|
Post by Reefs on Nov 1, 2023 21:30:45 GMT -5
I haven't watched the Barbie film, don't plan to, pretty sure I won't, I verily dislike pink, anyway. But I have watched the previews, it does look a little intriguing. Maybe there is a subtle teaching here, I call them smart bombs, parables are smart bombs. You take in the story, then it blasts you from the inside. Barbie is on a mission, she's entering the real world (seems like a mission to find the truth, but that's probably my projection. Maybe Pinocchio-like?). If anybody has seen it, Sharon?, give me a synopsis. It's basically a commentary on feminism and the patriarchy (Barbie Land is a matriarchy), but if you can put the ridiculous woke virtue signaling aside, It's a light jovial comedy that flirts with absurdity. I loved it. I've finally watched it. And it isn't that bad. The patriarchy/matriarchy thing is just symbolic and gives the story a real world, contemporary framework. Some may look at it as blatant predictive programming (i.e. matriarchy good, patriarchy bad) but it is portrayed in such an over the top way, that it can already be seen as an actual criticism of both. But what the movie is actually about, IMO, is archetypes. Barbie and Ken represent archetypes which are shown in the movie as 'typical' male/female stereotypes. But actually they are archetypes that every boy and girl naturally tries to fill with life in the real world. Barbie's life is basically that of the gods. She doesn't have to eat, drink, go to the bathroom etc and she also has no gender, she is always in a state of perfect happiness, as is everybody else in her world, which is in total peace - forever, until all eternity! However, that's just one way of looking at it. The other way of looking at it is that Barbie lives in a predictable, boring and fake world. And that's where the movie goes to work. The movie starts deconstructing that airy fantasy by mixing things up, by bringing the fantasy to the real world and the real world to the fantasy and the result will be something totally new. The movie actually makes a point that the two worlds, the ideal Barbiel world and the real world are meant to be apart, the two shall never meet or mingle or else things will go haywire, in either world. This is actually similar to the discussions we usually have here, the absolute realm vs. the relative realm, i.e. these two contexts that cannot be mixed together, or else you come to weird perspectives and conclusions. In the movie the trouble begins when Barbie is suddenly having thoughts about death, that brings her entire world to a screeching halt (literally!). Now, I am not going to turn this into a spoiler, but in a sense, the movie is a mixture of Truman Show, The Matrix, Stepford Wives and also quite a bit of Bollywood. The way the movie starts is pretty much like the Truman Show starts, Truman gets up and walks into his day - everybody smiling and happy and greeting him, a perfect world. Same with Barbie, she gets up and greeting and waving and smiling, a perfect world. Before Barbie enters the real world, there is a red pill/blue pill scene pretty much like in The Matrix - and Barbie chooses the blue pill of course (her high heels) instead of the red pill (flat birkenstock sandals). Then there is a scene in the Mattel headquarters, who want to turn the clock back again on her and her world, but when she escapes she suddenly enters a room, a kitchen with an old wise women sitting there having tea, who tells her that she is save here, and that's basically the scene from the Matrix where Neo meets the oracle and is offered cookies. The woman shows up at the very end again, as the creator of the Barbie dolls, and that is similar again to the Architect in The Matrix. Then there is a scene, after Ken took over Barbieland (which is a perfect matriarchy) and turned it into Kendom (which is a perfect patriarchy) where Barbie starts deprogramming the other Barbies. That's basically the scene from the Stepford Wives movie where the women suddenly wake up out of their trance and realize that they had been objectified by their men and turned into dolls. The connection to Bollywood I see pretty much in the extremely stereotypical roles and the strong, vibrant colors used in the movie plus some dancing scenes (compare this to the song Dhoom Taana from the movie Om Shanti Om, where you also have a Barbie that is partying with a whole bunch of Kens, including one overeager Ken, Sharukh Khan, whose role is pretty much like Ryan Gosling's Ken). So, similar to the old myths, just judging by appearances and taking the stories literally, if you go just by appearances, the movie is ridiculous, shallow and basically trash. But taken figuratively, there opens up a whole different dimension of interpretation, which is actually pretty deep and profound if you can read the symbolism and look beyond the obvious. Another theme is Barbie's transition from girlhood to womanhood. That becomes especially clear in the final scene. Best quote: "Actually my job, it’s just Beach" - Ken
|
|
|
Movies
Nov 2, 2023 1:50:31 GMT -5
Post by lolly on Nov 2, 2023 1:50:31 GMT -5
Reefs got more out of the Barbie Movie that anyone else on Earth! I loved the film, but didn't realise how much was going on. Nice how they made all that stuff a bunch of silly fun. That's super smart.
