Hollywood has run out of good ideas!

THE INNER LIFE OF THE FANTASIST

The initial question, of course, is not whether or not Hollywood has run out of good ideas but rather whether it ever had them in the first place. What would a “good idea” in the Hollywood sense look like? A further question is whether or not the word “ideas” and “movies” can co-exist in the same sentence. It seems to be counter-intuitive unless, of course, one debases the concept of an “idea” to little more than a plot sequence, some sort of story line. A further question still is just what is to be understood by the concept of “idea” itself. What is an “idea”? In questioning the rationality of the idea as story line or plot sequence, am I having an idea now? Could it be transposed to the screen? What would it look like? Would it be a money-making hit? Somehow, I don’t think so but not because of the nature of the idea but rather because of the inability of the movie to convey an idea at all.

But the real question, of course, relates to the minds of people who actually watch movies in the first place. Of what, if anything, does their neurological activity consist? One pictures them, sitting gape-mouthed in the theatre, their minds little more than blank reflectors of what happens to be on the screen at any particular moment. Transfixed, they lift handfuls of popcorn into their open gobs which is the only functioning organ to be found in their heads. Clearly, the reason they are sitting there is a result of the mindless triviality of their “real-world” existence. That is what drives them to the theatre, to stifle the empty existential meaninglessness of their everyday lives.

But wait. There’s hope, at least for some. Since it is that basic idea – the realization and appreciation of the banality of their existence – which their enfeebled powers of reflection have revealed to them as their reason for being in the theatre in the first place, one sees, however flickeringly and hesitatingly, the rudiments of an incipient rationality.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVP

: Captain Crunch (08/15, 10:41AM)

“Through film, we can have a differenr reality’s (sic) allowing us to explore our minds from different perspectives.” Captain Crunch.

“It seems to be counter-intuitive unless, of course, one debases the concept of an idea to little more than a plot sequence, some sort of story line.” Montrealman

Good afternoon, Crunch. I’m glad to see that you have managed to grasp the message of my last post, i.e., that movies constitute little more than an escape from one’s own reality consisting as itdoes of little ore than an empty existential void into a “different reality” albeit one in confected commercialized story form. Sadly however, you have misconstrued the nature of that different reality. An idea or a concept is not reducible to a plot sequence or a story line. It is – wait for it – a story. In other words Crunch, thought involves concepts and concepts are not reducible to story form. Think of the concept of truth. How would that be reducible to story form? Of course, if you disagree with this I await your detailed explanation with alacrity. The emphasis, of course, in on your reasoned and detailed explanation and not simply on your unsupported opinion.

In addition, I found the second part of your sentence incoherent. From what further perspectives would one explore one’s own mind since one’s own mind is constituted by such perspecives? Explain this to me, Crunch.

By the way, for Plato all stories, including your movies were they then available, were viewed as corrupting to the minds of the youth. They were concerned with persuasion, not for a disinterested pursuit of Truth (capitalization intended).

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

“THIS MOVIE IS SHIT (A CONCEPTUAL FILM)”

What would a movie about an idea or concept look like? I’ve thought about this and decided that it must satisfy two criteria: (a) The Conceptual Criterion and (b) The Content Criterion.

(a) The Conceptual Criterion requires the presence of, um, a concept. Look at the actual title of my new conceptual film, “This Movie Is Shit (A Conceptual Film).” What is going on here? What is going on is the fact that the director of the film, me, has reflected on its concept and has come to a reasoned judgement and determined that the film is shit. The judgement on the filkm is then reflexively incorporated into its title. On its showing the audience for the film may, or may not, agree that the film is shit but that is of no import because they all lack minds. In other words, their minds are shit.

(b) The Content Criterion, on the other hand, requires that shit be either directly or indirectly engaged as a topic in the film itself. It is unusual for this to happen, for a film to have shit directly as a topic, but I recall a film – it was paired with “Swept Away” but I don’t recall its title – and involved a German concentration camp with a sadistic female Commandant. In the basement of the camp building there was a large vat of liquid shit. It was kept at a proper temperature and state of liquidity for reasons I also don’t recall or even never actually knew. But there it was, a large vat of liquid shit the size of a small swimming pool in the basement. Anyway, the Commandant descended into the area in search of a miscreant of one sort or another. She was going to make an example of him. He heard her coming and, rather be taken alive, he dived into the vat of shit and did not surface. I recall hearing another patron exclaim, “Jesus, he dived tight into that vat of liquid shit!” I thought that the vat of liquid shit should be listed in the credits for the film, just after my name.

An indirect engagement with shit as a topic involves the usual fatuous critiques by movie reviewers. In general, they critique the film as being shit on the basis of plot, characterization, as being in, or not in, the style of so-and-so, and so on. At the first level then, the indirect engagement with the topic of shit entails that the reviews are themselves shit. But, and this is important, to satisfy the indirect content criterion of the concept film, their critiques of the film as shit must, in a second-order movement, be themselves assessed as shit in their turn. This double movement – the criticism of the film as shit and the second-order critique of the criticisms as shit, satisfies the demand of the conceptual film. In brief, you could say it’s all a load of shit.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVP

:Captain Crunch ((08/16, 3:07PM)

Unsupported? See my post of 08/16, 8:41AM.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPs

: Avasto (08/16, 3:30PM)

On the contrary Avasto, EVERY DAY is a day of fun for Montrealman. It’s just that his sense of fun is more subtle and sophisticated than yours, eptiomized one supposes, by your reference to that gargantuan stick up my sphincter. (I suspect you meant the lower intestine since the sphincter is the muscle controlling the opening and closing of the anus.) Anyway, since I know Captain Crunch is “challenged” as polite locution usually puts it, I thought I would torture him a bit with my request to return to my masterful recent post.

: Captain Crunch (08/16, 3:37PM)

Thank you Captain. Once again you have shown great insight and sensitivity.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

ANAL SPHINCTERS ANYONE?

RSVPs

: Fireragaz (08/16, 4:18PM; Captain Crunch (08/16, 4:31PM & 4:32PM)

Fireragaz claims that there are actually two sphincters in that area (i.e., the anus) while the Captain claims that there are over 50 in the human body but doesn’t specify just how many were in that anal area. Either one or the other but not both can be correct. This is an empirical question which will not be resolved by philosophical introspection.

I’m sticking to my one anal sphincter unless someone can demonstrate otherwise. Keep your sphincters tight everyone! And that incudes you Avasto, you vulgarian.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVP

: Captain Crunch (08/17, 8:07AM)

Captain, compare the two sentences:

“Actually, we were both right…”

and

“Are you really inept enough that you couldn’t do the 15 seconds of internet research to not make yourself look like a jackass?”

Now Captain, what do you think would be the logical conclusion to those two assertions? The logical principle involved, in case you’re having difficulty, would be that while two things may be distinct entities, if they can be brought under an identical concept, then they are in fact logically identical. Now Captain, what do you think that concept might be? (Hint – it begins with the letter “J.”)

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!