Razno razno razno

Anđe'o wrote:

Professors offer superhero psychoanalysis


To University of Oregon English professor Ben Saunders, superheroes are more than mere entertainment on a Marvel movie night. Rather, he argues, they can shed light on the deeper psychology of love, loss, and life.
On Wednesday, Saunders, Slovenian journalist and film critic Jela Krečič, and professor, author, and new-age philosopher Slavoj Žižek convened at Betts Auditorium to discuss superheroes, film, and their relation to human nature at a panel entitled “Superheroes on the Couch.”
Sponsored by the Department of English, the two-hour panel discussion began with Saunders’ analysis of the relationship between Superman and Batman. Saunders argued that though their duality is apparent, the two  still constitute one entity. While Superman stands as the morally and physically superior hero, Batman serves as Superman’s “Jungian shadow,” a projection of the despicable aspects of human nature.

Thus, according to Saunders, Batman is not Superman’s opposite but rather his extension, with the former embodying the latter’s dark side.
Saunders further argued that Batman’s entire identity is founded in the repression of his parents’ deaths. Both Batman and the Joker are “responding in an absurd way to the gross injustice of life.” Since confronting those evils is distressing, Saunders said, we resort to a Freudian cycle of repression and projection.
Krečič continued the discussion by claiming that Batman represses the loss of his parents by spending his life fighting “low-level crime,” rather than addressing its underlying causes. She argued that doing so helps him cope with their absence and thus represents an essentially human response.
Žižek focused on the relationship between Batman and the Joker, arguing that the two are very similar in essence, but that the Joker has developed to accept his evil. He stated that it is important for us to learn from the Joker and accept our vices, extending this claim to Greta Thunberg, “my ethical hero,” who is unapologetically outspoken.
He stated that Thunberg defines a new age of femininity and concluded that we “need more toxically masculine women,” drawing laughter from the crowd.
Žižek also offered a particularly controversial comment, which faced resistance from members of the audience. He said that Black Panther’s “Wakanda and black wisdom is bullshit,” claiming the film did not represent a fair dialogue of African-American empowerment.
During the subsequent question-and-answer session, a visibly upset heckler interrupted the three panelists, saying that the discussion had been “very one-sided.” The panel concluded immediately thereafter.

Anđe'o wrote:Sve je to lepo, samo šta će mi Ben Sanders sa univerziteta Oregon, kad imam Scorsese-a.

Usput, pošto sam gledao Black Panther-a, mogu da kažem sledeće:

- film je prazan/šupalj, nikakvih ljudskih emocija, ništa od ovoga što Scorsese traži zaista i ne postoji.
- sve što u filmu postoji je propaganda koja hoće da pacifizuje Afro-amerikance.
- Žižek je u pravu, kao što je često u pravu.

Još nešto - mogu da raspravljam o konkretnim filmovima o Batmanu, ili bar o filmovima različitih ciklusa (Burton vs. Nolan). Stripove nisam čitao. Neverujem u rasprave o Marvelovim junacima kao nekakvim opšte-kulturnim simbolima, znakovima, ili šta već i šta pokušavaju od njih da naprave - sve je to veoma nategnuto.

By using the word “cinema,” Scorsese went beyond the ken of the comics and video-game generation. (Has game-changer Quentin Tarantino ever uttered the word “cinema”?) https://t.co/DljsTQFHEO

— armond white (@3xchair) October 10, 2019

White wrote:Super-geek Scorsese, who started the Film Foundation in 1990 for the preservation of classic and world movies, always looked for the moral potential in popular art. That’s how his Seventies American Renaissance colleagues from Coppola to DePalma to Walter Hill and Robert Altman advanced the art form. In that heyday, audiences expected self-examination; today’s audiences expect escapism.

Osim toga, Reed je htio film koji se događa izvan britanskih granica, njegovi su sunarodnjaci štošta propatili u 2. svjetskom ratu, no to nije bio razlog da se zatvore u granice imperija. Možda upravo zato britanski komentatori upozoravaju da je “Treći čovjek” po svojim porukama danas nevjerojatno moderan film, jer je nastao u zemlji koja je nedavno raskinula s Europskom unijom.

U ekipi je bilo i veterana iz kinematografije Trećeg Reicha, Siegfried Breuer (slikoviti Popescu) snimao je u Hrvatskoj za NDH “Ljude u oluji”, gdje je glumio požudnog srpskog oficira, zaljubljenog u nedostižnu njemačku veleposjednicu Olgu Tschechowu. On je bio čisti Austrijanac, dok je Paul Hörbiger rođen u Budimpešti i umro u Beču: u nacističkoj kinematografiji bio je velika zvijezda, dok ga je ovdje zapala epizoda domara koji jedva komunicira s Martinsom, jer ne zna engleski (kao što ga nije znao ni u privatnom životu).

Mr.Pink wrote:Taksista je isto graCki film

Mr.Pink wrote:Ne znam, ne pratim. On to coek oce da kaze skprcezeu da nije u pravu

Ako kaze skorceze da to nije cinema, taj ubermensch rezon, a se u nacelu slazem sa izrecenim za sve one aquamenove i ostala sranja koja nisam gledao..onda bi ovo mpzda mogao da bude taj cinema 21. veka

I u taksisti se sve vrti oko grada i de nira i raznoraznih issuea

Mr.Pink wrote:Pa ti spomenu vristeceg trevisa