MovieChat Forums > Caché (2006) Discussion > People Give Georges a Hard Time About th...

People Give Georges a Hard Time About the Majid Farm Incident


Georges has had a relatively easy life. He seems to take so much for granted like his career, his house, his mother, his son (I can't understand fathers who aren't actively loving and attentive to their children's lives, Georges barely acknowledges Pierot's existence) and his wife (and esp Juliette Binoche's character who is clearly way to good for him in every way!).

In fact he really has trouble relating to anyone apparently close to him, including his mother, and does not consider entering into simple dialog with Majid to discuss what is still on Majid's mind and maybe offer some sympathy or even closure. All this makes us dislike Georges and therefore regard what he did to Majid in his youth as bad.

The Majid farm incident though, I don't think Georges should feel remorse for in any way. He was six. All humans instinctively use basic devious tactics, especially when they are young. Most of us learn at an early stage that there are better ways to deal with situations in life, though we may not really understand why until we are in teenage years. I can understand how Georges was compelled to do what he did, as his childhood went from idillic bliss to horrible in an instant.

It seems Majid physically fought and possibly bullied Georges. "..you were bigger and stronger.." And Majid with a wry smile on his face remembering something he only hints at - subtle fist air-bumb and saying "ah, le nez" (the nose, sic). Looks between them suggest to me that Majid may have been the one responsible for Georges's disjointed nose. And Majid's smile shows this act was of little importance to him - a classic trait of a bully.

Young Majid's parents were taken from him in a horrendous act that was nothing to do with Georges. Majid had a chance for a better path in life, but took this for granted by persecuting the son of his adoptive parents. Because of this he was whisked away to an orphanage which clearly provided further terrible memories for Majid, but again were not the responsibility of Georges.

Even though not out for revenge, Majid does seem to hold Georges responsible. This is probably because Georges is suddenly back in his life and so conveniently represents a physical manifestation of all Majid's bad memories. Georges is an easy target.





reply

That's an interesting interpretation, but if George isn't the one sending tapes to himself, then how do you explain the reason why he doesn't tell his mother about her house also being filmed?

Since George feels alarm enough to seek help from the police, shouldn't he also feel the same kind of alarm for his mother who has also had her home filmed as well?

Why hide the fact from her that she may also be in the same kind of danger as George feels his wife and son are in due to the tapes that are made and sent to them?

Isn't the only way this makes sense is if George knows his mother isn't in danger because he's the one who's made the tapes of her home and of his own home?

And if we assume he doesn't want to worry his mother because of her age and her frail condition, then couldn't George have also warned the other woman who takes care of his mother about how her house had been filmed?

And shouldn't he have also told the police about the tape that he receives of his mother's home?

And why does George go and watch a movie after he's seen Majid kill himself?

What kind of a person would do such a thing rather than call an emergency number hoping there'd be a chance that someone could save Majid's life?












reply


Hi, just pointing out I didn't mention the tapes and was not particularly alluding to anyone's responsibility for the tapes in this thread!

All the questions you ask I think are answered by a key character trait of Georges. He is an inwardly emotionally selfish person. Harmless to most, as serious emotions do not spread to most people we meet, but when he interacts to those closest to him we gather this. Just a result of his upbringing where the world was all about him, this is what he is used to. We know from the encounter with his mother that he never sees her. His visit is only to satisfy questions in his own mind and when there are chances in the conversation to get emotionally closer to her, he bats them away before they can take hold.

From his conversations with his wife, along the lines of "why worry when we aren't sure what's happening", we can conclude he sees his mother's situation as the same. In addition, is it certain his mother still lives at the farm? I think the farm video from the car was only to give Georges more of a clue about the perpetrator's identity, not as a threat to his mother.

He also does this with Majid and Majid's son, never once attaching any importance to either of their feelings. He just wants the situation to go away. Cowardly and selfish.

My point is that he shouldn't feel guilt for the situation he created when he was six. Whether he does or not (in connection with your belief that Georges is sending tapes to himself) is another matter. Georges does not have a brilliant connection with reality and it is completely possibly that he does feel guilt. I'm just saying he shouldn't.

On a seperate matter I don't think he is the one making/sending the tapes. The car in the tapes is an oldish one (esp from the windscreen wipers) and Georges drives a modern one.

It is the car btw, that rules out the sender of the tapes being 'the director' or 'the audience'. The car confirms it is a character in the story (also, as I've read in other threads, confirmed by the director).




reply


Again you bring up many interesting points, but if George sends himself the tapes hoping this process will be a way to get rid of Majid again ...

same way as what he did as a child got rid of his rival ...

then what you say about his being a SELFISH person who is HARMLESS to most would also NOT be the case ...

if one also assumes it is George who sends himself the tapes ...

then LIES to the police and pretends as if he's not the one doing it ...

maybe because he also knows his mother is OLD ...

and may soon die ...

and he also wants to make sure his mother doesn't leave the Estate or Farm House she still owns to Majid ...

the person she once wished to adopt and make her son when he was still a child?

So to eliminate what George may still see as being a potential rival for the Farm House of his mother ...

because George may also fear his mother may leave Majid the place as a way to make up for not adopting him ...

then George may also sends these tapes to himself as a way to make Majid look guilty ...

and get sent to jail ...

thus also making it unlikely Majid would be able to inherit the Estate ...

even if it is left to him in the will ...

because then George could also argue in a court of law that Majid was a criminal who is unfit to inherit this Farm House?

So the entire motivation for what we see happening means George would also be the INSTIGATOR of what happens rather than Majid.

Since George also admits to his wife how he LIED as a child as a way to GET RID of MAJID, it just makes more sense that George is the one who LIES about what's happened this time as well (and Not Majid as your theory implies).




reply


Hmmm, interesting idea. However, you're introducing something that I'm not really talking about in this thread. It's nothing to do with the tapes!



reply

poor deluded xxpo lol..

First things first - nice analysis on Georges' relationship with his mother.

I disagree with the statement that Majid displayed characteristic traits of a bully. I felt the smile was more along the lines of 'whats gone by, is gone by - we were both foolish kids'. He was rather distraught when Georges stormed out too. Even if he was putting on a show for the cam, he needn't have moped around for one hour; I believe Georges' wife, Anne, also feels Majid is remorseful.

I think you're being too hard on Majid ..after all, he was also a kid then too..

reply

How do you account for the FACT that GEORGE goes to the movies and WATCHES a film right after he's seen Majid SLASH his own throat and KILL HIMSELF right in front of him?

Is this or is this not the ACT of a CALLOUS man who is DETACHED from what he's just witnessed?

Even his wife is SHOCKED that he's not called the police, or for some other kind of emergency medical assistance to come help, and has chosen to WANDER around the city all afternoon instead.

Since the body of MAJID lays there blocking the door, George would also need to have moved it out of his way to exit the apartment.



reply

and he also wants to make sure his mother doesn't leave the Estate or Farm House she still owns to Majid ...

the person she once wished to adopt and make her son when he was still a child?

______________________________

This is an observation that someone who is not French would make. Because, by French law, parents cannot disinherit their children for any reason except in cases of the children committing grievous harm (murdering or attempting to murder a parent).

Otherwise the parents property, except for a small percentage determined by the number of living children, is always and irrevocably inherited by the living children equally.

Therefore, George's mother could never have given the property to Majid, Mahjid's son or anyone else. Only her children can inherit. That is a basic principle of French (Napoleonic) law. Anglo-Saxon and American laws allow for the disinheriting of children and for giving away inheritances to whomever. French law does not.

So, that question is of no consequence to the story.

Just saying for those not knowledgeable of French law.

reply

and he also wants to make sure his mother doesn't leave the Estate or Farm House she still owns to Majid ...

the person she once wished to adopt and make her son when he was still a child?

______________________________

This is an observation that someone who is not French would make. Because, by French law, parents cannot disinherit their children for any reason except in cases of the children committing grievous harm (murdering or attempting to murder a parent).

Otherwise the parents property, except for a small percentage determined by the number of living children, is always and irrevocably inherited by the living children equally.

Therefore, George's mother could never have given the property to Majid, Mahjid's son or anyone else. Only her children can inherit. That is a basic principle of French (Napoleonic) law. Anglo-Saxon and American laws allow for the disinheriting of children and for giving away inheritances to whomever. French law does not.

So, that question is of no consequence to the story.

Just saying for those not knowledgeable of French law.

reply


I don't think Georges' mom still lives at the farm, as when his wife asks about he tells her it's the house he grew up in, instead of saying that it's his mom's house. Besides, it is unlikely his wife has never been in his mom's house given that they have been married at leasts for 15 years (based on Pierot's age.) So she would have recognized it if it were her mother-in-law's home.

reply

When he goes to visit his mom they also show a chair where his dad use to sit and a piano that his mother says his Dad use to play.

So it's definitely suppose to be the same house that he grew up in.

During the conversation he has with his mother, it's also made clear that his mother has no idea what kind of job Anne has, thus also making it clear that IF she's ever even met her daughter in law before, she's also not had any kind of contact with her for a VERY LONG time.

George also blames this on the 2 of them being so busy with their jobs, but since the death of MAJID isn't important enough for George to call the cops or a rescue squad, it's also doubtful that George cares very much about his mother either.

He also tells his mother the only reason why he's come to visit her is because some business regarding his job brings him to town.

So rather than pay for a MOTEL or HOTEL room, he visits her, and uses the HOME of his mother as a place to stay?

George is definitely a VERY CREEPY kind of guy.




reply

I´m sorry xxpo, but some of the things you say here, just don´t seem to make much sense.

1) He should call a "rescue team"? To rescue whom? Majid obviously died pretty much instantaneously.
2) To call the cops? For one thing - what do you think the scene would look like to the police arriving? Georges would have more than his hands full trying to explain how, with just the two of them in the room, the guy just went ahead and slashed his own throat. With a story this ludicrous and a little bit of (bad) luck, he might be looking at a life sentence for murder. I sure would have bolted.
3) He went to cinema afterwards? Well he had to do something, go somewhere, didn´t he? He obviously was shocked at least to some extent and people in such a state have a tendency to behave erratically & unpredictably.
4) He is creepy because he elects to stay at his mother´s house instead of paying to spend the night in a hotel? Is this a put-on?

I agree Georges has a vaguely sociopathic personality, but you wouldn´t know it from any of the things listed above.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply


franz,

Point 1:

If someone slashed their throat in front of you what would you do? Would you stand there and do NOTHING or use the phone to dial 911 (emergency number here in the states)?

MOST people would call 911 in hopes that the rescue squad could make it there in time enough to do something to help save the life of the person bleeding to death in front of them. One also doesn't die instantaneously. Unless one's head is completely cut off, one bleeds to death slowly as one chokes on the blood that oozes out.

Point 2:

How does it look with George leaving the scene, doing NOTHING, and going to see a MOVIE? Even his wife is SHOCKED that he didn't call the police. This is what makes him look GUILTY.

If he'd stayed there and called someone, the cops would also be able to tell from the blood splatter on the wall, the way the body falls to the floor, etc. that George didn't kill Majid.

Because IF he had, there would MOST LIKELY have also been BLOOD on his hands and CLOTHING when it SQUIRTS out.

Running away only makes things look worse and raises more suspicion about what's happened.

Point 3:

Going to see a MOVIE makes him look CALLOUS and as if he didn't really care about what's happened. It's definitely NOT something a NORMAL person would do. Why not CALL his wife and tell her what's happened? He tells her later, so WHY not sooner? Most people would seek out the company of another person they know rather than act as if nothing had happened the way George does.

