chance, strategy, risk

I know and not just in the creative. Similarities with those who have gone before are going to turn up on any quest for truth. The path to it may differ, but sooner or later you have to travel through similar terrain.

As coincidence would have it, I have the perfect example. 😉 Compare this from your last post:

goldenboy said:
Hmm. Well, that speaks to the concept of "originality", right? Illyria is a rip-off of Data, who's a rip-off of Spock, who's a rip-off of The Silver Surfer, etc, etc. The "alien philosopher". He stands outside humanity, looking in. "What does it all mean? What does it mean to be 'human?'".
Click to expand...

to this from an old post of mine in November of 2004 which I'm almost sure you've never read.

So did the Star Trek franchise invent that character prototype? They did not.

You can see the same kind of Character in comic books with characters like The Silver Surfer, or The Vision from The Avengers Series.

In fact considering we know Joss Whedon grew up a comic book fan, I would suggest if we were looking for a source to Joss's inspiration for Illyria we should probably look first to comics.

Even so Comics themselves did not invent the character prototype described here. It's mythic. You see it in characters like Achilles and Heracles from Greek myths.
Click to expand...

https://www.buffy-boards.com/showthread.php?t=12817&page=3
 
Yeah, that Stan Lee, very clever guy. Not purely "original", but innovative in the themes he combined and injected into his superhero stories. How else could he have gotten that huge cult of college kids obsessed with comics in the 60's? I think he introduced a lot of kids to mythic concepts they hadn't thought about before. I'm sure he inspired Joss. I thought Stan was the coolest. Yay comics!
 
I second that "Yay comics!" but would add to that - don't forget DC. They also introduced us to a lot of mythic concepts (except without the personal problems 😉) and, I would argue, that their two most famous characters (Superman and Batman of course 🙂) are virtually myths in their own right.
 
Very true. I was a Marvel loyalist. Just started reading "Men of Tomorrow" by Gerard Jones. So, I'm learning all about Siegel and Shuster and all those DC guys. Coolsville man.
 
There was an interesting article in The Times on Saturday about Superman and his origins, which speculates that he is Jewish, given the origins of Siegel and Shuster. I'm not sure how valid it is but it was a great excuse for the headline "Up, up and oy vey!"...I do love a good pun 🙂

Read the article HERE
 
Very interesting. You know, I was never much interested in Superman as a kid. Difficult a relate to a godlike alien. But the Jewish analogy does work, doesn't it? The fantasy of the outsider, the Jewish immigrant, or son of immigrants. Sees the boundless possibiities of America, yet feels slightly apart from it as well. All these guys, Siegel and Shuster, Bob Kane, Stan, etc.

And I did become curious, just generally, about "el", as an adult with a Catholic background. You've got those angels, Michael, Gabriel, Raphael. All those other Jewish names with the "el". Neato!
 
Along those lines, the most interesting art does tend to reflect the artist's experience or personality in some way, right? Superheros as the Jewish experience in America, the immigrant experience, more generally. The loner, the outsider.

The Buffyverse obviously reflects Joss's personality, experience, his "hangups" if you will.

And Stan's personality shone through his characters: his love of Shakespeare and language in general, pomposity, fun.
 
Almost makes you think Joss chose the name "Angel" for a specific reason, not just irony. An homage to Superman, in turn an homage to Jewish theology:


"Angel names were constructed by using a word to represent the character or qualities of the Angel and by the addition of the suffix "˜el', meaning "˜God'; for example, Gavr = strength, Gavriel (Gabriel) = "God is my Strength". There were believed to be innumerable angels existing in a complex hierarchy, with Metatron at their head as the most powerful angel of all. Where possible, I have attempted to translate or give some indication of the function of the angel names.

The numbers below refer to the appropriate line of the text:

2. Avartiel - an angel whose name is associated with pleas to assist women in childbirth and the prevention of miscarriages.
Shamriel - "My guardian is God"
Yefiel - "My beauty is God"
Shathniel - An angel of silence

3. Sussiel - "My steed is God"
Azriel - "My helper is God". One of the leaders of the Angels of Destruction and an angel who watches over the earth.
Metatron - The greatest angel in Heaven, once the biblical prophet Enoch, who is said to be the link between the human and the divine. He is the chief of the ministering angels and is also the Master of Heavenly Song."



source:

http://www.chester-novello.com/work/32848/main.html
 
I'm guessing this film won't be an incisive exploration of moral conflicts either. But I bet it'll be scary and fun:


Tarantino plans Friday 13th sequel

"Quentin Tarantino plans to write and direct the sequel of "˜Friday the 13th', horror classic based on the story of mask-wearing maniac Jason Voorhees terrorizing the school camp.
 
According to the Hollywood Reporter, the director of Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill has scheduled the meeting with the New Line Cinema executives this week to discuss the 11th film of horror series originally released in 1980.
 
