The MoFo Top 100 of the Nineties [Archive] - Page 4

Cobpyth

07-07-13, 06:52 PM

So that makes it okay to subject them to mistreatment?

Also, yes, cats thrash themselves/each other around like that during play sometimes. However there's a HUGE difference in the body language of a playing cat vs. the body language of the cat in the movie. And a cat that no longer wants to play can simply run off. A cat being restrained (quite roughly, I might add) by a human cannot.

I guess I'm dealing with an animal sentimentalist here. There's a kid rolling around with a cat while he's holding it quite firmly and oddly for 3 minutes. I don't think that can be considered as mistreatment...

Your post suggested that possibility. In my experience, when people say "trust me," they're generally referring to personal experience in the matter. Maybe you should make yourself more clear next time if you don't want people to misunderstand your intent.

No, it didn't suggest it at all. Why the hell would I suggest that kind of behavior being undertaken by myself? Even if I did (I didn't), I have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
I guess you were acting out of (illogical) emotions and not thinking rationally, so I won't take it as a personal insult. ;)
I was just warning you that you might be seen as a very unsympathetic person if you make that kind of statements a continuous habit of yours. If you don't care, that's allright with me of course. It's not that I was really offended or something like that. :)

Miss Vicky

07-07-13, 07:00 PM

I guess I'm dealing with an animal sentimentalist here. There's a kid rolling around with a cat while he's holding it quite firmly and oddly for 3 minutes. I don't think that can be considered as mistreatment...

Obviously, we disagree on that point. I consider it cruel and I know I'm not alone in this opinion.

No, it didn't suggest it at all. ... Even if I did (I didn't), I have to right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

Yes, it did. And, no, you don't. This isn't a court of law, it's a movie message board. You're not on trial. And I have the right to suspect you of having done something if you say things like "Trust me, they can handle it."

I guess you were acting out of (illogical) emotions and not thinking rationally, so I won't take it as a personal insult. ;)

I could say the same of your reaction to the dog shooting thread. But then, that's just an opinion and so is the statement above. Doesn't make it true.

I was just warning you that you might be seen as a very unsympathetic person if you make that kind of statements a continuous habit of yours. If you don't care, that's allright with me of course. It's not that I was really offended or something like that. :)

Yes, because me speaking out about the treatment of a defenseless animal makes me appear somehow unsympathetic. Also, I don't care if people think I'm cold, or bitchy, or whatever. I will continue to be who I am and if people don't like it, that's fine by me.

Yoda

07-07-13, 07:02 PM

I guess you were acting out of (illogical) emotions and not thinking rationally, so I won't take it as a personal insult. ;)
You might not want to embed personal insults in your statements about not liking personal insults, dude.

I was just warning you that you might be seen as a very unsympathetic person if you make that kind of statements a continuous habit of yours. If you don't care, that's allright with me of course. It's not that I was really offended or something like that. :)
This is presumptuous and not really related to the discussion, because you're pretty clearly not looking out for her reputation.

For the record, I sympathize plenty with what she's saying. I don't know if the scene in question crosses the line, but I don't intend on finding out, either.

wintertriangles

07-07-13, 07:03 PM

Obviously, we disagree on that point. I consider it cruel and I know I'm not alone in this opinion.The argument of numbers doesn't really prove morality at all.

And I have the right to suspect you of having done something if you say things like "Trust me, they can handle it." That doesn't make you justified really, to be on the polar opposite.

Godoggo

07-07-13, 07:08 PM

I personally don't mind that kind of scenes. It's just part of reality. Animals can handle a lot by the way. That scene in Satantango won't hurt the cat emotionally at all, trust me. I think you're going a little too far here in saying that this is abuse. It's not, in my opinion....

I'm sorry, but you can't possibly know that cat wasn't emotionally traumatized by that scene and I can tell you that scene was more than likely very stressful for the cat. Wether or not that bothers you is you're business, but to dismiss it with, "animals can handle a lot" is wrong. How well an animal handles stress has many factors, including the emotional state to begin with. Also cats are notorious for not handling stress well. Ask any vet.

I'm on a dog training forum with someone who trains dogs, mostly for commercials, but sometimes for television and movies. According to them, it's very stressful for the animal and a lot of training goes into being able to handle the stress. The animals are also chosen carefully for their temperament and their ability to cope.

I deal with a lot of fallout from stress in dogs. No, sometimes they can't handle a lot. I've seen dogs near there breaking point simply because the family that adopted it is too loud and chaotic for the dog to handle.

I didn't want to be a part of the off topicness, but I couldn't help myself. That just goes against everything I know to be true.

Yoda

07-07-13, 07:12 PM

Yeah, also, there's no such thing as an empirical scientific definition of what creatures can "handle," whatever that means. Let's just have our opinions without trying to give them a manufactured veneer of authority.

Guaporense

07-07-13, 07:16 PM

For the record, I sympathize plenty with what she's saying. I don't know if the scene in question crosses the line, but I don't intend on finding out, either.

Why not? Satantango is an amazing unforgettable art movie. Its obligatory viewing for any cinephile.

mark f

07-07-13, 07:17 PM

My cats freak out when somebody new shows up. The rest of the time they're relatively calm but high maintenance.
Why not? Satantango is an amazing unforgettable art movie. Its obligatory viewing for any cinephile.
You're in advertising mode again.

Harry Lime

07-07-13, 07:18 PM

Been working on the list the last couple days, I see you all have been busy here. It's looking pretty good. There will be some surprises, some battles, and something for everyone. We certainly are a diverse group of Mofos. There's a lot of movies here! But...we should have the countdown started by the weekend, at the latest.

Miss Vicky

07-07-13, 07:19 PM

Awesome. Looking forward to it, HL.

Yoda

07-07-13, 07:21 PM

Why not?
Because of the moral implications we've been discussing, obviously.

Satantango is an amazing unforgettable art movie. Its obligatory viewing for any cinephile.
So you say, but I wouldn't say we have similar tastes. It's entirely possible that I'll see it and completely disagree with this assessment. :) One cannot watch any movie that somebody thinks is obligatory viewing, because there's always someone, somewhere, who thinks that about almost every movie.

Yoda

07-07-13, 07:22 PM

gandalf26

07-07-13, 07:24 PM

wintertriangles

07-07-13, 07:30 PM

So you say, but I wouldn't say we have similar tastes. It's entirely possible that I'll see it and completely disagree with this assessment. :) One cannot watch any movie that somebody thinks is obligatory viewing, because there's always someone, somewhere, who thinks that about almost every movie./in before futile statistics argument

Maybe we can prevent the future guys...

Harry Lime

07-07-13, 07:33 PM

What? Who cares about that? The topic is animal cruelty, dude. Don't hijack the thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KL2HZBJ37m0

Cobpyth

07-07-13, 07:33 PM

Obviously, we disagree on that point. I consider it cruel and I know I'm not alone in this opinion.

Fair enough. I'm not alone either, so it seems.

Yes, it did. And, no, you don't. This isn't a court of law, it's a movie message board. You're not on trial. And I have the right to suspect you of having done something if you say things like "Trust me, they can handle it."

"That scene in Satantango won't hurt the cat emotionally at all, trust me."

You really have to tell me how that sentence made you think that I was an animal abuser. Certainly after what I just stated above that sentence. I really don't understand how you came up with that odd connection.