Unless you want to assume George is a character like in Camus novel THE STRANGER, then we've got a guy who acts as if he's INDIFFERENT to what's happened. We don't see someone in a state of SHOCK. We see somone behaving the same way the other 3 homeless people do during DERN'S DEATH SCENE on the WALK of FAME in INLAND EMPIRE ... when they sit there and discuss the BUS SCHEDULE to PAMONA ... as DERN slowly BLEEDS to death right in front of them ... (even though there were also PAY PHONES that they could use to call 911).



Point 4:

No it's not just the way he tells his mother he's there because his job has required him to be in the area. It's also because of the way neither he nor his wife have had contact of any kind with his mother for a very long time (which we know due to the way his mother has NO IDEA what Anne does to earn a living).

And it's also the way that he NEVER tells his mother that HER HOME has also been FILMED, placed on a tape, and SENT to him.

Think about that. George is UPSET that HIS HOME has been FILMED, and reports this to the police because he's worried something might happen to his WIFE and SON.

So WHY NOT tell his mother her life may also be IN DANGER? She KNOWS something is wrong. She can tell he's keeping something HIDDEN from her. So WHY does he chose to keep what he knows HIDDEN and NOT TELL HER her life may also be IN DANGER as well?

Maybe it's because he KNOWS she's NOT in danger because he's also the one who MADE and SENT the tape to himself???
Since he also mentions MAJID to his mother, one also gets the impression he's FISHING for information as to whether or not his feeble 80 yr old mother (who could soon die) has had contact with Majid.

And the reason why he'd want to know this is probably also due to his concern that his mother (who once planned to adopt Majid) might also leave Majid part of the Estate?

So if that's what George FEARS might happen, then why not send himself these tapes as a way to once again GET RID of what he still sees as HIS RIVAL???


In other words, we've basically got a CAIN vs ABLE situation where one brother resents the fact that the other one is seen as being a better person in the eyes of their parent(s)?





























reply

"What would you do? Would you stand there and do nothing?"

Most probably as it´d obviously take a minute or two to properly process the whole absurd situation and make sure I´m not dreaming it. So Georges´s stunned reaction was entirely appropriate. There was nothing to "rescue" except his own ass - by hauling it outta there.


"The cops would also be able to tell/-/ that Georges didn´t kill Majid".

Highly doubtful even objectively thinking... and even moreso in the actual situation, when you´re actually there, in a shock. ESPECIALLY in case you also know you have a motif for killing the man.


"Definitely not something a normal person would do. Why not call his wife and tell her?"

Why call his wife and tell her? What would that have helped? After all, he´s not a 5-year old, crying mommie every time something bad happens. And I´d go to movies in that situation; why not? It would hardly be better to run around on the streets than take refuge in a dark theater for two hours and try to think things over.


"Never tells her mother that her home has also been filmed".

What would be the point of agitating an old woman in ill health with some sinister stalker stories? After all, there was no apparent imminent danger (as opposed to the unnerving long term surveillance of Georges´ residence, the single tape showing his mother´s house just drove past it once).


"Because he´s also the one who made and sent these tapes".

To be honest, I´m not really interested in discussing the identity of the tape-sender as I consider it completely irrelevant.





"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

Most probably as it´d obviously take a minute or two to properly process the whole absurd situation and make sure I´m not dreaming it. So Georges´s stunned reaction was entirely appropriate. There was nothing to "rescue" except his own ass - by hauling it outta there.

*****************

He also had to MOVE the body before he could EXIT from that door. So that would also have taken more than a couple of min to process and have given him time to know he wasn't dreaming it.

How many of us have ever seen someone do this before or KNOW what to do?

Most likely MOST of us here in the US would also IMMEDIATELY dial 911 to try to find someone who could hopefully HELP SAVE his life.

Because MOST of us would also not assume his life could NOT be saved. And even IF we knew that wasn't possible, the LAST THING we'd do is RUN AWAY. We'd have at least called the COPS.

***********************************


"The cops would also be able to tell/-/ that Georges didn´t kill Majid".

Highly doubtful even objectively thinking... and even moreso in the actual situation, when you´re actually there, in a shock. ESPECIALLY in case you also know you have a motif for killing the man.

***************************

By calling 911 the COPS would also have come as well, and then the DEAD BODY would also not have been MOVED. But even so, the COPS also figured out George was INNOCENT and hadn't killed Majid. So HOW did they do that unless they also saw the kinds of things that were mentioned to you (lack of blood stains on his clothing) etc.

****************************

"Definitely not something a normal person would do. Why not call his wife and tell her?"

Why call his wife and tell her? What would that have helped? After all, he´s not a 5-year old, crying mommie every time something bad happens. And I´d go to movies in that situation; why not? It would hardly be better to run around on the streets than take refuge in a dark theater for two hours and try to think things over.

************************

His wife was already UPSET with him for the way he HIDES several things from her (like what happened between him and Majid as a child). Remember how he first LIES to her and says he CAN'T REMEMBER what happened? Then LIES and told her MAJID'S place was an EMPTY storeroom? That's why he should have told her about the suicide. He's already lost credibility with her by telling her these other LIES.

GOING to watch a MOVIE right after you've seen someone KILL THEMSELF in front of you makes you look CALLOUS and INDIFFERENT and as if you MIGHT be GUILTY. That's WHY. We've got PROS to deal with situations like this. They could also have given him the name of a good shrink.

*************************


"Never tells her mother that her home has also been filmed".

What would be the point of agitating an old woman in ill health with some sinister stalker stories? After all, there was no apparent imminent danger (as opposed to the unnerving long term surveillance of Georges´ residence, the single tape showing his mother´s house just drove past it once).

*******************

This woman in ill health also had someone else looking after her. So WHY NOT at least tell that person who is her caregiver? By NOT WARNING either one of them that their lives may also BE IN DANGER, once again that makes Georges look CALLOUS and INDIFFERENT to the safety issue regarding the life of his mother.

The AMOUNT of TIME spent filming the place isn't the issue. The issue is THE DANGER George feels he and his family are in from being WATCHED by someone who makes the films. And his MOTHER's also been a VICTIM of the same thing as well with someone also filming her home.

***********************


"Because he´s also the one who made and sent these tapes".

To be honest, I´m not really interested in discussing the identity of the tape-sender as I consider it completely irrelevant.

*************************

Whether or not you're interested in WHO SENT the tapes or not, or consider it irrelevant or not, still doesn't change the FACT that the reason WHY GEORGE may not tell his MOTHER she's in DANGER could be because he may also already KNOW that her life is NOT in DANGER ... if he's also been the one making and sending these tapes.









reply

"Try to find someone who could save his life".

Yeah, and then he should also have phoned the Red Cross and send them over to revive Lenin at his mausoleum.


"Most likely most of us/-/ would also immediately dial 911/-/ and call the cops".

No, that´s what a model citizen in no precarious situation would have done. Georges, on the other hand, was literally framed for murder with a proverbial smoking gun in his hand. Also, letting corpses lie hardly constitutes much of a moral crime.


"The cops also figured out Georges was innocent".

That´s because they had no evidence of anyone else having been at the crime scene. Finding someone there would have changed the matters drastically though as a man committing suicide in such a manner in front of another man, makes for quite a fantastic story to boot, one which not too many are bound to believe. And IF it could be conclusively proved via forensic evidence that it indeed was a suicide (something I very much doubt as the position of the blade on the throat - as well as the slashing movement - would not be radically different had someone else done it) you couldn´t expect him or anyone in his place count on that.


"His wife was already upset/-/ that´s why he should have told her about the suicide".

He DID tell her about it - and also confessed the whole story, albeit reluctantly, didn´t he?


"Going to watch a movie/-/ makes you look callous and indifferent".

As can be judged by the later scenes, he was far from indifferent and was, in fact, very much upset - albeit not because of some empathy he felt for Majid, but rather because he was inconvenienced and forced to think of something he had probably always carefully avoided thinking of. Which also explains his movie-going as an effort to try and forget about the whole deal (yes, on a second thought, my previous interpretation of him visiting a cinema to "take refuge" to "think things over", was likely incorrect as he attempted the exact opposite). As such, it was no different from his shutting the curtains and going to bed at the end of the movie - all in order to put all that stuff out of his mind. Even though the Majid experience failed to make him feel guilty, he no longer was able to forget it, either. And sleep was the last resort.


"If he´s also been the one making and sending these tapes".

Since the tapes represent sort of a manifestation of his subconscious regarding his sordid past, in a sense he DID "send them to himself". On a literal plot level it´s rubbish though and would mean he´s not just vaguely sociopathic, but batsh-t insane. Not to mention it´d suggest he consciously wished to get once more tangled in his and Majid´s common past - which, as noted, was the very ´last´ thing he wanted.




"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

Call the Red Cross??? C'mon franz. Even if one is a PRO who knows there's NOTHING that can be done for Majid, one still calls SOMEONE to come tend to the CORPSE that lies there on the floor.

Because one also knows it won't be very long before that rotting CORPSE is going to start to SMELL and become a HEALTH HAZZARD (the same way as any other peice of ROTTING meat that's left sitting out would begin to stink).

So George should have also had the decency to report the matter to SOMEONE for that reason alone. It's not like Majid is a stranger and he didn't know this man personally.

Majid is also someone who lived with him and almost became his ADOPTED BROTHER before George took steps to GET RID of MAJID.

Being a MODEL Citizen isn't the issue. Being a DECENT human being is the issue. Why let Majid's son find the body of his father in that kind of condition? That
would be just as MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE as OJ SIMPSON leaving the CORPSE of the mother of his 2 YOUNG children laying there for them to find the next morning when they woke up.

Imagine what seeing their nearly HEADLESS MOTHER who's throat was SLASHED laying there in a pool of blood would have done to them. Probably leave permanet SCARS and memories in their minds. Plus there was also the body of the other young man who came to return the eye glasses their grandmother leaves at the restaurant.

Even the people who OWNED the dog that found the DEAD BODY of NICOLE had the DECENCY to CALL SOMEONE to come tend to her CORPSE.



SMOKING GUN'S still need FINGER PRINTS on them to CONVICT someone of a crime.

George was NEVER FRAMED for anything. He'd also already contacted the COPS and told them he was being HARASSED by MAJID which leads to the ARREST of both MAJID and his son. That arrest most likely also plays a part in the reason why they NEVER suspected him of killing Majid (along with other evidence such as the way the BLOOD SPRAYS onto the WALL, George not having any BLOOD STAINS on his clothing or some BLOODY SOCKS and SHOE PRINTS like the case was with OJ SIMPSON).

His finger prints would also NOT have been found on the MURDER WEAPON MAJID used to kill himself either.

The only thing that makes GEORGE look suspicious is the CALLOUS way he LEAVES the scene of the CRIME and then goes to watch a MOVIE as if NOTHING whatsoever had ever happened. That kind of behavior is also what gives one the impression one is watching a PSYCHOPATH who has NO FEELINGS for this man who also nearly became is ADOPTIVE BROTHER.

George isn't a STUPID man. He would KNOW there's NO EVIDENCE to convict him of killing Majid. What the viewer sees is a character who SIMPLY doesn't care what's happened to MAJID.

Imo, LETTING CORPSES LIE is definitely a MORAL ISSUE that needs addressing because it becomes one more NAIL in the COFFIN (so to speak) that shows us the MORAL BANKRUPTCY of this man (beginning with what he does GET RID of MAJID as a child ... a situation that he also LIES about ... and tries to HIDE from his wife)



George had to MOVE MAJID'S DEAD BODY to get out that front door. That would be EVIDENCE that someone else was there, because there would be blood stains showing the BODY had been DRAGGED across the floor and MOVED as a way for George to GET OUT of that door the BODY is BLOCKING.