With more than $80 million brought in 2003 by the 10th film of the series, "˜Freddy Vs Jason', New Line expects the success of the ultimate sequel to be amplified with the brilliant Tarantino's producing. For the world-famous director it is the possibility to work with one of the most recognized characters of horror genre. "


source:
http://www.realestategates.com/News/09032005/tar_frid013846455.html
 
This sounds kinda neat. An exploration of the history of postmoderism. Also, how it relates to moral, intellectual relativism in the modern world. I'm guessing the author is disturbed by the phenomenon. This board's got me readin' more!


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-1702329-4699200?v=glance

Ooh, this sounds fun. Most of the reviewers seem incredibly hostile to postmodernism, at least in the academic setting.
 
Thanks. That does seem like an interesting book.

Kind of OT maybe, but in one of the little mini-reviews at the bottom, the guy says:

The basic idea is to "deconstruct" the ideals or methods of one's opponents in order to expose their subjectivity and then to try to impose one's own subjectivity on them.
Click to expand...

That's just so true, and so everywhere these days. I see it on message boards all the time. It's become this thing people do without even thinking what it is they're doing.
 
It's fun to witness isn't it? In a maddening sort of way! That's why these boards are so addicting, I think.
 
Sin City
"A review of one of Frank Miller's graphic novels sums up his work "“ and the movie Sin City "“ succinctly: it's "dark, violent, sexy and very, very cool." And those same four descriptors pretty much sum up my doubts about this film, especially the last one.

Sin City, perhaps best described as film noir on steroids, is a movie that's so cool you're not supposed to be concerned about its total lack of moral grounding. Nor its profound sexism. Nor its misanthropic nihilism. This is a movie for people who hate people. And why is it cool to like stories about little more than corruption, greed, hate and violence? Just because it is. "

http://www.apolloguide.com/mov_fullrev.asp?CID=5347&Specific=6185



"”I think I'm gonna have the same reaction to this movie as I do to Tarantino's stuff. "Cool!". Yet, empty. I think "cool" may be the ultimate postmodern adjective. Not sure if I'll feel quite as dismissive as this reviewer, but...How much more post-mod can you get than a film noir inspired comic book converted into a movie that's filmed entirely on a green screen stage?

Joss has managed quite a feat, it seems to me: Takes a postmodern, relativistic creative approach in his work. Yet, just by injecting a little inner conflict into the characters, the work has folks on these boards constantly philosophizing and arguing morality, ethics, law, etc...




Love the comment reactions to this review....


"Brian, you are, in fact, a great example of the  pussification  of North America. Stick to reviewing Hilary Duff movies.
- Moe
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kind of funny bitching about morality in a movie. How many  un-morale  movies on this site have gotten positive reviews? And not five seconds ago I was looking at an ad on this site with a pair of breasts on them and a bit of text. What are you talking about morality, when this site is selling sex itself?
- Joe Blow
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Intelligent Reviews Online  tells you everything you need to know about  critc  (or should we say elitist snob) Brian Webster. You see, he's  enlightened . The rest of us are slack-jawed hicks. Forget this pseudo-intellectual. His review is so off-the-mark it's hilarious.
- doug
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The critic needs to know that morals are subjective, no two people's are exactly the same.
- Lueshi vHobo
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brian, do yourself a favour and step away from the computer and let Mike DeWolfe handle the reviews from now on. Congrats on the site hits by the way. Giving a noir film with a dedicated fanbase a bad review, the first bad review actually, was a brilliant way to attract more attention to the site.
- Joe
------------------------------------------------------------------------

No offence, but this was the worst movie review I have ever read. You can't support one damn thing you say. You should look for a new job, buddy.
- jaba
------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, let me get this straight... you have a problem with the movie's total lack of moral grounding, profound sexism and its misanthropic nihilism... Kay, now, try to stay with me on this one... *ahem*... It's called SIN CITY.- -The main word here is SIN. It's a CITY... of SIN... The CITY... is in fact: 'SINFUL'... I... I don't know how else to put this...
- Jimmy Cheung
 
nerd4hire
nerd4hire
I wanna see that show. Alexis Bledell as a hooker. Gotta see it.
All those talkbackers complaining about this guy's review, I understand and empathize to a degree. One's instinct, in defending something, is to say "get off your high horse, elitist, pretentious jerk!". I don't think they all completely saw his point though.

He's not just saying the movie's characters are immoral, he's saying the movie, the art, is amoral. There's no moral component. Therefore, because there's no internal conflict, the characters are cardboard, boring, forgettable.

It can work in a positive, negative way. I find classic Superman stories boring for a similar reason. The morality in the stories is a given, unquestioned. Almost inhuman. Comics, with the help of Stan and others, got more interesting when internal conflict became more common in the characters.

Maybe Tarantino films are fascinating like nature shows on the Discovery Channel are. There's no morality in a documentary about honeybees. But it's interesting to watch this odd, alien world and strange behavior. Almost like a scientific curiosity. And just the visceral thrill, like a rollercoaster.

OK, another thought. Joss and Tarantino both work in a postmodern fashion. Tarantino does so in the purely aesthetic sense, mixing and matching visual styles, taking cinematic conventions out of their original contexts and rearranging, combining in new ways. Joss does this as well, yet additionally, he drops his characters, his content into a morally postmodern world. Mixing and matching moralities, ethical systems as well as cinematic conventions.
 