I'm not saying you can't suspect me, but it's quite irrational to respond like this to what I just said there: "I'm not sure I want to know where this "trust me" BS is coming from."
It is called an 'argumentum ad hominem' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem). You used it to lessen my statement, without having any proof and without really addressing what was actually wrong with my statement in the first place (you did it properly in the other posts, though, so no biggie).

I'm not talking about courts of law. I'm talking about proper discussions. It may not be a rule, but it's considered as an informal fallacy in discussions. That's the reason why I pointed it out in the first place, really. ;)

I could say the same of your reaction to the dog shooting thread. But then, that's just an opinion and so is the statement above. Doesn't make it true.

You certainly could, although I think I'm being pretty rational if I state that the police handled completely wrong during the whole situation.
Although this is a whole different matter. We both interpreted the visual evidence in a different way. It's different than assuming things that aren't there.

Yes, because me speaking out about the treatment of a defenseless animal makes me appear somehow unsympathetic. Also, I don't care if people think I'm cold, or bitchy, or whatever. I will continue to be who I am and if people don't like it, that's fine by me.

I shouldn't even respond to the first sentence of this part, because you bloody hell know that I wasn't talking about the cat situation. I was referring to the personal attack. ;)

I already said that I don't mind if you don't care.

It's actually quite funny that we are both defending an animal and also defending 'human' opposite eachother in two different cases.

P.S.
I guess we shouldn't discuss the matter in this topic anymore. If you still want to react, you can always PM me (or react in a more fitting thread) and we can continue this discussion without ruining a topic about 90s films... (It's not that I really want this discussion to go on, it's a matter of opinions after all and we both won't convince eachother anyway)

Guaporense

07-07-13, 07:33 PM

So you say, but I wouldn't say we have similar tastes.

Why would you say that?

It's entirely possible that I'll see it and completely disagree with this assessment. :) One cannot watch any movie that somebody thinks is obligatory viewing, because there's always someone, somewhere, who thinks that about almost every movie.

Well, Satantango ranked first on the Sign and Sound poll among 1990's movies. Clearly, it is considered obligatory viewing by many critics. It is indeed a very different and unforgettable movie. It is rated 8.0 at the IMDB, as well. A very high rating.

Harry Lime

07-07-13, 07:35 PM

And before anyone invests the 7+ hours required of Satantango (a brilliant film by the way) I'd suggest watching Werckmeister Harmonies first to see if you can relate or appreciate the filmmaker's style and approach.

Guaporense

07-07-13, 07:37 PM

Indeed. I watched Werckmeister Harmonies first as well.

Cobpyth

07-07-13, 07:37 PM

You might not want to embed personal insults in your statements about not liking personal insults, dude.

This is presumptuous and not really related to the discussion, because you're pretty clearly not looking out for her reputation.

For the record, I sympathize plenty with what she's saying. I don't know if the scene in question crosses the line, but I don't intend on finding out, either.

Oh god, I really don't want to stretch this discussion any longer, but I feel obliged to react.

My note about her personal insulting was OBVIOUSLY just a sidenote. It wasn't related to the discussion about the animal at all. I hope that was clear. :)

Thank you.

Sleezy

07-07-13, 07:39 PM

It's a scientific fact that animals (I'm targeting cats and dogs specifically) can handle a lot, actually, both emotionally and physically. Just look it up and you'll see I'm right.

How about you post some of this "scientific" evidence, chief? Because I've done cat rescue/TNR for years now and I'm a longtime cat owner, which means I've got quite a bit of experience handling stressed, fearful, and sometimes abused cats, including all the behavior and health issues that result.

So I'm calling you out. Cite some sources, man.

Healthy cats can actually become physically ill when severely stressed. They lose their fur, they vomit, they urinate, and they often stop eating (which can turn critical in just 24 hours, in case you didn't know). This typically results in long-lasting emotional conditioning that's tough to break. It's the reason why abused animals specifically are so difficult to re-condition and re-train. They don't forget.

For this reason, most shelters and sanctuaries maintain "cat rooms." These rooms are sound-proof and usually have soothing music piped in. The environment is carefully controlled. Every single shelter in my city has a room like this. It's integral to health and well-being of the cats.

Call me a bastard, but if such a mild animal cruelty as seen in Satantango would help a director to create a masterpiece such as this movie, he has my yes.

I'm an artist and an amateur filmmaker, so I'll defend artistic expression more defiantly than most. But the health and safety of another living thing should never be sacrificed for the sake of a film or any other piece of art. Some people are blinded by that, but the priorities should be crystal clear.

Miss Vicky

07-07-13, 07:40 PM

"That scene in Satantango won't hurt the cat emotionally at all, trust me."

I've already explained where my suspicion came from. Try re-reading my posts.

P.S. The plus rep I just gave you was an accident.

Yoda

07-07-13, 07:40 PM

Why would you say that?
Simply because I've read your posts and your recommendations and we seem to have somewhat different tastes. Not wildly different, but certainly not similar enough that I'd take a personal recommendation as imperative, as I would from someone whose tastes I share consistently.

Anyway, I can't say I think a lot of the Sight & Sound lists in general. I have lots of speculation and theories about the ways being a critic may distort one's view of such things (and there are, of course, ways in which it can enhance it, too). But that's another discussion. :)

Sexy Celebrity

07-07-13, 07:41 PM

But...we should have the countdown started by the weekend, at the latest.

Oh, good, because it still is the weekend. Get going.

Harry Lime

07-07-13, 07:42 PM

Oh, good, because it still is the weekend. Get going.
Next weekend!

Yoda

07-07-13, 07:44 PM

Oh god, I really don't want to stretch this discussion any longer, but I feel obliged to react.

My note about her personal insulting was OBVIOUSLY just a sidenote. It wasn't related to the discussion about the animal at all. I hope that was clear. :)

Thank you.
Okay, but...whether or not it was a side note has absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying. :)

The Rodent

07-07-13, 07:44 PM

Exactly... by my timezone Harry still has 15 minutes to get the list in... plenty of time that.

Sexy Celebrity

07-07-13, 07:45 PM

Exactly... by my timezone Harry still has 15 minutes to get the list in... plenty of time that.

Your timezone is Young Guns 24/7.

Guaporense

07-07-13, 07:47 PM

Simply because I've read your posts and your recommendations and we seem to have somewhat different tastes. Not wildly different, but certainly not similar enough that I'd take a personal recommendation as imperative, as I would from someone whose tastes I share consistently.

Say a few movies you loved and I hate or the inverse.

Because reading your posts that I liked the movies you said you liked.

Anyway, I have very average tastes according to the taste compatibility index in the critiker using the 1,300 movies I have rated there.

Anyway, I can't say I think a lot of the Sight & Sound lists in general. I have lots of speculation and theories about the ways being a critic may distort one's view of such things (and there are, of course, ways in which it can enhance it, too). But that's another discussion. :)

The point is that your argument that Satantango was just like every other movie in that there are people that think it is obligatory viewing has been proven wrong.

Of course, the Sign and Sound poll is imperfect just like every other poll. It is the most respected films poll in the world, however, so you should note that. IMDB ratings are also very high for this movie, so it is loved by many people besides critics.

Overall, this is one of the movies of the 1990's that is loved by both cinephiles and critics.

