well delivered movie lines

[Fixed Cross]

The essence of a commanding argument:

[Fixed Cross]

From Snatch -

"Brick Top: You're always gonna have problems lifting a body in one piece. Apparently the best thing to do is cut up a corpse into six pieces and pile it all together.

Sol: Would someone mind telling me, who are you?

Brick Top: And when you got your six pieces, you gotta get rid of them, because it's no good leaving it in the deep freeze for your mum to discover, now is it? Then I hear the best thing to do is feed them to pigs. You got to starve the pigs for a few days, then the sight of a chopped-up body will look like curry to a pisshead. You gotta shave the heads of your victims, and pull the teeth out for the sake of the piggies' digestion. You could do this afterwards, of course, but you don't want to go sievin' through pig shit, now do you? They will go through bone like butter. You need at least sixteen pigs to finish the job in one sitting, so be wary of any man who keeps a pig farm. They will go through a body that weighs 200 pounds in about eight minutes. That means that a single pig can consume two pounds of uncooked flesh every minute. Hence the expression, "as greedy as a pig."

But this raises a question. If pigs like to eat humans, and humans like to eat pigs -

[Fixed Cross]

Faust - I just realized that it is irrational to ask for something in the same vein as the very best. But I cannot locate this quote on te internet.

[Fixed Cross]

[Faust]

I couldn't find an embeddable version. This is Crenna.

http://youtu.be/5sW1U-Y0hLg

[Fixed Cross]

I couldn't find an embeddable version. This is Crenna.

http://youtu.be/5sW1U-Y0hLg

"A man who's been trained to ignore pain, ignore weather, to live off the land, to eat things that would make a billy goat puke."

This made me laugh. It is not quite the typical hailing of an invincible soldier.

[Faust]

The film as a a whole is almost the anti-Apocalypse Now. Now poetry, no myth, no one chewing the scenery. Moves along well. I like this picture.

[Fixed Cross]

The film as a a whole is almost the anti-Apocalypse Now. Now poetry, no myth, no one chewing the scenery. Moves along well. I like this picture.

I will watch it. I have perhaps an unusual question for you: if we take "Apocalypse Now" to be the film equivalent of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" (in terms of chewing the scenery), what might be considered the "First Blood" of philosophy?

[Fixed Cross]

I like the last line.

[Faust]

if we take "Apocalypse Now" to be the film equivalent of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" (in terms of chewing the scenery), what might be considered the "First Blood" of philosophy?

The Public and Its Problems (John Dewey)

[iambiguous]

I always had my own misgivings about that line. It doesn't really address the fact that one can use those ten divisions to further the aims of any particular Kingdom of Ends. On the other hand, I always liked it because it didn't attempt to argue that any one particular Kingdom of Ends is necessarily preferrable to any other.

On second thought, I think that it precisely does address this - ! perhaps the line as it is written does not, but the delivery is too convincing to take lightly. I find it the most frightening part of the entire play of perspectives.

The ten divisions Kurtz spoke of constituted the enemies that American soldiers were fighting. They were men fully capable of chopping off the arms of young children that had been vaccinated against a horrific disease.

"The Horror! The Horror!" revolves precisely around acknowledging how we live in a world where such an events can occur at all. One can easily imagine it being "based on a true story".

But the bottom line remains: The soldiers can be used to achieve any particular end. They are merely the most effective means of achieving it. Why? Well, in this case, because [unlike the American G.I.s], they are disciplined and committed.

As Captain Willard notes while watching the ludicrous USO/Playboy bunny fiasco, "Charlie had only two ways home, victory...or death".

But does that make their cause [Communism] more noble? more virtuous?

iambiguous:

There are always value judgments. It is only a question of jamming all the conflicting ones together and coming up with the least dysfunctional behaviors. But this can never be more than a point of view. Kurtz's own included folks dangling from trees and decapitated heads strewn about everywhere.

But what do you think that was he doing there in the first place? What might he have thought, on his way over, possibly on a similar boat-ride?

True, but I did not see Col. Kurtz's own "methodless" nihilism as any more palatable than the policies "the clowns who ran the circus" back in Saigon and Washington pursued. Again, the horror [for me] is always embedded in the realization that "Vietnams" keep rearing their ugly heads over and again throughout the historical evolution of "human condition". At any given time, there are dozens of them [large and small] infolding in the morning headlines.

There were no "heroes" to be found in the film---anywhere. And Coppola's take never delved into the military industrial complex. Instead, it was rooted more in Joseph Conrad's novella Hearts of Darkness. And while Conrad explored the at times brtutal role of European capitalism/colonialism in Africa, most folks tend to focus on the third theme: the "darkness" that haunts the soul of man, enabling him to do all manner of terrible things.

