Discussion » Film & TV » Black mirror

  • Eric Lee
    Eric Lee wrote:
    <p>just watched the 3 episodes of Black Mirror, shoot, can't remember the last time I liked a TV show so much...</p>
  • Jonas Ekeli
    Jonas Ekeli wrote:

    yea, man, 3 episodes, 3 different kind of very complicated feelings, it gotta be the best TV show for recent years, masterpieces!!!

  • Mari Vidste
    Mari Vidste wrote:

    Watching now.

    alt text

    "The prime minister must appear on live British television and have full unsimulated sexual intercourse with a pig."

    Lolwut?

    I like where this is going.

  • Mari Vidste
    Mari Vidste wrote:

    be tv writer

    have zany idea

    PM trolled into fucking a pig on live TV YEAH!

    build up to dramatic beastiality scene

    show PM approaching pig, disrobing

    CUT AWAY

    DON'T SHOW THE ACTUAL PIG FUCKING

    instead show emotional group reaction shots making viewer want to see pig fucking even more

    STILL DON'T SHOW THE PIG FUCKING

    instead cut to aftermath, PM puking and sobbing and drooling in a bathroom stall

    EVERY PARTICLE OF MY RAGE

  • Pavoir Sponse
    Pavoir Sponse wrote:

    Just watched the first episode, brilliant stuff...

  • Jonas Ekeli
    Jonas Ekeli wrote:

    @Pete

    when you're about to give a negative comment, why don't you finish all the 3 episodes first? a negative comment reflect a negative mind...

    in my opinion, the first episode is not about people like to see humiliation and others being humiliated, it's a story which shows how we are thinking, what our society is like now, it reminds people of what we need to do and what we should change, and of course, there's more than just that...

  • Pavoir Sponse
    Pavoir Sponse wrote:

    Pete,

    It seems, perhaps, you do not have a touch for satire. The programme was largely making a mockery of the UK, so not sure about your comment with regards to foreign nations.

    You must have seen how the programme was sending up sensational journalism, social networks, conceptual art, the royal family, political spin and modern 24 hour news production- all themes ripe for satire, no?

    Also, I find the the concept of an elected political leader being forced, through public opinion, to have sex with a pig on live national television very funny.

  • Pavoir Sponse
    Pavoir Sponse wrote:

    Oh and watching people being humiliated is intrinsically funny. Don't the Germans have a word for it?

  • Mari Vidste
    Mari Vidste wrote:

    Pete logic:

    character in tv show experiences humiliation

    humiliation is Ewww!

    tv show is awful

    Now I also said thumbs down, but for very different reasons. By the time the PM is all out of options and must mount the pig, the satire has morphed into serious drama and we can't show the dude fucking the pig because it's not funny. The sentimental Brits can never quite into black humor. On HBO the president is shown humping the pig, the gifs are made, and all are laughing merrily.

  • Pavoir Sponse
    Pavoir Sponse wrote:

    Seeing the pig being penetrated would have been better, I agree.

  • Mari Vidste
    Mari Vidste wrote:

    No. I don't think so, sir. Taken in its entirety the episode is not about the sick-fuckery of those like myself who wanted to see the politico in shirt and tie balls deep in a large farm animal because EPIC LULZ.

    The viewers of the live feed quickly become emotional and look on in horror. And in the end the Prime Minister is redeemed. The people forgive him because fucking the pig is seen as a self-sacrificial moral act.

    If anything, the "writer's point" is that even in a cold, postmodern, techno-lazy society trolls don't win because people are still emotionally reasonable, empathic, forgiving, in a word human.

    And I contend that in constructing such a potentially wild and interesting scenario only to make a trite point about the essential humanity of humans, the writer has exposed himself as a moron and a failure.

  • Mari Vidste
    Mari Vidste wrote:

    It was about technology as a drug, and society's addiction to it.

    And the French plebs turned up en masse to public beheadings in the 18th Century because they were addicted to the technology of the Guillotine? Uh huh. Yeah. I missed that point.

    The hostage was released a half-hour before the deed, but nobody found her

    Actually she was found rather quickly and taken to safety. Her early release goes to The Compassion of the Troll, not to any new "societal" numbness.