The EVIDENCE is abundant that GEORGE didn't kill MAJID. No FINGER PRINTS on the KNIFE used to slash his throat, no Foot prints by the body, ETC. (except the one's George may have left as he EXITS from that FRONT DOOR).

The COPS are also already aware that MAJID was suppose to be the one TORMENTING George with those tapes.

As for telling his wife ...

HE also WAITS SEVERAL HOURS before telling her, and he also NEVER TELLS her that he's been to see a MOVIE either.

WHY NOT?

Because he also KNOWS what kind of a reaction she's have if he DIDN'T HIDE this
FACT from her.

She'd have been just as SURPRISED by his behavior as she's been before when he admits he's LIED to her about something else (such as NOT finding MAJID at home the first time he finds him there).


GEORGE HIDES stuff from other people because he is GUILTY ... maybe he's not responsible PHYSICALLY for what happens to MAJID ... but PSYCHOLOGICALLY he's responsible for the DEATH of MAJID (which is also why he goes to HIDE in that MOVIE THEATRE.




YES he's UPSET because the situation has been an INCONVENIENT one for HIM.

And YES there's also NO EMPATHY for MAJID being shown by HIM EITHER.

GOOD POINT.

Once again illustrating to us why George appears to be a MORALLY BANKRUPT person.





Since he also DREAMS about MAJID being TAKEN AWAY to the ORPHANAGE, thank Goodness even SLEEP doesn't allow him to ESCAPE from what he's done to MAJID as both a CHILD and then AGAIN as a GROWN MAN.

Since we see no transition, that might also still be George DREAMING of the SON of MAJID speaking to HIS SON in front of the school.

So that could also be an expression of his FEAR that RETRIBUTION of some kind would be forthcoming from the SON of MAJID?

So SLEEP as the LAST RESORT also doesn't seem to have WORKED very well for him???

Since we SEE the WIFE of GEORGE watching the TAPES, these TAPES are REAL. They don't just represent something that comes from inside of his MIND. Their DINNER GUESTS were also shown these tapes. So were the COPS when George visits them to COMPLAIN about them. His BOSS was also SENT a copy of the tape where George speaks to MAJID.

If George is also a SADISITIC personality, he would also have ENJOYED and gotten PLEASURE from having once again seen his CHILDHOOD RIVAL be in the kind of EMOTIONAL PAIN that George was causing for him by reporting him to the COPS.

So YES there's also the possibility that we're dealing with someone who is Off his ROCKER or BAT$HIT insane enough to GET PLEASURE from causing other people PAIN.

S & M is also still considered to be a DISORDER in the DSM. Is it not???


















reply

"Georges hides stuff from other people because he is guilty/-/ psychologically he is responsible for the death of Majid".

I agree with this part of your post.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

"So Georges should have also had the decency to report the matter".

Well, unlike you, he actually had some common sense. Enough so as to not go voluntarily to prison for the rest of his life for a crime he didn´t (physically) commit.

***********************

And what about OJ and the way he spends at least a YEAR in prison prior to the TRIAL because of the way he RUNS AWAY from the crime scene?

One also knows to STAY PUT and NOT LEAVE the scene of a HIT and RUN.

Right?

So WHY RUN AWAY from this other crime scene?

Doing so only makes one LOOK GUILTY as SIN.

*********************************


"One also knows that rotting corpse is going to start to smell and become a health hazard".

I´m sorry, but this is hilarious.

******************************

You mentioned COMMON SENSE. COMMOM SENSE also tells us NOT to RUN AWAY from or leave unattended DEAD BODIES laying around.

Someone else could have also SEEN him ENTER and EXIT Majid's apartment as well. It's not like Majid lives in some ISOLATED area where there aren't several people coming and going all the time.

********************

"Georges had to move Majid´s dead body".

No he didn´t - he could well push the corpse´s upper body aside for a moment and slip out the door. He had no need to drag him over the floor.

****************

Moving his body, even just to LIFT IT ASIDE, would still also leave EVIDENCE that it had been moved, because that would also have SHIFTED and CHANGED the POOL of BLOOD in which it lays.

**********************


"The evidence is abundant that Georges didn´t kill Majid".

What evidence? Wiping ones fingerprints off a murder weapon and planting it in the corpse´s hand isn´t very difficult for anyone to do. And since forensics would likely be inconclusive, from that point on, it´s largely a matter of conjecture and common sense.

*************

A KNIFE that had been RECENTLY WIPED CLEAN would also arrouse suspicion. A CORPSE doesn't usually WIPE the MURDER WEAPON that it uses clean.

*******************


"Letting corpses lie is definitely a moral issue".

At any rate, not a very grave one.

*********************

LMAO!! Yes definitely not a very GRAVE one with the body still not IN it's GRAVE yet.



*********************

For instance, in Chandler´s novels, the number of times that Marlowe let the dead men be when it served some eventual greater good, was firmly in double figures. And Marlowe most definitely was an ethical man to boot (but then again, I recall you haven´t read Chandler... so that much about that). Either way if I were in a situation where reporting a dead person would mean my being imprisoned for any substancial amount of time, it wouldn´t even enter the equation.

***************

Yes FORMULAIC DETECTIVE stories are not USUALLY my cup of TEA. Read too many CLASSIC NOVELS ... which also tends to ruin one's taste for PULP FICTION.



************************


"Cops are also already aware that Majid was supposed to be the one that was tormenting Georges with those tapes".

Which is indeed what seals the deal by giving Georges a murder motif - he goes back there, again accusing Majid of harrassing him, they have a row and Georges kills him in a fit of anger. Makes perfect sense.

*********************

Yes, it MAKES SENSE IF the cops had also found SOME BLOODY SOCKS or SHOE PRINTS like they found at the CRIME SCENE where OJ SIMPSON had been. But it does NOT make sense at this crime scene where all indications would be GEORGE wasn't the one who PHYSICALLY SLASHED the THROAT of MAJID.

MENTALLY and EMOTIONALLY YES ... PHYSICALLY NO.

And it's also TOO BAD that one can't be arrested for TORMENTING another person to DEATH the way George did MAJID.

Because maybe then a SADDIST like George would also think TWICE about TORMENTING someone if the process also had some kind of LEGAL CONSEQUENCES?

**********************

"Georges hides stuff from other people because he is guilty/-/ psychologically he is responsible for the death of Majid".

No argument there.

**************************

Nice to know we're at least on the SAME PAGE regarding this issue.



reply

"Formulaic detective stories are not usually my cup of tea".

Maybe it´d be a good idea not to pass judgement on things one is not familiar with. And I would like to think I´m not yet quite as out of touch with reality as to use examples from some fiction that´s the equivalent of, I don´t know, Superman comic books to make an argument.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

CHANDLER'S OWN WORDS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Chandler#Chandler.27s_thoughts_on_pulp_fiction

Chandler also described the struggle that the writers of pulp fiction had in following the formula demanded by the editors of the pulp magazines:

As I look back on my stories it would be absurd if I did not wish they had been better. But if they had been much better they would not have been published. If
the formula had been a little less rigid, more of the writing of that time might have survived. Some of us tried pretty hard to break out of the formula, but we usually got caught and sent back.

To exceed the limits of a formula without destroying it is the dream of every magazine writer who is not a hopeless hack.[16]


************************************

If a writer descides writing FORMULAIC FICTION is more important to them than writing a Classic Novel, then it's hardly FAIR to blame someone else for what the writer themselves chose to spend THEIR time doing.







ME:

"Formulaic detective stories are not usually my cup of tea".

YOU:


Maybe it´d be a good idea not to pass judgement on things one is not familiar with. And I would like to think I´m not yet quite as out of touch with reality as to use examples from some fiction that´s the equivalent of, I don´t know, Superman comic books to make an argument.



"facts are stupid things"



ME AGAIN:

FACTS may be STUPID THINGS, but they are also STILL FACTS.

And MAYBE it would also be a GOOD IDEA NOT to PASS JUDGEMENT on things that YOU YOURSELF ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH???






YOU:


For instance, in Chandler´s novels, the number of times that Marlowe let the dead men be when it served some eventual greater good, was firmly in double figures. And Marlowe most definitely was an ethical man to boot (but then again, I recall you haven´t read Chandler...

so that much about that). Either way if I were in a situation where reporting a dead person would mean my being imprisoned for any substancial amount of time, it wouldn´t even enter the equation.

***************

ME:

Yes FORMULAIC DETECTIVE stories are not USUALLY my cup of TEA. Read too many CLASSIC NOVELS ... which also tends to ruin one's taste for PULP FICTION.



http://superherouniverse.com/wiki/Pulp_magazine/index.html

Genres

Pulp magazines often contained a wide variety of genre fiction, including, but not limited to, fantasy/sword and sorcery, gangster, detective/mystery,
science fiction, adventure, westerns (also see Dime Western), war, sports, railroad, men's adventure ("the sweats"), romance, horror/occult (including "weird menace"), and Série Noire (French crime mystery). The American Old West was a mainstay genre of early turn of the century novels as well as later pulp magazines, and lasted longest of all the traditional pulps.

Many classic science fiction and crime novels were originally serialized in pulp magazines such as Weird Tales, Amazing Stories, and Black Mask.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulp_magazine


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Marlowe

Philip Marlowe


is a fictional character created by Raymond Chandler in a series of novels including The Big Sleep and The Long Goodbye. Marlowe first appeared under that name in The Big Sleep published in 1939.


Chandler's early short stories, published in pulp magazines like Black Mask and Dime Detective



****************************************

Please also NOTE how xxpo is only the MESSENGER ... and NOT the one who placed the STORIES about MARLOWE by CHANDLER into the PULP FICTION GENRE or CATEGORY.

So IF you don't like the FACT that these stories are there, please also blame whoever it was that placed them there.

And I still also DISAGREE with what you say about this matter:

His behaviour would indeed been understandable

IMO, the way he BEHAVES is NOT UNDERSTANDABLE.

THE FACT that neither HIS WIFE nor his BOSS understands the way he behaves, also makes them CHARACTER FOILS ...

or characters that have been placed in the story to ILLUSTATE this point to us ...

or the FACT that the way he behaves is NOT UNDERSTANDABLE ...

and DOES NOT MAKE SENSE to MOST of the rest of us ...

who would have also had COMMON SENSE enough to DIAL 911 for HELP ...

if we were ever faced with such a situation where someone SLASHED their OWN THOAT OPEN in front of us).

















reply

"Not the one who placed the stories about Marlowe by Chandler into the pulp fiction".

Another thing you would be well advised to try and not do, is put words in my mouth or build some strawmen to battle - I never claimed Chandler´s work breaks free from the superficial ramifications of pulp fiction. However, as anyone who has read his stories can testify, the crime plots in themselves were about the least important aspect of his novels which were far more interested in documenting the moral rot pervasive in the society. His fiction was not ´formulaic´ in the sense that plot requirements did not determine which actions his characters took.


"Maybe it would also be a good idea not to pass judgement on things you yourself are not familiar with?"

Such as?



"Does not make sense to most of the rest of us who would have also had common sense enough to dial 911 for help".

