Nietzsche Movies

[Sherlene Holloman]

Webegan about a half hour in, with the infamous erection scene. In the future of Zardoz, a race called the Eternals paid for immortality with the price of sterility and thus did not understand the stimulus behind penile enhancement. When Zed (Connery) of the mortal Brutals invaded their society, they studied his arousal to answer this question. A monitor represented his manhood with waves and soft plucking whose intensity corresponded to his excitement. Thus was revealed to us the concept of the boner guitar.

We ended up watching the entire remainder of the film, yogurt responsibilities be damned! It proved impossible to turn away from the striking imagery, the pastoral landscapes, the atonality of super-serious mixed with hammy acting, the casual seventies sci-fi nudity, and a culmination that resembled a Monty Python sketch. I was now a Zardoz devotee for life.

I do not know if I am a latecomer to the trend of podcast listening, or if it is still a fringe hobby, but once I gave a few programs a try, I committed to it hard. For several months beforehand, my sister persisted with her recommendation of How Did This Get Made? The first handful of times she mentioned it, it sounded like an NPR program about how complicated machinery is assembled, which sounded interesting enough, but not exactly my thing. Eventually I got it down that its hosts were comedians Paul Scheer, Jason Mantzoukas, and June Diane Raphael, and its purpose was discussing bad, weird, and/or crazy movies, i.e., the likes of The Room (2003), Crank (2006), and Birdemic (2010).

At the end, this episode granted me a further gift, with an exploration of an interpretation of Zardoz as a perfectly Nietzschean film. I had yet to settle on a final paper topic for my Nietzsche class; I prefer starting that process as early as possible in the semester. By the grace of serendipity, an ideal proposal presented itself.

In a weird twist, I think encountering Nietzsche secondhand is the best way to understand him. Or maybe not the best way, but a legitimate way. But I still would recommend engaging with him directly.

Notice, however, how things change in GotG in relation to the other movies. In Episode IV and Avengers, none of the main characters risks themselves for the other main characters. (Yes, in Episode V, Han risks his life for Luke when he goes out in the storm on Hoth to find him, but that is three years later.) Iron Man/Stark does risk his life by taking the nuclear weapon into the wormhole when he is nearly out of power; but he does not risk his life for his comrades. He risks it for New York. I am not saying that Stark would not risk his life for his comrades; rather I am noting that in the story we are presented on screen, neither he nor any of the others risk their lives for each other. In fact, in an intentionally hilarious scene, the Hulk punches Thor in the middle of battle.

One specific example is in the film Rope directed by Alfred Hitchcock. But, perhaps the most famous Nietzschean inspired story, Superman, which started as a comic and has since inspired television shows and movies. In addition, his idea of eternal recurrence can also be found in the film, The Fountain written and directed by Darren Aronofsky.[1]

Reportedly, the two were exceptionally gifted with intelligence. Nathan Leopold was labeled a child prodigy, who spoke his first words at the age of only four months. He was scored at having a 210 IQ; however this score does not equate to modern tests.[8] At the time of the murder Leopold had already graduated for college and was attending law school at University of Chicago. He claimed to be fluent in 27 languages, and was an expert in ornithology, the study of birds. Meanwhile, Richard Loeb was one of the youngest graduates in University of Michigan history, and planned to attend University of Chicago law school, after taking a few select postgraduate courses. [9]

In addition, Nietzsche steadfastly believed that morality equated to cruelty. To illustrate this, Nietzsche believed that the Christian God did not sacrifice His only Son, out of morality, but rather, out of cruelty.[17] As result, Nietzsche believed that humans must become masters of themselves and rise to a higher level, taking their destiny in their own hands.

One of the most famous stories with entwining Nietzschean philosophy is the highly successful DC comic, Superman, which in turn has inspired television series, and movies.[18] An extraterrestrial baby, Kal-El, is sent by his parents from the planet Krypton, to earth. The boy is adopted by a human couple, who name him Clark and raise him on a Kansas farm. As Clark grows, he appears to be completely human, save his superhuman abilities. His incredible skills include strength, speed, shooting laser from his eyes, supersonic hearing, no physical weaknesses except for Kryptonite, and of course, being able to fly. However, even though he is from a seemingly perfect race, he is raised by humans and thus deals with human issues; self-control and finding meaning in his life.