    Try again, Ebert.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    I haven't seen it, but I prefer Conan's deconstruction. If the show really is about "society's drug-like addiction to technology," then I'm almost certainly gonna skip it, as that is trite as fuck.

    Especially if there is no climactic man-on-pig action. I'm still getting over the awful cocktease that was Grizzly Man.

  • Pavoir Sponse
    Pavoir Sponse wrote:

    Chaps,

    regardless of the writer's intention, and I don't think it was a particularly compassionate piece of programming, it is well worth watching...

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    Familiarize yourself with Charlie Brooker's past work and y'all will have a better understanding of what he's saying. And before some troll asks - NO, im not going provide your shortcutting analytically incompetant asses with CliffsNotes....

  • Pavoir Sponse
    Pavoir Sponse wrote:
  • Mari Vidste
    Mari Vidste wrote:

    its creator, Charlie Brooker, who has explicitly stated...

    Here we go. Protip for you: intentional fallacy. But you wouldn't know about that because you're too busy on your TV commentary sites learning how to be a sycophant. It doesn't matter to me who made the show, and as far as what the creator says about his show or his "body of work"? Meaningless. The show exists in a finalized form and unlike you I don't need any help understanding it. I don't need to see other episodes and I certainly don't need a director's commentary track. Your simple mind can't grasp the idea that an artist has no special understanding of his work. All he can tell you is what he wanted to do, not what he did. That is for me to decide.

    You also must have been sleeping during the end of the episode, when it was clearly stated that the kidnapper -- an artist trying to make a point -- purposefully released the hostage 30 minutes before...

    No, I was very much awake during that part, angrily watching the people watch the TV. Yeah, the PM got trolled by an "artist" and penetrated the pig in vain. So what? If I had found the girl on the street, do you think I would have called up the PM and ruined all the fun? Fuck no. Does that mean I'm addicted to TV?

    It's when writers try to make points that dramas become disjointed and weak, just like this one.

  • Mari Vidste
    Mari Vidste wrote:

    Clearly you don't understand the so-called intentional fallacy, better known as authorial intent, which is not a fallacy, but a school of thought on the Barthes side of the semiotic discussion.

    What? You really need to stop typing. The intentional fallacy is not 'a school of thought.' It is an error made by simpletons such as yourself who lack the insight to judge the work based on its internal structure and so look outside the text for help in interpreting it. In other words, when you come in here and tell me what the writer "explicitly said' about the show he wrote, as if it has any relevance or use in understanding the show, you are committing the intentional fallacy. Now tell me again who doesn't understand it.

    All writers, including TV writers, have one or several points that give their art form and substance.

    This is all wrong and accounts for why almost everything that is written is total shit. The greatest artistic productions don't say anything. An artist who is the least bit inspired and skilled is not going to construct a television show around the highly pedestrian and painfully obvious notion that "people are addicted to technology."

  • Mari Vidste
    Mari Vidste wrote:

    alt text

    The man in the gif is me laughing at you reading the Wikipedia entry on the New Critics to me. Needless to say, I didn't need to do any quick online research to know who they are or what they said. Long research papers written under the watchful eyes of New Critic disciple professors are not easily forgotten. I also don't need the intentional fallacy to show up on my Google-generated list of fallacies to know that it is a fallacy and that you are incapable of not committing it. It was created to troll fanboys like you.

    Of course someone who does not think for himself would be quick to laugh at my bold statement rather than think about what it means. Do you like Stanley Kubrick? None of his films say anything. In some cases he would distort his source material so as to remove any statement. Dr. Strangelove is the most obvious example. Here is a story that began as a somewhat straightforward story with a point - we're all gonna die if we don't get rid of the bomb! Kubrick, an artist, is not happy with the prescriptive, moralistic nature of this story. So he turns it into a slapstick comedy which does not spare the dignity or trustworthiness of even a single character. All are buffoons. And in the end the film says absolutely nothing and yet, it is a great film. Not my favorite Kubrick, but still very interesting and unique. Name me a movie that you love and I will tell you if it's great or not based on whether it does or does not say anything.

