[HN Gopher] John Carpenter's 'They Live' Was Supposed to Be a Wa...
___________________________________________________________________
John Carpenter's 'They Live' Was Supposed to Be a Warning. We
Didn't Heed It
Author : skanderbm
Score : 86 points
Date : 2021-06-19 15:31 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theringer.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theringer.com)
| riffraff wrote:
| I wonder how many people familiar with OBEY iconography
| variations[0] or OBEY Clothing actually watched They Live.
|
| It's a pretty corny movie, but it's quite good.
|
| And regarding warnings, I can't help but feel Idiocracy is also
| one we're not paying attention to.
|
| [0] I own a t-shirt with futurama's hypnotoad, and I love it
| bthrn wrote:
| Obey Clothing was founded by Shepard Fairey, most notably known
| for his Obama Hope poster in 2008.
|
| Shepard often cites They Live as inspiration for his art, with
| his Andre the Giant Has A Posse campaign starting in 1989.
|
| As an aside - one of my favorite works of his is Greetings From
| Iraq[0], from 2005. It satirizes a classic Yellowstone National
| Park postcard from the 1930s[1], in a criticism of the Iraq
| War.
|
| [0]https://www.icaboston.org/sites/default/files/styles/origina
| ...
|
| [1]https://www.discovernw.org/mm5/graphics/00000001/DYNW_PLU106
| ...
| cratermoon wrote:
| If you haven't seen "They Live", I recommend you watch it on a
| double bill with Alex Cox's 1984 masterpiece "Repo Man"
| csbartus wrote:
| Control is the driving force behind evolution. The total control
| of thought is inevitable. With that we will enter into a new
| metasystem where we will be the second most intelligent lifeform.
|
| http://metamn.io/gust
| FigmentEngine wrote:
| 4th... agi, mice, dolphins, humans
| pmoriarty wrote:
| _" They Live, meanwhile, sort of became reality... Drones in the
| sky, conspiracies in our heads, militarized police in the
| streets, economic inequality in every corner of society, media
| that seeks to control our minds"_
|
| _Max Headroom_ and _Brazil_ were a couple of other 80 's scifi
| films which were uncannily prescient.
| alisonkisk wrote:
| Aside from the obvious drone tech, none of that is prescient,
| it's just a common problem in societies.
| gweinberg wrote:
| The fight scene where RRP forces the other guy to put on the
| glasses was the inspiration for the cripple fight episode of
| South Park. And that really is the best thing to come out of the
| film. Really, it was every bit as shallow and superficial as it
| seemed. "People I dislike are like evil space aliens". "No, it's
| YOU GUYS that are the ones like evil space aliens." There was no
| more depth to it than that.
| tomdell wrote:
| Really? The core idea I got from the movie is that our desires
| are driven by advertising - that maybe the constituent parts of
| our personality are largely just impulses instigated by
| external forces to consume various things, to work, spend
| money, and propagate to keep the economy in a state of constant
| growth for the benefit of the wealthy who don't need to work -
| landowners, large stock-holders, etc. The campy, stupid action
| movie aesthetic is sugar coating for what I found to be an
| interesting theme.
| lurquer wrote:
| > The campy, stupid action movie aesthetic is sugar coating
| for what I found to be an interesting theme.
|
| Hehe. I think you've got it backwards.
|
| You have Rowdy Roddy lined up to do a film. You come up with
| a campy corny idea of him fighting about sunglasses.
|
| After that, you come up with some off-the-shelf 'theme' to
| sugar coat the campiness.
|
| Real honestly, I would have watched 2 hours of that sunglass
| fight. That WAS the movie. Best damn fight ever. Wish it had
| lasted two hours.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| I'd like to introduce the writer to ... all of cyberpunk over a
| beer or weekend.
| dominicjj wrote:
| So on the one hand, They Live should not be regarded as 'Cliffs
| Notes explaining the oppressive power structures underpinning the
| so-called civilized world.' But on the other, The Thing is about
| 'the ways we are undone by our inability to see and understand
| other people.' The author seems to want it both ways.
| jessaustin wrote:
| _But the meta-narrative of "They Live", about the fear of being
| controlled by some massive conspiracy only you and a select group
| of "awakened" radicals can see, is a different matter. That is
| the story of how many of us now see reality. While the text of
| "They Live" isn't all that scary, the subtext is among the most
| terrifying aspects of life in the modern world._
|
| So, it's important not to fear the actual deficiencies in
| democracy and self-rule that majorities of people in many nations
| recognize, but it's totally rational to fear the fear of those
| actual problems. "Meta-narrative", indeed.
