You know, the fella that was droppin' some knowledge on the protagonist...Mike Davis is his name. Here is some more info about him, courtesy of the liberal online magazine Salon:
http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1998/12/cov_07feature.html
Politics aside, the documentary was boring and muddled.
I was actually surprised that Mike Davis didn't slit his own wrists on camera. If his eyes had anymore of a weirdo, dreamy-brained twinkle, the camera lenses would have exploded from his self-hatred.
sharedroid72 on Sun Feb 11 2007 23:04:22
If his eyes had anymore of a weirdo, dreamy-brained twinkle, the camera lenses would have exploded from his self-hatred.
I thought it was very good considering who directed it (assuming the guy Bone had no experience in film)
That said, it was definitely hard to follow some of his assertions. It also took a while for him to bear out many of his claims, although I rarely found it to be boring.
Other poster, what was self-hating about his commentary? I must've missed that part
turing77 on Sun Feb 11 2007 05:46:35
the documentary was boring and muddled.
I thought his input in the film was great as commentary for certain points in the film
where do all these "self hate" comments about Mike Davis come from? I mean its not like he was lying about anything that he said...
Downlau said:
"So is your critique of it."
Thanks for agreeing with me. Cheers!
LOL. I'll bet you stared at my response for like an hour before you came up with that. Now, you can look up "sarcasm" in the dictionary. Make no mistake, your review stunk.
share"I'll bet you stared at my response for like an hour before you came up with that."
I think you should look up "projection" in the dictionary, my friend. Have a good day!
How about instead you explain to us how this documentary is boring and muddled, and backing up the cyber bravado you started this thread with?
shareBravado? Spirit? A touch of derring-do? (That's a Monty Python reference.)
Look, I don't mind humoring you, friend. For all I know, you could be that prevaricating old douche-nozzle, Mike Davis. (You've certainly taken the criticism to heart.) If you are, well, you have my utmost sympathy. If not, then there is the possibility--albeit slim--for redemption via education.
The documentary was "boring"...look up that word if necessary. It was also "muddled"...look that one up too, while you're at it. That was my comment...your terming it a "critique," while flattering, was, it seems to me, hyperbolic. (I generally don't elaborate too lengthily on things that suck.)
In any case, I'm a little bemused at how you could find "Politics aside, the documentary was boring and muddled," to be both boring and muddled. (It is only one unambiguous sentence after all.) You want MORE, do you? You want a detailed EXPLANATION? (How many pages? Double-spaced or no? You didn't mention sourcing!)
Sorry, perfesser, I can't humor you to that extent...but I can recommend that you broaden your intellectual horizons by turning your focus onto such great documentaries as "Hotel Terminus," and "Little Dieter Needs to Fly," and quit wasting time defending "Bastards of the Party," which is, let me once more state for the record, boring and muddled.
Unless you're Mike Davis...in which case I understand. (And, again: my sympathies.)
Peace.
by - turing77 on Sun May 27 2007 22:03:30
Look, I don't mind humoring you, friend. For all I know, you could be that prevaricating old douche-nozzle, Mike Davis. (You've certainly taken the criticism to heart.) If you are, well, you have my utmost sympathy.
The documentary was "boring"...look up that word if necessary.
It was also "muddled"...look that one up too, while you're at it.
(I generally don't elaborate too lengthily on things that suck.)
You have my utmost sympathy, Mike. (Don't forget: "Hotel Terminus" and "Little Dieter Needs to Fly"...for starters.)
share turing77 on Thu Jun 7 2007 00:10:37
You have my utmost sympathy, Mike.
Why does Mike have your sympathy?
by - turing77 on Sun Jun 10 2007 08:26:47
Why shouldn't I feel sympathy for Mike?
Friend, have you ever heard the old aphorism, "You'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar"?
Why should I accommodate you, friend, when your initial responses were suffused with hostility? Instead of a good-faith discussion, friend, you laid the foundation for a pissing match. (How's your prostate feeling?)
It's never too late to learn the lesson, friend. (And I'm flattered my opinion means so much to you.)
God bless.
turing, let's recap.
You came here and said the film was "boring" and "muddled".
I asked you to give some examples, or even just one example, and you're yet to do so. Just a couple of shots at Mike Davis and me, even accusing me of being Mike Davis at one point. Then, after all that, you of all people decide to get on a soap box and give a lecture about "catching more flies with honey"? You've been flinging nothing but vinegar from your first stroke of the keyboard.
Ante up, turning. Give some examples as to how this film is boring and muddled, or move along.
Seems to me like the OP just has a personal problem with the hippie.
This film is neither boring nor muddled. What is muddled about going through a decade by decade accounting of gang culture in Los Angeles?
Sounds to me like you just don't like the hippie. This shouldn't effect emotional spillover, causing you to misidentify what is actually a very satisfying and easy to follow historical account of a massively-internationally influential criminal subculture.
It's not necessary for you to be a jerk just because you don't like hippies, my man.
I recommend all who are interested in the history and culture of Los Angeles, and big-city America to watch this film and watch it closely, with an OPEN MIND.
My primary problem was with the film. (I found it boring and muddled. Not the story, mind you...the presentation.) I found the hippie, i.e. Mike, to be a rather comic figure. I looked him up, and you can imagine my surprise when I learned he was a Marxist. (He also has a tenuous relationship with THE TRUTH, as the Salon article details...I suggest you check it out.)
It's not necessary for you to be a jerk just because you don't like hippies, my man.
My primary problem was with the film. (I found it boring and muddled. Not the story, mind you...the presentation.)
I found the hippie, i.e. Mike, to be a rather comic figure. I looked him up, and you can imagine my surprise when I learned he was a Marxist.
(He also has a tenuous relationship with THE TRUTH, as the Salon article details...I suggest you check it out.)
Thank you turing for pointing that article out. I had planned on looking him up afterwards or at least that cultural center which they were at (which I assumed he ran). I disagree with your thoughts on the documentary - I loved it. However, it was clear that Mike Davis had the goal of affirmating everything "the black community" did, as well as treating racial and class groups as monolithic. Him being a Marxist explains every "fact" and reasoning he gave. Rather than explain the refutability problems and lack of empirical evidence with Marxism, I will just say this: a lot of his ideas are based on flawed reasoning. Even moreso if you take that article to be true.
share[deleted]
Totally disagree. I would agree that it did jump around a bit chronologically too much but it connected the points on the origin of the crips and bloods.
share