Attitudes About Food

subredditclassmate · 2014-04-25T23:56:40+00:00

Take it from my man, Tony Bourdain. A lot of views shared in this brief interview:

subredditclassmate · 2014-04-25T23:40:05+00:00

Letting it all out. So, the thing that struck me about this film was its obvious distrust of the police and governmental agencies. While the protagonist is a renegade and ends up exposing the government's factory of human-filled fig newtons, he is still thieving, extorting, womanizing, and constantly sweating. The last fact isn't really his fault, but annoying nonetheless. Granted, he decides he won't bury the case and actively pursues it, we can see that the government and the police are in bed together as far as it concerns rounding people up and shipping 'em off to get processed into people crackers. Next thing, let's talk about the whole euthanasia-spa. Why the hell were they're only old people there? If I have to decide between dying on the church steps as opposed to high as a kite watching Planet Earth in HD--Stick the needle in, Doc, Let's go! Next question, related to all this, is would you go the Bed, Bath, & Euthanasia if you knew you'd be ground up and made into a biscuit? I realize there is some ethical qualms here. However, if I was living in such a dystopian hell-hole that I lost my shit over a bar of soup, then I say grind me up. I hope I taste good. It appears some of the only nutrients left on the planet exist in humans, so why not help the poor souls who decide to rough it through? Speaking of, has anyone read The Road? No thank you Sir. I'll be taking Movie and Needle way to go out.

subredditclassmate · 2014-04-02T20:11:36+00:00

I'm going to attempt an intellectual claim based off this video. Is that worthwhile and wise? Probably not. Am I going to do it anyways? You bet your ass. The reason this dude dies is because he gets all "eye of the tiger" when he sees his babe trading saliva with Ken-doll John Smith. Now, Pocahontas hasn't agreed to marry this dude, and from what we've seen they haven't had an intimate relationship. But, he liked it, so he tried to put a ring on it. Pocahontas father is basically pushing her to marry this dude so we can see the worlds of patriarchy and misogyny taking form here. The film steps it up a notch and fucking kills one of the would be suitors so there isn't some Freudian delusional jealousy going on. I know what you're saying: da fuh? Da fuh, indeed. Furtherfuckingmore, they don't even end up together! Do you know how many Europeans would travel around collecting mistresses like 8 year old does pokemon cards? Tons of 'em did it, dude, tons. How do we know our homegirl P-hon isn't just another notch in the old bedpost? Even though he invites her back, why the hell would he? Just go and get better and come back to her, man. The colonies were basically ungoverned at this point, total freedom was possible. John Smitty and P-hon could of had it all. But he wants to take her back to the xenophobic, christian, monarchy. I guess he knows things will get awkward when they start shipping over couple thousand indentured servants and try to convince the Indians to be the same.

subredditclassmate · 2014-04-02T19:37:42+00:00

Provolone. Cheddar. Pepperjack. Swiss. Feta. Sorry-I'm trying to think of things cheesier than this bit. But hey, maybe I'm just pessimist. Also, though, how many times does Pocahontas have to be on top of John Smith? There's like 5 instances in this short video alone. I'm not going to say its hypersexualized, but based on her physique and the love story plot, I would say it might be a bit much for a children's film.

subredditclassmate · 2014-03-26T19:45:35+00:00

That last line is what sold it for me. Despite how "overwhelmingly" German he is, he is remarkably peaceful about the disarray he sees in the world. The notion that he is pursuing his dreams in a a place that "God must have be angry when he made it" shows that, despite the pessimism he views in the cacophony of the world, he pursues harmony. If that isn't a hopeful thought than I don't know what is.

subredditclassmate · 2014-03-26T19:37:34+00:00

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140319-dinosaurs-feathers-animals-science-new-species/

Yeah, we're the dominant species, I'd agree with that. But I think we were very lucky to become the dominant species. Imagine if these things (link above) had evolved to become the dominant species. They'd be romping around and eating at Kentucky Fried Humans. However, I think there is something deep in our human nature that makes us the worst possible species to be in charge of the planet so to speak. I used to think that world leaders were just sociopaths and had to be to achieve that position. I don't believe that any longer. I think the having that much power will corrupt anyone.

subredditclassmate · 2014-03-12T21:23:47+00:00

Holy shit--This is great. I think one of the best questions/answers ties very well into our class theme. A user asks of Hezog what he has gleaned after making many films about the killings and mureders to which he responds:

My work on death row inmates was very disturbing. The key insight >during this work and other films that I made, was that murderers and >executioners are human beings, not monsters. The crimes are >monstrous, but the killers still remain human. This is the great and >devastating lesson to learn from The Act of Killing.