| CyberRabbi wrote:
| > self-rule
|
| Chomsky argues that democracy, at least in the US, is by and
| large not characterized by self-rule:
| https://www.salon.com/2013/08/17/chomsky_the_u_s_behaves_not...
| a1369209993 wrote:
| Pretty sure that was (part of) the parent's _point_ ,
| actually.
| CyberRabbi wrote:
| Yes I was legitimizing that real concern
| jl6 wrote:
| Mostly unrelated shoutout to _Flashback_ , the 90s game that
| totally ripped off They Live's glasses but was great anyway.
| Vaslo wrote:
| As I read this, I felt like my head fell into the cheese dip back
| in 1957.
| aww_dang wrote:
| The author vaguely stumbles through the partisan goal posts with
| loosely associated leftisms. Globalism isn't a concern. It
| doesn't mount any propaganda, because: "Look over there, it is
| capitalism!"
|
| If that's not enough, the buffet also includes the tired trope of
| associating right wingers with anti-semitism. Somehow Trump is
| mixed into the smorgasbord.
|
| There's some irony in him missing the broader point of the film
| while arriving at a conclusion about ideological blinders.
| westcort wrote:
| Slavoj Zizek noted the importance of his film in "The Pervert's
| Guide to Cinema." I highly recommend the film and "The Pervert's
| Guide to Ideology" as an explanation of our current world
| systems.
| slibhb wrote:
| Zizek is a performer. There's not a lot of substance in his
| many (is he at 100 yet?) books. It's blather and bad jokes
| interspersed with paeans to violence. It's ironic that someone
| who rails against capitalism publishes at such a frenetic rate
| while covering the same ground. I'd call it intellectual
| consumerism.
|
| The article is also weak. They Live works because it's so
| stripped down, almost a fable. But as a serious look at
| modernity, there's not much there. The idea that "the rich are
| aliens" is creepy. It mainly serves to make their murder
| morally permissible.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| If you think there isn't a lot of substance I don't think
| you've actually read any of his stuff. Sublime Object of
| Ideology and his work on Lacan in general are well-respected.
| There's not a lot of nonsense in his theoretical work at all.
|
| When he engages the public, or whatever you find on youtube
| which is what I suspect you've seen of him based on your
| impression, he does indeed joke around a lot. But this has to
| do with his inherent distaste for 'preaching'. He's no fan of
| climbing on a pedestal and pretending to speak from a
| position of authority, he's said himself he's always
| considered that authoritarian.
| slibhb wrote:
| > Sublime Object of Ideology and his work on Lacan in
| general are well-respected. There's not a lot of nonsense
| in his theoretical work at all.
|
| Well respected by some and not others. Lacan as a
| philosopher has boosters and detractors...much like Zizek
| (and every other philosopher). I'm with the detractors.
|
| I've read 1.5 of his books (not the one you mentioned) and
| I tried to watch an academic lecture on youtube. I've read
| various secondary sources (which are mostly highly critical
| and I found convincing).
|
| Your argument comes down to "anyone who doesn't think
| highly of Zizek is dumb/hasn't read him/doesn't understand
| him". It's so low effort.
|
| > When he engages the public, or whatever you find on
| youtube which is what I suspect you've seen of him based on
| your impression, he does indeed joke around a lot. But this
| has to do with his inherent distaste for 'preaching'.
|
| I have no problem with intellectuals making jokes. Zizek
| isn't funny.
|
| > But this has to do with his inherent distaste for
| 'preaching'. He's no fan of climbing on a pedestal and
| pretending to speak from a position of authority, he's said
| himself he's always considered that authoritarian.
|
| Most people who "don't like to preach" end up, you know,
| not preaching.
| ianleeclark wrote:
| > Zizek is a performer.
|
| Most definitely and I think he'd agree.
|
| > There's not a lot of substance in his many (is he at 100
| yet?) books.
|
| Which books specifically of his are you speaking about?
|
| > It's ironic that someone who rails against capitalism
| publishes at such a frenetic rate while covering the same
| ground.
|
| He himself has said that he makes a good slave, he just needs
| to know who his master is.
| slibhb wrote:
| > Which books specifically of his are you speaking about?
|
| How many of his ~70 books am I required to read before
| forming an opinion? I've read one and a half, the one being
| one of his "philosophical" books and the half being a more
| accessible political one. I'm confident that no one who has
| anyhting to say writes like that.
|
| Give me Chomsky, give me Butler, give me Rorty. I don't
| have to agree to appreciate a thinker but I have to be
| convinced there's thinking going on.
|
| > He himself has said that he makes a good slave, he just
| needs to know who his master is.
|
| This clowning bullshit is a good reason not to take him
| seriously. Bad jokes are perhaps Zizek's greatest sin. I
| can forgive anyone almost anything if they're funny. But
| no, it's dud after dud.
| [deleted]
| ianleeclark wrote:
| > How many of his ~70 books am I required to read before
| forming an opinion?
|
| I like to follow the rule that I only talk about things
| which I know about. I think it's a pretty good rule. So I
| personally wouldn't talk about an entire person's
| collection from such a limited introduction because it
| would feel a tad bit hasty to me. Instead, I would talk
| about the works that I had read--this might prove
| difficult if you can't recall the names.
|
| > This clowning bullshit is a good reason not to take him
| seriously.
|
| It's a dad-joke that he told at a talk. Heaven forbid the
| man try and add some levity to situations.
| slibhb wrote:
| So I need to read all ~30,000 pages of Zizek before
| forming an opinion. Or at least a negative opinion.
| Wonderful system you've developed.
|
| > It's a dad-joke that he told at a talk. Heaven forbid
| the man try and add some levity to situations.
|
| It's not funny. Anyway, like I said, it's a performance.
| The fact that you (and he) would agree with that
| judgement doesn't make it any less damning. I watched
| part of a lecture he did on youtube. Absolutely
| unwatchable. If he has a point he's unable to communicate
| it. But the real point is mystifying the audience,
| creating the impression that they're witnessing a genius
| thinking out loud, and the terrible jokes don't help.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHP1OwivAL0 if anyone is
| "interested". Notice Avital Ronell (sex offender and NYU
| professor) introducing him. It's bizarre how Zizek
| bullies her through the starting of the lecture while
| playing it off as a joke between friends.
| Fargren wrote:
| > So I need to read all ~30,000 pages of Zizek before
| forming an opinion. Or at least a negative opinion.
| Wonderful system you've developed.
|
| You can do whatever you want. But commenting on the
| entire bibliography when you have read less than 2.5% of
| it seems premature. Just say that everything you've read
| of him lacks substance rather than everything he wrote?
| ianleeclark wrote:
| > So I need to read all ~30,000 pages of Zizek before
| forming an opinion.
|
| By all means, form an opinion that the man and his book
| and a half that you went through aren't for you, but I
| just think it's deeply anti-intellectual to discredit the
| entire collection of work he's put out. You're
| discrediting books that you likely don't have the
| requisite knowledge to review which is the problem that I
| take with it.
|
| > The fact that you (and he) would agree with that
| judgement doesn't make it any less damning.
|
| What's damning about it? I really don't get this part.
| alisonkisk wrote:
| These content-free, persistent, aggresive dismissals of
| Zizek make me curious to read his writing and see what
| freaks you out so much that it pushes you to post
| multiple sets of paragraphs to scare people off it.
| slibhb wrote:
| If you want some "content" you can listen to Chomsky on
| Zizek: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVBOtxCfan0
|
| Or read John Gray on Zizek:
| https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/07/12/violent-
| visions-...
|
| It's not like these critiques are uncommon or hard to
| find.
|
| What I find more "curious" is the backlash you get for
| criticizing Zizek. Somehow I don't think I'd get any
| backlash for forming a _positive_ opinion after reading
| only "2.5% of his books" but apparently it's "anti-
| intellectual" to form a negative one.
| hungryforcodes wrote:
| A good intellect has a sense of humor-- keep this in
| mind.
| FooBarBizBazz wrote:
| The Black Mirror episode "Men Against Fire", again with
| glasses that turn people into monsters, is a good
| counterpoint. In the one, the monsters are the truth; in the
| other, the monsters are the lie.
| CyberRabbi wrote:
| For the mind of the average consumer, whose worldview has
| nearly been entirely shaped by the ideas presented in Hollywood
| movies, yes the narrative that Zizek presents through those
| same Hollywood movies can be entertaining and inspire a sense
| of understanding.
| CrazyPyroLinux wrote:
| I have come here to chew bubble gum and kick ass, and I'm all
| outta bubble gum.
| mavhc wrote:
| I originally knew that quote as "I have come here to chew gum
| and kick ass, and I'm all outta gum.", which sounds much cooler
| beebeepka wrote:
| I've had bad luck showing They Live to youngsters. I don't know
| if it's the style or the message but they all seemed bored to
| death.
|
| I love it but then again I am a borderline paranoid old fart
| nabla9 wrote:
| Range is something you develop later in life, or not at all.
| Young people in each generation like mostly stuff that is made
| for them.
|
| There are people who say "2001: A Space Odyssey" is unwatchable
| because it has low pace. They just don't have patience to watch
| a movie like that and they take out their phone to do something
| during the scene.
