Bug

[nemo]

Has anybody seen Bug, William Friedkins latest screen outing in a number of years?

The director of classics such as The French Connection and The Exorcist is back with an independent little psychodrama, that has been unfortunately marketed
as "the new horror movie by The Exorcist-director". Also unfortunately it is not a new masterpiece by the acclaimed director. On the other hand it`s definetely
one of the better films of the passing year.

Set almost exclusively in a shabby motel apartment somewhere in Arizona it features substance abuser Agnes (played by Ashley Judd in her least commercial
perfomance yet), whose 6 year old son had vanished about a decade earlier. Also in the mix is Jerry, her psychopathic ex, R.C., her best friend with whom she
has a lesbian relationship and the disturbed drifter Peter (Michael Shannon, the marine from World Trade Centre), with whom she`s starting a love affair.
I`m not telling the whole story here in case some of you out there want to view it yourself.

Subjects, which are appearing though are the mention of the Bilderberg-meetings (to my limited knowledge a first in any american movie), government conspiracies,
the military doing unethical experimentation on soldiers, a strong association with the infamous Morgellon-disease and government spying.
This claustrophobic small scale drama can`t always deny its origin from the succesful theatre play by Oklahoma born actor/playwright Terry Jets, but Friedkin
manages quite nicely to infuse some cinematic moments here. At the very least it`s a fine study on paranoia and at 71 years Friedkin manages once more to helm
a (almost) subversive film. As a warning it has to be said to the more squeamish among you that the movie contains two gory moments, but it`s not as violent as the
disappointing children`s fantasy Pan`s Labyrinth.

It`s getting a bit over the top towards the end and seen from the SOTT perspective its a bit too ambigeous. I watched it with a good friend o`mine and we came to
contrary conclusions about what the movie is really all about. Therefore I`d be curious to hear your opinions!

 

[anart]

Well, to begin, I didn't find Pan's Labyrinth to be disappointing, but that's a topic for another thread http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=5211 .


[spoiler alert!!!]
I happened to watch 'Bug' this evening, and the impression I am left with is a major alignment of alternative theories/ideas/facts ( be they 'conspiracy', Bilderburg (sp?), government experimentation, gov. transmissions and surveillance, or the use of soldiers as 'petri-dishes' ) with insanity and suicide/death.

I found this to be a fairly powerful film (though it might be a bit much for some), and while the drug use clearly played a part in the demise of the heroine, it was also strongly portrayed as the 'enabling factor' (the reason Agnes believed the ex-soldier - she was 'crazy on drugs' else she wouldn't have fallen for it) while the driving factor was the 'paranoia' and ideas of the ex-soldier - ideas that most readers of this forum would find quite plausible if not verifiable.

Basically this film seemed to be one big flashing neon sign broadcasting that conspiracy 'theories' - or even conspiracy 'eye witness testimony' always falls in the realm of insanity - pure and simple - even the wife beater came off as more sympathetic in the end than the ex-soldier telling the truth.

As a side note, the heroine (Ashely Judd) did not have a lesbian relationship with the R.C. character - they were just very good friends and the R.C. character was a partner with a woman over whose child they were in litigation - to get custody. It seems you may have mistaken their affection (two quick kisses) as indicative of more than was the case - perhaps it's a cultural interpretation on your part, but from my perspective it was quite clear that they were close friends and since R.C. was setting up Agnes with the male ex-soldier and was fighting for custody of her partner's child, that was clearly all it was.

That's a small point, in the general plot, but for clarification's sake...

All in all, it's a good film with a very, very strong message that with an awareness of what is really 'going on in the world' comes madness and self-destruction --- quite a strong programming message to those who are unaware, if you ask me, but I also found it worth watching on dvd - at least better than Transformers. ;)

 

[Tigersoap]

Basically this film seemed to be one big flashing neon sign broadcasting that conspiracy 'theories' - or even conspiracy 'eye witness testimony' always falls in the realm of insanity - pure and simple - even the wife beater came off as more sympathetic in the end than the ex-soldier telling the truth.

