2436798
I’m planning and writing a post for later this week on the poetry of Tomas Tranströmer (in translation). It’s the kind of thing that will be academic in tone, but is really not up to the rigors of an established journal or destined for publication. It will be a personal reflection. Be sure that I will actually read his work before I comment on it. This last statement must seem obvious; why would anyone with the slightest bit of intellectual integrity comment on a work without first having experienced it first hand?
That leads to the topic of this post lifted from an brief post on the New York magazine website (http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/10/south_park_creators_apologize.html?imw=Y&f=most-viewed-24h10). I should state that I deeply enjoyed the movie Inception. The complexity of the narrative and the refusal to provide answers are what drew me into the fiction and allowed me to empathize with the characters and engage in the action. The two point which I found most compelling are what turned off a lot of viewers and reviewers. I admit that the line between too abstract and too mysterious is thin for any artistic endeavor. Nolan, in my opinion, managed to stay on the correct side of the divide.
I am also a fan of South Park. Though I’m not a satirical person by nature, I find the humor of South Park, the Daily Show, Real Time, etc. to be cornerstones of my world view and approach to thinking of solutions to today’s big questions. They balance my own rather sentimental/angry nature. Such a relationship to this kind of humor is the reason why I was so disappointed to hear of their co-opting of College Humor’s parody for their own. Their explanation implies that they have not actually seen the film which is the subject of their show.
Some may say that this is simply the continuing evolution of a culture based on a skeptical valuation of sincerity. When truth is devalued, the concept of honesty must soon follow. To me this view is preposterous...
I’m planning and writing a post for later this week on the poetry of Tomas Tranströmer (in translation). It’s the kind of thing that will be academic in tone, but is really not up to the rigors of an established journal or destined for publication. It will be a personal reflection. Be sure that I will actually read his work before I comment on it. This last statement must seem obvious; why would anyone with the slightest bit of intellectual integrity comment on a work without first having experienced it first hand?
That leads to the topic of this post lifted from an brief post on the New York magazine website (http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/10/south_park_creators_apologize.html?imw=Y&f=most-viewed-24h10). I should state that I deeply enjoyed the movie Inception. The complexity of the narrative and the refusal to provide answers are what drew me into the fiction and allowed me to empathize with the characters and engage in the action. The two point which I found most compelling are what turned off a lot of viewers and reviewers. I admit that the line between too abstract and too mysterious is thin for any artistic endeavor. Nolan, in my opinion, managed to stay on the correct side of the divide.
I am also a fan of South Park. Though I’m not a satirical person by nature, I find the humor of South Park, the Daily Show, Real Time, etc. to be cornerstones of my world view and approach to thinking of solutions to today’s big questions. They balance my own rather sentimental/angry nature. Such a relationship to this kind of humor is the reason why I was so disappointed to hear of their co-opting of College Humor’s parody for their own. Their explanation implies that they have not actually seen the film which is the subject of their show.
Some may say that this is simply the continuing evolution of a culture based on a skeptical valuation of sincerity. When truth is devalued, the concept of honesty must soon follow. To me this view is preposterous and the antithesis of the cultural use of humor. The one thing I expect from a great comedian is honesty – an unflinching portrayal of truth through a very personal experience with, and view of, reality – Shakespeare’s clown. When artist fail in this expectation they fail in adding to humanity and become just another pile of hypocritical bullshit.
That leads to the topic of this post lifted from an brief post on the New York magazine website (http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/10/south_park_creators_apologize.html?imw=Y&f=most-viewed-24h10). I should state that I deeply enjoyed the movie Inception. The complexity of the narrative and the refusal to provide answers are what drew me into the fiction and allowed me to empathize with the characters and engage in the action. The two point which I found most compelling are what turned off a lot of viewers and reviewers. I admit that the line between too abstract and too mysterious is thin for any artistic endeavor. Nolan, in my opinion, managed to stay on the correct side of the divide.
I am also a fan of South Park. Though I’m not a satirical person by nature, I find the humor of South Park, the Daily Show, Real Time, etc. to be cornerstones of my world view and approach to thinking of solutions to today’s big questions. They balance my own rather sentimental/angry nature. Such a relationship to this kind of humor is the reason why I was so disappointed to hear of their co-opting of College Humor’s parody for their own. Their explanation implies that they have not actually seen the film which is the subject of their show.
Some may say that this is simply the continuing evolution of a culture based on a skeptical valuation of sincerity. When truth is devalued, the concept of honesty must soon follow. To me this view is preposterous...