That's an interesting point at the end there, Goldenboy, and my first impulse is to agree without reservation. I worry I might be ignoring some complexity though, so I have to think about it a bit before I incorporate it into my own personal gestalt of accepted concepts.
 
Please work that one out and get back to me. I wanna know if I know what I'm talkin about! (heh)

I think I need to go back and view all of Tarantino's stuff again.
 
Yeah I mean, I get what your saying, and at a glance it's pretty hard to find fault with, but I can't help thinking there's something else there.

I'll use an analogy to give you the fetal idea of what I'm thinking.

Imagine a plant. When you first look at it you see this multitude of flowers each of a varying genus that appear to be growing out of it. That's what the moral view of the Whedonverse might look like, but when you get up close you see everything is growing out of the same root. Different flowers are just grafted on. Everything is actually growing from the same root.

What I mean is different moralities and religious precepts all grow out of the Whedon plant, but maybe there is one central moral viewpoint nourishing them all at the root. I don't know exactly what that means qualitively though.
 
Exactly! What's the right model? The right analogy? Your thought brings me back to my earlier professed skepticism of Joss's professed atheism. Does he really, purely feel that way? If so, theoretically could he explore a myriad of different moralities, ethical systems, all in a non-partisan, detached mindset? But no, we're not in a vacuum. We're (most of us on these boards I assume) a part of Western Civilization. A civilization formed in great measure on the moral precepts of Judaism, Christianity. It must contribute greatly to Joss's morality, mindset. Whether he rejects the literal aspect or not.

Yet, there's that whole postmodern conundrum again. Judeo-Christanity has been tweaked by The Enlightenment and the whole philosophical stream-of-thought after that. Not to mention the constant modern interaction with every other civilization, morality on earth.

And likewise, Tarantino must have a worldview that rubs off on his films, at least in some minor way. But what is it exactly? Hedonism? Nihilism? Is there something more than that?

I guess it's so murky because the relationship between a person and that person's art is so complex. Think of all the possible conflicting motivations: one's personal ideals, moral questions, desires, aesthetics. Plus, one's insecurities with their art. How does it measure up historically? Is it important? Am I original? Is that other guy better than me?

One truism that I think holds up pretty well is that the most universal art is often the most personal. Because, I think, it's the most emotional. I suspect that Joss's art may actually be more personal to him than Tarantino's is to Tarantino. Who knows though?

OK, maybe Joss isn't actually a pure, academic postmodernist. He doesn't actually believe for example that language can't possibly convey objective meaning and reason is ultimately a useless illusion.

Perhaps he appreciates the creative value of "aesthetic postmodernism", uses it as a tool for artistic expression. And "moral postmodernism" is like an analogy for moral conflict, uncertainty. Joss's characters are conflicted, but they have an assumed, basic moral platform from which they're reaching out. They're not in complete freefall.

Postmodernism, from what I'm reading, was originally a superficial, aesthetic label created in America. It related mainly to writers and architects at first. Then it spread to Europe and morphed into an actual philosophy, a new construct of reality. That wasn't its original function.
 
Now, is there a morality in Tarantino movies? I think there may be. It might be something like the "warrior's code". A code of honor. The code of the Samurai, the code of the Mafia. The code of honor killings.

That's not a Judeo-Christian morality, but I think it is a morality of sorts. Mobsters have their own system of respect, honor, as perverse as some may feel it is.

I don't know that Tarantino actually shares this morality. I think he's just aping what he's seen coming from Hong Kong, Scorcese, the Godfather movies. That's why I feel he's a superficial, aesthetic postmodernist"”in his art.

In Joss's stuff, you see that code come up now and again. But it's not the code of the main protagonists. I think Joss attempts to work out his personal moral dilemmas through his art.

What would be fascinating to me would be a filmmaker who shares the morality of "the warrior's code", honor killings. The person comes from some traditional, tribal culture and yet, has questions. "Hmm, my code conflicts with this Judeo-Christian code. What's up with that?"

We see protagonists all the time who are immersed in the Judeo-Christian culture, share that mindset. Yet, they're conflicted, they desire "honor", "justice" (vigilante style). Are there cinematic examples of the reverse? You'd think there must be some, coming out of the Middle East, Asia...
 
goldenboy said:
We see protagonists all the time who are immersed in the Judeo-Christian culture, share that mindset. Yet, they're conflicted, they desire "honor", "justice" (vigilante style). Are there cinematic examples of the reverse? You'd think there must be some, coming out of the Middle East, Asia...
Click to expand...

I'm wondering if the writer and director John Milius might apply here.

He was heavy into that code of the warrior stuff. Trained in martial arts and I think he was into all that eastern warrior Sun Tzu kind of crap, dreamed of being a general, but had to settle for movie director, because he had asthma.

Did stuff like Wind and the Lion, and Conan the Barbarian. Wrote the Dirty Harry line, "Go ahead make my day". Most interesting though, he co-wrote Apocalypse Now. Isn't Colonel Kurtz the type of character you're describing.

I mean, he's got that code of warrior stuff ingrained inside but conflicting with the Judaeo Christian moral hypocrisy of the war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom