why do this ng's inhabitants feel so threatened by modernism and its outlets?
sirb...@hotmail.com
David Oberman
>their subconscious acting up on em?
You don't mean Modernism. You mean Contemporaneity.
____
"He knows everything, but lacks inexperience."
-- Berlioz, on Saint-Saens
Tom Sutpen
> their subconscious acting up on em?
*****
It could be a certain degree of impatience; considering that this stuff
is older than our parents and we're still calling it Modern.
Tom Sutpen
sirb...@hotmail.com
Tom Sutpen ha escrito:
you can't even differentiate modern for modernist? you really are a
thorough and total wank biscuit aren't ya.
not that rouge is modernist, let alone modern (ffs, woooow...). perhaps
it's romantic, perhaps it's postmodernist. or perhaps it provides for
certain global minority of cinephilia that enjoys the many layers
thinking and cinema can provide.
but you're not a cinephile are you, slutpod. you're a reaaaaaaaader,
right? a literati? well why don't you head off to rec.arts.books? your
approach on cinema is so pathetic, pretentious and underachieving i do
not know where to start. what are you, some sort of closet conservative
trotskyist wankbrain balzac?
btw, why do you compulsively collect so much cinema you claim to hate?
i love that sentence where you go ''i'm gonna get a lot of blame for
saying this...''. you couldnt be more self-deluded, mate. you're with
your own species of monkey here, nowhere could you be more confortable
than in this ng with the likes of stewe, boots, pillbox and gaza.
as for doberboots, well buddy you couldnt be more contemporaneous and
traditional yourself, so once again, wishful thinking. by the way
dober, what's your reductio ad homynem? i'd love to read some of your
college papers.
W. Lydecker
David Oberman
>as for doberboots, well buddy you couldnt be more contemporaneous and
>traditional yourself, so once again, wishful thinking. by the way
>dober, what's your reductio ad homynem? i'd love to read some of your
>college papers.
I have a good one on the body of grotesquerie in Godwin's "Caleb
Williams"!
Tom Sutpen
> you can't even differentiate modern for modernist? you really are a
> thorough and total wank biscuit aren't ya.
*****
I can differentiate with the best of 'em. Whatever way you cut it, that
mode of expression is extremely old.
> not that rouge is modernist, let alone modern (ffs, woooow...). perhaps
> it's romantic, perhaps it's postmodernist. or perhaps it provides for
> certain global minority of cinephilia that enjoys the many layers
> thinking and cinema can provide.
*****
I'm sorry, Juan, but I can't take that seriously. The cinephiles who .
. . I won't say 'read', since one doesn't read this kind of
non-writing; one uses it the way one uses one's membership in a
fraternal order: as a designation of status . . . the people who go in
for this kind of tripe have no interest whatsoever, none, in the many
layers thinking and cinema can provide. Their ideas and methods are so
hidebound and traditionalist it's little wonder that 90% of so-called
Serious film criticism reads as though it were authored by the same
hand. They have zero tolerance for alternate perspectives and utter
contempt for anyone who wanders into their bailiwick from the real
world. For the very very small sector of cinephiles permitted to enter
this pitifully narrow discourse, this is all about reconstructing High
School using the building blocks of a rigid critical orthodoxy that was
dead before most of them were born. Once they were geeks, now they're
the cool kids. This is not an intellectual endeavor, it is ENTIRELY a
social one.
And . . . you . . . know it.
> but you're not a cinephile are you, slutpod. you're a reaaaaaaaader,
> right? a literati?
*****
No. I'm a cinephile who's reentered the film writing racket in the last
two years with some degree of success (far more than I would have
permitted myself to dare dream). I read as little about film as I can
get away with. I should point out that I use the term 'racket' very
deliberately here because I believe that's what this is at bottom. A
racket. A lie. A con game designed to convince you, the readers, into
believing that Cinema can be effectively evaluated through something
other than direct experience.
Where I differ from my confreres (the aforementioned fraternal order)
is that I will admit this is what I'm doing. They, the ones who haven't
completely deluded themselves that is, would have everyone believe that
not only can film be illuminated by written analysis, but that it is
the *only* way to shed the light of understanding on the medium. It's a
lie. Most film writers know it; very few will admit it even in private.
You're the one who depends upon the dead-on-arrival prose of
talent-challenged film critics to decide what you'll *say* you like and
what you'll *say* you don't like (the principal reason why you've yet
to render a single coherent insight you can call your own on *any*
film). You're the one uses the written word as a crutch. I scorn the
written word in relation to cinema (something you do not do), as well
as I scorn those who write it; not the least of whom being myself.
> well why don't you head off to rec.arts.books? your
> approach on cinema is so pathetic, pretentious and underachieving i do
> not know where to start. what are you, some sort of closet conservative
> trotskyist wankbrain balzac?
*****
I think I go about what I do, seeing it for what it is, as honestly as
I can. I try to, anyway; and perhaps I've failed. I have certain ideas
about the way this could be done differently, and I deploy them as
effectively as my talents will permit. That is all anyone can
reasonably ask, and I have to assume that others do not follow a
similar course . . . simply because if they did, and what they render
really is the result of some earnest effort on their part, then they
belong in the food service industry.
It is they who are the (not-so-closet) Conservatives (mired in a past
that was never worthy of preservation) not I.
> btw, why do you compulsively collect so much cinema you claim to hate?
*****
Do you have a specific example of that? I'm not aware of one.
> i love that sentence where you go ''i'm gonna get a lot of blame for
> saying this...''. you couldnt be more self-deluded, mate. you're with
> your own species of monkey here, nowhere could you be more confortable
> than in this ng with the likes of stewe, boots, pillbox and gaza.
*****
It's not the regulars in this forum I feel myself constrained to
disclose my thoughts before, but those who may be passing through on
their way to the rara avis of other forums (which shall here go
nameless). It's been known to happen.
I also don't want to offend anyone in that pig-pile of divas by
associating specific names too closely with what I condemn. A number of
these people I like personally. I have absolute contempt for the way
they write about film, but I try to keep that separate from personal
considerations. Others can't (very touchy individuals, some of them),
and it would only screw up my foul ambitions were I to go out of my way
and risk offending them needlessly.
Tom Sutpen
sirb...@hotmail.com
Tom Sutpen ha escrito:
> sirb...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > you can't even differentiate modern for modernist? you really are a
> > thorough and total wank biscuit aren't ya.
>
> *****
> I can differentiate with the best of 'em. Whatever way you cut it, that
> mode of expression is extremely old.
''old'', what do you mean ''old''? ''older'' than the tolstoys and
flauberts you quote? older than tom wolfe?
>
> > not that rouge is modernist, let alone modern (ffs, woooow...). perhaps
> > it's romantic, perhaps it's postmodernist. or perhaps it provides for
> > certain global minority of cinephilia that enjoys the many layers
> > thinking and cinema can provide.
>
> *****
> I'm sorry, Juan, but I can't take that seriously. The cinephiles who .
> . . I won't say 'read', since one doesn't read this kind of
> non-writing; one uses it the way one uses one's membership in a
> fraternal order: as a designation of status . . . the people who go in
> for this kind of tripe have no interest whatsoever, none, in the many
> layers thinking and cinema can provide. Their ideas and methods are so
> hidebound and traditionalist it's little wonder that 90% of so-called
> Serious film criticism reads as though it were authored by the same
> hand.
whereas you, doberman and harkness are ''pluralism''? harkness who
couldn't muster up an insightful thought if his life depended on it,
who's spent his entire life trivializing the cinema and becoming an
expert in the trivial of cinema akin to the kind of morons who appear
on jeopardy game shows? doberman who's got the imagination of a
down-sindrome kid, who's spent his life wanking away to his own
conservative crap john simon and roger kimball world of non-thinking?
They have zero tolerance for alternate perspectives and utter
> contempt for anyone who wanders into their bailiwick from the real
> world.
you're the real world? how? you're just a neurotic idiot who wants
people to praise him as a great thinker. and by the way, what did you
mean by ''blogosphere''? middlebrow idiots sticking up pictures on
their blogs and perpetually going oohhhh ahhh at them?
For the very very small sector of cinephiles permitted to enter
> this pitifully narrow discourse, this is all about reconstructing High
> School using the building blocks of a rigid critical orthodoxy that was
> dead before most of them were born. Once they were geeks, now they're
> the cool kids.
you seem to be so obsessed with this thing. shall i make a symptomatic
reading of this drivel of yours?
This is not an intellectual endeavor, it is ENTIRELY a
> social one.
>
> And . . . you . . . know it.
>
you pathetic little wanker, i certainly don't ''know it''. i'll take
martin's thinking anytime over your wanking. ill take mise-en-scene,
film specificity, textual considerations over your ''let's just watch
movies while we take ezra pound and tom wolfe and dickens oh so
seriously''.
> > but you're not a cinephile are you, slutpod. you're a reaaaaaaaader,
> > right? a literati?
>
> *****
> No. I'm a cinephile who's reentered the film writing racket in the last
> two years with some degree of success (far more than I would have
> permitted myself to dare dream). I read as little about film as I can
> get away with.
yes you're a wanker, i know.
I should point out that I use the term 'racket' very
> deliberately here because I believe that's what this is at bottom. A
> racket. A lie. A con game designed to convince you, the readers, into
> believing that Cinema can be effectively evaluated through something
> other than direct experience.
>
ohhhh how cute! is *that* what you're going to fall back on? something
nice and cute like ''direct experience''?
1. so what is ''direct experience''?
erm, thinking.
ahh ok, so thinking is fine if it's in front of the cinema.
but when it goes on paper it's crap.
oh wait a second, it's only crap when geeks do it, it's alright when
middlebrows do it.
oh wait a sec, it's only crap if there isn't an acceptably large
audience in front of a specific thing you approve of. well the thing
doesn't matter as long as it's the real world and a nice middlebrow
audience that never writes. not because they're slaving away 9 to 5 but
because they are wise and know all that matters is the cinematic
apparatus.
here's a quote from roland barthes in martin's article that's bound to
annoy you and doberman:
''The work of art is interminable, like the cure: in both cases, it is
less a matter of obtaining a result than of modifying a problem, i.e. a
subject: 'uncoating' it of the finality in which it locks up its
point of departure.''
and what about that edgar allen poe, he a great poet when poeting but
in the process leading to it he was crap? what's that poem he wrote
about the process? what bout melville? melville be infinitely superior
to deleuze? so when did the miracle of creation happen for poe? and
melville? was his account of the whale better than the whale itself?
when an acceptable amount of ppl started reading him? for, contrary to
what barthes says, you believe ''art'' ends somewhere, ''art''- as you,
harkness and doberman understand it- that only ''art'' matters, and
that it ends in tolstoy, flaubert and shakespeare... ie you're just
another traditionalist conservative classicist imbecile. as long as
it's in a nice comfy apparatus you can feel you're feeling, in your
case mass-mob mentality. cuz other ppl are like cats? warm? loud? hmm,
cats arent loud? well watch the ''art'' with ppl, not cats. do cats
feel ''art''. they probably do, they're probably wise, seeing as they
don't write about it.
ok right, so that's what you resent. like doberman, you're crying
because the moron conservative crowd that fill the cinemas aren't
represented. you say we fill sensesofcinema with shit a la imdb, right?
or even better, those who don't have the ability to write, they're the
kings in this because all they're doing is ''feeeeeeeling'' the ART,
right?
2. why should cinema be evaluated?
why should thinking serve and evaluate ''the cinema'' and not the other
way around?
why should writing serve and evaluate ''the cinema'' and not the other
way around?
why shouldn't cinema serve and evaluate writing and thinking?
hmm, gee whiz that was arbitrary of you to propose that. i wonder why
you thought the cinema a higher entelechy to be respected.
oooohh i know, because more people watch the cinema than they read it.
ohhhh i know, because you revere ''the cinematic apparatus'' and
suspect any list that doesn't include a decent dose of middlebrow crap.
any list without preston sturges and billy wilder. any list where you
notice a pattern and a logic that disproves the production patterns and
reception of majority cinema. anything or anyone that feels above these
financial neoliberal production patterns and has elaborated a critical
mind of his own. no wonder you're doing nothing other than agreeing
with the likes of john simon and david oberman.
> Where I differ from my confreres (the aforementioned fraternal order)
> is that I will admit this is what I'm doing. They, the ones who haven't
> completely deluded themselves that is, would have everyone believe that
> not only can film be illuminated by written analysis, but that it is
> the *only* way to shed the light of understanding on the medium. It's a
> lie. Most film writers know it; very few will admit it even in private.
who believes it's the ''only'' way? what fucking pathetic straw man are
you making here, you dishonest prick?
do you disagree that written analysis can illuminate cinema?
do you disagree that the cinema should illuminate writing?
do you disagree that the cinema should ever even microscopically
consider stooping down to illuminating thinking and writing?
you believe writing is merely cinema's bitch?
so when does something become worthwhile? and who makes it worthwhile?
apparently something called ''the cinema'' for you is worthwhile. so
who makes it? if nobody can write something as magnificient as ''the
cinema'' then surely you can't believe the script has any role in the
making of ''the cinema''. or are scriptwriters blessed by your
middlebrow serving blessing? what about filmmakers? are they geniuses
when behind the camera? that can't be possible now can it, after all,
when they can't think and write anything even close to that
magnificient thing called ''the cinema''? so if there's no intention or
agency in the filmmaker, then ''the cinema'' is great because of the
camera? so the big thing here, the big genius to be revered, is an
object with no intention? what a stupid or dishonest logic.
so what is it, stupid or dishonest? you really believe your wank or do
you have an ulterior agenda? do you resent geeks because you were a
geek? do you think something called 'geeks' always serve to impress
middlebrow family members athletic types?
or are you like andrew sarris, a total and utter wanker only in it for
the women on screen?
>
> You're the one who depends upon the dead-on-arrival prose of
> talent-challenged film critics to decide what you'll *say* you like and
> what you'll *say* you don't like (the principal reason why you've yet
> to render a single coherent insight you can call your own on *any*
> film).
goodness me, really?
You're the one uses the written word as a crutch. I scorn the
> written word in relation to cinema (something you do not do), as well
> as I scorn those who write it; not the least of whom being myself.
>
> > well why don't you head off to rec.arts.books? your
> > approach on cinema is so pathetic, pretentious and underachieving i do
> > not know where to start. what are you, some sort of closet conservative
> > trotskyist wankbrain balzac?
>
> *****
> I think I go about what I do, seeing it for what it is, as honestly as
> I can. I try to, anyway; and perhaps I've failed. I have certain ideas
> about the way this could be done differently, and I deploy them as
> effectively as my talents will permit.
yeah, i've browsed over some of your pieces and they were utterly
mediocre wank.
That is all anyone can
> reasonably ask, and I have to assume that others do not follow a
> similar course . . . simply because if they did, and what they render
> really is the result of some earnest effort on their part, then they
> belong in the food service industry.
>
> It is they who are the (not-so-closet) Conservatives (mired in a past
> that was never worthy of preservation) not I.
>
> > btw, why do you compulsively collect so much cinema you claim to hate?
>
> *****
> Do you have a specific example of that? I'm not aware of one.
>
seen any film-essays lately? is godard a genius behind the camera but
wank when not? come on, say it out loud. what about jonathan rosenbaum?
is his movie the front line cosmic wonder and his writing in the
shithole? and johann van der keurken? was he a genius because of the
camera? doesnt make sense, for surely in that case the camera would be
the genius.
> > i love that sentence where you go ''i'm gonna get a lot of blame for
> > saying this...''. you couldnt be more self-deluded, mate. you're with
> > your own species of monkey here, nowhere could you be more confortable
> > than in this ng with the likes of stewe, boots, pillbox and gaza.
>
> *****
> It's not the regulars in this forum I feel myself constrained to
> disclose my thoughts before, but those who may be passing through on
> their way to the rara avis of other forums (which shall here go
> nameless). It's been known to happen.
ah yes, because this forum is the real world aint it. joe gillis enters
with his articles about the real world and people from the real world
comment on them, and these articles are acceptable and about the
cinema, and their responses are about the cinema. then other people
enter the forum and ask about some pathetic little trivia and they get
response. and then doberman comes in with quotes to john simon and
links to roger kimball. and then there's little fascist steve, with
comments from the real world about ''cool'' films. you're fine with
this forum and its people, arent ya. after all they think ''all
opinions are subjective and one opinion is as good as another when it
comes to aesthetics''. and for what reason? well just like yours,
because they don't want to feel offended by hearing they're missing out
on something. cuz the most important thing we're all ingrained in
school is to feel intelligent and superior, right? no of course not,
phil collins is just as good as john cale and spielberg is just as good
as godard and you're all for ''democracy'' and ''pluralism'' and why?
well because the truth is aesthetics depends on one's register and the
more exposure to aesthetics odds are the greater register one obtains
from which or to which one can reach out to in given situations. so if
tennis players only know how to play tennis, or steve only knows how to
be a slave and to enslave, they wanna feel good with themselves and not
feel they're missing anything so you come up with this nice comfortable
doublepeak for them. so the likes of chrisgoes or adrian martin expose
themselves more to their corners of aesthetics and obtain richer
registers... well tough luck if you or doberman don't fucking like it.
you feel nice and comfy with your autistic mutually wanking rampf
crowd, there's nothing as efficient when in doubt than talking the day
away with someone just like you, that's why so many christians get
married.
Tom Sutpen
> > > you can't even differentiate modern for modernist? you really are a
> > > thorough and total wank biscuit aren't ya.
> >
> > *****
> > I can differentiate with the best of 'em. Whatever way you cut it, that
> > mode of expression is extremely old.
>
>
> ''old'', what do you mean ''old''? ''older'' than the tolstoys and
> flauberts you quote? older than tom wolfe?
<one big castrating snip>
*****
Well, this is all really good knockabout stuff, Senor Martinez . . .
perhaps not on the level of Savonarola's indictments of the Papacy, but
you have to take what you can get from indolent upper-class schoolkids,
I suppose . . . but I simply don't have the time to go point by point
through every incorrect premise, every grammatical catastrophe, every
alarming (for its frequency if nothing else) reference to the quaint
custom of 'wanking' (I shall happily cede you all expertise on what
seems to be a personal obsession of yours), every proto-fascist impulse
buried within a fundamentally laughable screed that communicates
nothing beyond the fact that you have far too much time on your hands.
I will only say this:
It is not, I think, a useful enterprise to assume, as a matter of
course, that those writers whom you hold in such esteem as to approach
the condition of adolescent hero worship (which is really all we're
getting from you) have as their intention the illumination of the art
of Cinema. It is understandable that you see them in that light, for
this is something you wish you were able to do if the voices inside
your head would only permit you the discipline (and we both know what
I'm referring to). But I can report in many cases that, at bottom,
these people have no real interest in Cinema or illumination or in
anything other than personal advancement within a very limited sector
of the critical and academic communities. You have never interacted
with these people. I have. You know them from their artless writings.
There's no way by which you could have born witness to some of the
rather telling behavior I have which might, were you prepared to be
honest about any of this, render your idols to so much incinerated
flesh. Your fantasies of pristine intellectual intent (which, I can
assure you, even those whom you revere do not hold) remain intact, and
I daresay would probably remain so in the light of even the most foul
revelation; such is the steadfastness of your schoolboy idolatry.
I think the reason no one anywhere takes anything you say seriously,
Juan, is that they can see as plainly as I how crudely you've adjusted
your values to insulate you from your personal limitations. In other
words, it would be easier to accept your critique of all that Skill
which you claim to despise if there was even a wisp of a hint that you
possessed any to begin with. It's all very simple: You have no gift for
rendering coherent thought into words? Well, then anyone who does must
be engaged in the forbidding sin (here it is again) of wanking. And
that's only one example. Go through all of your ranting, point by
irrational point (that is, unless you have a life), and you'll notice .
. . you'd have to make a conscious effort *not* to notice it . . . that
everything you condemn is something you could not do even if you had
(which I very much believe you do in some instances) the desire. You
have neither the ability, the discipline, the skill, the resolve, you
have not the talent for any species of creative endeavor.
Which, by itself, is no sin; not to me at any measure. Being third rate
in every respect does not mean you have no intrinsic value as a human
being like the rest of us. Where you discredit yourself is in
brutishly, foully libeling anyone who can do something you cannot and
raising up those who hide their limitations better than you can as a
cross before which those with any talent should fall to abject shame.
Like all true fascists, you've made of your inadequacies a hideously
lurid, nihilistic ethos. It's there in the gaudy spectacle of every
poorly written sentence you deliver of yourself.
As a practical matter, I think you would also be grossly mistaken if
you assume that those whom you worship in the film writing racket would
do anything but laugh at your defense of them, or even find in it
occasion for insult (for what man, I put it to you, would think himself
so bereft of resources as to accept a defense as intellectually,
linguistically squalid as yours?). I think many of them would have the
baseline honesty to accept that their intentions in their writing are
very very different from the artists about whom they write. They know
what you deny. There's nothing at all delusional about some of these
folks, I can report. They see what they're doing as clearly as I see
it. They know it requires talent to create cinema; it requires none to
write about it.
One last point (and these will be my final words in this thread): I
very often despair at the usefulness of pursuing a presence in film
writing as I have these last 18-20 months. I frequently curse myself
for getting back into something I walked away from decades ago, think
my ambitions foul and fraudulent; nothing more than a cheap stab at
redemption spawned of the most narrow personal considerations. I think
there's more than a speck of foundation for that were I honest with
myself. But if I can cull anything useful out of the minutes of my life
I have wasted reading (and responding) to this assault on . . .
essentially everything, it's that I could be far far worse off than I
am doing what I'm doing, and knowing it for what it is. I can think of
nothing more empty than sitting in the bleachers, worshiping movie
reviewers from afar, defending an honor even they do not claim for
themselves, and wishing you could grow up to be one of them, if such a
thing were only possible.
I still like and respect you, Juan, but you just don't know what you're
talking about.
You may, if you wish, have the final word.
Tom Sutpen
sirb...@hotmail.com
Tom Sutpen ha escrito:
so? we all have to make a living. you're not revealing anything here.
You have never interacted
> with these people. I have.
you don't know fucking shit, creep.
You know them from their artless writings.
> There's no way by which you could have born witness to some of the
> rather telling behavior I have which might,
tell us all what you do in your spare time other than cry about
yourself, be a total and utter loser, get drunk and spend months
writing stroheim articles for sensesofcinema that get rejected.
were you prepared to be
> honest about any of this, render your idols to so much incinerated
> flesh. Your fantasies of pristine intellectual intent (which, I can
> assure you, even those whom you revere do not hold) remain intact, and
> I daresay would probably remain so in the light of even the most foul
> revelation; such is the steadfastness of your schoolboy idolatry.
and the difference between university teachers and story-writers is?
when the fuck did i carry out my fantasies of pristine intellectual
intent? the career-aiming of every area is the same, just like it's the
same in every part of the fucking world for everything. what the fuck
are you telling your straw-man here, fuckface? you continue condemning
people just for being university teachers.
>
> I think the reason no one anywhere takes anything you say seriously,
> Juan, is that they can see as plainly as I how crudely you've adjusted
> your values to insulate you from your personal limitations. In other
> words, it would be easier to accept your critique of all that Skill
> which you claim to despise if there was even a wisp of a hint that you
> possessed any to begin with. It's all very simple: You have no gift for
> rendering coherent thought into words? Well, then anyone who does must
> be engaged in the forbidding sin (here it is again) of wanking.
i accuse poor little sutpen of being a wanker. therefore all wankers
must have skill. oh, wow, the socialist chomsky reader's logic.
And
> that's only one example. Go through all of your ranting, point by
> irrational point (that is, unless you have a life), and you'll notice .
> . . you'd have to make a conscious effort *not* to notice it . . . that
> everything you condemn is something you could not do even if you had
> (which I very much believe you do in some instances) the desire. You
> have neither the ability, the discipline, the skill, the resolve, you
> have not the talent for any species of creative endeavor.