    You see, an artist that truly has the power to say something is not comfortable until his work says nothing. Such is the contradictory nature of high-level creation. Again, I do not expect you to understand this.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Familiarize yourself with Charlie Brooker's past work and y'all will have a better understanding of what he's saying. And before some troll asks - NO, im not going provide your shortcutting analytically incompetant asses with CliffsNotes....

    I'm incapable of offering a concise analysis myself, but I will invoke the name of the artist to make myself appear intelligent

    FTFY

  • Pavoir Sponse
    Pavoir Sponse wrote:

    Forgive me for intruding on a discussion, but 柯南, are you not being a bit disingenuous here? You say that great artistic productions don't say anything at all, and that it is meaningless to invoke the intentions of an author, but then add:

    "Kubrick, an artist, is not happy with the prescriptive, moralistic nature of this story. So he turns it into a slapstick comedy which does not spare the dignity or trustworthiness of even a single character. All are buffoons. "

    Aren't you yourself here dabbling with Kubrick's intent? Isn't Kubrick by subverting the prescriptive, moralistic nature of the story thereby making a quite profound statement?

    You offer very insightful analysis of the works of art you like (Tree of Life, Eraserhead) and how you interpret them, and then claim they say nothing at all. It feels like you are trying to have it both ways.

    As far as the intentional fallacy goes, I can see the point that is being made, but at the same time I can also see how it might be useful to consider an author's intent when considering a piece of work.

    I don't quite follow why we should disregard an artists thoughts regarding his works entirely; they offer a useful tool in getting to grips with any given piece of art. In this sense the fallacy you talk about is just an opinion, not some fact whereby anybody who considers the thoughts of an author a moron.

  • Mari Vidste
    Mari Vidste wrote:

    Forgive me for intruding on a discussion

    Wtf? COME ON IN BRO

    It feels like you are trying to have it both ways.

    There is an author and he is of utmost importance, but what an author says about his work is going to be self-serving and misleading and full of delusion. Between intention and execution there is a creative process and within that process intentions are subverted and twisted by amoral subconscious forces. I always think of what Hannibal Lecter says in Silence of the Lambs about Buffalo Bill.

    Billy hates his identity, you see, and he thinks that makes him a transsexual, but his pathology is a thousand times more savage.

    Artists think they know what they are, think they know what they are doing, but in their work the truth about their nature is revealed. They know this and use interviews and commentaries to edit themselves. But clever critics are not fooled.

  • Mari Vidste
    Mari Vidste wrote:

    Of course that would sound like bullshit to you. After all, you are the same person who dismissed my reference to the masses of gawkers at public beheadings during the French Revolution as 'tangential crap' when in fact in making that reference I was illustrating the absurdity of the claim that England's streets empty out to watch the prime pound the pig because the people are hopelessly addicted to technology. Obviously, in light of history, that is not why they watch.

    we haven't seen you give a thoughtful response to the episode in question

    Really? I thought I already said this episode is the story of redemption in the face of master trolls and high comic perversions. But I can go further.

    Think about to what extent the episode is an indictment of the artist/troll/kidnapper who uses social media and viral video sharing to con one of the most powerful men in the world. But the show itself is a troll who doesn't "Delivar". I was trolled for fuck's sake. Within the first minutes I had a reason to watch. I wanted to see the PM en media thrust with a pig. Without the insertion of the brilliant comic idea of the pig, this is another ho-hum drama about a politician's struggle between personal dignity and political necessity. Seen it! But I haven't seen the Prime prime a pig and as I said I don't have to be a fucking TV addict to want to see that. I want to see that at the reptilian brain level. And I don't have to be a sick fuck either. I just have to like to laugh.

    After all, it's a TV show. No one is actually fucking any pigs.