The biggest pro for me on the day I went to see the Barbie movie was that I was with an adorable granddaughter who had dressed up for the occasion and who wanted to hold my hand throughout the entire movie. What could be better than that?

The previews were for two animated films, full of neon-colored manufactured crises that movies which exist primarily to make money have to include to pretend that they are about something other than making money. Watching these previews was painful; watching the movies they advertised would have been torture.

My emotion that day was pissed-off sadness at the deeply flawed human systems that dictate so much of how we live. I begin by feeling pissed-off and then that mutates into sadness. As a species, we know not what we do.

The system of capitalism we live in/with is a glowing pink potion in a beautiful unrecyclable plastic bottle. The words on the front label say "For health, happiness, and a long life, Drink Me." It is only on the back label, in lettering too small to read, that there is a long list of dangerous side-effects.

Here is my question for the Barbie movie (which I will answer in the next paragraph): Do you exist to make us buy things? Are you a handmaiden to the capitalist matrix that surrounds us like the air we breathe, or do you have a subversive message? Can you be/do both?

Although Barbie Land and the real world are two distinct places, apparently they are separated only by a thin and porous membrane through which the hopes and dreams of little girls are received and expressed by the dolls they play with.

The membrane is so thin and porous that when a depressed grown woman in the real world plays with her, Barbie becomes infected with thoughts of dying and ills to which flesh is heir, like flat feet and cellulite.

I admit that my visceral memory is pink plastic overwhelm. Nevertheless, the movie is a stunning amalgamation of popular tropes, cultural commentary, and shameless hucksterism. In other words, it is as American as Mark Twain or tarte au pommes. And I love that.

I love popular culture. I love stuff that is funny and weird and not obeying any particular moral code or position. I love humor. I love the creative spirit. The creative spirit is always going to be mashed up in a jumble of flesh, desire, time, space, opportunity.

In the good old days when the Beatles put out a new album, it felt to us young folk linked by confusion, wonder, longing, and the music of the Beatles like the next iteration of the ten commandments had just been handed down from on high.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with using money as a medium of exchange, or using creativity to encourage the exchange of money for goods and services. The capitalism I rant about is based on the concept that nothing matters except the acquisition of money.

There is a point at which I feel that I had achieved enough cohesion/organization/shape that I can work on cleaning up/clarifying language. Every single time I read this I see things I want to change.

And then there comes a time when I have to send my imperfect child out into the world to meet its fate. Because there is no going back, only forward. Other children are waiting to be born. And there is a subtle knowing that something is finished. Not perfect; just finished.

Hi Janina, thanks as always. I'm connecting dots from your comments on accepting decay and demise & your reference to Nietzsche's philosophy to the theme from "Toy Story" that FLYING is really "falling with style". Does this connect up for you too?

The key to living with style is, for Nietzsche, a radical acceptance of one\u2019s existence and the world as it is, embracing all our strengths and weaknesses and all the blessed and cursed events that have been and will be. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Spoilers ahead for the Barbie movie. If you haven\u2019t seen it yet, too bad, or don\u2019t read. This is only partly about the movie. It\u2019s a felt response to the day I saw the Barbie movie, a bunch of ranting about capitalism\u2019s fatal flaws, and my slant on the movie\u2019s subversive message.

During the course of this writing, I went from being snarky about the movie to resisting being snarky (because snark is too easy) to realizing that whatever else it is, the Barbie movie is a spoof and a goof. Taking it more seriously than it took itself is to play the fool. (I will definitely be doing this.) It was a powerful movie in its effect on the culture, that\u2019s for sure. It was a BLOCKBUSTER!

The cons\u2026 the BIG CON\u2014was a CONtinuum of experience beginning with the ads on the screen before the show, then the previews, then the movie, then grocery shopping afterwards, all adding up to a slight freak out on my part at the pandemic of capitalism.

3a8082e126