And while the "will-to-power" explains it in part, capitalism surely offers it a fertile ground in which to sprout all manner of historical monsters. Some even rationalizing their deeds by way of "the virtue of selfishness".

[Fixed Cross]

if we take "Apocalypse Now" to be the film equivalent of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" (in terms of chewing the scenery), what might be considered the "First Blood" of philosophy?

The Public and Its Problems (John Dewey)

Of course I had to go look this up, you have without a doubt read much more than I have. I realize that raiding quotes from wikipedia is only preferable to remaining ignorant in case of a properly representative wikipedia entry. He seems like a very rational man. This was a pleasure to read:

Louis Menand argues in The Metaphysical Club that Jane Addams had been critical of Dewey's emphasis on antagonism in the context of a discussion of the Pullman strike of 1894. In a later letter to his wife, Dewey confessed that Addams' argument was

"the most magnificent exhibition of intellectual & moral faith I ever saw. She converted me internally, but not really, I fear.... When you think that Miss Addams does not think this as a philosophy, but believes it in all her senses & muscles-- Great God... I guess I'll have to give it [all] up & start over again."
He went on to add,

"I can see that I have always been interpreting dialectic wrong end up, the unity as the reconciliation of opposites, instead of the opposites as the unity in its growth, and thus translated the physical tension into a moral thing... I don't know as I give the reality of this at all,... it seems so natural & commonplace now, but I never had anything take hold of me so."

What a great insight!

[Faust]

My philosophical "lineage" is Hume, Nietzsche, Dewey, Russel and Ayer. I don't always include Dewey on this list, because he seems to be little read, especially outside the US.

[Fixed Cross]

The ten divisions Kurtz spoke of constituted the enemies that American soldiers were fighting. They were men fully capable of chopping off the arms of young children that had been vaccinated against a horrific disease.

"The Horror! The Horror!" revolves precisely around acknowledging how we live in a world where such an events can occur at all. One can easily imagine it being "based on a true story".

I completely agree. That is the reason I picked that line - in the cruelty of Kurtz voice, the horror is truly conveyed, or at least most potently suggested.
I would say that it conveys the sense of purpose, that lead to such atrocities.

It is as if, in this line Kurtzs insanity is revealed, by his actions after we have first seen it strewn about his dwelling. We never see him in action, to hear him utter the intention is enough.

A well made film, what will-power, to engineer an image of such magnitude and turbulence.

But the bottom line remains: The soldiers can be used to achieve any particular end. They are merely the most effective means of achieving it. Why? Well, in this case, because [unlike the American G.I.s], they are disciplined and committed.

As Captain Willard notes while watching the ludicrous USO/Playboy bunny fiasco, "Charlie had only two ways home, victory...or death".

A chill-inspiring moment even to re-read.

But does that make their cause [Communism] more noble? more virtuous?

Have you seen the Redux - version? I ask because, only during that strange scene in the French stronghold which was understandably left out of the theatrical version, do we learn that the Vietcong is not actually communist in the sense of the doctrine - only in the sense that they can use the help of the Chinese and the Russians.

I think that what Willards line implies here is that their adversary is fighting for his home, and he has no choice to fight. After all, he could not possibly have the faintest clue why the Americans were there at all. To him, they might as well have been aliens from Mars.

Now this still does not imply that this was a virtuous people -- only that it was impossible to bring down on the terms the Americans provided.

Not a great deal different from the current mission in Iraq, as it turned out, although this mistake could have been avoided because there was a majority desiring to get rid of the regime.

But what do you think that was he doing there in the first place? What might he have thought, on his way over, possibly on a similar boat-ride?

True, but I did not see Col. Kurtz's own "methodless" nihilism as any more palatable than the policies "the clowns who ran the circus" back in Saigon and Washington pursued.

I would say less, even less. I think that there was some goodness in al the people except Kurtz. Simply because he had given up the idea of goodness at all, and yet continued to live on. This was his evil - it was good that he was killed. That was the great surprise for me at least, to experience it in the end from the point of view of the three men who have come to bring Willard the mission, instead of from a more or less exalted, indifferent point of view claiming to be beyond morality. We are led to see that morality might actually have it's use, even if it is extremely hypocritical at best.

Again, the horror [for me] is always embedded in the realization that "Vietnams" keep rearing their ugly heads over and again throughout the historical evolution of "human condition". At any given time, there are dozens of them [large and small] infolding in the morning headlines.

Indeed. And morality protects us from having to constantly realize this, by telling ourself that we are above it. We are above it, until we are lowered to it by (inevitably or not) succumbing to certain powers.