I watched "The Fall of The House of Usher" on Netflix. It's good. Worth a mention.
|
|
|
Movies
Nov 4, 2023 8:36:08 GMT -5
Post by lolly on Nov 4, 2023 8:36:08 GMT -5
"Nyad" on Netflix. Best film ever.
|
|
|
Movies
Nov 11, 2023 7:38:05 GMT -5
Post by lolly on Nov 11, 2023 7:38:05 GMT -5
I haven't watched the Barbie film, don't plan to, pretty sure I won't, I verily dislike pink, anyway. But I have watched the previews, it does look a little intriguing. Maybe there is a subtle teaching here, I call them smart bombs, parables are smart bombs. You take in the story, then it blasts you from the inside. Barbie is on a mission, she's entering the real world (seems like a mission to find the truth, but that's probably my projection. Maybe Pinocchio-like?). If anybody has seen it, Sharon?, give me a synopsis. It's basically a commentary on feminism and the patriarchy (Barbie Land is a matriarchy), but if you can put the ridiculous woke virtue signaling aside, It's a light jovial comedy that flirts with absurdity. I loved it. I've finally watched it. And it isn't that bad. The patriarchy/matriarchy thing is just symbolic and gives the story a real world, contemporary framework. Some may look at it as blatant predictive programming (i.e. matriarchy good, patriarchy bad) but it is portrayed in such an over the top way, that it can already be seen as an actual criticism of both. But what the movie is actually about, IMO, is archetypes. Barbie and Ken represent archetypes which are shown in the movie as 'typical' male/female stereotypes. But actually they are archetypes that every boy and girl naturally tries to fill with life in the real world. Barbie's life is basically that of the gods. She doesn't have to eat, drink, go to the bathroom etc and she also has no gender, she is always in a state of perfect happiness, as is everybody else in her world, which is in total peace - forever, until all eternity! However, that's just one way of looking at it. The other way of looking at it is that Barbie lives in a predictable, boring and fake world. And that's where the movie goes to work. The movie starts deconstructing that airy fantasy by mixing things up, by bringing the fantasy to the real world and the real world to the fantasy and the result will be something totally new. The movie actually makes a point that the two worlds, the ideal Barbiel world and the real world are meant to be apart, the two shall never meet or mingle or else things will go haywire, in either world. This is actually similar to the discussions we usually have here, the absolute realm vs. the relative realm, i.e. these two contexts that cannot be mixed together, or else you come to weird perspectives and conclusions. In the movie the trouble begins when Barbie is suddenly having thoughts about death, that brings her entire world to a screeching halt (literally!). Now, I am not going to turn this into a spoiler, but in a sense, the movie is a mixture of Truman Show, The Matrix, Stepford Wives and also quite a bit of Bollywood. The way the movie starts is pretty much like the Truman Show starts, Truman gets up and walks into his day - everybody smiling and happy and greeting him, a perfect world. Same with Barbie, she gets up and greeting and waving and smiling, a perfect world. Before Barbie enters the real world, there is a red pill/blue pill scene pretty much like in The Matrix - and Barbie chooses the blue pill of course (her high heels) instead of the red pill (flat birkenstock sandals). Then there is a scene in the Mattel headquarters, who want to turn the clock back again on her and her world, but when she escapes she suddenly enters a room, a kitchen with an old wise women sitting there having tea, who tells her that she is save here, and that's basically the scene from the Matrix where Neo meets the oracle and is offered cookies. The woman shows up at the very end again, as the creator of the Barbie dolls, and that is similar again to the Architect in The Matrix. Then there is a scene, after Ken took over Barbieland (which is a perfect matriarchy) and turned it into Kendom (which is a perfect patriarchy) where Barbie starts deprogramming the other Barbies. That's basically the scene from the Stepford Wives movie where the women suddenly wake up out of their trance and realize that they had been objectified by their men and turned into dolls. The connection to Bollywood I see pretty much in the extremely stereotypical roles and the strong, vibrant colors used in the movie plus some dancing scenes (compare this to the song Dhoom Taana from the movie Om Shanti Om, where you also have a Barbie that is partying with a whole bunch of Kens, including one overeager Ken, Sharukh Khan, whose role is pretty much like Ryan Gosling's Ken). So, similar to the old myths, just judging by appearances and taking the stories literally, if you go just by appearances, the movie is ridiculous, shallow and basically trash. But taken figuratively, there opens up a whole different dimension of interpretation, which is actually pretty deep and profound if you can read the symbolism and look beyond the obvious. Another theme is Barbie's transition from girlhood to womanhood. That becomes especially clear in the final scene. Best quote: "Actually my job, it’s just Beach" - Ken More on Barbie. An Ideological Critique of Feminism and Masculinities (starts at 5.20)
|
|
|
Movies
Nov 13, 2023 2:18:26 GMT -5
Post by lolly on Nov 13, 2023 2:18:26 GMT -5
I watched "The Killer" on Netflix. It's a great story. It's smart, subtle, and well told.