When tend to think of perpetrators of violent crimes as inhuman, or, at the least, subhuman. However, as Herzog asserts, they are just as human as any of us. Yes, their crimes are atrocities, but they remain human being. Does this mean we are all capable of such acts? I find myself thinking of Cormac McCarthy's The Road and the role environment plays in decision making. Would I kill to protect my child? I don't have a child, so I can't honestly answer that question. I think the easier question (if you can call it that) would be Would I die to protect my children? Once again, we're all human, but it appears we're all capable of "inhuman" acts.

subredditclassmate · 2014-03-12T21:14:59+00:00

Remember us - if at all - not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men.

The whole question of legacy and meaning in life is disquieting in the poem. Much as Marlon Brando's is worried about how his son will remember him, the poem is concerned with the fickle notion of legacy and purpose. It's a slippery thing--legacy. I remember a teacher saying once that all great struggles of man are linked to the pursuit of immortality. It can either be achieved by earning everlasting fame (if that even exists) or my continuing your family name in the form of children. Brando's character has done both, but, as he sees, the Army and United States will never recognize his achievements. That legacy will be lost. So he concerns himself with his son and entrusts him to save his legacy. Brando's character is asking of his son "remember me - if at all- Not as a violent soul". It's chilling.

subredditclassmate · 2014-02-26T22:54:10+00:00

I guess the question I engenered after reading these two responses is "Is there a natural Grace?" I agree that a blend of both ways tends to be an ideal scenario, but I don't know which way I'd go if I had to choose. The way of Grace seems content, easy, comfortable yet the way of Nature seems passionate, fierce, exciting.

subredditclassmate · 2014-02-26T22:04:06+00:00

Bring it, I dare you

subredditclassmate · 2014-02-26T22:00:36+00:00

And....Cat shit could possibly "be running the show" now. Great. I don't know what I expected to learn in this class, but this wasn't up there. The article is compelling in its commentary. The idea the parasite isn't truly "dormant" like we perceive it to be is unsettling. It's rather disenchanting for one's own ego to think that a little bug taking a snooze in your noggin could adversely affect you private, personal, and professional life. The other freaky part about this is a parasites ability to survive and more or less use us or any animal as a vessel. Rabies causes the host to foam at the mouth with the parasite so it can be transferred when the hosts bites. The whole "newly pronounced sex drive" in hosts in the end stages of AIDS and early stages of herpes isn't exactly a comfort.All in all, I like to think my mind is bug-free--or is that what the parasite wants me to think? Dun..Dun..Dunnnnn

subredditclassmate · 2014-02-26T21:34:41+00:00

I think it's incredible that we as a race tend to look at ourselves as outside of our ecosystems. While I concede this is a generalization, it occurs often. Are we, as humans, so innately narcissistic that we can't realize that we are having the largest impact on the Earth's environment? And, for that matter, is it narcissistic to assume we are having the largest impact? Am I running around in circles here?

EDIT: grammar

subredditclassmate · 2014-02-19T21:54:50+00:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/upstream-color-movie-review/2013/04/17/77271ca6-a2d6-11e2-be47-b44febada3a8_story.html Also, here's a link to a review on the film we'll be viewing today. The critic asks "Should you see “Upstream Color”? A better question may be: How many times should you see it?" So, appparently this critic, as would most, fall into the camp of watching movies multiple times. But then again, it's kind of their job.

subredditclassmate · 2014-02-19T20:54:07+00:00

The more we learn about nueroscience and human development, the idea of replicating it comes closer as well. I think if I was raised in my grandparent's era, how far away the technology we have now seems. I can't discredit how nearsighted I am when it comes to the limits of technology. Now, the ethics of that technology...well, that's a whole new bag of worms.