That is not common sense, it´s some idealistic fantasy world you´re living in. Considering who Majid was to Georges, that the whole thing the latter had tried to sweep under the rug, had just exploded in his face, it would have been rather absurd of him to promptly call in the authorities like a good little model citizen. Denial seemed to be his first reaction to problems (or at least the Majid problem) and his behaviour after the throat slashing falls very much in line with that.





"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

PRESENTING you with WORDS that come from the MOUTH of the WRITER themself is NOT putting words into YOUR MOUTH.

When the WRITER himself ADMITS he's SOLD OUT, and chose to write FORMULAIC PULP FICITON rather than a story that would LAST through the sands of TIME, that's also HIS CHOICE, not MINE.

In other words, the ROAD he chose to travel is definitely NOT the same one LYNCH chose to travel (due to the way LYNCH is someone who sticks with his ARTISTIC VISION and isn't somone who SELLS OUT and decides to cater to whatever it is that the PUBLIC wants).

See the difference?

So whereas this man may have had the POTENTIAL to write a more LASTING CLASSIC NOVEL, or something that would have with stood the passing of the ages and TIME, he still chose NOT to do that.

A CLASSICAL story is a UNIVERSAL one.

It deals with situations that people can relate to hundreds of YEARS later.

But these PULP STORIES are not UNIVERSAL stories due to the way they deal with a PARTICULAR rather than with a UNIVERSAL situation.

And that's also what places them into the PULP CATEGORY.


That's also the part where the SUCH AS question that you've asked comes into play.

You're not seeming to understand the differences between what makes a CLASSIC a CLASSIC vs what gets placed into the PULP FICTION type of category.

RE: GEORGE and MAJID

RUNNING AWAY TO HIDE in that BARN where he watches MAJID being taken away as a CHILD is ONE THING.

But George is an ADULT now, no longer a 6 YEAR OLD child ANYMORE, which is also the reason WHY, IMO, he should have STAYED PUT, and CALLED someone to come HELP him with the SUICIDE he's just witnessed.

CHILDREN running away is UNDERSTANDABLE.

AN ADULT who RUNS AWAY is NOT an UNDERSTANDABLE situation.

Look at the way his WIFE reacts when he tells her how he LEAVES the CRIME SCENE.

She is SHOCKED to hear he's behaved that way and hasn't called the COPS.

Her reaction is also the way MOST of us would FEEL Franz if our spouse also told us they'd been a WITNESS to someone SLASHING OPEN their THROAT with a KNIFE and then LEAVING them laying there on the floor to ROT AWAY afterwards.





reply

"When the writer admits he´s sold out".

Not being able to break further away from the superficial genre trappings isn´t the same as "selling out". Furthermore, I praise him for his self criticism (a form of self pity of a depressive alcoholic as it may be), but history does not agree with his harsh judgement of himself. Btw he also cursed his current Hollywood movies as the most awful load of crap or some such... well, good for him he didn´t live to see the Hollywood of today.


"He chose to write formulaic pulp fiction".

The quality of a work is not determined by the genre it happens to belong to. The implication that crime fiction - be it a novel or a movie - cannot be more than just crime fiction, is quite ignorant.


"This man may have had the potential to write a more lasting classic novel, or something that has withstood the passing of the ages and time, he chose not to do that".

Except that he did just that. He´s regarded as an important figure in the mid-20th century American novel & not exactly forgotten now, 53 years after his death.


"But these pulp stories are not universal".

I´m quite impressed with your sheer gall, your shameless hypocrisy in lecturing here on the matters you have admitted to know nothing about.


"An adult who runs away is not an understandable situation".

To you, it apparently isn´t.


"Look at the way his wife reacts".

YOU look at the way his wife reacts - it barely gives her as much as a pause. And btw, who are these "most people" you keep referring to? Seems that on this board at least, you´re in the minority with your idealistically rosy views of human behaviour.





"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

Take a look at this which seems to SUM up the situation pretty well:



http://www.enotes.com/raymond-chandler-criticism/chandler-raymond

in 1933 he submitted his first story, "Blackmailers Don't Shoot," to Black Mask. This dark tale of extortion and racketeering contains all the hard-boiled genre's conventional tropes: violence, corrupt officials, gangsters and gun molls, and a detective with a fast gun and a code of ethics. In the next five years Chandler published sixteen short stories of the same ilk, mostly in Black Mask. They feature early prototypes of his hero, detective Philip Marlowe, and display Chandler's growing adeptness with dialogue, characterization, thematic development, and the voice and viewpoint of the detective figure. In these early pieces, Chandler experimented with style and narrative technique, eventually finding the most success with the first-person point of view.

His privateeye heroes are essentially the same in each work—grizzled and alienated romantics who hold to an ideal of gallantry.

By the late 1930s Chandler was feeling limited by the short story form and turned his attention to novels. The greater popularity of these works allowed the publication of his collected short stories. Five Murders appeared in 1944, five years after his first major novel, The Big Sleep, was published. Other short story collections surfaced routinely after that, though the stories were primarily written prior to the period in which Chandler wrote his novels.

Other short story collections surfaced routinely after that, though the stories were primarily written prior to the period in which Chandler wrote his novels. The collections include Five Sinister Characters (1945), Red Wind (1946), and Pearls Are a Nuisance (1953). From these stories he created the plots for his early novels through a process he termed "cannibalizing"—a method in which he reworked several previously published pieces of short fiction into a sustained story.

Critical Reception


Many modern-day critics see Chandler's short stories as a training ground for his novels. While some commentators have described these early works as formula pieces, poorly plotted, overly talkative, and contrived, others have observed that the crisp, declarative style, terse characterization, wit, and ominous tone of Chandler's novels can be discerned in his stories, which served as a training ground for the author. Chandler himself said that if he had written too well for the pulp magazines, he would not have been published. His writing style and several opening scenes in his novels and short stories still elicit considerable admiration. Nevertheless the hard-boiled detective type and Chandler's use of metaphors and similes have been more often parodied than praised. The majority of critics acknowledge that Chandler's use of simile is somewhat overdone and that his writing is occasionally marred by sentimentality but most also note that his work has a literary sophistication, which some critics have remarked elevated the genre to the level of an art form. Throughout his career, critics have noted his weak plotting and narrative structure, pointing out that he preferred to develop character and style. Overall, it is for these latter two qualities, as well as for an arresting and gritty portrayal of southern California in the 1930s, that Chandler's works of short fiction are chiefly praised.
Source: Short Story Criticism, ©1996 Gale Cengage.

*********************

The problem of course is NEITHER one of us will be around long enough to KNOW whether or not what he's written will be able to WITH STAND the TEST of TIME and still be around 500 YEARS from now.

And the FACT also still remains that his stories deal with a PARTICULAR PLACE and TIME, rather than with UNIVERSAL SITUATIONS.

RIGHT franz???





http://classiclit.about.com/od/forbeginners/a/aa_whatisclass.htm

The definition of a "classic" can be a hotly debated topic. Depending on what you read, or the experience of the person you question on the topic, you may receive a wide range of answers. So, what is a "classic"--in the context of books and literature?

A classic usually expresses some artistic quality--an expression of life, truth, and beauty.

A classic stands the test of time. The work is usually considered to be a representation of the period in which it was written; and the work merits lasting recognition. In other words, if the book was published in the recent past, the work is not a classic.

A classic has a certain universal appeal. Great works of literature touch us to our very core beings--partly because they integrate themes that are understood by readers from a wide range of backgrounds and levels of experience. Themes of love, hate, death, life, and faith touch upon some of our most basic emotional responses.

A classic makes connections. You can study a classic and discover influences from other writers and other great works of literature. Of course, this is partly related to the universal appeal of a classic. But, the classic also is informed by the history of ideas and literature--whether unconsciously or specifically worked into the plot of the text.

So, now we have some background as to how a classic is defined. But, what about the book you are reading? Is it a classic?

reply

"Still be around 500 years from now".

500 years from now is a concept I´d rather not think of to begin with. Anyways, he´s admittedly & obviously not a giant like Faulkner or anything - but very few are. And 50+ years is pretty good in itself, especially considering his stature has been growing since his death and not vice versa.


"His stories deal with a particular place and time rather than with universal situations".

ALL stories, on their micro level, deal with a particular place and time. And, as mentioned, his writing is mostly not tangled up in strictly forwarding the plot & he thus gives himself ample time to dwell on those more "universal matters", drawing a rather complex picture of what it meant to be alive in that place at that time.

Maybe you should read some of his stuff before further discussing this... but considering your recent will to contradict me no matter what, I´m afraid you might be quite biased already...



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

My take on the word "classic" has mainly to do with the works´ stature, the respect it gets and how it´s regarded by the experts of the field (and, to a lesser extent, popularity amongst the non-experts). Which means that it´s something I´m not liable to contest since I do not perceive it to be my call as it were. Thus it´s different from "masterpiece" which I bloody well do see fit to contest in case I disagree. But this way will lead us hopelessly into a vast semantic swamp that no one will survive... As your quote says, it´s all highly debatable. But I´m sure it does have to possess a lot of the qualities cited above, in order to gain such stature.

What book am I reading? I finally took it upon myself to find out what Dickens is all about and picked up David Copperfield (I´ve always kinda dreaded the fat novels of 19th century realism... unless one counts Dostoyevsky as being part of it as his books practically read themselves). It´s not as dull as I feared. And before that I read a Raymond Carver short story compilation (some of these stories were weaved into Altman´s Short Cuts, of course). Not sure if Carver qualifies a "classic" author, given his stuff is written only some 25-35 years ago. Generally though I´ve been reading a lot less lately than I used to - and watching far more films.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply


Dickens isn't my favorite novelist either. Great Expectations is pretty good, but IMo, Dostoevsky is definitely a better writer. Which of his works have you read?

Never heard of Carver. Interesting how Altman weaved some of his stuff into SHORT CUTS.

Like you I've also been watching more films lately than reading.

MORRISON also started out wanting to be a POET, but then switched over to being a ROCK STAR instead.

So one could also say he SOLD OUT as well ... even though some of the stuff he's written still also has glipses of a poetic spirit in it?

But in the end what will his legacy be?

Definitely NOT that of a POET.

Right?




reply

"Great Expectations is very good".

David Lean´s film version of it has been waiting in line on my "to see" list for a couple of months; apparently, it´s supposed to be good (well, of course, so is Lawrence Of Arabia which I find silly and about as boring as anything I´ve seen. His chick-flick´y melodrama Brief Encounter´s pretty great though).


"Which of his works have you read".

Humiliated And Insulted, The House Of The Dead, Crime And Punishment and The Idiot out of the novels. And then some novellas such as Poor Folk, The Double: A Petersburg Poem, The Gambler etc. The thing to admire about Dostoyevsky is how entertaining and almost suspenseful his books are despite their enormous complexity and depth - pretty much every chapter finishes in sort of a cliffhanger manner that compels to keep reading on. In these regards his stuff is almost like some Agatha Christie whodunit in effect. He´s got his detractors, too, though - Nabokov in particular has dismissed his work as mediocre and light on substance.


"Interesting how Altman weaved some of his stuff into Short Cuts".

Actually, I sort of misspoke there - in fact, all but one storyline (the one concerning the jazz singer and her suicidal cellist daughter) in SC are from Carver´s short stories, although some of them are quite a bit altered. Carver´s work is very minimalistic, essentially a series of snapshots of modern life that don´t have much, if any, plot and where nothing particularly drastic ever happens. Can´t say I found these stories overly compelling myself though - as combined in Altman´s film, they certainly amount to much more.


"So one could also say he sold out".

