Philosophy Now Forum

The same extortion, the same diaphanics in contemporary film: the stories are ripoffs, it's all about the overwhelming impact of the medium itself, about a technical forcing of a cold extacy by an attack of the senses with a staging of 'dazzling special effects' which have long ceased to be dazzling or special, which have long lost their effect; the sequel which is not a continuation but an even more spectacular clone is, similarly to the addition of a third, fourth, fifth dimension to film, the realisation and hyperrealisation of film into an interactive virtual reality in an explicit striving for an even deeper immersion of the spectator and an even heavier impact of the medium (the sound tapes are already blasted through you in 360° Dolby Surround) an equally transparent as lucrative attempt to potentalise the broadly streched-out magic of the effects even further. No story, no atmosphere, no credibility, no real content, only the cold and transparent connection of cold and transparent effects. Since transparency is spectacularised itself (the making of...), it is not unthinkable that this non-quality is a part of the undeniable röntgenesque charm of the hyperspectacular. Ever more technology performs the role of an independant spectacle, of an object of seduction unto itself revered by nerds, transhumanists, music freaks, car lovers, television addicts, the proverbial man/woman in the street.

doolhoofd wrote:Hi,

my name is Geert, I'm 29 years old and I'm from Belgium.
I just signed up today to present my first full text, Stop Contact.
Basically it's a criticism on pushed technological progress, inspired mostly by Baudrillard.
You can find the English version on my deviantART page.
the link is:

:: http://www.doolhoofd.deviantart.com/#/d41q6en ::

It's a bit of a rant at times, but I hope some among you will appreciate it for what it is.
Here's a fragment from the text, about modern cinema:

The same extortion, the same diaphanics in contemporary film: the stories are ripoffs, it's all about the overwhelming impact of the medium itself, about a technical forcing of a cold extacy by an attack of the senses with a staging of 'dazzling special effects' which have long ceased to be dazzling or special, which have long lost their effect; the sequel which is not a continuation but an even more spectacular clone is, similarly to the addition of a third, fourth, fifth dimension to film, the realisation and hyperrealisation of film into an interactive virtual reality in an explicit striving for an even deeper immersion of the spectator and an even heavier impact of the medium (the sound tapes are already blasted through you in 360° Dolby Surround) an equally transparent as lucrative attempt to potentalise the broadly streched-out magic of the effects even further. No story, no atmosphere, no credibility, no real content, only the cold and transparent connection of cold and transparent effects. Since transparency is spectacularised itself (the making of...), it is not unthinkable that this non-quality is a part of the undeniable röntgenesque charm of the hyperspectacular. Ever more technology performs the role of an independant spectacle, of an object of seduction unto itself revered by nerds, transhumanists, music freaks, car lovers, television addicts, the proverbial man/woman in the street.

chaz wyman wrote:Thanks for your courage in offering up your work for analysis.

I think this text is meaningless as a stand alone unless it is referring to a specific film.
"Modern' FIlm simply does not fit this description. You are either wrongly generalising about film - in which case you need to get out more, of you are really just attacking a specific genre of Hollywood Blockbuster.
I imagine when I get to the full text this discrepant perspective will diminish.
I quite like the style. ALthough it borders on the Obscurantist is is capable of conferring a definite meaning to any one of intelligence that wants to read it.
However, I really don't like your last sentence with its collection of prejudiced stereotyping. That is seriously uncalled for and reveals a cavalier and un-nuanced point of view of everyone you deem is beneath you.
Oh- and what is the proverb of the "man in the street"?

Do you think there is an acceptable class of film? What you you place a the top of the tree in terms of last years' films?

I'll take a look at the full text and get back to you.

PS What do you mean by diaphanics??
And röntgenesque?

doolhoofd wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:Thanks for your courage in offering up your work for analysis.

I think this text is meaningless as a stand alone unless it is referring to a specific film.
"Modern' FIlm simply does not fit this description. You are either wrongly generalising about film - in which case you need to get out more, of you are really just attacking a specific genre of Hollywood Blockbuster.
I imagine when I get to the full text this discrepant perspective will diminish.
I quite like the style. ALthough it borders on the Obscurantist is is capable of conferring a definite meaning to any one of intelligence that wants to read it.
However, I really don't like your last sentence with its collection of prejudiced stereotyping. That is seriously uncalled for and reveals a cavalier and un-nuanced point of view of everyone you deem is beneath you.
Oh- and what is the proverb of the "man in the street"?

Do you think there is an acceptable class of film? What you you place a the top of the tree in terms of last years' films?

I'll take a look at the full text and get back to you.

PS What do you mean by diaphanics??
And röntgenesque?

Thank you for reading and commenting.
generalising and un-nuanced, well, yeah, guilty as charged. A nuanced analysis just wouldn't have the same effect.
Thank you for your compliment on my style.
In Dutch "the man in the street" is a proverb meaning "just about every ordinary guy"

You misunderstand. I was having a dig. "The man in the street", works perfectly well in English. It is just not a proverb. You can have the proverbial "fatted calf" or the proverbial "sour grapes" etc. But the phrase 'man it the street does not, as far as I know have a related proverb, so is not 'proverbial'


Actually I watch a lot of films and I think a lot of them are quite good. Can't think of any favourites right now though, I'll have to get back to you on that.
diaphane: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/diaphane

In English we would use diaphanous. As in diaphanous nightie.

röntgenesque: x-ray-like, transparent

I was aware of Rontgen's x-rays but did not see how the metaphor fit.

I forgot something important, the link to the video of the apotheosis of the movie Contact starring Jodie Foster
:: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzTHC6JSUvM ::
it's also at the bottom of the text on deviantART

chaz wyman wrote:I was aware of Rontgen's x-rays but did not see how the metaphor fit.

doolhoofd wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:I was aware of Rontgen's x-rays but did not see how the metaphor fit.

That's probably because I'm just making stuff up.

doolhoofd wrote:It's a shame you guys are missing two intended puns,
the first one, in the title, a "stopcontact" is the Dutch word for an electric socket



& the second one, in the part about porn, "Kont Acts" (kont = ass in Dutch)

doolhoofd wrote:I always thought the term "arse" denoted the anal cavity itself.

It can. But you can always say 'sit on your arse'.

The Dutch word "kont" means "bottom."
My English is American English, sorry for the misunderstanding.

chaz wyman wrote:Do the Dutch use kont for men's bottoms?

doolhoofd wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:Do the Dutch use kont for men's bottoms?

Yes, this is linguistically possible.

chaz wyman wrote:I've found my own answer

and Kont = **** as I thought.

Dutch

[edit]Etymology
From Middle Dutch conte (“vagina”, also generally “sex organ”), from Old Dutch *kunta (“vagina”), from Proto-Germanic *kuntōn.

Source http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kont#Etymology