I second that.
That's why I bought my aluminium hat and I constantly wear anti-mind reading glasses (which also can see through clothes).

The movie was okay, I liked it because you could see how they were slipping into insanity but I would not recommand it as a movie to "awake" or anything.

I'd rather recommand "A scanner darkly" for example, in the same vein of paranoia/drug/insanity related movies.

 

[nemo]

Basically this film seemed to be one big flashing neon sign broadcasting that conspiracy 'theories' - or even conspiracy 'eye witness testimony' always falls in the realm of insanity

That`s also my cautious conclusion. Another friend pointed out, that the ex-soldiers microscope was a toy, which would mean the bugs aren`t real.
As to the lesbian relationship betw. Agnes and R.C.: I could very well have misread between the lines here.
Having said that, the friend I originally watched the movie with didn`t quite agree and said, there were still too many unanswered questions, like,
why would the mysterious doctor have any knowledge/info about Agnes long lost son?

...but I would not recommand it as a movie to "awake" or anything

Neither would I, but when I think about movies I`d recommend for "waking up", no single film comes to mind! (exceptions: various documentaries).
Even The Matrix (which I plan to rewatch together with the two sequels) I only regarded as a good fantasy film, when it came out.
And even back then, I was aware of the possibility of living in some kind of matrix.

If I think back on my life to have a look what could have influenced me in the past the following comes to mind spontaneously:
Reading the Donald Duck comics by Carl Barks as a kid; might well have prepared my kid`s mind for critizism of capitalism
(which is hidden in the ducktales) in later years.
Older movies like All Quit On The Western Front, The Great Dictator, The Wages Of Fear
A healthy dose of american and european polit thrillers like The Manchurian Candidate (i like the old and the new version by J. Demme) and Z by Costa-Gavras
SciFi/Horror movies like Them, Tarantula (remember the facial deformations of scientist Leo G. Carroll?), Invasion Of The Body Snatchers, Soylent Green,
Apocalypse Now, Being There, Videodrome, Children Of Men, History Of Violence ...and on and on this list can go. (Wow, hollywood must be more subversive
then I thought!)
None of these film, many of which are not even regarded as classics, have the potential of waking people up. But, depending on one`s mindset, all of these films
have the potential to open a tiny little door in one`s mind, thereby slightly putting a little individual dent in The Consensual Reality one has grown up with.
That can make watching movies so enjoyable. To glimpse the occasional subversive element, even in mainstream productions like Shooter (which I liked a lot)

Reading novels by Stephen King and Thomas Pynchon is also a great antidote to ponerology, I find.

I'd rather recommand "A scanner darkly" for example, in the same vein of paranoia/drug/insanity related movies.

Okay, here I beg to differ. For me it was the umptieth example of a mediocre film made from a great book. I found it wellmeaning, but lacking in artistic
quality, therefore it`s message/content/effect seriously diminished. To My Personal Mind. I know you could argue endlessly about artistic merits. Some
films(artworks) work for some people, but not for others. (on a sidenote, my favourite filmcritic, the late Pauline Kael critically destroyed many of my
favourite films - I learned to love her for doing that!).

 

[Tigersoap]

Okay, here I beg to differ. For me it was the umptieth example of a mediocre film made from a great book. I found it wellmeaning, but lacking in artistic
quality, therefore it`s message/content/effect seriously diminished.

Oh well To each its own.
I haven't read this one book by K.Dick so i can't compare.

Even if the movie has flaws, I would not just dismiss it only based on his artistic quality, unless you don't appreciate the way it was realized (computer/vector) but I think it would be missing the underlying depth of the movie when it shows how the government is using agents, double-agents, surveillance, paranoia and drugs (Producing drugs themselves to be sold to drug addicts who will be working in the fields when they burn-out to produce more drugs.).