Miss Vicky

07-07-13, 07:49 PM

He'll watch it if he wants to watch it. If he doesn't want to watch it for personal reasons, that doesn't make him any less of a cinephile.

donniedarko

07-07-13, 07:53 PM

I'm with Miss Vicky, Yoda, and Goddogo on this one. I'm not going to watch Cannibal Holocoust due to what I heard about it. Apocalypse Now
is different since apparently the buffalo was used for food. Even the killing of an animal if its intended to be eaten in a film doesn't bother me. A neglect of the animal does. I don't know how extreme the cruelty was in Santanago, but from Vicky's descriptions it seems like enough. There's only to much you can get away with in the name of "art". Then we could consider what happened to Dusty the Cat as justified. And I don't.

Been working on the list the last couple days, I see you all have been busy here. It's looking pretty good. There will be some surprises, some battles, and something for everyone. We certainly are a diverse group of Mofos. There's a lot of movies here! But...we should have the countdown started by the weekend, at the latest.

Woah, this weekend. The last guy could learn a thing or two from you :p

Guaporense

07-07-13, 07:55 PM

So never watching a Hitchcock movie doesn't make anyone into less of a cinephile?

Miss Vicky

07-07-13, 08:00 PM

I don't know how extreme the cruelty was in Santanago, but from Vicky's descriptions it seems like enough. There's only to much you can get away with in the name of "art".

I wouldn't call it "extreme" necessarily, but I do consider it absolutely wrong.

I do recall though that, in another thread, Guaporense (who is recommending the movie) referred to it as torture. From what I've read - later in the film, the girl is seen carrying the cat's corpse around in remorse. I didn't watch that part, so I don't know how real it actually looks, but there has been plenty of rumors and speculation that the cat was actually killed for the film, which prompted the director to make the statements that the cat was unharmed and that he adopted it. But, as previously discussed, there is no definitive measure of "harm" especially when the victim is one that cannot speak for itself.

The Rodent

07-07-13, 08:06 PM

I think what makes a Cinephile is how many films they've seen, how many times, and how well they can pull a film apart.

Not seeing a Hitchcock film doesn't make them any less.

Person 1 has seen a total of 10,000 films, none of them are Hitchcock.
Person 2 has seen 5,000 films... and has also seen every Hitchcock film... each one enough times to garner 5,000 viewings. So their count, technically, also equals 10,000.

Who is more of a Cinephile?

Cobpyth

07-07-13, 08:11 PM

Ok. It seems that this is becoming a pretty serious discussion.

First of all. Before I get labeled as some sort of animal hater, we are talking about this scene, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GjLpNKmkRo

@Sleezy:
Of course cats/dogs can be stressed, but I was referring to the scene in Santatango and my statement was that a normal cat/dog will NOT experience any lasting trauma, because it can handle more than that (later I referred to how some animals fight/play with eachother in much rougher ways).

My so called 'scientific proof' was just based on the fact that animals have a less aware self-consciousness than human beings for example. Because of that, I guess it's pretty safe to assume that they can also handle much more (certainly in terms of short-term situations).

I'll give an example:
If I'm shouting angrily at my dog if he does something wrong (I hope that's not seen as abuse here), he will be quiet maybe for a brief moment, but he won't feel any harm. He won't see me as unsympathetic or anything like that.
Shouting at a kid is a whole different case. He will react way more complex.

I'm not saying cats/dogs don't feel any emotions.
My grandparents' dog for example started peeing on my grandfather's car and all my grandfather's belongings that he could find actually, when he was suffering form cancer, just because my grandmother was giving him all the attention and not the dog, while normally the dog never peed inside the house. Of course it's not certain that he did it because of the reason I stated, but it was just something our family assumed.

By the way, Sleezy. What do you think of the scene in particular as an expert? Do you really think the cat, who later was adopted by the film maker (or someone involved in the film at least), suffered any emotional damage there?

@Vicky: My rep was just an accident too.

I reread your posts properly and I'm assuming you're referring to those experiences you had with other people?

The Rodent

07-07-13, 08:16 PM

Side Conversation:

Being totally honest... my film count is close to 10,000, maybe more if I'm honest...

I can sit through the next month's worth of TV Guides and cross off every film bar maybe one or two from the Film Guide pages, as I have already seen them.

I've seen a number of films several times as well... yet there are some prolific directors I have only seen half of their catalogue.
Lynch, Hitchcock, Soderbergh, Scorsese, Malick etc...

Does that make me any less than someone who has seen 10,000 films like I have, but has seen more of those directors?

Yoda

07-07-13, 08:17 PM

Say a few movies you loved and I hate or the inverse.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to test my claim, but off the top of my head, I don't especially enjoy several of the films in your top ten. For example, 2001 and 8 1/2. Maybe I just dislike movies with numbers for titles. ;)

The point is that your argument that Satantango was just like every other movie in that there are people that think it is obligatory viewing has been proven wrong.
I made no such argument; I said that someone saying a film is "obligatory" is not reason enough to watch it, by itself. That goes as much for critics' lists I don't generally agree with just as it does someone's personal recommendation.

Of course, the Sign and Sound poll is imperfect just like every other poll. It is the most respected films poll in the world, however, so you should note that. IMDB ratings are also very high for this movie, so it is loved by many people besides critics.

Overall, this is one of the movies of the 1990's that is loved by both cinephiles and critics.
I am perfectly capable of gauging my own tastes and looking at different types of films and making educated guesses as to how likely I am to like them. There is an exorbitant number of films vying for our attention, so this kind of discrimination is necessary, reasonable, and universal.

And when the film in question is so long, the downside of being mistaken is higher, as well. As Harry said, it'd be wiser to start with something else to see what I think of the style first.

BlueLion

07-07-13, 08:21 PM

So never watching a Hitchcock movie doesn't make anyone into less of a cinephile?

Who the hell is Hitchcock?

http://i.imgur.com/yU7jo4y.png

Yoda

07-07-13, 08:22 PM

So never watching a Hitchcock movie doesn't make anyone into less of a cinephile?
I think the fixation on whether or not something is more or less "cinephile" can reduce the enjoyment of watching films. The point should be to enjoy the art form, not to satisfy some arbitrary definition.

If someone's interested in the form they'll likely take note of prevailing opinions and try new things from time to time, but the moment they put the perceived burnishing of their cinematic credentials over their genuine enjoyment, they've gone too far.

Miss Vicky

07-07-13, 08:25 PM

My so called 'scientific proof' was just based on the fact that animals

You're the one who claimed that your statement was "scientifically proven," yet you have no proof to offer. You're quick to point out my alleged ad hominem attack, yet you fail to recognize that another informal rule of discussion is that if you're going to make "proven" statements, you must be prepared to back them up with... actual proof.

As for this statement:

"That scene in Satantango won't hurt the cat emotionally at all, trust me."

Again, you didn't offer (and still have not offered) any actual evidence to support your claim. So I am left to deduce that my reason for "trusting you" (when you give me no other reason) is that you speak from personal experience.

Cobpyth

07-07-13, 08:57 PM

You're the one who claimed that your statement was "scientifically proven," yet you have no proof to offer. You're quick to point out my alleged ad hominem attack, yet you fail to recognize that another informal rule of discussion is that if you're going to make "proven" statments, you must be prepared to back it up with... actual proof.

Many experiments demonstrate the fact that animals (dogs/cats) have a wide range of emotions, but they lack many other emotional capacities that humans DO have.

I have to blame myself here, though. I shouldn't have used the word "scientific" in this context, as science doesn't offer any explanation or proof of what I was trying to say.

