Hypocritical?

I'd say your comment was more ignorant than positively critical.

Are you really saying there is no merit to filmmaking? Are people not allowed to comment on things (through film or whatever) unless they actively participate in changing them? If so, why have you commented here and not taken action?

Does all your money go to putting shoes on people's feet? No? Didn't think so.

If you think it's OK for you to have your say (ie. on this message board), then why is it not OK for others to have their say (ie. through film)?

Koyaanisqatsi's message is ambiguous and open to interpretation. How you can be so angry about such a peaceful film is beyond me... if you want to vent your anger about wasting money on films, their are many (most) other films that warrant a good pasting more than this film. Go and visit Sex & the City message boards...

what he actually has said about it is that there is no specific message and that the film is simply trying to bring the background into the foreground. the setting and the music and the ambience are the forefront of this film, and plot and characters are non-existant. its more interesting to see this film as using the medium in a new and different way than as an environmentalist film. which it isnt. clearly. the only part i would see as being interpreted as pro environmentalist would be the part where it segues from nature to humans, and begins with the foreboding music, however, there's plenty of beauty expressed through the shots of humans. it's not simply humans-bad, nature-good. if that's what you want to take out of a film like this, go ahead, it's something completely open to interpretation, but the director isn't trying to drill any ideas into your head at all. Rather, he is trying to aid people to think about things in a more... broad/big picture kind of way. this film does do specifically that, but only the most shallow of minds would watch something so epic and decide, oh, humans are bad, and nature is good and that's all there is to it. because whatever "it" is, theres a lot more to "it" than that.

[deleted]

It seems to me that this film does have a green agenda, and it is not simply display the facts of our world. At the end of the film it says:


Koyaanisqatsi: (ko.yaa.nis.kahtsee) N. from the Hopi language.
1. crazy life.
2. life in turmoil.
3. life disintegrating.
4. life out of balance.
5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.

Then there are three Hopi prophecies, one of which reads:

"If we dig precious things from the land, we will invite disaster."

I wouldn't say it's hypocritical at all, really. The film is more critical of industrialization, and more specifically, the chaos and imbalance that arises in rich, industrialized nations. I don't think they mean to attack technology.

This movie simply slows down our world and allows us to see how we live in it.

````````````
Imagine that.

Any criticism of the modern world is always attack on tech, and should never be allowed to be displayed, shown, expressed or done by the usage of technology.

Anyone that has ever used a camera of any kind to take a photo of anything that shows that technology can be bad in some ways is a COMPLETE HYPOCRITE.

I am sarcastic of course, just to show the insanity of this type of thinking / argument.

This movie doesn't even have any kind of dialogue, narrative, words, etc., and yet people are instantly accusing it of all kinds of things.

It merely SHOWS how things are (or were). That's all.

Sure, it has a few words of text at the end, but for the most part, it's just showing everyday things and structures (and infrastructures) from a slightly unusual perspective so we can better see what it is and what it causes.

Without actually SAYING anything, it delivers so many perspectives, thoughts and impacts, that people just HAVE to interpret it in all kinds of ways. The "hypocrisy" accusation was inevitable, of course. It always happens.

If you use the internet to say that there MIGHT be some bad sides to SOME technology, the way it's produced or used, you are immediately attacked and these people just don't stop to think that such an attack might not be all that logical or wise.

I guess agenda is more important than reason, virtual signaling more important than truth, accusations of anything that shows us reality more important than what's actually happening..

So keep them coming, the hypocrisy accusations - out of EVERYTHING out there, _this_ movie, that doesn't even utter one word, is accused of hypocrisy. That's the most ridiculous criticism I have ever experienced.

But what else can you expect from the people that live in the kind of world this movie shows us this already was in 1982..

Can these hypocrisy-accusers really say that the word DOESN'T describe this world? Is it really that wrong to look at everything going on in the world (or at least shown to us in this movie) and to ponder that kind of thought as one possible truth about it all?

Is this world really balanced, and this movie just hypocrite, or is this movie really showing us something important about a world in turmoil and imbalance?

Could imbalance be a part of our everyday lives, or is this movie 'lying' to us?

I think it's perfectly reasonable to see this kind of madness going on, and then call it imbalance, turmoil and madness.

I think it's perfectly logical to think that if you remove the planet's 'precious things' from the ground, the planet will start to suffer, or life on it might start being in danger.

I guess people rather accuse than think, they rather attack than stop, they rather keep status quo going, regardless of how mad or imbalanced it is, than face the truth that they live in a really crazy world.