Oh I remembered there was already a thread about it :
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=2645

 

[nemo]

I`m not dismissing it. I`m aware that it (A Scanner Darkly) has it`s potential "wake-up" factor.
And so it has my sympathies. Being admittedly something of a movie buff, I like to point out formal
flaws in a film. While I`m of course interested in the contents of a film, I feel a really good movie should
also be "well done", as far as directing, acting, dialogue and camera goes. I believe my attitude towards film
might be slightly different from many forumites here inasfar I think that a film has to have the ability to
emotionally lead the viewer into it`s narrative. As commercial as film is, it`s still an art form and should
be discussed as such, imo.
In that regard it`s quite different from a documentary, which is about content mostly and doesn`t
have to succeed artistically.
Regarding various threads on Judgement and Opinions, I feel "the movies" is a nice platform to indulge in
opinionating and judging, especially if one is aware that there`re often more then one or two possible
viewpoints.

 

[Beau]

I believe my attitude towards film might be slightly different from many forumites here inasfar I think that a film has to have the ability to emotionally lead the viewer into it`s narrative. As commercial as film is, it`s still an art form and should be discussed as such, imo.

No, I don't think it's all that different. I just think that most people like to sit down and enjoy a movie without spending the whole time analyzing the artistic merits of it. I mean, it is entertainment. How much fun is it to constantly have an attitude of "tis not good enough for my tastes"?

 

[nemo]

Oh, but me and my friends do derive a certain amount of pleasure from debating about films we`ve seen.
It regularly amazes me how differently we perceive art in general and find such talks definitely useful to teach
one in the impossibility of objectifying things which cannot be measured and calculated. But I realize I`m in
danger of overstretching the boundaries of this forum with discussions, which could be seen as too trivial
and therfore be regarded as noise. :)

 

[Beau]

Oh, but me and my friends do derive a certain amount of pleasure from debating about films we`ve seen.

I was talking about garnering pleasure from watching the movies, not debating the lesser or greater aspects of one.

But I realize I`m in danger of overstretching the boundaries of this forum with discussions, which could be seen as too trivial
and therfore be regarded as noise. :)

No you aren't. This is the movie section. Their are no limitations on what kind of discussions can occur here. Whether or not discussions about movies is trivial sounds subjective. The point that I was making is that you were delving into an, IMO, overly analytical thought process about movies which may or may not be deriving you of pleasure. Why not let go of all your demands about movies and just enjoy a cheesy and/or "lowest common denominator" flick every once in a while? That doesn't mean you stop appreciating the art house flick or a cinematographic masterpiece. Just that you might like it if you turned off the "this movie must be great" switch at times.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I`m not dismissing it. I`m aware that it (A Scanner Darkly) has it`s potential "wake-up" factor.
And so it has my sympathies. Being admittedly something of a movie buff, I like to point out formal
flaws in a film. While I`m of course interested in the contents of a film, I feel a really good movie should
also be "well done", as far as directing, acting, dialogue and camera goes. I believe my attitude towards film
might be slightly different from many forumites here inasfar I think that a film has to have the ability to
emotionally lead the viewer into it`s narrative. As commercial as film is, it`s still an art form and should
be discussed as such, imo.
In that regard it`s quite different from a documentary, which is about content mostly and doesn`t
have to succeed artistically.
Regarding various threads on Judgement and Opinions, I feel "the movies" is a nice platform to indulge in
opinionating and judging, especially if one is aware that there`re often more then one or two possible
viewpoints.

I tend to agree, although I'm probably less critical than many. For example, while I thought V for Vendetta was an entertaining movie with a big "wake-up" factor (and it's one of my "favourites" as a result), I thought Children of Men, while more esoteric and less heavy-handed than V, was a much "better" film.

I just re-read this paragraph from ponerology, which I think describes the essence of "true film"--that is, what good acting, writing, directing should strive to embody.