|
|
|
Movies
Dec 10, 2023 19:24:47 GMT -5
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 10, 2023 19:24:47 GMT -5
Withholding comment.
|
|
|
Movies
Dec 31, 2023 8:57:58 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Dec 31, 2023 8:57:58 GMT -5
Looks like green screen destroyed cinema.
|
|
|
Movies
Dec 31, 2023 9:28:46 GMT -5
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 31, 2023 9:28:46 GMT -5
Looks like green screen destroyed cinema. A few weeks ago I saw a documentary on the Director William Friedkin. He was an interesting dude. Never knew, when he filmed the chase scene for The French Connection, in New York, he didn't tell anybody, got no permission, just did it in IRL. He said he couldn't ask the cinemaphotographer to do the filming, because of the danger, he literally didn't know what was going to happen. He rode in the Gene Hackman car and did the filming himself. It won best picture that year.
|
|
park
Junior Member
Posts: 62
|
Post by park on Dec 31, 2023 15:36:29 GMT -5
Yep physics hacks like me saw the nod to Feynman in the film. Good film. Worth a look. Funny all the intellectuals those days were commies, and there's a problem where too much brain makes you stupid. When I went back to training and simple physical labour. I was cured of mental gymnastics. Hence my avatar shifted from something clever which I can't remember, to 'lift heavy things' to 'dig holes'. The irony for me is, intellectuals now appear to be idiots. The Bomb? Case in point. I found that a good way to compare and better understand people, nature, situations, events, is to place them on an axis instincts -> emotions -> intellect -> intuition. It isn't that it is better to be more on the intuition side than on the instincts side, as it can't be said that it is better to be a human than a pebble, an adult than a child, ... Something is on a certain level of evolvement on an infinite axis. People's bell distribution is centered somewhere between emotions and intellect. The left-leaning intellectuals are skewed a little toward emotions, the right-leaning intellectuals are skewed a little toward intellect. This is why the right thinks the left is stupid, while the left thinks the right has no heart; the left believe they're smarter, the right believe they have more heart; eventually, the left ends up acting mean, while the right ends up acting stupid. Not-thinking can be skewed either way, toward instincts or intuition. It could be an opportunity for a qualitative gain of evolvement, but unfortunately people decide and act mostly randomly, so according to the people's bell distribution, only a few have intuitive glimpses. Intellectuals aren't idiots, as compared to other groups of population, more than children are idiots compared to adults, flowers are idiots compared to humans, ... Thinking places humans on a higher level of evolvement, but the ability to think (which doesn't mean only intellect) varies widely among individuals, groups, ... The good news is that even the dumbest humans, during their sleep, progress, evolve, although they aren't aware of that. So, all die a little (or more) evolved than were born, no matter what they did during their waking lives. I went through the old posts in this thread and found this post illuminating. I think it was Richard Rose that had this same/similar idea, did you maybe pick it up from him? Early in life, I was a strong and balanced intellectual. However, this way of thinking about it helps to explain: a) why after an initial big CC experience I "knew" what the best way to act was immediately without thinking or effort (intuition) and was amazed at this new "ability". b) why after a later big mental-health breakdown I struggle to regain my former intellectual faculties to the extent I had them and wallow mostly in the emotional realm. Also why reading non-fiction and non-spirituality helps so much (pushes me "up" towards the intellectual). c) why "don't think" and "quieten the mind" meditation does not seem to work well for me currently - since it "pushes me down" into instinctive rather than intuitive, since that's the closest to my current dominant state (emotional). If the above reasoning from my experiences is correct, then people can move both up and down this axis so keep your noses clean boys! From personal observation, I'd also say that we're all operating at all levels simultaneously, it's just that one of the four ways of being is dominant. Finally, while my moves "up" and "down" were sudden, totally unexpected, and seemingly uncaused, I believe I made myself "accident prone" (Rose) by first living in a very good and then a very poor way (karma).