>
> Which, by itself, is no sin; not to me at any measure. Being third rate
> in every respect does not mean you have no intrinsic value as a human
> being like the rest of us. Where you discredit yourself is in
> brutishly, foully libeling anyone who can do something you cannot and
> raising up those who hide their limitations better than you can as a
> cross before which those with any talent should fall to abject shame.
> Like all true fascists, you've made of your inadequacies a hideously
> lurid, nihilistic ethos. It's there in the gaudy spectacle of every
> poorly written sentence you deliver of yourself.
oh i'm having plenty of fun and know i'm living when i'm accused of
nihilism by the likes of you.
>
> As a practical matter, I think you would also be grossly mistaken if
> you assume that those whom you worship in the film writing racket would
> do anything but laugh at your defense of them,
what??!! worship?? who do i worship? who am i defending?
or even find in it
> occasion for insult (for what man, I put it to you, would think himself
> so bereft of resources as to accept a defense as intellectually,
> linguistically squalid as yours?). I think many of them would have the
> baseline honesty to accept that their intentions in their writing are
> very very different from the artists about whom they write. They know
> what you deny.
what do i deny, when did i deny what, you worthless coward?
There's nothing at all delusional about some of these
> folks, I can report. They see what they're doing as clearly as I see
> it. They know it requires talent to create cinema; it requires none to
> write about it.
''it requires talent to create cinema?'' leave this school-boy idolatry
of filmmakers in the closet, creep. all because you feel comfortable
with a middlebrow audience and with that classic
communistic-socialistic-fascist mob-mentality of yours feel brave
enough to condemn anyone who writes about your higher bitch THE
CINEMA...
LOL!!! tell us all about this ''talent to create cinema'' baseline
''logic'' you depend on, coward!
that you take years to write sentences and revere charles dickens and
tom wolfe has nothing to do with anything.
>
> One last point (and these will be my final words in this thread):
of course they will be, because you're a communist piece of scum, a
coward and a loser. you're far worse than any of the other morons i've
argued with in these ngs. the abyss of your stupidity/dishonesty
uncertainty, that is.
I
> very often despair at the usefulness of pursuing a presence in film
> writing as I have these last 18-20 months. I frequently curse myself
> for getting back into something I walked away from decades ago, think
> my ambitions foul and fraudulent; nothing more than a cheap stab at
> redemption spawned of the most narrow personal considerations. I think
> there's more than a speck of foundation for that were I honest with
> myself. But if I can cull anything useful out of the minutes of my life
> I have wasted reading (and responding) to this assault on . . .
> essentially everything, it's that I could be far far worse off than I
> am doing what I'm doing, and knowing it for what it is. I can think of
> nothing more empty than sitting in the bleachers, worshiping movie
> reviewers from afar, defending an honor even they do not claim for
> themselves, and wishing you could grow up to be one of them, if such a
> thing were only possible.
>
> I still like and respect you, Juan, but you just don't know what you're
> talking about.
>
> You may, if you wish, have the final word.
>
> Tom Sutpen
bla, bla, bla, what a whole load of horseshit. it'll get you applause
from the likes of oberman, for sure.
ROFLMFAO!!!! i will assure you that preferring someone else's writing
over yours, oberman's, simon's and harkness' is not idolatry. you are
such a manipulating worthless piece of shit, sutpen. go cry a while at
your dead-end job and get yourself a girlfriend and a wife. get
yourself an attic and fill it up with straw-men designed to hide your
complete and utter failure in all respects in just about anything you
can think of.
sheeeeeeshh, it is so hard to take anything you've just written even
mildly seriously. you, the truman in my show, have reacted laughably.
i'll frame this one for posterity and for my laughters of the future...
Tom Sutpen
sirb...@hotmail.com wrote:
> tell us all what you do in your spare time other than cry about
> yourself, be a total and utter loser, get drunk and spend months
> writing stroheim articles for sensesofcinema that get rejected.
*****
Solely for the purposes of correcting an error of fact:
I have never had an article rejected by 'Senses of Cinema' or any other
venue I've submitted writing to.
I'll let the rest stand as it is.
Tom Sutpen
sirb...@hotmail.com
Tom Sutpen ha escrito:
> sirb...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > tell us all what you do in your spare time other than cry about
> > yourself, be a total and utter loser, get drunk and spend months
> > writing stroheim articles for sensesofcinema that get rejected.
>
> *****
> Solely for the purposes of correcting an error of fact:
>
> I have never had an article rejected by 'Senses of Cinema' or any other
> venue I've submitted writing to.
course you didnt. you in your pretentious and stupid wanna be balzac
manner asked to make an article on their great directors list on
stroheim and you were so incapable and neurotic about writing the only
thing you managed to provide was a blank sheet of paper. there was,
indeed, nothing there to reject.
>
> I'll let the rest stand as it is.
>
yeah you might as well, since you'd only add to your previous
humiliation. all you have left to do is continue speculating on that
discipline/capacity duality you dig and repeat to yourself how
intellectually challenged i am. you wouldnt survive a point for point
argument not in a million years. and it's not for lack of time, for as
you very well know, you're spilling with free time. as all wankers.
meanwhile i'll deride that school-boy fantasy of yours about THE CINEMA
by deriding it as mere... language... identification... subject...
absence... i'll leave you to experience THE CINEMA.
not to mention... ezra pound and charles dickens...
talk about bluffing wafer-thin rhetoric...
dont get pissed off and cry-baby about my bitch-slapping you like this,
life is nothing other than a metaphysical game, stop striving so much
to impress other ppl, slutpod, it'll be your ruin.
> Tom Sutpen
Tom Sutpen
> > I have never had an article rejected by 'Senses of Cinema' or any other
> > venue I've submitted writing to.
>
> course you didnt. you in your pretentious and stupid wanna be balzac
> manner asked to make an article on their great directors list on
> stroheim and you were so incapable and neurotic about writing the only
> thing you managed to provide was a blank sheet of paper. there was,
> indeed, nothing there to reject.
*****
Is that what happened? Blimey, I was unaware of that.