Our personalities also pass through temporary destructive periods as a result of
various life events, especially if we undergo suffering or meet with situations or
circumstances which are at variance with our prior experiences and imaginings.
These so-called disintegrative stages are often unpleasant, although not necessarily
so. A good dramatic work, for instance, enables us to experience a disintegrative
state, simultaneously calming down the unpleasant components and furnishing
creative ideas for a renewed reintegration of our own personalities. True theater
therefore causes the condition known as catharsis.

In other words, the true purpose of theater, film and literature is to put the viewer in a state of positive multilevel disintegration, where old ways of living are challenged, and the viewer emerges with a greater understanding of him/herself and humanity in general. To adapt Laura's Grandma's quote, "Smart people learn from their mistakes. Geniuses watch movies."

Of course, perhaps only half of the human population can derive any real benefit from "true film"...

 

[nemo]

Please don`t be shocked at the lengh of this post.
I`m heavily quoting Pauline Kael (1919 - 2001), since she very well reflects my attitude towards film.

Why not let go of all your demands about movies and just enjoy a cheesy and/or "lowest common
denominator" flick every once in a while?

No argument here! I`m often "guilty" of renting movies like Snakes On A Plane or Die Harder. Believe me, with
films like that I usually get exactly what I`ve expected - in these cases, certainly NOT art; rather the "lowest
common denominator flick". I definitely derive some fun out of them.

“Movies are so rarely great art that if we cannot appreciate great trash
we have very little reason to be interested in them”

That really sums it up for me!

In other words, the true purpose of theater, film and literature is to put the viewer in a state
of positive multilevel disintegration, where old ways of living are challenged, and the viewer emerges with a
greater understanding of him/herself and humanity in general

Exactly. Btw, nice quote - that really from Lobaczewski? (I haven`t started it yet.)
Instead of rambling on, I rather let Pauline Kael have a say on this matter.
The follwing text is an excerpt, written only a few years after my birth:

It says something about the nature of movies that people don`t
say they like them, they say they love them - yet even those who love movies may feel
that they can`t always handle the emotions that a film heats up. They need to talk to friends,
to read critics, in order to understand why they`re reacting as they are, and wether it`s an
aberration or others feel the same way. People didn`t have this same need when the
movies they went to were on the order of Going My Way, The Greatest Show On Earth
or My Fair Lady.
The greater sensory impact of films in recent years - the acceleration in violence and
shock-editing - makes a critic`s job tougher than before. Moviegoers have very different
thresholds of response and gullibillity; some are almost unbelievably susceptible to
suspense devices. And large numbers of them - educated and uneducated alike - react
to the incineration of characters in The Towering Inferno as marvelous entertainmenmt.
That indicates one of the problems of movies: they can be effective on shameless levels.
Who isn`t terrified of burning to death? You don`t have to be an artist to frighten audiences
with fire. Yet when a movie has startled people, like The Towering Inferno, or enlisted their
sympathies and made them weep, like Walking Tall, or made them feel vindictive and
sadistic, like the Charles Bronson film Death Wish, the hardest thing for a critic to do is
to convince them that it`s not necessarily a great picture. It`s almost impossible to persuade
people that a shallow, primitive work can give them a terrific kick.
Movies operate in a maze of borderlines; criticism is a balancing act, trying to suggest
perspectives on the emotions viewers feel, trying to increase their enjoyment of movies
without insulting their susceptibilities to simple, crude pop. I know I´ve failed in some of these
reviews - dismissing big, bludgeoning movies without realizing how much they might mean
to people, rejecting humid sentiment and imagening that no one could be affected by it.
I still can`t quite get it through my head that tricks that I laugh at are being played on some
moviegoers for the first time - and may trigger strong, anxious responses.

I`ll end this post with a handful of hopefully enlightening delicious quotes:

“Movies are so rarely great art that if we cannot appreciate great trash we have very little reason to be interested in them”

“The critic is the only independent source of information. The rest is advertising.”