|
|
|
Movies
Dec 31, 2023 18:20:43 GMT -5
Post by inavalan on Dec 31, 2023 18:20:43 GMT -5
I found that a good way to compare and better understand people, nature, situations, events, is to place them on an axis instincts -> emotions -> intellect -> intuition. It isn't that it is better to be more on the intuition side than on the instincts side, as it can't be said that it is better to be a human than a pebble, an adult than a child, ... Something is on a certain level of evolvement on an infinite axis. People's bell distribution is centered somewhere between emotions and intellect. The left-leaning intellectuals are skewed a little toward emotions, the right-leaning intellectuals are skewed a little toward intellect. This is why the right thinks the left is stupid, while the left thinks the right has no heart; the left believe they're smarter, the right believe they have more heart; eventually, the left ends up acting mean, while the right ends up acting stupid. Not-thinking can be skewed either way, toward instincts or intuition. It could be an opportunity for a qualitative gain of evolvement, but unfortunately people decide and act mostly randomly, so according to the people's bell distribution, only a few have intuitive glimpses. Intellectuals aren't idiots, as compared to other groups of population, more than children are idiots compared to adults, flowers are idiots compared to humans, ... Thinking places humans on a higher level of evolvement, but the ability to think (which doesn't mean only intellect) varies widely among individuals, groups, ... The good news is that even the dumbest humans, during their sleep, progress, evolve, although they aren't aware of that. So, all die a little (or more) evolved than were born, no matter what they did during their waking lives. I went through the old posts in this thread and found this post illuminating. I think it was Richard Rose that had this same/similar idea, did you maybe pick it up from him? Early in life, I was a strong and balanced intellectual. However, this way of thinking about it helps to explain: a) why after an initial big CC experience I "knew" what the best way to act was immediately without thinking or effort (intuition) and was amazed at this new "ability". b) why after a later big mental-health breakdown I struggle to regain my former intellectual faculties to the extent I had them and wallow mostly in the emotional realm. Also why reading non-fiction and non-spirituality helps so much (pushes me "up" towards the intellectual). c) why "don't think" and "quieten the mind" meditation does not seem to work well for me currently - since it "pushes me down" into instinctive rather than intuitive, since that's the closest to my current dominant state (emotional). If the above reasoning from my experiences is correct, then people can move both up and down this axis so keep your noses clean boys! From personal observation, I'd also say that we're all operating at all levels simultaneously, it's just that one of the four ways of being is dominant. Finally, while my moves "up" and "down" were sudden, totally unexpected, and seemingly uncaused, I believe I made myself "accident prone" (Rose) by first living in a very good and then a very poor way (karma). Sorry for your difficulties. Haven't heard of Richard Rose. I quickly browsed his wiki page, and it doesn't ring a bell. As he did, I also use hypnosis, but only self-hypnosis to alter my state of consiiousness. At first glance, Richard Rose and I might share only a few common ideas. From his wiki page, for example, his summarized teachings were: - Who am I (ultimately)? Where did I come from (before birth)? Where am I going (after death)?
I think on the lines: - What am I now? What do I have to do now? What is my purpose now?