    This is why I say the show is disjointed. You have inserted this great comic idea into a bland melodrama and the bland melodrama wins, making those who longed for the lulz (everybody) pissed off troll victims. Note until the end the PM is in the dark as to the extent to which he has been trolled by the artist. His aides don't tell him about the early release of the girl. And why do his aides not tell him? Because they know how fucking pissed off he will be. And that is the feeling you get when you have been trolled. Now when the show trolls me into watching it and then doesn't deliver, how do I feel? I don't feel ready to learn any lessons about the addictive nature of technology, I can tell you that. So fuck this show. It's just another inept troll who makes promises but is too much of a pussy to deliver.

  • Mari Vidste
    Mari Vidste wrote:

    Oh yeah. And this

    I find it absurd that you think meaninglessness is the ultimate measure of artistic quality.

    You really need to get out more. By that I mean, read a fucking book. Or watch a fucking movie. This is not a new idea. Ever seen this?

    alt text

    Around the roaring lion's head is a three word phrase in Latin, Ars Gratia Artis.

    Art for art's sake.

    Or, as Oscar Wilde paraphrased it, "All art is meaningless." The point is any teaching or preaching or learning is a corruption of art.

    I love this philosophy.

    You can disagree with it. But you will be a faggot.

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    Or you can agree with it, and be wrong.

    Regardless of your psudointellectual ramblings, and regardless of the fact that artists are not always able to completely encapsulate their intended imagery in their work, your assertion that the highest echelon an artist can achieve in their work is some kind of 'freedom from meaning' is complete and utter bullshit. It is akin to saying hinduism is "the true religion" or that strawberry icecream has "the most superior flavour". It is but one branch of artistic theology, philosophy or ideology, and to call it "the truth" is to display a thoroughly lazy or willfully ignorant thought process.

    The whole idea of "art for the sake of art" is very new in terms of the history of art (a concept that emerged in the mid 19thC), and has been discussed at length by many. The fact that Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer traslated it from it's original french incarnation into latin purely in order to give it a more grandeose, classical and "timeless feel" is little more than self-fellating deception (which apparently you fell for hook line and sinker).

    Certainly, one can postulate that certain pieces or works are literally "art for the sake of art" (but in this case they still have a meaning); one can also postulate that there is "meaningless" art - art that has no clearly definable "meaning" per se (take surrealist or abstract works by amost anyone) but this art still has a purpose - to be sensed and reacted to etc - thus actually does have a meaning, albeit abstract. All art ever made was intended to be sensed (not neccessarily enjoyed), felt and reacted to by "the experiencer" (they used to call this "the viewer") and is the common denominator which links every creative piece work ever produced by man. (Bare in mind that sometimes the only intended "experiencer" was the artist themself - still has a meaning, still has a purpose.)

    What is the "meaning" of an instrumental melody - and who knows but the artist? Others can feel it, they might even "feel it right" - but that doesnt matter anyway. Are songs without words "art for the sake of art"?

    Aside from the fact that you seem to collectively place all artists in the same category with the same goals and philosophies, and ignoring the fact that you think art made for the sake of art says nothing (or that Dr. Strangeglove "means nothing" - lol) I dont know how you can even begin to contend that art with a purpose is somehow "corrupted". Do you know ANYTHING about art I wonder. When you make contrarian comments about art being made that "isnt even understood by the artist" you take the cake - while I can agree that many artists have no way of understanding how their work is percieved by experiencers, that they may not understand the products of their own working mind, though conceptually a titillating tangent, remains interesting for about five minutes is ultimately the epitome of arrogance.

    No matter what anyone says, art can be many things, but it is ALWAYS communication, because without the desire to communicate, the artist says nothing, and in saying nothing produces no work. The only meaningless art is that which does not exist.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Conan:

    art for art's sake is not new

    as Oscar Wilde paraphrased it, "All art is meaningless."

    Alex:

    The whole idea of "art for the sake of art" is very new in terms of the history of art (a concept that emerged in the mid 19thC)

    Stopped reading here. You really have nothing intelligent to add to the conversation, do you?

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    @Beardy Weirdy - What Conan said about it being "not new" was wrong; it is a "new" concept in terms of the history of art. 19thC might has well be yesterday in terms of the length and breadth and body of art in existance.