There were no "heroes" to be found in the film---anywhere.

No moral hero's. But Lieutenant Kilgore does stand out as a cinematic hero, or at least a what the audience responds to with a positive emotion. I think that this signifies the blindness necessary to hold a self-serving morality.

And while the "will-to-power" explains it in part, capitalism surely offers it a fertile ground in which to sprout all manner of historical monsters. Some even rationalizing their deeds by way of "the virtue of selfishness".

Capitalism, Communism, Nazism, Protestantism, Catholicism, Imperialism - all of these beasts are only vessels for a cruel, inhuman group-will. What I prefer about capitalism is that it is at least honest about this. It is transparent in it's motives, therefore it can be tamed. One can impose virtues on capitalism, if one is so inclined. This is impossible with all the others, which in themselves claim to be virtues. How can one impose a virtue on a virtue?

[Fixed Cross]

My philosophical "lineage" is Hume, Nietzsche, Dewey, Russel and Ayer. I don't always include Dewey on this list, because he seems to be little read, especially outside the US.

Interesting. (The anecdote in the wiki entry on Ayer is remarkable) The theme of scepsis runs through this like a spine -
what I see is that Nietzsche stands out as the only one who explicitly embraced myth. I think that Nietzsche was convinced that "will to power" refutes this:

"The propositions of philosophy are not factual, but linguistic in character - that is, they do not describe the behaviour of physical, or even mental, objects; they express definitions, or the formal consequences of definitions. [Ayer was a logical positivist] I came across this "

I think that Zarathustra is essential to grasping the longing for the Übermensch, and that this is where the poet Nietzsche departs from the logical sceptic. I can see where this ceases to be interesting.

[Dennis Kane]

Alec Baldwin as Blake, the hotshot head honcho in Glengarry Glen Ross. The entire speech was pure gold, but here's just a little taste...

Blake: FUCK YOU, that's my name!! You know why, Mister? 'Cause you drove a Hyundai to get here tonight, I drove a eighty thousand dollar BMW. That's my name!! (to Levene) And your name is "you're wanting." And you can't play in a man's game. You can't close them. (at a near whisper) And you go home and tell your wife your troubles. (to everyone again) Because only one thing counts in this life! Get them to sign on the line which is dotted! You hear me, you fucking faggots?

[iambiguous]

Have you seen the Redux - version? I ask because, only during that strange scene in the French stronghold which was understandably left out of the theatrical version, do we learn that the Vietcong is not actually communist in the sense of the doctrine - only in the sense that they can use the help of the Chinese and the Russians.

True. Probing where nationalism ends and ideology begins is analogous to probing where society ends and the individual begins. It is always different for everyone. Even after watching the documentary Hearts of Darkness, I couldn't really get inside Coppola's head to guage his own intentions here. But there is no right or wrong way really to react to the lines from the film. We often react differently because our individual lives are so different in turn.

At least in my view. Which I don't pretend is the only reasonable view to have.

I think that what Willards line implies here is that their adversary is fighting for his home, and he has no choice to fight. After all, he could not possibly have the faintest clue why the Americans were there at all. To him, they might as well have been aliens from Mars.

Willard's character seemed -- to me -- to be outside all of this. He seemed committed solely now to probing how and why Kurtz went from the man in the dossier to the man in the jungle. As a way perhaps to understand the changes in his own life. And the gap between him and the Vietcong was equally unbridgable.

We are all born of the same species but how we come to view ourselves and the world around us -- especially in our "post-modern" world -- can be both vast and varied.

And there are equally many diverse ways in which to approach "virtue".

Not a great deal different from the current mission in Iraq, as it turned out, although this mistake could have been avoided because there was a majority desiring to get rid of the regime.

I have always viewed the Iraq war from the vantage point of political economy. It was a war over the oil. And a war rooted in the wants and the needs of the military industrial complex. In Vietnam there were a lot more people who viewed the conflict in ideological terms: Us vs. Them.

In other words, Western democracy [however nominal] versus Communist tryanny. In Iraq, the "jihadist terrorists" were merely the bogeyman used by the powers that be -- what even Colin Powell called the 'terrorist industrial complex' -- to rationalize the war. There is simply no comparison between the threat posed by Islamic extremists today and the Nazis in the 30s and 40s and the USSR/China in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

[Fixed Cross]

Alec Baldwin as Blake, the hotshot head honcho in Glengarry Glen Ross. The entire speech was pure gold, but here's just a little taste...

Blake: FUCK YOU, that's my name!! You know why, Mister? 'Cause you drove a Hyundai to get here tonight, I drove a eighty thousand dollar BMW. That's my name!! (to Levene) And your name is "you're wanting." And you can't play in a man's game. You can't close them. (at a near whisper) And you go home and tell your wife your troubles. (to everyone again) Because only one thing counts in this life! Get them to sign on the line which is dotted! You hear me, you fucking faggots?