Here I was, thinking I'd asked for more time (which was granted after
an enthusiastic response to a 1,500 word excerpt of what I had so far)
to do more research and thereby emerge with a more effective, more
accurate, better crafted essay which means more to me than anything
I've written to date. I did not want to write hermetically sealed,
cinephilic boilerplate. To their immense credit, the people at 'Senses'
fully understood my intentions, and they're letting me do it. Now, I
know you can't grasp the concept of craftsmanship ("make an article" is
an unusually telling choice of words), being incapable of it yourself,
but this is what I *thought* was going on with that article. Apparently
you know a great deal more about it than myself or anyone at 'Senses of
Cinema' does.
You learn something news every day, I guess.
> > I'll let the rest stand as it is.
>
> yeah you might as well, since you'd only add to your previous
> humiliation. all you have left to do is continue speculating on that
> discipline/capacity duality you dig and repeat to yourself how
> intellectually challenged i am. you wouldnt survive a point for point
> argument not in a million years. and it's not for lack of time, for as
> you very well know, you're spilling with free time. as all wankers.
*****
Juan, if you could write a sentence of English in a manner that most
people who read the language can understand, and not hide your
linguistic limitations behind a Shock-the-bourgeoisie Maverick pose
that any 2 year old could see as such, then it might be possible for
someone to engage in a discussion with you productively. To the degree
I seem to have engaged you here (and in other threads . . . I won't
discuss our one-on-one communications because you're an entirely
different, if not exactly more coherent, individual on those occasions;
which I rather prefer to this) it has been *in spite* of your inability
to express yourself with base-line clarity, in no way because of it.
I'm not referring to your deportment in these threads (which I know
firsthand is mostly an act), I'm speaking solely of your communications
skills, which are astonishingly poor. It's not just me, *no one* will
in a point-by-point argument with you only because it's impossible to
tell two-thirds of the time what it is you're saying. No one has so
much free time that they can translate your words back into coherent
thought and then deal with it in an effective manner. I'm absolutely
serious about this, and I don't mean to be insulting (I may have
before; I'm not now). I would very much like to get into a substantive
discussion with you on these matters, but it can't be done. You just
don't know how to do it.
I've told you this privately countless times: The fact that *you*
understand what you're talking about is fine, but it means nothing if
no one else does. That's why people here laugh at you. It's got nothing
to do with your wholly prosaic stabs at being outrageous (which is at
best nothing more than mainstream childishness everyone has seen a
million times; the rhetorical equivalent to putting a lampshade on your
head . . . you firebrand, you), it's because, with your
headache-inducing melange of half-remembered academic patois and
retarded sentence construction, your whole approach to communicating
with others is essentially mindless.
> meanwhile i'll deride that school-boy fantasy of yours about THE CINEMA
> by deriding it as mere... language... identification... subject...
> absence... i'll leave you to experience THE CINEMA.
*****
A prime example. How could anyone take issue with it? It's not a good
point, it's not a bad point. I can't tell if it's *any* point. I know
you're *trying* to say something, but who can tell what? Is this really
your idea of communication?
> not to mention... ezra pound and charles dickens...
*****
Say what you want about Pound (Fascist madman and poetic genius comes
immediately to mind), but at least, at his most linguistically
impenetrable, there was never any doubt of something intellectually
challenging (and satisfying) at its core.
And you really shouldn't badmouth (or praise) authors you haven't read.
It makes you look like a crackpot.
> talk about bluffing wafer-thin rhetoric...
> dont get pissed off and cry-baby about my bitch-slapping you like this,
> life is nothing other than a metaphysical game, stop striving so much
> to impress other ppl, slutpod, it'll be your ruin.
*****
Well, I'm sure in your mind you've rendered me to condemned veal,
reduced me to ashes, bitch-slapped me to hell and gone. But I'm damned
if I can tell whether you've done so or not.
I still like (and respect) you, though.
Tom Sutpen
sirb...@hotmail.com
Tom Sutpen ha escrito:
> sirb...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > I have never had an article rejected by 'Senses of Cinema' or any other
> > > venue I've submitted writing to.
> >
> > course you didnt. you in your pretentious and stupid wanna be balzac
> > manner asked to make an article on their great directors list on
> > stroheim and you were so incapable and neurotic about writing the only
> > thing you managed to provide was a blank sheet of paper. there was,
> > indeed, nothing there to reject.
>
> *****
> Is that what happened? Blimey, I was unaware of that.
>
> Here I was, thinking I'd asked for more time
goodness me, and this was in jeanuary was it? when will the clock
strike 365 days?
(which was granted after
> an enthusiastic response to a 1,500 word excerpt of what I had so far)
> to do more research and thereby emerge with a more effective, more
> accurate, better crafted essay which means more to me than anything
> I've written to date. I did not want to write hermetically sealed,
> cinephilic boilerplate. To their immense credit, the people at 'Senses'
> fully understood my intentions, and they're letting me do it. Now, I
> know you can't grasp the concept of craftsmanship ("make an article" is
> an unusually telling choice of words), being incapable of it yourself,
> but this is what I *thought* was going on with that article. Apparently
> you know a great deal more about it than myself or anyone at 'Senses of
> Cinema' does.
MAGNIFICIENT! i shall eagerly await that desert island of writing that
is soon to appear in senses of cinema. hey slutpod, will it be as
crafted, elaborate and magnificient a piece of literature as your one
on truffaut and godard? does all great literate 5000 word essays take a
year to purify? or are the true genii capable of tossing them out in 10
minutes?
pity you didnt update me on the process of this masterpiece you're
painting. i so would love to see the process of what is sure to be an
unforgettable classic case of non-hermetic communication.
>
> You learn something news every day, I guess.
>
> > > I'll let the rest stand as it is.
> >
> > yeah you might as well, since you'd only add to your previous
> > humiliation. all you have left to do is continue speculating on that
> > discipline/capacity duality you dig and repeat to yourself how
> > intellectually challenged i am. you wouldnt survive a point for point
> > argument not in a million years. and it's not for lack of time, for as
> > you very well know, you're spilling with free time. as all wankers.