I've read some stuff about it just now and although there are some general agreements concerning the psychology of certain groups of animals, there are still many questions (it is of course a pretty difficult matter to prove).

The science is actually even moving more towards your opinion about the psychology of animals. I was stating some of the more conservative theories about animal psychology. Recent experiments are discovering more and more layers in dogs'/cats' minds.

This sums up the current scientific discussion about the subject pretty shortly (source: wikipedia):

For animal emotion
In recent years, the scientific community has become increasingly supportive of the idea of emotions in animals. Prior to scientific support, evidence for animal emotion was based on anecdotal evidence provided from individuals who had frequent contact with animals. Recent scientific research has provided insight into similarities of physiological changes between human and non-human animals when experiencing emotion.
Darwin concluded, through a survey, that humans share universal emotive expressions and suggested that animals likely share in these to some degree. Darwin's results have come under fire by individuals that suggest misinterpretations. Social constructivists disregard the concept that emotions are universal. Others hold an intermediate stance, suggesting that basic emotional expressions and emotion are universal but the intricacies are developed culturally. A study by Elfenbein and Ambady (2002) suggested that individuals within a particular culture are better at reading other cultural members emotions.
Most support for animal emotion and its expression results from the notion that feeling doesn't require significant cognitive processes. Animals would not likely need to employ a significant amount of cognitive processes in order to have emotion, rather, they could be motivated by the processes to act in an adaptive way, as suggested by Darwin.

Against animal emotion
Animal emotion is often rejected due to lack of evidence and those that don't submit to the idea of animal intelligence often cite that anthropomorphism plays a significant role in individuals' perspectives. Those who reject animal's capacity to have emotion mainly do so by citing inconsistencies in studies that have endorsed animal emotion. Having no direct means to communicate emotion, the difficulty of providing an account of emotion in animals relies heavily on work-around experimentation that relies on results from human subjects. Those opposing the concept of animal emotion suggest that emotions aren't universal, including in humans. That emotions are not universal would suggest that there is not a phylogenetic relationship between human and animal emotion. The relationship drawn by proponents of animal emotion, then, would be merely a suggestion of mechanistic features that promote adaptivity but lack the complexity of human emotion constructs. Thus, a social construct may play a role in developing basic emotions into complex emotions.
Opponents also critique the lack of a precise definition of the term emotion. At times, the term is defined too loosely and includes plants. By not having a sturdy framework, studies in animal emotion cannot verify their results and often anthropomorphise animals beyond their actual capacities.

There still are some generally accepted restrictions cats/dogs have according to emotions, though.
If you want to read some of the stuff I just went through (it's pretty much the first things I found when googling, I didn't went into it very deeply):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_in_animals
http://www.livescience.com/18750-animal-human-emotions-fears.html
http://realtruth.org/articles/090806-002-science.html

--------------------------------------------------
I still don't think the scene in Satantango falls under mistreatment, though.

Miss Vicky

07-07-13, 09:00 PM

I still don't think the scene in Satantango falls under mistreatment, though.

Then you should take no offense to the suspicion that you might have participated in something similar to it.

Cobpyth

07-07-13, 09:01 PM

"That scene in Satantango won't hurt the cat emotionally at all, trust me."

Again, you didn't offer (and still have not offered) any actual evidence to support your claim. So I am left to deduce that my reason for "trusting you" (when you give me no other reason) is that you speak from personal experience.

I already told you about the 'trusting me'-part. Reread my earlier posts.
I deducted it from seeing animals treat eachother way more badly than the little kid is treating the cat, without noticing any emotional damages afterwards. So yes, I speak from personal experience and no, not because I, myself, "abuse" animals.

Cobpyth

07-07-13, 09:05 PM

Then you should take no offense to the suspicion that you might have participated in something similar to it.

I already told you I wasn't offended at all. I just didn't think it was fitting in the discussion. The suspicion is based on nothing and therefore completely out of place and even ridiculous.

Miss Vicky

07-07-13, 09:08 PM

I already told you I wasn't offended at all.

Yet your actual response says otherwise.

Yoda

07-07-13, 09:08 PM

I already told you I wasn't offended at all.
You called it "quite insulting." That sounds like some level of offense, to me.

I just didn't think it was fitting in the discussion. The assumption is based on nothing and therefore completely out of place and even ridiculous.
It's based on an ambiguous, vaguely suggestive statement. I wouldn't make an assumption based on it, but I don't think you've been wronged here. It's a pretty straightforward misunderstanding.

Cobpyth

07-07-13, 09:18 PM

I was just warning you that you might be seen as a very unsympathetic person if you make that kind of statements a continuous habit of yours. If you don't care, that's allright with me of course. It's not that I was really offended or something like that. :)

I bolded a sentence just to make sure.

@Miss Vicky
@Yoda

The quote above is my second reaction two pages ago.

I think I was being very clear about my intentions concerning the sidenote.
If I would suspect you of having shot a dog, because you tell me that it's a normal reaction to shoot a dog when he's jumping at you, that would be just as ridiculous as your statement.

Do I feel wronged? Absolutely not, although the accusation was completely unjustified, I don't really care, personally. It's not like I was genuinly hurt by that comment or anything. It might have hurt me if it was a friend who was making the accusation.

Why did I point it out? Because it felt like an unnecessary insinuation that came completely out of the blue (in my opinion) and because some other people might find her unsympathetic if she makes that kind of statements a lot.

Do you care? Apparently not. So let's just leave it at that then. :)

Yoda

07-07-13, 09:21 PM

Sexy Celebrity

07-07-13, 09:24 PM

Guys, just shut up. This thread is about 1990s movies and waiting impatiently for Harry Lime to haul ass. Take it to PMs or something.

Miss Vicky

07-07-13, 09:24 PM

If I would suspect you of having shot a dog, because you tell me that it's a normal reaction to shoot a dog when he's jumping at you, that would be just as ridiculous as your statement.

THE DOG WAS NOT JUST JUMPING AT THE MAN, HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO BITE. He was an 80 lb, unrestrained dog who was aggressively lunging at a police officer. Your wording makes it sound like that dog was just jumping up to say hello. It wasn't. I also never said it was a "normal reaction to shoot a dog" so DO NOT put words in my mouth. I said that a person has every right to defend his or herself against an attacking animal by whatever means they have available. THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING.

Also, I never said that my suspicion about you was a strong one. Only that it existed and that you - with your vague statement and lack of evidence - left that possibility open.

Yoda

07-07-13, 09:25 PM

There's actually no hijack issue this time because the countdown is presumably going to be in a new thread.

I suspect the discussion is basically over anyway, though.

The Rodent

07-07-13, 09:27 PM

Can't we talk about Budgies instead?

Godoggo

07-07-13, 09:29 PM

There is absolutely no doubt in the scientific community that animals feel and react to stress. Stress is not an emotion. To be heavily manhandled by a child is stressful for cats. The degree would depend on the cat.

Your examples a few posts ago are not based in science at all. Shouting at a dog can indeed stress a dog. How much depends on the dog.

Where did you read that about self-awareness having anything to do with how an animal reacts less negatively to stress?

We need a new thread.

I didn't read Yoda's post before I wrote that last sentence.

Cobpyth

07-07-13, 09:39 PM

Yes, you said that later. Earlier, you said it was "quite insulting." You keep defending things you said initially with clarifications you made later, but nobody's disputing that you've clarified your position since.