I saw that when I was looking for his speech in Nuernberg.
Indeed he delivers this very well. It seems suited to his character.

[Fixed Cross]

True. Probing where nationalism ends and ideology begins is analogous to probing where society ends and the individual begins. It is always different for everyone. Even after watching the documentary Hearts of Darkness, I couldn't really get inside Coppola's head to guage his own intentions here.

What I read in interviews is that Coppola simply wanted to make a californian war-film. He wanted to deviate from the plot of Johhny from the Bronx doing his dutiful service, to a wilder kind of picture. I am not sure that he had explicit moral or even historical narrative intentions as much as the desire to make a good movie.

I think that what Willards line implies here is that their adversary is fighting for his home, and he has no choice to fight. After all, he could not possibly have the faintest clue why the Americans were there at all. To him, they might as well have been aliens from Mars.

Willard's character seemed -- to me -- to be outside all of this. He seemed committed solely now to probing how and why Kurtz went from the man in the dossier to the man in the jungle. As a way perhaps to understand the changes in his own life. And the gap between him and the Vietcong was equally unbridgable.
We are all born of the same species but how we come to view ourselves and the world around us -- especially in our "post-modern" world -- can be both vast and varied.

And there are equally many diverse ways in which to approach "virtue".

The only point at which we see him truly involved is as he finds the head of one of his crew in his lap.
But what I meant is that the Vietnamese probably had not the first clue about what the Americans were doing there.

Not a great deal different from the current mission in Iraq, as it turned out, although this mistake could have been avoided because there was a majority desiring to get rid of the regime.

I have always viewed the Iraq war from the vantage point of political economy. It was a war over the oil. And a war rooted in the wants and the needs of the military industrial complex. In Vietnam there were a lot more people who viewed the conflict in ideological terms: Us vs. Them.

Still, similar ideological terms were what got the Iraq war the support it needed.

In other words, Western democracy [however nominal] versus Communist tryanny. In Iraq, the "jihadist terrorists" were merely the bogeyman used by the powers that be -- what even Colin Powell called the 'terrorist industrial complex' -- to rationalize the war. There is simply no comparison between the threat posed by Islamic extremists today and the Nazis in the 30s and 40s and the USSR/China in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

That may be true. In any case the war is not helping to reduce the extremism.

[MagsJ]

Predator "Johnny ain't scared of no man" in response to what could be out there killing off their men...

[Jakob]

- Where would someone go to hide from Margos?
- Hell?
-
- Venezuela.

[barbarianhorde]

Where are the dogs heads?

They're in the freezer.
I was going to make them into soup.
Make that bitch drink it.

[barbarianhorde]

holy turd, NONE of these old posts videos are still viewable
wow great job yuutube.

[Arcturus Descending]

The Art of Racing in the Rain

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp2ufFO4QGg

Beautiful movie


"I know this much about racing in the rain. I know it is about balance. It is about anticipation and patience. I know all of the driving skills that are necessary for one to be successful in the rain. But racing in the rain is also about the mind! It is about owning one’s own body. About believing that one’s car is merely an extension of one’s body. About believing that the track is an extension of the car, and the rain is an extension of the track, and the sky is an extension of the rain. It is about believing that you are not you; you are everything. And everything is you. Racers”
― Garth Stein, The Art of Racing in the Rain


“Here's why I will be a good person. Because I listen. I cannot speak, so I listen very well. I never interrupt, I never deflect the course of the conversation with a comment of my own...Learn to listen! I beg of you. Pretend you are a dog like me and listen to other people rather than steal their stories.”
― Garth Stein, The Art of Racing in the Rain


"Who is Achilles without his tendon? Who is Samson without Delilah? Who is Oedipus without his clubfoot? Mute by design, I have been able to study the art of rhetoric unfettered by ego and self-interest, and so I know the answers to these questions.

The true hero is flawed. The true test of a champion is not whether he can triumph, but whether he can overcome obstacles––preferably of his own making––in order to triumph. A hero without a flaw is of no interest to an audience or to the universe, which, after all, is based on conflict and opposition, the irresistible force meeting the unmovable object.”
― Garth Stein, The Art of Racing in the Rain


“a racer will never let something that has already happened affect what is happening now.”
― Garth Stein, The Art of Racing in the Rain




Sapere Aude!

[promethean75]

Dan: ace.
Ace: yeah Dan?
Dan: you have any more of that gum?
Ace: that's none of your damn business and I'll thank you to stay out of my personal affairs.