Lynch originally wanted to be a painter, Kubrick started out as a photographer, Cronenberg´s first love was literature... so I guess they all sold out. And I don´t think Morrison´s, or his band´s, music ever showed any signs of pandering to the audience; in fact, it kept veering away from the kinda thing that made them superstars and ended up in more or less out-and-out blues in their final - and, imo, best - album L.A.Woman. Blues being lot more a niche thing than their original sound coming with that rebellious acid dropping hippy image. I don´t think The Doors is that awesome as I did when I was 18 or something, but it holds up pretty well overall.


"But in the end what will his legacy be? Definitely not that of a poet".

If he didn´t get involved in music, he would have no "legacy" to begin with because his poetry sucks - it´s mostly quite crude, juvenile and sentimental. It does, however, work well when accompanied by music - in fact, I can´t think of a single songwriter whose material would qualify as outstanding poetry when separated from the music. Even Bob Dylan´s texts - and Dylan´s often regarded as the best ever poet in popular music - isn´t anything particularly remarkable on paper.




"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

Saw the LEAN version but like the other more MODERN DAY VERSION of it that's IN COLOR and has all the GREEN TINT to it (along with other drawings).

Also LOVED the performance that Ann Bancroft gives in the COLOR VERSION.

The wife of the other guy who calls LYNCH JIMMY STEWART from MARS.

Ever see the NEWER VERSION of it??

Read the entire BROTHERS KARAMOZOV right here on line ... all 800 pages of it.

Can you believe it?

Here's another SHORTER STORY you might enjoy:


http://www.kiosek.com/dostoevsky/library/ridiculousman.txt

Please let me know if you like it or not.

JEREMY IRONS or KINGSLEY from IE also plays the part of the RIDICULOUS MAN and you can also watch that performance here on line at YOU TUBE.

Berny likes NABOKOV. We also discussed one of his books that I still have but haven't read. A first edition copy that was sold at a library sale.

Mr D will also always have first place in my heart instead of Mr. Lolita.

Have you seen OLIVE STONE'S version of THE DOORS?

In that film JIM gets PISSED when the other guys sell LIGHT MY FIRE and Jim hears it being sung on a TV COMMERCIAL.

But yes Jim's stuff was also pretty infantile.

What about SOUNDS of SILENCE?

Hello DARKNESS MY OLD FRIEND

I've come to talk to your again ...

In a vision that was ...

POETY???

YES?

NO?

MAYBE SO???




Hello darkness, my old friend
I've come to talk with you again
Because a vision softly creeping
Left its seeds while I was sleeping
And the vision that was planted in my brain
Still remains
Within the sound of silence

In restless dreams I walked alone
Narrow streets of cobblestone
'Neath the halo of a street lamp
I turned my collar to the cold and damp
When my eyes were stabbed by the flash of a neon light
That split the night
And touched the sound of silence

And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never share
And no one dared
Disturb the sound of silence

"Fools", said I, "You do not know
Silence like a cancer grows
Hear my words that I might teach you
Take my arms that I might reach you"
But my words, like silent raindrops fell
And echoed
In the wells of silence

And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon god they made
And the sign flashed out its warning
In the words that it was forming
And the sign said, "The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls
And tenement halls"
And whispered in the sounds of silence


reply

Haven´t seen any of the at least 6 Great Expectations adaptations.

I´m vaguely aware that, apparently, almost anything can also be read on the Net, but that´s really something I´d not want to do - staring at this green watching films or wand´ring about the cyberspace puts enough strain on the eyes already, but following the print for hours upon hours´s a murder. I´ll probably get around to reading just about anything Dostoyevsky, anyway, and all but the most obscure texts are available in my language as well (for some reason, I can´t really imagine reading a Russian author in English).

You seen the Lolita films? The second one, by that hack Adrian Lyne which also features Jeremy Irons whom you keep mentioning at every turn, is one wretched, ridiculous affair that can perhaps be viewed for the unintentional comedy. It´s essentially like bad poetry combined with soft porn. Kubrick´s film is stellar of course, even though not quite great perhaps. And despite Kubrick later regretting having made that film at that time (in 1962, his hands were obviously quite a bit tied when it came to depicting elements of his subject; amazing how quickly and radically things changed around Hollywood in 1960´s... who could have known), but Nabokov found his Lolita to be an excellent adaptation, even though there were disagreements during the pre-production.

I ain´t seen The Doors and frankly, I have no desire or intention of seeing any further films by that cinematic caveman Oliver Stone. All his films are cheesy, trite and heavy handed to boot while he himself thinks he´s making some deep and important art. He also has a penchant for particularly confused epics that are structurally and stylistically completely allover the place and seemingly entirely unsure as to what they´re supposed to be about. Salvador and Wall Street ´87 are decent & OK, but the rest I´ve seen is pretty awful (also, for such a supposedly left leaning guy as he likes to be regarded, World Trade Center is bafflingly reactionary and jingoistic). So screw The Doors the film.

Sound Of Silence of course automatically brings to mind The Graduate - and the aforementioned Anne Bancroft. The lyrics transcribed is like your usual deal - nothing on paper. And I´ve never been a Simon & Carfunkel fan, either. Talking of music though... I very vaguely seem to remember that on some Lynch board, probably IE, some 2-3 years ago, you mentioned you´d once been lucky enough to have attended a Frank Zappa live? Is my memory completely fouled up on this particular point, or... not? If not then, as a big FZ enthusiast for some 15 years, I infinitely envy you.




"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

Yes I've seen Zappa in concert ... but was also never really an enthusiast of his work ... just got exposed to it by way of friends who constantly would play it ... and thus also eventually being taken to a concert by a boyfriend who also liked him.

You read RUSSIAN franz? Cool. There's an interesting passage in BROTHERS that conveys very nicely what's being said ... and makes the point ... even in English. Will try to find it and post it here later.


Yes saw the older version and newer versions of LOLITA (but mostly the OLDER version which also plays more often on TV). Does it seem Jeremy keeps being mentioned? Sorry about that ... it's just that film version of the RIDICULOUS MAN popped up while doing a search for the TEXT. Otherwise he's not really on my mind.

THE DOORS is a really interesting film. You should check it out sometime. It's also full of SURREALISM, because it begins with JIM as a child when he's in the back of the car with his other 2 sleeping siblings, as his parents drive cross country.

Then JIM also WAKES Up to see the AUTO ACCIDENT on the HIGHWAY, where someone's HIT some INDIANS who were walking along that road.

Later in an interview Jim also tells the WITCH he marries about that accident and how SOULS were FLOATING around in the BREEZE and ONE of them LEAPS into HIM.

Then throughout the rest of the film you also see these GHOSTLY figures of those INDIANS dancing with JIM on stage during his concerts, and appearing to him when he goes out into the desert with the other band members where he takes peyote, stumbles into a CAVE, and sees a FUTERISTIC vision of his death in Paris.

The INDIANS also appear when he visits and meets ANDY WARHOL, where he also encounters his DOPPLEGANGER, and they also appear again just before PAM finds Jim's body in the bath tub.

The film also gives credit to one of the books one of the band members has written, but imo, it also more closely follows what's been written in another book called:

NO ONE HERE GETS OUT ALIVE

If you don't want to watch Stone's film version, at least check out that story.

It also begins with JIM as a child. He's on SLED with his other 2 siblings, rushing down a hill full of SNOW, with NO intention of STOPPING, prior to his being stopped from killing all of them with his NON STOP RECKLESS behavior which also continues into adulthood.

There's also another interesting YOU TUBE clip of his father where one can also see the reason why Jim was the way he was, because when they ask this man about his son, he's also VERY CRITICAL of him and has almost NOTHING whatsoever nice to say about him.

So one can also UNDERSTAND the reason why JIM was ACTING OUT all the time.

That's too bad you don't seem to comprehend what the LYRICS of the SOUNDS of SILENCE song are saying, because imo, that's definitely also POETRY.

Isn't that NEON SIGN that FLASHES OUT it's WARNING also pretty much the same kind of WARNING that LYNCH gives us about the HOLLYWOOD MACHINE or FACTORY SYSTEM and the kind of damage that it can cause for someone who gets TRAPPED inside of it?

Doesn't that NEON SIGN with its WARNING also symbolize the same kind of a WARNING that HANEKE seems to be suggesting to the viewer here in his film HIDDEN?




Anne in GREAT EXPECTATIONS Here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECyl4taufVw


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YilOOvH12Oc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wYJUbOGmgk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=p-5SaBmZWj8&NR=1

ANNE is kinda like a FEAMLE version of BOB from TWIN PEAKS due to the way she INFLICTS upon the YOUNG BOY the SAME kind of PAIN that was previously inflicted upon her as a YOUNGER woman.


Nabokov in particular has dismissed his work as mediocre and light on substance.



A summary and Some BROTHER'S QUOTES from CHAP 4 HERE where what Mr. D has to say is anything but MEDIOCRE and LIGHT on SUBSTANCE:




Summary—Chapter 4: Rebellion

The two brothers begin to discuss questions of God’s existence and the immortality of the soul. Ivan says that, in his heart, he has not rejected God, but that at the same time he feels himself unable to accept God or the world that God has created. Ivan says that he can love humanity in the abstract, but that, when he meets individual men and women, he finds it impossible to love them. Moreover, he is deeply troubled by the injustice of suffering on Earth. He asks Alyosha how a just God could permit the suffering of children, creatures too young even to have sinned. He says that to love such a God would be the equivalent of a tortured man choosing to love his torturer

http://www.classicreader.com/book/276/35/



One can love one's neighbours in the abstract, or even at a distance, but at close quarters it's almost impossible. If it were as on the stage, in the ballet, where if beggars come in, they wear silken rags and tattered lace and beg for alms dancing gracefully, then one might like looking at them. But even then we should not love them. But enough of that. I simply wanted to show you my point of view. I meant to speak of the suffering of mankind generally, but we had better confine ourselves to the sufferings of the children. That reduces the scope of my argument to a tenth of what it would be. Still we'd better keep to the children, though it does weaken my case. But, in the first place, children can be loved even at close quarters, even when they are dirty, even when they are ugly (I fancy, though, children never are ugly). The second reason why I won't speak of grown-up people is that, besides being disgusting and unworthy of love, they have a compensation -- they've eaten the apple and know good and evil, and they have become 'like gods.' They go on eating it still. But the children haven't eaten anything, and are so far innocent. Are you fond of children, Alyosha? I know you are, and you will understand why I prefer to speak of them. If they, too, suffer horribly on earth, they must suffer for their fathers' sins, they must be punished for their fathers, who have eaten the apple; but that reasoning is of the other world and is incomprehensible for the heart of man here on earth. The innocent must not suffer for another's sins, and especially such innocents! You may be surprised at me, Alyosha, but I am awfully fond of children, too. And observe, cruel people, the violent, the rapacious, the Karamazovs are sometimes very fond of children. Children while they are quite little -- up to seven, for instance -- are so remote from grown-up people they are different creatures, as it were, of a different species.

"You speak with a strange air," observed Alyosha uneasily, "as though you were not quite yourself."

"By the way, a Bulgarian I met lately in Moscow," Ivan went on, seeming not to hear his brother's words, "told me about the crimes committed by Turks and Circassians in all parts of Bulgaria through fear of a general rising of the Slavs. They burn villages, murder, outrage women and children, they nail their prisoners by the ears to the fences, leave them so till morning, and in the morning they hang them -- all sorts of things you can't imagine. People talk sometimes of bestial cruelty, but that's a great injustice and insult to the beasts; a beast can never be so cruel as a man, so artistically cruel. The tiger only tears and gnaws, that's all he can do. He would never think of nailing people by the ears, even if he were able to do it.