Also, you were never actually accused of anything. The totality of the "accusation" is Vicky asking you where the claim was "coming from." So I'm not sure what part of this was supposed to at all improper. You said something vague, someone asked you about it, and you did, indeed, express offense.

A question would have been:

What do you mean by 'trust me'?

An attempt at accusation is:

"I'm not sure I want to know where that trust me-BS is coming from."

Later she also confirmed that it was a kind of accusation and explained that she had experiences with other people, which was the reason why she suspected me in the first place.

Again, I'm NOT offended. You guys make me feel like a pussy who starts crying whenever someone is pointing a finger at me. I was just expressing some thoughts about Miss Vicky's particular reaction. It seems that I better shut my mouth the next time, as I've just wasted 2 hours of my life explaining my real intentions over and over again.

The part about 'insulting' may have seemed like I was offended by it, but what's the point of looking at the first reaction if I already clarified myself? Why would you use the 'insult'-part in your argument if you also read my second post?

These are rhetorical questions by the way. You already explained that you were referring to my initial reaction only and that I was trying to defend that, while I was just trying to defend my true intentions all the time.

Anyway, what do you personally think about the cat incident? Do you find it mistreatment?

Miss Vicky

07-07-13, 09:42 PM

It seems that I better shut my mouth the next time, as I've just wasted 2 hours of my life explaining my real intentions over and over again.

Welcome to the internet.

Anyway, what do you personally think about the cat incident? Do you find it mistreatment?

Yoda already said he didn't intend to watch it. So unless he has done so since he made that statement, there's your answer.

Yoda

07-07-13, 09:43 PM

Well, the point of looking at your first reaction is to determine if anyone was acting unreasonable in their response to it, since that's the thing you're saying was improper. As far as I can tell nobody's questioned your word since you clarified, but since you claim that people reacted out of the blue, your first reaction is the relevant thing to look at it to judge that.

As for what I think; I don't know, because I haven't watched the video. Appropriately, I haven't issued an opinion on the central issue (just on all the stuff surrounding it). I'd rather have to reserve judgment than watch something which may make me feel awful.

Yoda

07-07-13, 09:44 PM

Anyway, I guess everyone can agree that the point is now clarified and there's a simple impasse as to where the line on reasonable animal treatment is drawn?

donniedarko

07-07-13, 09:45 PM

I skimmed the clip, it's not awful but totally unessecary.

I remember someone Said the full movie was on Youtube. Got a link?

Miss Vicky

07-07-13, 09:46 PM

Anyway, I guess everyone can agree that the point is now clarified and there's a simple impasse as to where the line on reasonable animal treatment is drawn?

Agreed.

Cobpyth

07-07-13, 10:11 PM

@Godoggo: I already expressed the fact that the word 'scientific' wasn't used in the right way by me. I shouldn't have used it and should have stated that it was all about my perception. I'm not stupid. I know animals can have stress. I was just trying to set up some arguments that allowed me to explain my opinion about the whole matter. Some of them have rightfully been countered and I don't deny that.

-----------------------------------

To close my role in this discussion, I will put all my opinions about every matter of the past discussion out here very clearly:

- I still PERSONALLY think the 'stress' you are all referring to is way too overrated when it comes to the Satantango case. The cat may have had a little stress (you can clearly hear it as it meows), but it isn't of that amount that I, myself, me, Cobpyth, categorize it as mistreatment. I am completely alright with it and I would even buy a copy of the film if I had the chance, regardless of it having a cat taken firmly by a child and rolled around on the floor.

- I think the dog in the video shouldn't have been shot and that the policemen were acting completely wrong in every aspect. They shouldn't have arrested the man in the first place and they didn't handle the dog well. Therefore the dog, Max, should still live happily together with his boss.
(not sure what this statement is doing in this topic, but I randomly wanted to make this very clear too!)

- I think my reaction to Miss Vicky, concerning the so called suspicion, was not out of line. It was just a sidenote that exploded right in my own face (apparantly) and she didn't care. That's alright with me. No hard feelings. I respect that you want to remain true to your own feelings and that you want to be able to express them in an open way. Maybe I was too fast with critisizing that aspect of your personality.

- Goodfellas is the best film of the 90s I've seen yet.

If you think otherwise about any of this, that's completely fine by me, but I don't agree with what you're saying and you will probably never convince to change my mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_kwXNVCaxY

rauldc14

07-07-13, 10:39 PM

this thread blew up since I last saw. I'm with Vicky and Yoda though.

Godoggo

07-07-13, 10:40 PM

I wasn't implying you were stupid, I was pointing out that those wiki articles weren't relative to what was being discussed.

teeter_g

07-07-13, 10:42 PM

Good grief

Sleezy

07-07-13, 11:01 PM

@Sleezy:
Of course cats/dogs can be stressed, but I was referring to the scene in Santatango and my statement was that a normal cat/dog will NOT experience any lasting trauma, because it can handle more than that (later I referred to how some animals fight/play with eachother in much rougher ways).

You still haven't demonstrated any proof behind your assertion that animals can "handle" more trauma, whatever that means. You're not an animal behaviorist or a veterinarian, so where are you coming off with this, man?

And anyway, isn't the cat in the film what you would call a "normal" cat? Or does the cat cease to be a cat since it's in a film? Do you regard it as a prop?

My so called 'scientific proof' was just based on the fact that animals have a less aware self-consciousness than human beings for example. Because of that, I guess it's pretty safe to assume that they can also handle much more (certainly in terms of short-term situations).

I'll give an example:
If I'm shouting angrily at my dog if he does something wrong (I hope that's not seen as abuse here), he will be quiet maybe for a brief moment, but he won't feel any harm. He won't see me as unsympathetic or anything like that.

So you're telling me your proof is nothing more than what you think is true? You can't cite any articles written by trained and respected animal behaviorists or veterinarians to back up your claim that animals "can handle more" stress than we think?

Listen, you don't know what you're talking about. You're projecting what you want to believe onto situations that you don't really understand. You want to believe the cat in the film was fine, so you tell yourself that the cat can handle it. You want to believe that yelling at your dog is okay, so you tell yourself that the dog shrugs it off. But you have NO basis for any of it.

See, this is what pisses me off about people who think being unkind to animals isn't a big deal. Your perspective is extremely dangerous. Because you haven't taken the time to read about or understand what we know about animals and how they respond to us, you're proceeding through life believing that animals can take what you dish out. There are scores of pet owners out there who do the same thing to extreme degrees. They beat their pets, they make them stay in crates for hours, they starve them, they scold them harshly for behaviors that are a direct result of their unhappiness. They're morons.

Don't be a moron. You need to stop believing something based on a very limited basis of experience and, essentially, your own blind belief. You need to recognize that humans are responsible for the care and protection of animals, particularly the ones we have domesticated. You owe them a little more understanding than this.

Shouting at a kid is a whole different case. He will react way more complex.

This comment is particularly unsettling. It tells me that you really don't understand these points you're trying to make. Yes, shouting at "a kid" is different, but I doubt very seriously that you really understand these complexities any further than simply knowing they are there.

In other words, you know not to yell at a kid because you're a human being. You were a kid once and you know what it feels like to be yelled at. But you can't tell me exactly why it's not a good thing to do. You don't know what it does to children because you're not a child psychologist.