    On another note - stop reading all together please. Breathing too.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    alt text

    it's new because history

    Let's double the dataforce, for those of us capable of adapting to accelerated culture:

    cave paintings contain more meaning than Internet memes

    You're trolling. Take it elsewhere. You are ruining what was otherwise an enlightening conversation.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Although I think Conan takes his position to a more extreme place to get a funnier rise out of this pedantic long-winded douche, he's right.

    Hear, hear.

    The mass cult has spoken in cacophonous unison: authors may think they speak the word of god, but they are naught but demiurges with but limited control over their own dominions. By Alex's accidental reasoning we might conclude that the literary singularity has already occurred, and that we have witnessed a metacreative Big Bang vis a vis the explosion of fanfiction and fanart.

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    pedantic long-winded

    I find that usually, the best remedy for a psude is long winded pedantry.

    cave paintings contain more meaning than Internet memes

    lol@Beardy Weirdy - At no point did I ever >imply that the older the art the more value it holds or the more meaning it conveys. Strawman fail again. Your hypocricy knows no limits lol - you are without a doubt the number one topic derailing psude on this forum. At least that pussy ass DB scott is funny on occasion. your constant thinny veiled weaksauce trolling reeks of self loathing and inadequacy; as I would expect from a 'man' that resembles a garden gnome with Down syndrome.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    butthurt

    insults

    The gentlemen were discussing a television show. In this context, the 19th century is not just old. It's pre-historic.

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    The gentlemen were discussing a television show.

    No thatch face; they were discussing art film, the philosophy of ''l'art pour l'art'' and the concept that artists are disconnected from or "dont understand" their own work; ie. pseudointellectual claptrap of the most incipid kind.

    he's right. Art with a heavy-handed intended message sucks balls. See: every feminist work ever. Propaganda, not art.

    No, hes not right, but yes, a lot of art sucks balls, and indeed, a lot of propaganda induced art sucks balls - but not all of it. Propaganda can still be art, and some of the best art too. Don't cite some feminist BS to support your BS. Just look at the ceiling of the sistine chaple. Look at the last judgement. In fact, look at any quality piece of artwork that carries any kind of message at all. It is beyond nonsenical to write them all off as being "corrupt" because the artist has a clear communicative intention behind the work.

    Damn, if only Michaelangelo had Conan as his muse just imagine the kind of mindblowing shizz that he wouldnt have come out with.

  • Mari Vidste
    Mari Vidste wrote:

    implying Scott is funnier than Dando

    Alex, you continue to disappoint me. If fact Dando, when he quipped

    I'm still getting over the awful cocktease that was Grizzly Man

    is responsible for the lulziest line in this thread. Your weaksauce attacks on him betray a juvenile jealousy and misunderstanding that embarrasses even me. But please continue to be a humorless curmudgeon. The fun of bouncing trolldarts off your furrowed brow is exactly the kind of thing that gave rise to the l'art pour l'art movement.

    Proceed.

  • 随便叫兽
  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    l'art pour l'art movement

    concession accepted.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    concession accepted

    alt text

  • Pavoir Sponse
    Pavoir Sponse wrote:

    Hmm, this is all a pretty interesting discussion.

    I think it depends very much on the nature of the art in question. I think there have been some examples of very didactic art that are very effective (Orwell springs to mind), with the author often having a clear intent, though I think Conan’s subconscious amoral force is invariably at play, so we should approach an artist’s words with caution.

    Then there would seem to be art that is more nebulous in character, more ambiguous- where the author is perhaps less clear of his intent (some surrealist works strike me this way). I think David Lynch would be an interesting case in point here; on numerous occasions he has been asked to deconstruct, say, Eraserhead, but refuses to do so; he seems to want to leave it up to the audience. In fact, part of what I liked that movie is that I can’t quite get a handle on what he is trying to say and that intrigues me (it clearly goes way beyond a comment on man’s unease with fatherhood.)

    I don’t think these two positions need to be diametrically opposed or even to exist independently of each other. Is it not more likely that there is some kind of scale of intent, where different pieces of art work fall with varying degrees of success?

Please login to post a reply to this thread.

WeLiveInBeijing

WeLiveInBeijing.com is a social community for people living in or traveling to Beijing.

Powered by: Bloc