These Turks took a pleasure in torturing children, -too; cutting the unborn child from the mothers womb, and tossing babies up in the air and catching them on the points of their bayonets before their mothers' eyes. Doing it before the mothers' eyes was what gave zest to the amusement. Here is another scene that I thought very interesting. Imagine a trembling mother with her baby in her arms, a circle of invading Turks around her. They've planned a diversion: they pet the baby, laugh to make it laugh. They succeed, the baby laughs. At that moment a Turk points a pistol four inches from the baby's face. The baby laughs with glee, holds out its little hands to the pistol, and he pulls the trigger in the baby's face and blows out its brains. Artistic, wasn't it? By the way, Turks are particularly fond of sweet things, they say."

"Brother, what are you driving at?" asked Alyosha.

"I think if the devil doesn't exist, but man has created him, he has created him in his own image and likeness."

"Just as he did God, then?" observed Alyosha.

"'It's wonderful how you can turn words,' as Polonius says in Hamlet," laughed Ivan. "You turn my words against me. Well, I am glad. Yours must be a fine God, if man created Him in his image and likeness. You asked just now what I was driving at. You see, I am fond of collecting certain facts, and, would you believe, I even copy anecdotes of a certain sort from newspapers and books, and I've already got a fine collection. The Turks, of course, have gone into it, but they are foreigners. I have specimens from home that are even better than the Turks

This poor child of five was subjected to every possible torture by those cultivated parents. They beat her, thrashed her, kicked her for no reason till her body was one bruise. Then, they went to greater refinements of cruelty -- shut her up all night in the cold and frost in a privy, and because she didn't ask to be taken up at night (as though a child of five sleeping its angelic, sound sleep could be trained to wake and ask), they smeared her face and filled her mouth with excrement, and it was her mother, her mother did this. And that mother could sleep, hearing the poor child's groans! Can you understand why a little creature, who can't even understand what's done to her, should beat her little aching heart with her tiny fist in the dark and the cold, and weep her meek unresentful tears to dear, kind God to protect her? Do you understand that, friend and brother, you pious and humble novice? Do you understand why this infamy must be and is permitted? Without it, I am told, man could not have existed on earth, for he could not have known good and evil. Why should he know that diabolical good and evil when it costs so much? Why, the whole world of knowledge is not worth that child's prayer to dear, kind God'! I say nothing of the sufferings of grown-up people, they have eaten the apple, damn them, and the devil take them all! But these little ones! I am making you suffer, Alyosha, you are not yourself. I'll leave off if you like."
"Nevermind. I want to suffer too," muttered Alyosha.

One picture, only one more, because it's so curious, so characteristic, and I have only just read it in some collection of Russian antiquities. I've forgotten the name. I must look it up. It was in the darkest days of serfdom at the beginning of the century, and long live the Liberator of the People! There was in those days a general of aristocratic connections, the owner of great estates, one of those men -- somewhat exceptional, I believe, even then -- who, retiring from the service into a life of leisure, are convinced that they've earned absolute power over the lives of their subjects. There were such men then. So our general, settled on his property of two thousand souls, lives in pomp, and domineers over his poor neighbours as though they were dependents and buffoons. He has kennels of hundreds of hounds and nearly a hundred dog-boys -- all mounted, and in uniform. One day a serf-boy, a little child of eight, threw a stone in play and hurt the paw of the general's favourite hound.

'Why is my favourite dog lame?' He is told that the boy threw a stone that hurt the dog's paw. 'So you did it.' The general looked the child up and down. 'Take him.' He was taken -- taken from his mother and kept shut up all night. Early that morning the general comes out on horseback, with the hounds, his dependents, dog-boys, and huntsmen, all mounted around him in full hunting parade. The servants are summoned for their edification, and in front of them all stands the mother of the child. The child is brought from the lock-up. It's a gloomy, cold, foggy, autumn day, a capital day for hunting. The general orders the child to be undressed; the child is stripped naked. He shivers, numb with terror, not daring to cry....

'Make him run,' commands the general. 'Run! run!' shout the dog-boys. The boy runs.... 'At him!' yells the general, and he sets the whole pack of hounds on the child. The hounds catch him, and tear him to pieces before his mother's eyes!... I believe the general was afterwards declared incapable of administering his estates. Well -- what did he deserve? To be shot? To be shot for the satisfaction of our moral feelings? Speak, Alyosha!

"To be shot," murmured Alyosha, lifting his eyes to Ivan with a pale, twisted smile.

"Bravo!" cried Ivan delighted. "If even you say so... You're a pretty monk! So there is a little devil sitting in your heart, Alyosha Karamazov!"

"What I said was absurd, but-"

"That's just the point, that 'but'!" cried Ivan. "Let me tell you, novice, that the absurd is only too necessary on earth. The world stands on absurdities, and perhaps nothing would have come to pass in it without them. We know what we know!"

"What do you know?"

"I understand nothing," Ivan went on, as though in delirium. "I don't want to understand anything now.


*****************************

Would you place this stuff into the MEDIOCRE or LIGHT on SUBSTANCE CATEGORY???

One has to also wonder whether or not MR. N ever really read MR. D for his to have said such a thing.



LYNCH is also suppose to have donated some of his books by MR. D to the CLUB of SILENCE in Paris.










reply

So the Zappa concert... what was it, the final 1988 tour where he used to perform these hilarious Beatles covers with the lyrics pertaining to the then-current political shenanigans?

No, sorry, I didn´t mean to give the impression that I can read Russian (well I can technically, and I probably know enough of the language - thanks to obligatory Russian lessons in the last years of Soviet Union as well as nearly 1/3 of my country being natively Russian-speaking - to generally survive in Russia, but that´s not even close to being able to read Dostoyevsky in the original language).

That dead Indian spirit mumbo-jumbo was, of course, something Morrison seems to have been obsessed with as it´s also mentioned in a couple of his songs. Maybe someone else will make another film of him & his band. I´ll watch that.

I don´t "understand" Sound Of Silence? Maybe so. It´s poetry all right, but no better at that than anything written by Morrison and it certainly fails to make much of an impression on paper. Either way, I may be wrong, of course, but I don´t see how it´s so much about what you seem to think it´s about... and how are these "warnings" so crucially relevant to The Graduate, anyway (as it was specifically written for the film). And what particular "warning" are you talking about in regards to Cache?

I think it´s disingenious to accuse Nabokov of not having read Dostoyevsky - these big artists often tend to have rather peculiar, individualistic ways of looking at things and I´m sure Nabokov could have put forth a well reasoned critique of Dostoyevsky had he wanted to (maybe he did, haven´t really looked into it), agree with it or not. It´s a little like these great (mainly) European filmmakers that were constantly bickering amongst themselves and dismissing each other´s work in pretty rude terms. Great artists do not always make for great art critics.

I´ve seen pictures of that Parisienne Club Silencio and it looks like a bad case of kitsch. If Lynch himself really designed it, his artistic sensibilities seem indeed to be in serious decline.




"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

Sorry franz, don't really remember that much about his concert other than sitting way over to the SIDE of the STAGE where one could see him up close, but not having been a fan of his work, not really paying that much attention to him.

After hearing one song about his having had sex with a girl prior to his having sex with her sister, one tends to TUNE OUT after that. It was probably also still the 70's rather than the 80's when the concert took place in PITTSBURG.

You said some of Jim's poetry was immature ... one could also say the same of some of ZAPPA's stuff?

Several years ago a former KGB agent was nice enough to give me a few basic lessons in Russian. He also use to IM me using my own name and ask if I believed in ALTER EGOS. Funny guy!

And no one gave a damn about his using MY NAME, but as soon as he'd use the name of a CELEBRITY, WHAM, they'd CLOSE that account and BUMP him offline.

When they'd tell him he couldn't use that Celebrity hame, he'd also ask them SAYS WHO???

At least RUSSIANS also seem to have the SENSE of HUMOR that so many Americans seem to LACK these days!




Maybe MORRISON was POSSESSED by the SPIRIT of that INDIAN who died?

Maybe it really did LEAP into HIM ... sorta like the same way as BOB LEAPS into the SOUL of LELAND PALMER in TWIN PEAKS???

Jim was definitely a WILD CHILD for some reason. After having watched that clip of his father, one can also imagine a part of the reason why he was the way he was? The man seems as COLD as ICE. Even watching that tape of him gives one A CHILL. Can't begin to imagine what LIVING with him would have been like. Probably not a very pleasant kind of EXPERIENCE? Especially for a CHILD as sensitive as Jim was to his surroundings???



It's that FLASH of the NEON LIGHT that SPLITS the night.

The kind of WARNING it gives may also have something to do with the PROTESTS that we see taking place today?

Back during the time the song was written we had the VIET NAM situation.

TODAY we have the OCCUPY WALL STREET Situation.

So perhaps we could also end up like the ANCIENT ROMANS?

Remember how they use to have their BREAD and CIRCUS as entertainment in their STADIUM?

Remember how they'd FEED the CHRISTIANS to the LIONS for their source of ENTERTAINMENT?

The EMPERORS who did this to keep the HUNGRY MASSES Entertained enough so they didn't ATTACK and EAT THEM instead?

How long before our STADIUMS are filled with THE WALL STREET CROOKS and the other BAILED OUT BANKERS being FED to some LIONS???


That's probably the kind of WARNING that the NEON SIGN would FLASH OUT today???

Remember how they also discuss the FUTURE of PLASTICS in the GRADUATE?

TODAY our oceans are also FULL of this stuff. If you go out to the MIDDLE of the PACIFIC and SCOOP of a gallon full of water, you'll also see it swimming with GOO which is composed mostly of a kind of PLASTIC SOUP.

So that could also have been the other kind of WARNING the SIGN was FLASHING OUT back then?

Sorta like the case where CHIEF SEATTLE also gave us his WARNING???



IN CACHE we also see WARNINGS as well. One finds them in those POSTERS in the boy's bedroom.

Have you read the CINEMA AS SENSES article yet?

GREAT STUFF!

Yes perhaps it was UNFAIR to attack Mr. N for the way he attacks Mr. D.



But what's been posted also PROVES MR. D wasn't the SENTIMENTAL type Mr. N claims he was?

Right?

That CONVERSATION between those 2 BROTHERS is one of the best things I've ever seen to illustrate MAN'S INHUMANITY to MAN and especially to CHILDREN (a theme also found in HIDDEN).




In addition to having books from LYNCH'S own library, The CLUB of SILENCE in PARIS is also suppose to have a SCREENING room where one can watch his films?

Hopefully that LIBRARY and FILM room would also have more COMFY furniture in them?

The other furniture is probably also there as a way to try to get rid of those who are mainly there as a way to GET DRUNK? Because maybe the furniture leaves them NOT feeling COMFY enough to want to stick around there drinking by that BAR for very long?

Don't DRUNKS also tend to make lots of NOISE?

So the SILENT CLUB would also no longer be SILENT anymore with them around???





http://www.barefootsworld.net/seattle.html

VIDEO version here:

http://www.halcyon.com/arborhts/chiefsea.html

CHIEF SEATTLE'S LETTER
(where he FLASHED OUT a WARNING):



"The President in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy our land. But how can you buy or sell the sky? the land? The idea is strange to us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them?

Every part of the earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every meadow, every humming insect. All are holy in the memory and experience of my people.