>
> *****
> Juan,
first of all, you keep calling me this name, as if you're in-the-know
about something...
enlighten me on that name thing you seem to have about me, please?
i.e. if you didn't understand my sentence structure:
you know my name?
how did you get to know my name?
please proceed to state whether or not you understood the sentence
structure of the last two questions. if so, i shall not hesitate to
elaborate them and clarify where needed for your full understanding. i
shall be kind with your drug-induced cognitive issues.
if you could write a sentence of English in a manner that most
> people who read the language can understand, and not hide your
> linguistic limitations behind a Shock-the-bourgeoisie Maverick pose
> that any 2 year old could see as such,
bla bla bla. your promise to leave this thread has been broken. your
pride got the better of you. if only you could hide your geeky history,
complexes and depression behind your
protect-the-bourgeois-from-identification-theories maverick pose.
then it might be possible for
> someone to engage in a discussion with you productively. To the degree
> I seem to have engaged you here (and in other threads . . . I won't
> discuss our one-on-one communications because you're an entirely
> different, if not exactly more coherent,
you spilled out your reductio-ad-homynem in those private exchanges and
this entire flush of yours can be explained by them.
and to correct an error of fact, i was exactly the same person in my
exchanges with you as i am here. you are incredibly self-deluded.
individual on those occasions;
> which I rather prefer to this)
well seeing you be your balzac self is considerably more amusing than
this pretense of ''inability to express oneself''
it has been *in spite* of your inability
> to express yourself with base-line clarity, in no way because of it.
>
> I'm not referring to your deportment in these threads (which I know
> firsthand is mostly an act),
LOL! how do you know that? what is an act? your interpretive capacities
an act, you mean? you're nothing but an act? please, slutpod, give us
the naked you i saw in those private exchanges, not this act. give us
that real dwindling nothingness contemporary flaubert-reading wallowing
in self pity true balzac self, not this dishonest spree about how you
weren't able to understand the clearest exposure of your own ''talent
to be a filmmaker baseline-logic'' ever to arrive in this ng. i want,
like the blob dylan song, to see the real you at last, not this phony
crap.
I'm speaking solely of your communications
> skills, which are astonishingly poor.
communication is?
therefore skill of communication is?
so how can it be poor, when you don't know what communication is?
you call your pathetic long-winding essay ''on the auteur theory''
communication?
you call life and quality a world with what you call communication?
been reading a lot of chomsky, lately?
It's not just me, *no one* will
> in a point-by-point argument with you only because it's impossible to
> tell two-thirds of the time what it is you're saying.
not at all, phony. the reason is because i, without a care in the
world, systematically hurl ad homynem explanations for other people's
arguments that are percieved to be insults/definitions. and like
classical mob-psychology all is fine as long as, like you, we accuse
people not present, but when these are present it is all so scandalous.
would seem surprising of course, because it seems to me that it's the
former who are the true cowards. it's fine and dandy to accuse
hundreds, thousands and millions as long as they're not present.
but that's the bleeding obvious. nowhere is the desire to prove me
wrong greater than in these places.
No one has so
> much free time that they can translate your words back into coherent
> thought and then deal with it in an effective manner. I'm absolutely
> serious about this, and I don't mean to be insulting (I may have
> before; I'm not now).
i'm absolutely serious about this, and i don't even mean to be
condescending: give us the real you, sutpen. talk about your baseline
decisionism, describe those axioms on which you depend to curse other
people's writing on cinema. well not ''other people's of course, not
this ng's writers who graciously talk about the oscars and the cinema
as the beautiful trivia it is, no. more like ''a certain bunch of
people's writing''. enlighten us on who these people are, all your
accusations are so abstract, cowardly and distant, no wonder nobody
understands you. i don't know, may i suggest what you mean when you
hurl that word ''academic''. you mean universities? and when you're
agreeing with john simon and david oberman, what exactly are you
agreeing on? who are these people you talk about? analyze their
writing, be a brave man, sutpen. take a point and make fun of it. many
more suggestions i could propose to enable you to make your position
better understood but i dont have the time. perhaps you could also take
my exposure of your condemnation of film writing like a man? and then
talk to us about shakespeare, harold bloom, flaubert, tolstoy, wolfe,
dickens and all that great literature?
I would very much like to get into a substantive
> discussion with you on these matters, but it can't be done. You just
> don't know how to do it.
i'm serious about this sutpen, and i want to help you: the subconscious
under that phony epidermis of yours will get the better of you.
>
> I've told you this privately countless times: The fact that *you*
> understand what you're talking about is fine, but it means nothing if
> no one else does.
you've TOLD me? illuminate me on these occasions, oh please. these
fantasy scenarios where i ran to slutpod's help and cried ''why oh why,
elder wise brother slutpod, doth not one person understand me?'', to
which you responded ''well, son, that be because even though you may
understand what you're saying, other people don't... to which did i go:
''oh thank you, elder slutshit, for those wise words''... are your
fantasy tales dreamy like ralph bakshi mooees? in your dreams, does i
wear a pointed head?
(oops, does i means do i when in playful hands)
That's why people here laugh at you. It's got nothing
> to do with your wholly prosaic stabs at being outrageous
please stop interpreting the world, godard, truffaut, film writers or
myself according to the endless onanistic sessions in front of your
mirror. not everything is your own narrow twisted self-absorbed soul
and self.
(which is at
> best nothing more than mainstream childishness everyone has seen a
> million times; the rhetorical equivalent to putting a lampshade on your
> head . . . you firebrand, you),
there you go again, your understanding of psychology and metaphysics is
that of an ant up its own ass.
it's because, with your
> headache-inducing melange of half-remembered academic patois
you are indeed a classicist. write graceful strokes o prose a la
flaubert, please.
and
> retarded sentence construction, your whole approach to communicating
> with others is essentially mindless.
>
bla bla bla, yak yak yak...
> > meanwhile i'll deride that school-boy fantasy of yours about THE CINEMA
> > by deriding it as mere... language... identification... subject...
> > absence... i'll leave you to experience THE CINEMA.
>
> *****
> A prime example. How could anyone take issue with it? It's not a good
> point, it's not a bad point. I can't tell if it's *any* point. I know
> you're *trying* to say something, but who can tell what? Is this really
> your idea of communication?