| developer93 wrote:
| It was unwatchable because it relied on you having read the
| book to know what was going on. I would usually recommend
| reading the book and skipping the movie.
| alisonkisk wrote:
| 2001 was intentionally slow to make you feel how boring space
| travel is. It's a clever idea but it's a movie for a much
| slower paced world with fewer options for things to do.
| pvaldes wrote:
| Probably. The same trick of deliberately boring the viewer
| for creating a sense of immersion had been used 19 years
| before, in the (excellent) film 'Stray dog'.
| crispyambulance wrote:
| I have found that with film, music or art, young people (or
| anyone really) have to be receptive before they're able to
| appreciate the experience. It just won't "click" if they're not
| ready. I've tried. I've tried to get youngsters excited about
| "the canon" of great cinema (yes, I consider John Carpenter to
| be on the short list for must-see horror films).
|
| There's no easy way to encourage receptivity. The best thing
| you can do is to just be accessible when it happens and be
| ready to discuss.
| Joeboy wrote:
| A great, but awkward, feature of the film is that it starts off
| feeling like a rather earnest documentary about urban poverty,
| and then gets bigger and more sensational throughout the movie.
| It doesn't surprise me that some people get put off by the
| beginning.
| pmoriarty wrote:
| _"...in They Live, ideology is not imposed, Zizek postulates.
| Rather, Nada puts on the glasses in order to see how things
| really are, because ideology is "spontaneous relationships to
| our social world" and therefore indivisible from reality. The
| glasses, therefore, finally remove ideology from the equation."_
|
| Except that in _They Live_ ideology _is_ imposed by the aliens.
|
| _" In the movie's most notorious scene, Nada tries to impose
| this truth on another person, brawling with Armitage for several
| minutes in order to force him to put on the glasses. This endless
| fight scene, possibly the longest in cinema history, is a
| metaphor for the struggle to achieve enlightenment. "To step out
| of ideology ... you must force yourself to do it," Zizek
| concludes. "Freedom hurts.""_
|
| But Piper's character didn't have to force himself to put on the
| glasses. There was no struggle and it didn't hurt.
|
| Zizek is amusing and I agree with many of his left-wing
| sentiments, but a lot of what he says is pure bullshit, concocted
| to sound profound with zero substance to it if you think about it
| for half a second.
| narag wrote:
| _Except that in They Live ideology is imposed by the aliens._
|
| He thinks that ideology is good so for him the glasses are
| ideology, not the cut-through-ideology tool.
|
| _But Piper 's character didn't have to force himself to put on
| the glasses. There was no struggle and it didn't hurt._
|
| Using the glasses did cause headaches, but in the real world
| it's just the same. Once you rebel against bullshit your life
| becomes very uncomfortable real soon.
| albanread wrote:
| I think the message of They Live; is that our rulers complete
| lack of empathy for ordinary people means they might as well
| be aliens. Also I don't think it was a vision of the future;
| it was about society at the time.
| developer93 wrote:
| It's still a common trope, that the rich are lizards,
| commonly popularised by David Ike for example
| pmoriarty wrote:
| _" He thinks that ideology is good so for him the glasses are
| ideology, not the cut-through-ideology tool."_
|
| But he's deluded. Regardless of his beliefs, the aliens have
| in fact imposed an illusion (or "ideology" in Zizek jargon)
| on him, and the glasses do in fact let you see through that
| (as he himself does later). He can think whatever he wants,
| but that doesn't change these facts.
|
| _" Once you rebel against bullshit your life becomes very
| uncomfortable real soon."_
|
| So, contrary to Zizek's contention, it's not his
| "enlightenment" that causes problems, but his trying to fight
| against those with power. A lesser man might have thrown away
| the glasses after seeing the truth, or perhaps consciously
| and deliberately started cooperating with the aliens, as
| various traitor characters did in _The Matrix_ and _V_ , for
| example.
| developer93 wrote:
| Challenging or questioning your own ingrained ideology can
| be uncomfortable, regardless of what society thinks. We've
| all got things we believe very deeply but haven't really
| questioned, and when we are forced to defend them we tend
| to get angry. Getting past the anger and actually looking
| at the idea is usually tough.
| nabla9 wrote:
| You are over-analyzing allegory.
|
| Zizek does it too, but he is entertainer-philosopher. Some of
| his readers take him too seriously too.
|
| I like Zizek, but you should not try to value him as a analytic
| philosopher who thinks things carefully trough. He has the
| ability to take unique and insightful viewpoints.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-19 23:01 UTC)