We know the sap which courses through the trees as we know the blood that courses through our veins. We are part of the earth and it is part of us. The perfumed flowers are our sisters. The bear, the deer, the great eagle, these are our brothers. The rocky crests, the dew in the meadow, the body heat of the pony, and man all belong to the same family.

The shining water that moves in the streams and rivers is not just water, but the blood of our ancestors. If we sell you our land, you must remember that it is sacred. Each glossy reflection in the clear waters of the lakes tells of events and memories in the life of my people. The water's murmur is the voice of my father's father.

The rivers are our brothers. They quench our thirst. They carry our canoes and feed our children. So you must give the rivers the kindness that you would give any brother.

If we sell you our land, remember that the air is precious to us, that the air shares its spirit with all the life that it supports. The wind that gave our grandfather his first breath also received his last sigh. The wind also gives our children the spirit of life. So if we sell our land, you must keep it apart and sacred, as a place where man can go to taste the wind that is sweetened by the meadow flowers.

Will you teach your children what we have taught our children? That the earth is our mother? What befalls the earth befalls all the sons of the earth.

This we know:


the earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the earth. All things are connected like the blood that unites us all. Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.

One thing we know: our God is also your God. The earth is precious to him and to harm the earth is to heap contempt on its creator.

Your destiny is a mystery to us. What will happen when the buffalo are all slaughtered? The wild horses tamed? What will happen when the secret corners of the forest are heavy with the scent of many men and the view of the ripe hills is blotted with talking wires? Where will the thicket be? Gone! Where will the eagle be? Gone! And what is to say goodbye to the swift pony and then hunt?

The end of living and the beginning of survival.

When the last red man has vanished with this wilderness, and his memory is only the shadow of a cloud moving across the prairie, will these shores and forests still be here? Will there be any of the spirit of my people left?

We love this earth as a newborn loves its mother's heartbeat. So, if we sell you our land, love it as we have loved it. Care for it, as we have cared for it. Hold in your mind the memory of the land as it is when you receive it. Preserve the land for all children, and love it, as God loves us.
As we are part of the land, you too are part of the land. This earth is precious to us. It is also precious to you.

One thing we know - there is only one God. No man, be he Red man or White man, can be apart. We ARE all brothers after all."


reply

Since the song you mention was probably Dinah-Moe Humm, which to my knowledge was never performed after the 70´s... well, it musta been the 70´s. It´s an amusing track in a way, although not necessarily in very good taste - but then again Zappa never had any use for propriety, anyway (even his biggest fans have noted that his sense of humor sometimes breached even the broadest boundaries of good taste). And of course a lot of his lyrics were "immature"; however, the difference between him and other "poets" & assorted hippies of rock music was that he was keenly aware of that. Being the most potent and prolific satirist in rock history as he was (well, alongside Spinal Tap & Weird Al Yankovich, anyway), he often took to mocking not only the overtly serious, pseudo-philosophical musings coming out of your regular rock/pop frontman´s mouth, but the whole idea of pop music by all means needing lyrics to accompany it, by deliberately writing the silliest texts he could think of. Either that, or just telling various unassumingly fun "tales from the road". I think the only instances where he was entirely serious about his lyrics, was when he had something political to say; for instance, he seemed genuinely worried about the grim prospect of Pat Robertson possibly becoming the president in 1988 - even if it was expressed with characteristic loads of humor.

You mean Senses Of Cinema...? Sometime, a year or two ago, something happened to that site and since then all but a few articles disappeared from it, leaving mainly the Great Directors section intact. So I ain´t seen the Cache article, but I´ll try later if I can find it.

I´m not informed of the degree of comfort Lynchian furniture has to offer, but the design of his club looks rather disappointing. And I don´t believe your average drunkards wouldn´t be much tempted to spend time in a place like that, anyway.




"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

Can't remember ANYTHING he played in Concert, so the song was probably played by someone else I knew (Zappa was very popular in PA and in VA among the younger men).

What about that other song called Ms. Pinky?

Listening to it one can also see the reason why what he had to say wouldn't appeal that much to a young woman?



Yes the SENSES of CINEMA article is a VERY GOOD one. It also talks about the POSTERS on the bedroom wall and many other interesting things about how they record the swimming meet of the young son, etc.

So those POSTERS are also another form of the FLASH of a NEON SIGN (so to speak).

Juliette is also in another good film called SUMMER HOURS which is about the BREAK UP of the OLD WAY of life in France ... due to the way her mother also lived in an Estate much like the one where the mother of George lives.

Then it also explores how 2 of the 3 offspring who inherit the place have NO INTEREST in it or in keeping it after the death of their mother (due to the way they've MOVED ON to living completely DIFFERENT ways of life that no longer have anything to do with a FEUDAL way of life ... or a life where one still has SERVANTS that wait upon one's MASTER).

Yes perhaps the DRUNKS wouldn't be there in the first place due to the way the place also requires one to pay some pretty STIFF DUES to become a member?

But they also LET NON MEMBERS inside of it AFTER MIDNITE. Perhaps that's also when the other CELEBRITIES who go there turn back into PUMPKINS and RABBITS again???

So then no one else who arrives would be able to recognize them?







DISINHERTED CHILDREN.


the Swimming Pool Lessons are like a FACTORY SETTING

in the past the family use to sit around the PIANO while the father of George would play it.

When he goes to visit his mother, she also tells George she misses the SOUND of the PIANO.

So the SWIMMING CONTEST also becomes a CONTRAST of one way of life (from the past) to another completely different way of life (in the present).

Here's some passages:



the scene where he visits his mother offers us, without sentimentality, a glimpse of a bygone age. It evokes a sense of loss for a past when the pace of life could accommodate a different way of being in the world – a time when people didn’t fret so much about being alone or old, and when the family piano was both a source of individual creativity and collective pleasure. The changed relationship between us and culture is made clear by this scene.

The scenes at what we assume are the school swimming pool are also indicators of different times. It is clear that the modern mania for seeking the “best” for children in order that they become the “best” is part of the kind of aspiration-driven society that would have been alien to Georges’ parents. A corporate ethos of winners and losers underpins the kind of hothouse training that we see in progress, and it’s telling that the only moment of shared joy between Georges and Anne is the one when Pierrot wins his race. They’re a couple (in terms of being in unison) only on two occasions, both of which are at the swimming pool (the site for them of “positive” things), where we see them in two-shots that indicate their temporary closeness. (9)

An abrupt cut from the dingy, desaturated lighting of the shabby café in Majid’s neighbourhood to the hard bright light of the swimming pool also serves to mark a shift into another world, and it is one of a number of times that Haneke uses contrasting environments to indicate the social divide between classes and communities.


The laboratory-like character of the swimming training and the reverberating (this is no small local pool), detached, intercom-relayed voice of the instructor, whom we don’t see, link to the movie’s themes of alienation and surveillance but, rather than conveying essential plot-related information, they imply that scientific management with a Taylorist dimension (the conveyor-belt production of the “swimmer”) has permeated even the childhood experience of sport. And, in the swimming carnival scene, people are seen documenting the race with their cameras, so there is also the suggestion of a new technology-engendered, mediated relationship between spectator and “live” event.




reply

What about Ms Pinky? It was about an inflatable sex doll if I remember correctly, so why would it be offensive to women? And interesting you should mention it because it is a very little known track, nowhere near FZ´s best work. Also, judging by the impressive amounts of female underpants he collected during the concerts, one would have to conclude there were at least a few female FZ fans out there.

Where exactly are these excerpts taken from? It´s not from the Great Directors introductory article and the only other article where it could reasonably be, previously accessible via that page, is "not found". But yes, Haneke always has had two main obsessions - media and violence and the way they´re linked to each other in the modern world. Cache takes up both and does so without the overt didacticism of the trite, offensively condescending Funny Games (the on-the-nose manner of presentation & sort of a "muted shock value" that often mar his films, are only occasionally in evidence here - in fact, Georges´s suicide is probably the only somewhat ridiculously over-the-top moment in Cache). Haneke can be pretty subtle at times, if he tries, but he´s always been a bit of a shock-jock at heart - I was quite surprised once to find out that the almost ludicrously provocative The Piano Teacher was directed by a 60-year old and not some young gun fresh out of puberty.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

When searching for a history of his lyrics for some reason that one pops up.

The reason why it would be offensive is due to the way he MAKES FUN of his WIFE while he's busy using it.

So it also seems to be some kind of a SUBSTITUTE for his taking out some kind of AGGRESSION that he feels for his wife on this DOLL?

You know ... sorta like the way in which a LITTLE GIRL who's been yelled at might also take her Doll and YELL at it ... in the same way in which she's also been YELLED at?

Only this is more like SIMULATED RAPE of that DOLL that he's using and abusing sexually?

And how do you know it was FEMALES throwing those UNDERWARE up on the STAGE???

Coulda been anybody ... maybe a group of CROSS DRESSERS who were doing it?

CAN'T recall any females who ever played or listened to his stuff. Lots of the males were INTO him and what he had to say though.



Someone else posted the CINEMA as SENSES link here. Sorry to hear it doesn't work anymore.

Did you try doing a search for it?

THE TITLE of it is DISINHERITED CHILDREN.

The PIANO TEACHER is another very interesting film about the way in which a

PUPIL can TURN on one's teacher.

Will be back with another link to the article ... if one is still available where you can read it.

HERE it is:


http://www.sensesofcinema.com/2007/42/hidden/

Let me know if it works or not.



reply

Yes, FZ was a major hit with the transvestite community world over, led by his biggest fan, the ever-voracious Ed Wood Jr.

How do I know about the women´s underwear? Because FZ announced at the beginning of his shows that he´s out to collect these items and instructed them to be thrown on stage.

The only things we learn about the first-person narrator´s wife in Ms Pinky, is that she "talks back" and isn´t apparently much impressed with the narrator in bed. How can one read it as making fun of his wife, is anybody´s guess. And even if it made fun of her - so what? I recall in some interview, FZ was actually asked about the "misogyny" some of his lyrics supposedly exhibit, to which he replied something along the lines that "women do stupid things the same as men, so why treat them any different?" He didn´t do anyone any favours and I can think of only one or two cases where his satire arguably took on unnecessarily nasty overtones.

I actually did find the article question, using the exact coordinates - for some reason, the Great Directors page doesn´t have that link. I´ll try to read it in near future and then see...

It´s been a long while since I last saw the film, but to say that the pupil "turned on" his teacher in The Piano Teacher, is quite an oversimplification of course... but then again, the whole film was pitched on a somewhat annoyingly hysterical, attention seeking level. In the hindsight, I´m not really sure as to what to think of the film, except that it occasionally seemed to go further with its shock tactics than necessary. I guess I´ll need to see it again sometime. What other Haneke films have you seen btw? One number that´s been waiting in line, is the 2000 Code Unknown which, allegedly, once more deals with mediated violence.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

I got a girl with a little rubber head
Rinse her out every night just before I go to bed
She never talked back like a lady might do
And she looks like she loves it every time I get through

And her name is P-I-N-K-Y
P-I-N no lie
K-Y me-oh-my
She's 69 - 95, give her a try
P-I-N-K-Y
P-I-N I cry
K-Y don't be shy
69 - 95 boy, give her a try

Her eyes 's all shut in an ecstasy face
You can cram it down her throat, people, any old place
Throw a little switch on her battery pack
[- From: http://www.elyrics.net/read/f/frank-zappa-lyrics/ms.-pinky-lyrics.html -]
You can poot it, you can shoot it till your wife gets back

And her name is P-I-N-K-Y
P-I-N I cry
K-Y don't be shy
69 - 95 boy, give her a try

I got a girl with a little rubber head
Rinse her out every night just before I go to bed
She never talked back like a lady might do
And she looks like she loves it every time I get through

Her eyes 's all shut in an ecstasy face
You can cram it down her throat, people, any old place
Throw a little switch on her battery pack
You can poot it, you can shoot it till your wife gets back
You can poot it, you can shoot it till your wife gets back
You can poot it, you can shoot it till your wife gets back
You can poot it, you can shoot it till your wife gets back
You can poot it, you can shoot it till your wife gets back
You can poot it, you can shoot it till your wife gets back


******************

It NEVER talks back like a WOMAN would ...