, using only my inner source of knowledge and guidance, and interpreting everything I experience symbolically, sometimes intuitively, but mostly using my inner guidance as my intuition is still rudimentary. That's how I arrived to the views that drew your attention in my post. I always make a special point to leave aside all my beliefs and expectations when I tap my inner guidance, and to not interpret, reformulate, reason the direct knowledge I get, besides putting it into words that seem to be accepted by my inner guidance. Addressing your comments, I think that there are layers of beliefs that dominate over one's current level of evolvement, that modulate one's response to perceptions (inner and outer), while the evolvement is monotonically progressing at variable speed. We respond at all levels (instincts, ..., intuition; they have different speeds and scopes), and we master them more or less, according to both our individual level of evolvement, and our beliefs. "Accident prone" implies reacting to factors that are independent of us, while I believe that everything I experience is a symbolical reflection of my current individual level of evolvement, and my current beliefs, which is different from what is generally understood as being karma. To change anything I experience I need to interpret its symbolism, which leads me to one or several layers of limiting beliefs. Working with my subconscious I remove that belief, and often replace it with a constructive belief. Recently somebody mentioned " Know thyself", which led me to investigate the Delphic maxims, and interpret them with my inner guidance. I really felt a pressing need to do that, it took several couple of days, and eventually I got something that put me at ease. As usual, my interpretation differs from others'. What made the big difference (the aha!) was that the three are a sequitur. For the meaning, they have to be taken together, not separately. As it is always the case, there are different depths of interpretation, from the most practical one to the deepest one that I can reach.
|
|
|
Movies
Dec 31, 2023 19:53:24 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by andrew on Dec 31, 2023 19:53:24 GMT -5
I watched "The Holdovers" recently. Probably my favourite film of the year. A 'dramedy'. Particularly worth watching now, as it is set over the Xmas and New Year period...1970 (I think).
|
|
|
Movies
Jan 24, 2024 1:26:12 GMT -5
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 24, 2024 1:26:12 GMT -5
I saw Poor Things today, yesterday, it's a weird movie. Most normally, I don't like to know much about a film before I see it, sometimes even trailers give too much away. (This one doesn't). I knew virtually nothing about the film, I like Emma Stone, I've basically followed her career, she won the Golden Globe for this film. I saw a short interview with Emma and the Director. He had to do a ~normal~ film to earn the right from a studio to do this film. I'm sure this is going to be a short post. I don't want to give too much away. I can't say much about it, at all....it's a weird film. ...It's a weird film. I can't recommend it, as I don't want to be responsible for anyone going to see it. ....It's a weird film. Oh, I did know one little thing, so I recognized the beginning, from the beginning. You don't want to know (that one little thing, beforehand), you are caught up pretty quickly, about 15 minutes. It's kind of ghastly. Did I like it?...well....hummm....yes. It's absolutely fascinating, in a kind of ghastly way. It's really a wonderful film, it has layers of fascination. ...It's a weird film...did I say that? I really would like to say more, but I don't do spoilers.
Let me put it this way, be prepared, if you go see it, and don't investigate more, be prepared to have your sensibilities challenged, stretched (and particularly, those who you might see it with). It's a film out of the box, definitely. You just have to accept the territory...of Bella Baxter, see it from her standpoint, enter into her position. Oh...it will not win best picture (it got nominated, yesterday, for Best Picture, it got eleven nominations). I take that back, not sure. But I expect Oppenheimer to win Best Picture.
|
|
|
Movies
Jan 24, 2024 20:58:45 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Jan 24, 2024 20:58:45 GMT -5
Since diving and holding your breath for record lengths came up, there's a wonderful movie with Jean Reno, called The Big Blue. It's about divers who dive without any equipment and who regularly do competitions. www.imdb.com/title/tt0095250/
|
|
|
Movies
Jan 25, 2024 15:35:17 GMT -5
Post by sharon on Jan 25, 2024 15:35:17 GMT -5
Since diving and holding your breath for record lengths came up, there's a wonderful movie with Jean Reno, called The Big Blue. It's about divers who dive without any equipment and who regularly do competitions. www.imdb.com/title/tt0095250/Very good film.
|
|
|
Movies
Jan 25, 2024 15:52:24 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Jan 25, 2024 15:52:24 GMT -5
Since diving and holding your breath for record lengths came up, there's a wonderful movie with Jean Reno, called The Big Blue. It's about divers who dive without any equipment and who regularly do competitions. www.imdb.com/title/tt0095250/Very good film. That really looks good from the trailer. I'm going to see if I can access the longer version in French with subtitles. Love the music!
|
|