So if you don't understand that, then why would you ever presume to understand how yelling at a dog or abusing a cat affects them psychologically, emotionally, and physically? Do you see yet why your apathy is dangerous?

My grandparents' dog for example started peeing on my grandfather's car and all my grandfather's belongings that he could find actually, when he was suffering form cancer, just because my grandmother was giving him all the attention and not the dog, while normally the dog never peed inside the house. Of course it's not certain that he did it because of the reason I stated, but it was just something our family assumed.

Another assumption. My brother used to yell at his cat for peeing in the house because he assumed she was just "being bad." I told him time after time to take her to the vet. When he finally did, guess what? She had a urinary tract infection. Moral of the story: don't assume.

By the way, Sleezy. What do you think of the scene in particular as an expert? Do you really think the cat, who later was adopted by the film maker (or someone involved in the film at least), suffered any emotional damage there?

I'm not watching the scene. And it doesn't matter that the filmmaker adopted the cat afterward.

Cobpyth

07-08-13, 12:51 AM

I would like to comment to your post with a lot of quotes and stuff, but I just don't think it will matter. I don't really want to, actually, because deep in my heart I really don't care. It was my humanity taking over, that wanted me to be right so badly and wanted me to discuss and tried to show Vicky that I was right. The truth is that I don't know anything at all about anything at all.

I will tell you this in all honesty:

I acknowledge the fact that practically everything of what I said, was own perception. I certainly have not studied the subject and honestly everything I said in the whole discussion was probably complete BS objectively. I was so much into my own opinion that I was trying to convince myself that what I was saying was completely true and nothing else is. I was narrowing my own mind to make my point come over as believable as possible. It is something a lot of people do and I notice it a lot. Probably you people now have the same reaction to my former statements as I sometimes have in other situations where I tend to actually know something about (not that I really know something about anything). I'm just a simple person who sometimes thinks he's more than that, but it's this kind of discussions that make me realize that I'm actually just one of the many stupid others out there.
This is probably the weakest thing a person can do in a discussion, but I just wanted to say this. I'm sick of defending my own stupidity and my own fake morality.

The truth is:

I really don't care about the cat in the picture. I have no inner feeling telling me that it's wrong. I'm a very indifferent person. Can you judge me? Of course you can. You can even hate me for it. I'm saying it as it is:
I don't care about the cat at all. I also don't care about seeing someone getting killed in a video. I don't feel anything and I can't do anything about it. Actually, to be honest, I never felt anything about anything in my whole life. It's quite depressing really. I would NEVER kill anyone myself, but I just don't care about it when it happens and it doesn't affect me. The only thing I actually care about is my own world and what affects me. It's extremely rotten to say this and my god, I don't really know why I'm saying this here, but it's just true. Excuse me for what I actually feel. I can't help it, I wish I could.

I admire people who are not like me and who can feel more for people/animals that they don't know.

Why was I defending the dog then? Simply because I like dogs and because I imagined myself in the situation of the dog's boss. There's nothing rational about it. My own person really doesn't care what happened. I just don't want it to happen to me ever and that's why I'm saying it is wrong. Do I really care myself? Na-ah.

Probably you've read my post until now, because what I wrote is so shocking and because it's so unbelievable, but it's all true.

You might describe me as egocentric. That would probably be the right word to describe me. I'm indifferent to pretty much everything else. Is it dangerous? I don't think so. In my opinion the universe is indifferent (that's what I think, not hope), so my indifference won't make a lot of difference.

I want to believe there is something more than just all this indifference and I hope one day I really believe in it, but right now, in this phase of my life, I just can't see the light. There is no overruling morality, there is just nothing. It makes me cynical, it makes me not care about anything. It's just me right now. Is it insanity? I don't know.

I'm 19 years old and most of you are a lot older than me. I'm happy to see that you are all thinking differently than me now. I hope I will someday reach your level of awareness. It might add some color to my very gray existence that I have right now.

I don't even know why the hell I'm typing this all out on a movie forum that I really enjoy, but it's 5:53 AM and I just don't care anymore. Most of you will probably think I'm crazy now. Maybe I am.

It's funny how a small, moral discussion about a cat makes me realize my own inner emptiness and rotenness. I actually realized it already but I just wanted to out it, because Sleezy made some very valid condemnations.

I'm not going to read back what I just wrote. I hope I didn't offend anyone and there are probably some very shocking and controversial things in it that I wish I hadn't said, but this are my really honest thoughts right at this moment.

I guess this whole text could be seen as looking for attention. It's actually really really sad what I'm doing here, because people should keep their thoughts to themselves, but this is just an internet forum and nobody knows who I am, so what the hell. I'm already judging myself for all this.
Unnecessary.

Here is a song that expresses my feelings very well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E4FRtrD9aQ

Yours truly,

Cobpyth

PS: this is probably the wrongest topic ever for a deep confession about the inner feelings, but I just went for it. You only live once.

mark f

07-08-13, 01:21 AM

I really appreciate it and think it's a brave step. I cherish honesty combined with humility.

Miss Vicky

07-08-13, 01:42 AM

It is a very brave thing to say and I appreciate you doing it.

I think we all have feelings of apathy in situations where we shouldn't and we all feel more strongly about issues that either affect us directly or that we can relate to on some level.

I often find myself feeling apathy to a lot of instances of human suffering. Especially when it's overseas or it's something accidental. Not that I'd feel the same if I were an actual witness to the suffering - seeing it with my own eyes instead of through a television or computer screen - but if it's not happening at home and it's not a deliberate act of terrorism or cruelty, it can be hard for me to muster emotion about it.

I think plenty of us also fall into that trap of defending an opinion to the bitter end because we want to be right even when we see that the evidence suggests otherwise. I don't doubt or deny that I've done that too from time to time.

It's very big of you to say all this and hope that someday you'll find a way to break through the apathy and care about issues that don't affect you directly. But then, you're only 19, you've got plenty of time for that to happen.

P.S. The +rep I just gave you was not an accident.

donniedarko

07-08-13, 02:25 AM

Do you feel any strong emotion for characters in your favorite movies? What I mean is do you ever cry or even get sad during a film you're watching.

Sexy Celebrity

07-08-13, 02:29 AM

Cobpyth, shut the hell up and quit your crying on a public forum with that deranged Beach Boys song at the end of your post. Good lord, it's like American Psycho all up in here. And so early, too - right before the start of the Nineties Countdown. Cobpyth, only I am allowed to get this kind of crazy attention, okay? You don't wanna end up like me so shut the hell up.

Cobpyth

07-08-13, 08:05 AM

Do you feel any strong emotion for characters in your favorite movies? What I mean is do you ever cry or even get sad during a film you're watching.

Yes, I can. It' like Miss Vicky says in the beginning of her post:

"I think we all have feelings of apathy in situations where we shouldn't and we all feel more strongly about issues that either affect us directly or that we can relate to on some level."

My favorite films all have characters that I relate to on some level or that reflect a certain absence of morality and a strong presence of weakness. Not because I like that or want it to be like that, but because I can relate to it.

Casablanca - Rick Blaine is probably my favorite movie character of all time. He is one of those characters I look up to, because at the end of the film he does something so big and pure that I can't help but be emotional about it. I guess his situation is quite relatable for most people at some time in their lives, but the way he handles it is so perfect and enlightening to me that he has become some sort of symbol to me. In the beginning we see his cynical self and his lack of morality, which is probably most of the times me and my thoughts right now, but in the end he is what I actually want to be one day. He reaches 'the point'.