Looks like it loves what he does (meaning a woman would not)

Why would the wife getting back prevent him from doing what he wants to it?

Why does he feel he needs to HIDE what he does to the doll from her?

*******************

Imagine if a woman wrote lyrics about chopping off the private part of a male ...

like the way the wife of one guy did ...

and brags about how much doing so gave her pleasure?

Wouldn't that also be disrespectful and considered to be bad taste?

As for the UNDERWARE, since HE INSTRUCTS these people to thrown them at him, this also sounds pretty much like the situation with PROFESSIONAL WRESTLING, where everything they do is REHEARSED, PHONY, and PLANNED beforehand.

So the DISPLAY of PANTIES being thrown at him is probably also just as FAKE, and he's probably also PAID for the painties, and PAID the group of people throwing them at him to throw them.

Think about it. Would you want people throwing underware at you that could contain all kinds of HEATH HAZZARDs? Those painties could be INFECTED with many things such as LICE, or HIV, and contain blood stains from women having their monthly periods, etc.

They could also be full of urine and FECES as well. Or even the SPERM of other men.

So that's why it would also MAKE MORE SENSE TO stage that kind of a display rather than have it be REAL.

Sorry about the other confusion:

Got THE PIANO TEACHER confused with another film where some woman hires another YOUNG woman to TURN her music for her while she plays piano. So haven't seen this other HANEKE film yet, and was referring to another different film.

I've seen THE WHITE RIBBON though.

Hope you like article about the DISINHERITED CHILDREN. It's full of lots of interesting ideas. The people who wrote it have a good eye for details. Really well written and worth reading ... at least imo it is.










reply

"Imagine if a woman wrote lyrics about chopping off the private part of a male".

Since no FZ song I can think of contains any reference to mutilation, I´m not sure what the relevance of this question is here... but as long as it´s not actually acted upon in real life... and is humorously presented, why would I or anyone else care one way or another? At the very least, I wouldn´t be outraged. You also seem to be missing that the song is actually mocking the dumb sh-t with the rubber woman, not his wife or anyone else (there´s another song on Zoot Allures, called Wino Man, which assumes the POV of a dribbling street bum... would we similarly have to assume that it´s about FZ´s own experiences, thoughts and attitudes?)


"Why would the wife getting back prevent him from doing what he wants to do?"

Now, you´re not trying hard enough - I think you could come up with an even siilier question if you gave it a real effort. I mean, are you kidding me? And if you pardon me, I wouldn´t really like to comment on the somewhat... preposterous speculations pertaining to the underwear - not sure what your agenda is, but if you´re out to prove Zappa had no female fans, then... yeah, whatever. And we already established he wasn´t always "in good taste", exactly, and certainly NOT for the easily offended. So that shouldn´t be a point of contention. Beyond that, I´m not sure we´re going to agree on anything here...



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

The topic of Zappa began with your ENVY of the fact that I had actually SEEN HIM in Concert.

The point being made is NOT EVERYONE who was there was there because they were a FAN of his work or what he had to say, and 2 of his songs (the first one where he has SEX with some girl before he has sex with her SISTER), have also been presented to you as examples of reasons why what he had to say wasn't of interest to me because of the CONTENT of what he's saying in those songs.

The other point was not recalling ANY FEMALES ever putting on one of his records and listening to it (although recalling SEVERAL MALES who ADMIRED HIM and would play his stuff all the time ... mostly this stuff that's full of SEXUAL REFERENCES that wouldn't hold much interest for a FEMALE).

Then you brought up the fact that he had FEMALES throwing their UNDERWARE up on STAGE at him, and that he ENCOURAGED them to do so.

So you were also given several reasons why one can't IMAGINE the reason why anyone would ever REQUEST FEMALES to do such a thing.

The reference to the song about MUTILATION of the body part of a MALE was to demonstrate how the other reference he's making in the Ms. Pinky song to SIMULATED RAPE isn't amusing or funny in any way for a FEMALE.

And IF a FEMALE got up on stage ... and sang a song about such a SUBJECT ... and encouraged other FEMALES to throw some FAKE RUBBER PRIVATE PARTS of MALES up on stage at her while she sang the song ... then chances are MALES in the audience probably also wouldn't feel very comfortable or LIKE IT very much???

Because the subject matter would definitely be one that is in POOR TASTE and would be one that would be DISRESPECTFUL to the MALE members who were sitting in that audience at that time.

That's the MAIN point, and EXAGGERATION was used (like JOHNATHAN SWIFT uses in A MODEST PROPOSAL when he suggests the HUNGRY poor people CARVE UP, COOK, and EAT their OWN OFFSPRING as a way to solve their HUNGER problems).

In other words, SWIFT also uses PARODY as a way to try to get his POINT across.


I´m not sure what the relevance of this question is here... but as long as it´s not actually acted upon in real life... and is humorously presented, why would I or anyone else care one way or another? At the very least, I wouldn´t be outraged. You also seem to be missing that the song is actually mocking the dumb sh-t with the rubber woman, not his wife or anyone else




That's also the POINT that's being made ... how one DOES NOT care for his kind of HUMOR ... or for his CONCERT ... or the kinds of songs that he presented and sang at them. In other words, NOT everyone who was there was there because they LIKED or APPROVED of his performance.

Did anyone mention being OUTRAGED?

Instead of feeling OUTRAGED, one mostly feels EMBARASSED for him, the same way as you feel about JIM and the IMMATURITY of his POETRY.

What's the difference between MOCKING the FAKE RUBBER PARTS of a WOMAN'S BODY or MOCKING the FAKE RUBBER PARTS of the MALE BODY?

And WHY haven't we ever seen a WOMAN up on stage doing anything like this before? Or asking other women in the audience to THROW the FAKE BODY PARTS of MALES up onto the STAGE at her?

When one takes a situation and INVERTS it, often times that can also be a way to effectively get the POINT one is making across to another person.

But if the attempt has failed, and you fail to see it, then perhaps there's also no further point in discussing ZAPPA or his songs or concerts anymore?

Please let me know HOW you like the ARTICLE about the DISINHERITED CHILDREN, or if you DO NOT like it please also FEEL FREE to let me know the reason(s) WHY you don't approve of it or what's been written in it.















reply

"Several reasons why one can´t imagine the reason why anyone would ever request females to do such a thing".

One has limited imagination, then - it´s because FZ was soo-oo perverted...


"Simulated rape isn´t amusing or funny".

Firstly, I don´t think buggering a rubber doll is or should be called a "rape" in the first place. Secondly, it isn´t even in the same ballpark with mutilation. Thirdly, I´m getting fed up with this stupid argument over the particularities of a silly and simple rock song (for the record, I don´t think it´s particularly funny, or among FZ´s wittier numbers, either). Fourthly, writing this here caused me to miss Bayern´s second goal.


"Because the subject matter would definitely be one that is in poor taste".

World would be very boring if everything were in "good taste". Shove the good taste. That is all.

Btw FZ also released lots of instrumental music, both for guitar as well as orchestral material, maybe these would suit your sensibilities better (although even some of these instrumental numbers have curious titles such as Sexual Harrassment In The Workplace etc; hilariously, FZ was so notorious that even those albums of his which contained no lyrics whatsoever, were stamped with the parental advisory warning).

I´ll get around to Disinherited Children later.




"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply


It isn't Frank's fault that some of his fans played the perverted kinda stuff that he created, but that's MOSTLY what got played.

And that's also the reason why one tends to TUNE OUT rather than TUNE IN to whatever else Frank played.

See what I mean?

One or two BAD APPLES isn't suppose to spoil the whole bunch, but that's pretty much what happens when one's fans keep playing the worst apples that are in the bunch all the time.

Perhaps the reason why females are LESS LIKELY to sing and write songs about the abuse of a MALE'S PRIVATE PARTS also has something to do with the way they say females also tend to mature sooner than their male counterparts do?

Therefore they'd also have less desire to perform a PARAODY involving the PRIVATE PARTS of a MALE body?


Will be looking forward to your opinion of DISINHERITED CHILDREN.

There's also another interesting article posted to the MD board. Look for the SIR WALTER link. That's the name of the TOPIC that will take you to it.

Would also like to hear your opinion of what that article has to say as well.





reply

Human beings are unpredictable creatures, especially when confronted with extreme situations. George's first reaction is negation, so he leaves the scene and go to the movies just to give himself some time to process what have just happened. Other people (like xxpo) probably might have reacted in a different way, as nobody really knows how one would act when faced with a situation like this.

On the other hand, Hollywood movies seem to assume human beings are 100% rational and predictable and always do what the audience expect them to do from their comfortable theater seats or living rooms.

reply


Hollywood movies seem to assume human beings are 100% rational and predictable and always do what the audience expect them to do from their comfortable theater seats or living rooms.



This situation has NOTHING to do with being RATIONAL or PREDICTABLE.



When the other people found the DEAD BODY of NICOLE laying there in a POOL OF BLOOD (because her former HUSBAND had SLASHED her throat to the point where her head was barely still attached to her body anymore), those people who found her also DIDN'T STOP to take TIME to THINK about what they should do.

What they did was DIAL 911 the same way as any other person who had COMMON SENSE would do.

Because one also does this AUTOMATICALLY without NEEDING to THINK about it.

Confronted with an EMERGENCY situation one simply CALLS for HELP.

One doesn't NEED TIME to THINK about it in a RATIONAL manner to know what one needs to do.

Same as if you BURN your hand on the STOVE.

It's a REFLEX situation.

You AUTOMATICALLY pull your hand AWAY from that stove ... the same way as you dial 911 whenever you see someone who lays there in a POOL of BLOOD.

But it's because GEORGE is GUILTY and wants to HIDE something that he DOES NOT do this (same as OJ SIMPSON who also RUNS AWAY rather than FACE UP to what he's done to NICOLE and that other young man).


reply

Nobody (except Hollywood directors) can predict how a person would react to a stressful situation. Have you ever heard of "shell shock", when WWI soldiers would sit in the middle of combat even although the "common sense" decision would be to fight or run for cover?

I praise you for being such a reliable person, always doing what you are expected to do! (including replying to this post :-)

reply

Yes of course I've heard of SHELL SHOCK or what is now called PTSD (post tramatic stress disorder).

Also had a GREAT UNCLE I never met or knew who came back from the war and KILLED himself due to his having it.

It's not a matter of ALWAYS doing what one is expected to do, it's mostly a matter of doing what one's REFLEXS would have them do whenever they were confronted with seeing such a SHOCKING SITUATION.


And MOST of us would probably also NOT go to see a MOVIE after we'd just seen someone else take out a KNIFE, SLASH their THROAT, and tell us that they wanted US to BE THERE to see them doing so.


Right???






reply

I got carried away with the criminal aspects of Georges´ motivation for leaving the scene too much. His behaviour would indeed been understandable even if he hadn´t, in effect, been framed for murder.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[deleted]