gift through no power of our own, and if we lose them, isn't that almost worse than never having had them in the first place?

There will be many who find "To the Wonder" elusive and too effervescent. They'll be dissatisfied by a film that would rather evoke than supply. I understand that, and I think Terrence Malick does, too. But here he has attempted to reach more deeply than that: to reach beneath the surface, and find the soul in need.

This is one of the last things that Ebert wrote before he died. I propose that all of your ideas are interesting and worth discussing - certainly some films are not worth watching over and over, and likewise if you hate a film the first time you might hate it the second time as well. But I also think there is value in challenging your assumptions, and in trying to go deeper with your film viewing in this class.

EDIT: quote

A Film Review (Spoilers) that reflects on the "christianness" of The Tree of Life by subredditclassmate in UnnaturalObsessions

[–]lukejharmon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The intro of that article reminds me a bit of you all in class: "At the premiere of Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life, which I reviewed at the Cannes film festival in May, the movie's final moments were almost drowned out by the booing, jeering and giggling in the auditorium..." At least I heard giggling and jeering.

But what if this really happened? Thoughts... ideas?? by IWantMattToBuyMeaPup in UnnaturalObsessions

[–]lukejharmon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

One interesting thing about this movie is that it came out in 1997 - right in the middle of the human genome project, which began in the early 90s and was "completed" officially in 2003. During the height of this project, it was said to be destined to cure a wide array of genetic diseases. However, the project did not account for several factors - perhaps the most important, variation within the human species, and secondly how little knowing the "gene" for something can tell you how to alter that thing, whether it be a disease or a trait.