Chinatown - J.J. Gittes is a whole different kind of character. He actually gets confronted with the dishonesty and the immorality of his surroundings (and himself). He's a character that suffers because of it and discovers his own incapacity to do something about it, which I very much can relate with.

Citizen Kane - Charles Foster Kane is on a superficial level probably the model of the 'American Dream'. Still he misses purity and something 'higher' during his whole life, despite having the biggest castle and a lot of power. It's again very relatable to me how frustrated he gets with reality. At the end of his life he wants to go back to his carefree youth ('Rosebud' is the perfect symbol for that) where he didn't realise the nihilism of everything there is and of who he has become.

I could go on about my other favorite films and how the characters in those films affect me because of some other relatable reasons, but I guess this pretty much explains why I love certain films and stories so much. It's nice to know that other people have the same struggles as I have and if it's portrayed in a beautiful and believable atmosphere like some of my very favorites, it can have a very big effect on me. In the case of Casablanca even a certain feeling of 'hope'.

To stay with the 90s:
The fact that I really like films like, for example The Player or Crimes and Misdemeanors (I know that's an 80s film), is because they look at life from a whole new, maybe forbidden, cynical point of view. They actually show some sort of advantages of the immorality of life, while still criticizing it in a way I very much enjoy. I don't particularly like the characters in those films, but in some twisted way they reach something in a very forbidden way without being judged by it by some sort of higher force. It's frightening and intriguing at the same time for me. That kind of stuff, if done properly, can tickle me very deeply.

Thanks, by the way, Mark F and Miss Vicky for your very kind reactions. It gives me a very nice feeling on this sunny afternoon to see that some people actually read my incoherent personal outings at night and are telling me it's alright to feel that way sometimes, even if it's not 'right' (quite a paradox, but I hope you know what I mean). I really appreciate that a lot.

Sexy, somehow I was also pretty happy to read your reaction. In some weird kind of way I deduced from it that I could get away with this kind of emotional post this one single time.

Yoda

07-08-13, 09:06 AM

I'll echo that; it was a brave thing to post.

I think the fact that you can sit outside yourself and disapprove, and want to be different, is significant. There's an old observation that even when we despise ourselves we respect ourselves as one who despises. As long as we retain the capacity to be dissatisfied with ourselves, there's hope.

Brodinski

07-08-13, 06:34 PM

Being a little indifferent isn't the end of the world. *****, there's hundreds of people dying on a daily basis every day in Syria, and I'm positive lots and lots of members here - including myself - don't even pause a great deal of times to think about the horrors going on over there. Just as long as you're not indifferent to your loved ones and friends. It's one thing not caring about some cat (it's an animal for christ's sakes); another thing entirely to just go 'meh' when your grandmother dies.

Lighten up, pal. Go get smashed and hit on some girls. Or whatever that floats your boat.

Guaporense

07-08-13, 06:42 PM

When my grandmother died when I was 11 I laughed because my aunts were crying in a rather melodramatic style that felt funny to my 11 year old self.

Anyway, I tend to identify the most with very moral characters in movies (I identify the most with politically correct characters). I tend to not identify very much characters that don't respect the rights of others (like Joe Pesci's character in Goodfellas).

mark f

07-08-13, 07:07 PM

Brod's in trouble. Here we go again. :)

Sexy Celebrity

07-08-13, 08:29 PM

I wanna hear more from Cobpyth the Psychopath. Tell us more about your lack of feelings. Make it lengthy and include more Beach Boys songs. Forget what I said about shutting up -- that was another person talking.

Skepsis93

07-08-13, 10:33 PM

http://i.qkme.me/3v3843.jpg

Oh God now I feel your pain. I hope enough of you lot voted for Eyes Wide Shut to get it on here.

Harry Lime

07-08-13, 10:50 PM

http://www.hazelblogynolaguerra.es/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/gabbo_simpsons.jpg

Sexy Celebrity

07-08-13, 11:13 PM

Tell us what #100 is.

Harry Lime

07-08-13, 11:42 PM

Tell us what #100 is.
Um, no.

donniedarko

07-09-13, 12:01 AM

Oh God now I feel your pain. I hope enough of you lot voted for Eyes Wide Shut to get it on here.

It's gonna be top 50 for sure, top 25 might be a strech, but it's possible.

Guaporense

07-09-13, 12:04 AM

I gave about 10 points to Eyes Wide Shut. A movie needs about 40 points to make into the top 100. I guess it might make even 100 points or more.

Sexy Celebrity

07-09-13, 12:04 AM

Um, no.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lrubg30M5x1qfe5ako1_500.gif

Tyler1

07-09-13, 07:46 AM

Oh God now I feel your pain. I hope enough of you lot voted for Eyes Wide Shut to get it on here.

Eyes Wide Shut will be on the list. I promise.

Skepsis93

07-09-13, 08:36 AM

It's gonna be top 50 for sure, top 25 might be a strech, but it's possible.

Eyes Wide Shut will be on the list. I promise.

I sure hope so.

Thursday Next

07-09-13, 08:45 AM

Is there going to be a new thread for the countdown? I think there should.

jiraffejustin

07-09-13, 12:43 PM

Agreed. We've filled this thread up with a bunch of junk.

mark f

07-09-13, 12:45 PM

It's always in a new thread. Try not to fill that one with junk. Ha! :)

jiraffejustin

07-09-13, 12:50 PM

I'm a MoFo list virgin...so I didn't know!

Deadite

07-09-13, 01:28 PM

This cat discussion was extremely disturbing to read. I skimmed a few parts because people were repeating themselves, not that their points were unfair. I am a bit pissed off now because I decided to man up and watch the cat clip and decide for myself, since honestly I will certainly never watch Satantango.

What I saw was clearly mistreatment bordering on outright torture. I know cats; I've been around them all my life and owned some of my own. That cat was upset and afraid. It was certainly in emotional pain and at least some physical pain.

Just because the cat wasn't very obviously being damaged, like burned or cut, does not make it okay.

The most disturbing part was Cob's confession post. I don't even know how to begin to tackle that post and express lucidly the thoughts and feelings it elicited. I feel dirty now.

Sinny McGuffins

07-09-13, 03:01 PM

This thread is awesome.

Guaporense

07-09-13, 10:47 PM

This thread is awesome.

It's because of threads like this that this forum is so interesting.

Sleezy

07-09-13, 11:57 PM

It was my humanity taking over, that wanted me to be right so badly and wanted me to discuss and tried to show Vicky that I was right. The truth is that I don't know anything at all about anything at all.

I was so much into my own opinion that I was trying to convince myself that what I was saying was completely true and nothing else is. I was narrowing my own mind to make my point come over as believable as possible.

Thank you for admitting this. You probably know more than you think, actually, but it's definitely very easy to get caught up in the argument. You try to make points that seem sound enough to "win" the argument, but really it's always best to stick to factual information.

I'm just a simple person who sometimes thinks he's more than that, but it's this kind of discussions that make me realize that I'm actually just one of the many stupid others out there.

You're not stupid. That much is obvious by the films you've seen and the way you express yourself.