“Trash has given us an appetite for art”

“A mistake in judgment isn't fatal, but too much anxiety about judgment is”

“The words "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" which I saw on an Italian movie poster, are perhaps the briefest statement imaginable of the basic appeal of movies”

“Kevin Costner has feathers in his hair and feathers in his head. The Indians should have called him 'Plays with Camera.”

“In this country we encourage "creativity" among the mediocre, but real bursting creativity appalls us. We put it down as undisciplined, as somehow "too much."”

“One of the surest signs of the Philistine is his reverence for the superior tastes of those who put him down.”

“A guy gets shot with a penis.”

 

[theos]

I just saw Bug last night. My impression was that the film served as a warning against thinking along the lines of conspiracies -- a sort of a "this is the end result of believing in conspiracies" message. Although, at times, I do feel a bit bogged down with the hugeness of the matrix. Where's my can of gasoline???????

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Btw, nice quote - that really from Lobaczewski? (I haven`t started it yet.)

Yep, it is from chapter 2, in the section on the human individual.

Movies operate in a maze of borderlines; criticism is a balancing act, trying to suggest
perspectives on the emotions viewers feel, trying to increase their enjoyment of movies
without insulting their susceptibilities to simple, crude pop. I know I´ve failed in some of these
reviews - dismissing big, bludgeoning movies without realizing how much they might mean
to people, rejecting humid sentiment and imagening that no one could be affected by it.
I still can`t quite get it through my head that tricks that I laugh at are being played on some
moviegoers for the first time - and may trigger strong, anxious responses.

I think this problem of Kael's can be found in Dabrowski's concept of "multilevelness". Kael is seeing a contradiction because she is viewing humanity as "unilevel", all existing at the same level of being, OSIT. But, in fact, more than half the human population exists at a state of primary integration, and less than half ever experience multilevel disintegration. Those at primary integration are not deeply moved or changed by anything. So a movie that inspires multilevel disintegration in another will inspire nothing in them. Instead they will say, "What's the big deal?" or "What a pretentious movie!", etc. It is like having a movie that uses words that are not in their vocabulary. If they do not have any experience or understanding of the CONCEPTS behind the words, the words will have no semantic meaning for them. In the same way, the deepest human experiences mean nothing to them, because they are outside their realm of experience.

I think this idea is summed up nicely in a quotation from J.S. Mill:

It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.

 

[nemo]

Where's my can of gasoline???????

Here! Need a lighter?

I think this problem of Kael's can be found in Dabrowski's concept of "multilevelness". Kael is seeing
a contradiction because she is viewing humanity as "unilevel", all existing at the same level of being, OSIT.

Puuh, you got me here! I`m not at all familiar with Dabrowski and the jargon. Quick research on the net proved dissatisfying,
in spite of your Dabrowski-thread. Ach, those educational gaps, sigh! :( Though I`m aware that Kael might had her limitations
in light of more recent pyschological insight, esp. regarding the subjects discussed on this forum, I`m not sure I`m understanding
the meaning of your post. The J.S. Mill quote did help somewhat, though. I think I`ll interrupt Secret History and dive into Political
Ponerology instead. As you`ve suggested Lobaczewski rounds out the picture Dabrowski is presenting.
So much more reading to do!

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I`m not at all familiar with Dabrowski and the jargon. Quick research on the net proved dissatisfying,
in spite of your Dabrowski-thread. Ach, those educational gaps, sigh! :( Though I`m aware that Kael might had her limitations
in light of more recent pyschological insight, esp. regarding the subjects discussed on this forum, I`m not sure I`m understanding
the meaning of your post. The J.S. Mill quote did help somewhat, though.

Here's another thread with an introduction to Dabrowski's theories.

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=883

In terms of the work done here, primary integration is characterized by: mechanical action and reactions, the "predator's mind", low level of "being", "false personality", many I's, etc. A higher level of integration is: "true self", authenticity, true Will, one I, magnetic center, etc. The only method of getting from a lower level to a higher one is through "shocks" that "rewire" your system, i.e. positive disintegration.

I'd also recommend sHiZo963s thread, http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=7738