>
magnificient. i shall now spend time clarifying sentence structure as i
stated above due to your health issues, no problem:
meanwhile: mean while.
i: me
'll: will
deride: make fun of
that: i understand this may be problematic, cuz (because) i could be
talking about greenland's 17th century lesbic queen, but you have to
look closer at the elaboration of the sentence. ''that'' refers to what
comes next.
school-boy fantasy of yours: your years as a cry-baby geek
about THE CINEMA: ah, i understand, you must forgive me for
capitalizing ''the cinema''. it must have, understandably, come as a
shock, seeing as it is probably extremely hard to understand sentences
that have not their first letters capitalised in the first place. such
a radical change of situation is enough to bring about a heart-attack
in any mildly literate person such as yourself and for that i beg
forgiveness.
by deriding it as mere: by making fun of it as mere
...: yes i understand these little things in threes may have lost you,
but maybe you should consult your doc about add?
language... identification... subject...absence: ah yes, difficult
stuff i must say. ok here goes; the cinema as mere:
language: language
identification: identification
subject: subject
absence: absence
i'll leave you to experience THE CINEMA: and that i shall do. and you
can continue to hide away from having to explain this ''experience the
cinema'' crap you depend on.
> > not to mention... ezra pound and charles dickens...
>
> *****
> Say what you want about Pound (Fascist madman and poetic genius comes
> immediately to mind), but at least, at his most linguistically
> impenetrable, there was never any doubt of something intellectually
> challenging (and satisfying) at its core.
what was i saying about ezra pound? that you were quoting him in
private conversations? providing a pathetic little quote as your
baseline axiom from which your logic parted? tell us all about that
quote? show the world how lame it was.
>
> And you really shouldn't badmouth (or praise) authors you haven't read.
> It makes you look like a crackpot.
who have i badmouthed or praised without having read? why would doing
so make me look like a crackpot? why do you care so much about your
''look''? stop projecting your neurotic worries on myself.
>
> > talk about bluffing wafer-thin rhetoric...
>
> > dont get pissed off and cry-baby about my bitch-slapping you like this,
> > life is nothing other than a metaphysical game, stop striving so much
> > to impress other ppl, slutpod, it'll be your ruin.
>
> *****
> Well, I'm sure
you are certain. sure? you do mean you are certain, right, eh little
one?
in your mind you've rendered me to condemned veal,
> reduced me to ashes, bitch-slapped me to hell and gone. But I'm damned
> if I can tell whether you've done so or not.
>
> I still like (and respect) you, though.
>
> Tom Sutpen
you've always bored the hell out of me. i've always found your writing
and self so narrow and stupid. i would say this is a metaphysical
matter, so i could never formulate a ''i still like or dislike (or
respect or not respect) you'' literary sentences. pretty much different
strokes, you're far too basic in everything i've seen from you. ah well.
David Oberman
>I'm not referring to your deportment in these threads (which I know
>firsthand is mostly an act),
Is he not really as rude as he acts here?
>I've told you this privately countless times: The fact that *you*
>understand what you're talking about is fine, but it means nothing if
>no one else does. That's why people here laugh at you. It's got nothing
>to do with your wholly prosaic stabs at being outrageous (which is at
>best nothing more than mainstream childishness everyone has seen a
>million times; the rhetorical equivalent to putting a lampshade on your
>head . . . you firebrand, you), it's because, with your
>headache-inducing melange of half-remembered academic patois and
>retarded sentence construction, your whole approach to communicating
>with others is essentially mindless.
This is all a weird replay of the exchange between Derrida & Meyer
Abrams ("Doing Things With Texts," "The Deconstructing Angel," &c)
Tom Sutpen
> This is all a weird replay of the exchange between Derrida & Meyer
> Abrams ("Doing Things With Texts," "The Deconstructing Angel," &c)
*****
Actually, you should think of it as Abrams and Derrida reduced to a
Minstrel Show routine.
Tom Sutpen
Harkness
who dat say who dat? And what be de ideological underpinnings?
Derrida say dat.
Derridat?
No he aint dere. He derrida.
Derriwhat?
I could go on.
John Harkness
David Oberman
>> Actually, you should think of it as Abrams and Derrida reduced to a
>> Minstrel Show routine.
>>
>> Tom Sutpen
>
>who dat say who dat? And what be de ideological underpinnings?
>
>Derrida say dat.
>
>Derridat?
>
>No he aint dere. He derrida.
>
>Derriwhat?
>
>I could go on.
Hehheeheh. If I were master publisher of Critical Inquiry, I'd publish
this--BUT I'd ask you to expand it.
sirb...@hotmail.com
David Oberman ha escrito:
wow, doberboots as thrilling and in the words of george peatty
well-read intervention as ever.
btw did that abrams guy bring up flaubert's blogosphere only to
conveniantly n cowardly forget he did?
and on a more personal note, boots, what's your take on the
mathematical implications inherent in the economics of reception's
designation of ''talent''?
David Oberman
>> This is all a weird replay of the exchange between Derrida & Meyer
>> Abrams ("Doing Things With Texts," "The Deconstructing Angel," &c)
>
>wow, doberboots as thrilling and in the words of george peatty
>well-read intervention as ever.
>
>btw did that abrams guy bring up flaubert's blogosphere only to
>conveniantly n cowardly forget he did?
It was a false scent: there was no Derrida or Abrams. You're obviously
confusing presence with trace, or absence with arche-ecriture (the
trace not appearing as SuCh)... I mean, REally, blob
>and on a more personal note, boots, what's your take on the
>mathematical implications inherent in the economics of reception's
>designation of ''talent''?
A-dor-no. A-really-dor-no, blobby.
sirb...@hotmail.com
David Oberman ha escrito:
> sirb...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >> This is all a weird replay of the exchange between Derrida & Meyer
> >> Abrams ("Doing Things With Texts," "The Deconstructing Angel," &c)
> >
> >wow, doberboots as thrilling and in the words of george peatty
> >well-read intervention as ever.
> >
> >btw did that abrams guy bring up flaubert's blogosphere only to
> >conveniantly n cowardly forget he did?
>
> It was a false scent: there was no Derrida or Abrams. You're obviously
> confusing presence with trace, or absence with arche-ecriture (the
> trace not appearing as SuCh)... I mean, REally, blob
goodness me, boots. what exactly is it you're ridiculing?