I really don't care about the cat in the picture. I have no inner feeling telling me that it's wrong. I'm a very indifferent person. Can you judge me? Of course you can. You can even hate me for it. I'm saying it as it is:
I don't care about the cat at all. I also don't care about seeing someone getting killed in a video. I don't feel anything and I can't do anything about it. Actually, to be honest, I never felt anything about anything in my whole life. It's quite depressing really. I would NEVER kill anyone myself, but I just don't care about it when it happens and it doesn't affect me. The only thing I actually care about is my own world and what affects me. It's extremely rotten to say this and my god, I don't really know why I'm saying this here, but it's just true. Excuse me for what I actually feel. I can't help it, I wish I could.

I want to believe there is something more than just all this indifference and I hope one day I really believe in it, but right now, in this phase of my life, I just can't see the light. There is no overruling morality, there is just nothing. It makes me cynical, it makes me not care about anything. It's just me right now. Is it insanity? I don't know.

I'm 19 years old and most of you are a lot older than me. I'm happy to see that you are all thinking differently than me now. I hope I will someday reach your level of awareness. It might add some color to my very gray existence that I have right now.

This might be off-base, because obviously I don't know you or your experiences thus far, but I'm going to say it anyway.

You're 19 years old. My estimation is that you're a bored, apathetic, and somewhat lost teenager. You're on the cusp of adulthood and that probably scares you a little bit. You can feel yourself leaving earlier stages of your life that maybe seemed more fun, more colorful, more meaningful. You might not have as many friends as you would like. You probably don't know what you're supposed to do or how to go about doing it. You might be asking yourself questions like "Is this it?" because you don't feel that there's much to get excited over.

You're obviously more sophisticated than some because you're into films that most other teens wouldn't bother seeing. But you're also desensitized to violence. This doesn't really surprise me. We have made violence such a staple of our regular entertainment—and for most of us, real violence is not something we see or experience enough to really understand—that we're losing our ability to react to violent images. I'm a bit desensitized myself, but I can still remember seeing violent stuff in Rated-R films as a kid and feeling shocked and horrified. The kids I know today don't seem to be affected in the same way.

Nevertheless, I really believe you've reached a very formative and awkward part of life. To you, the world is yourself, and you're starting to feel a bit like adult life and everything about it is just meaningless grey autopilot, and you realize you don't understand or feel any excitement about any of it. We've all experienced this unusual change in reality.

Probably you've read my post until now, because what I wrote is so shocking and because it's so unbelievable, but it's all true.

I don't think it's shocking and unbelievable. I think it's typical. And I think a part of you wishes it was shocking because, on some level you probably don't understand, you want your life to be shaken up. You want it to become more interesting than it is.

And to that, I say: it will. It's just a matter of perception and understanding. You'll get older and start to put things together in your mind. You'll slowly begin to figure out what adult life is and how you can make it work for you. You'll feel more comfortable, and happier.

You might describe me as egocentric. That would probably be the right word to describe me. I'm indifferent to pretty much everything else. Is it dangerous? I don't think so. In my opinion the universe is indifferent (that's what I think, not hope), so my indifference won't make a lot of difference.

Like I said, you're egocentric in the sense that your world is currently you, and right now you're not very jazzed about that world. You've essentially replaced your confusion and disappointment with indifference, because you feel like that's easier or more meaningful, but you know that the confusion and disappointment are still there. This is so very common among teens, I can't even tell you.

Either way, I think it's still about perception. It might not seem this way now, but your life will become more colorful, more interesting, more fulfilling. But you can't be indifferent. Indifference is emotional and social inaction that you've sanctioned for yourself because it seems too hard to figure out what you can do to be happier about your life. Or maybe you've already convinced yourself that living an unhappy life is inevitable. I genuinely hope not because, on that point, you'd be flat wrong.

Feeling more aware, more connected, more interested—that stuff will come with time and experience. Trust me. But you can't just resign yourself to indifference. You choose to be a part of the world and care about things. It's not just a natural gene that we all have and you don't. It might feel comforting to withdraw, but you're only retreating into an increasingly deeper hole. Don't accept that. Make yourself be better than that.

Most of you will probably think I'm crazy now. Maybe I am.

You're not crazy. You're a teenager who's experiencing all the same thoughts and feelings that countless other teenagers have experienced and will continue to experience. Just make sure you give yourself the time to wise up, get a little experience under your belt, and start seeing the world in all its wonderful color. Just like all you silly kids are saying these days... "you only live once." :)

HitchFan97

07-10-13, 01:24 PM

I sure hope so.

Eyes Wide Shut was in my top five. It will make the list, and seeing how much support it has, it will probably be rather high up.

Guaporense

07-10-13, 01:25 PM

I gave it about 10 points too.

ThomasP

07-10-13, 01:30 PM

I think you guys can tell how many points I gave it.

HitchFan97

07-10-13, 01:32 PM

I think you guys can tell how many points I gave it.

Oh, hell yes :cool:

ThomasP

07-10-13, 01:38 PM

Oh, hell yes :cool:

I think it has a chance of making the top 10. :cool:

Cobpyth

07-10-13, 01:55 PM

It also made my top 10.

It will probably make the top 20 or even higher.

HitchFan97

07-10-13, 02:29 PM

Wow, I knew Eyes Wide Shut had its devoted followers but I had no idea it was so beloved here. I can't wait to see how high up it is.

Guaporense

07-10-13, 02:34 PM

Well, it's a Stanley Kubrick movie. He is probably the director who has the greatest combination of admiration and popularity in this forum (he or Hitchcock). There are directors who are respected by those who know their movies (like Ozu) and there are directors who are well known but not very respected (like Michael Bay), Stanley Kubrick is both.

Skepsis93

07-10-13, 02:35 PM

Wow, I knew Eyes Wide Shut had its devoted followers but I had no idea it was so beloved here. I can't wait to see how high up it is.

Pretty much why I thought it might not make it in. Clearly I was way off the mark.

Guaporense

07-10-13, 02:38 PM

Full Metal Jacket will also certainly make the top 20 of the 1980's movies MoFO top 100 of the 1980's.

Mr Minio

08-01-13, 02:18 PM

I didn't have any idea the animal abuse topic will go so far. I was quite ironic in my posts starting the whole discussion.
I'm an artist and an amateur filmmaker, so I'll defend artistic expression more defiantly than most. But the health and safety of another living thing should never be sacrificed for the sake of a film or any other piece of art. Some people are blinded by that, but the priorities should be crystal clear. You say that like the cat was wounded or killed. I'm curious about the 'living thing' thingy. How far does it go? Would you pity a mouse killed or wounded on the screen? A fly or mosquito, maybe? Or is it only for cats, dogs and apes? Humans are animals too! I'm quite sensitive and tender to human suffering, but was indifferent to this scene, as well as I was indifferent to many fictional death scenes in many films. Some of them moved me, but not all of them. The thing the cat was abused (or not) in real life as well is quite different, but I don't feel sympathy. There's too much people suffering all around the world to rumble about such things. A lot of people imprison hundreds of dogs or cats in locked cages standing horizontally, so solid waste of animals in the upper cages pours down on the ones in the cages below, which drown in it!

To end the topic: If you don't care about the cat in this scene, it's OK. It doesn't even mean you're emotionless, because you may be a very good person. It's OK to dislike the scene or say it was an abuse. It's all subjective, because you can't be 100% sure how the cat felt. All in all, it's all up to you. Watch Satantango if you like or don't watch it. Maybe the two or three films you watch instead will be a better choice for you. If you're interested in Tarr, watch Werckmeister Harmonies first to find out whether his style clicks for you.