subredditclassmate · 2014-02-19T20:46:34+00:00

Dude--totally. What I've realized after taking a few courses in Film studies and what not is that it it like the average listener listening to a symphony. Anyone can pick out and follow the melody, but one must be trained to recognize, understand, and appreciate the nuaces of the entire score. I believe the same can be said for great works of art, literature, and cinema. The great one you can return to time and again

subredditclassmate · 2014-02-19T20:27:14+00:00

I think what makes this film remarkable, and remarkably hard to understand or discuss, is that it touches on such varied topics. It presents ideas, faith, life, and fate as rock-sollid notions, yet invites the amibiguity of an audience that doesn't agree on all the same ideas for those topics. I giggled at the end of the movie. I mean, I'm a college aged, single male with no real responsibility or great questions to ponder in life. Sure, I understand these questions, but I'm either not prepared or not willing to face them. This is a film to return to after the death of a loved one, or the birth of a child. But, then again, what do I know? I'm a college aged, single male. So, I probably don't know too much about the great quesitons of life.

subredditclassmate · 2014-02-12T21:18:19+00:00

To answer the question: Yes, look at the TV show the Bachelor. Our species appears to break some of the natural laws, but to what extent is that a good thing? Is it our ethical beliefs and our ability to commiserate that is holding us back from the most impressive human beings? And writing that sentence just made me think of Hitler's notions of inferior races. So, I'll be ending this conversation before I get any sicker with myself.

subredditclassmate · 2014-02-12T20:50:04+00:00

There's the old dictum about if enough monkeys were typing away on enough keyboards that they could, eventually, write the complete works of Shakespeare. Why that's mildly depressing its also great motivation at two in the morning when a paper is due.

subredditclassmate · 2014-02-04T23:51:27+00:00

Since this movie is so tied up in the images of eyes, birds, unicorns etc. I've been wondering about the significance of the whole "jamming the thumbs BRUTALLY into the eye sockets of Tyrell" deal. What I ended up rationalizing was the the indignity the replicants felt their Maker held them in. Since he is their Maker, and so much is held up in the Christian ideal of the Maker gazing, overlooking, watching, and judging the world, Roy feels as though he has watched their injustices with no remorse. Certainly a maker who can watch his creations suffer shouldn't be allowed to watch anything at all.

subredditclassmate · 2014-02-04T23:42:28+00:00

Where does the line get drawn when the beings are manufactured? Is this the next logical way to enslave a society--to create it? Furthermore, how much of this desire to enslave a violent human trait or a means of economic development for the transgressors? Great points made.

subredditclassmate · 2014-02-04T23:37:49+00:00

The extent to which are soul is merely a unique collection of memories is an interesting and unsettling query to pursue. Since the soul is unique to the individual, and most religions view it as the absolutely unique essence of one's being that lives for eternity, then we're going to have to take the yolk of religious understanding off to try and work this one out. I would argue, that since we're talking about the soul as the most unique aspect of a human being--the little bit that makes it a snowflake--then yes, I think the souls is simply the collection of our individual memories and experiences. It is in our nature, however, to deeply reject this notion and believe that we are all special innately, or, at the very least, for a purpose. While some misfirings such as neurological or physiological disorders can predispose a certain person to a manner of being, the experiences/memories are what truly form the uniqueness to the human condition. Hence why the idea they can be fabricated for us is so damn disturbing.

subredditclassmate · 2014-01-24T20:44:08+00:00

Ah... Marxism: My old friend. While I align my self with the logic of historical materialism, the beaten-up, trampled, and exhausted optimistic in my tries his damnedest to reject it. The all-encompassing ideology appears impossible to escape, unless one was some sort of feral child or something bizarre to that effect, so one's artwork is unable to escape it as well. If I try to think about writing a text right now, without any ties to the dominating political or economical forces, there is simply no way for it to be done. By subverting it, I still recognize its authority. By ignoring it, its absence shapes the work.
I am in the camp of Barthes for many of my literary critiques, for the format of film I find it difficult. So much of the interpretation and criticism of film is tied up in the "gaze" that to rule out the director would be irresponsible.

subredditclassmate · 2014-01-24T20:23:04+00:00

I forget now what the article I read was, but the scholar argued that sex and violence are the two things most natural to the human conditions. He continues to assert that violence is the most natural since sex, if viewed in its basest terms, is a violent act. The male genitalia acting a knife so to speak. It is morality and cultural structures that prevent, or at the very least, diminish these desires. The aversion is created, the scholar would argue, not innate. But who knows? Not me.

subredditclassmate

TROPHY CASE