The progression of ... (a ramble)

actors are still often called thespians.
go the thespians!
blame shakespeare for the fact that people don't call musicians bards so often anymore, he appears to have taken over as The Bard.

WINZ is the half-pai patron of many a budding arrrgh-tea-st.

[ external link ]

A musician, artist or writer who had a patron was generally expected to trun out more than a sonnet (song, picture) or two. They were expected to churn 'em out. The great men of their day did not expect to hear or see the same thing twice. Hence the proliferation of really bad music, writing and art. But there are of course some nuggets among the dross. But hardly a sweet life ... Mozart died a pauper. Byeon, Keats et al hardly experience eny honour in their own lifetime.

On the other hand I agree with you that it is really a shame that some really good writers cannot get published simply beacuse they cannot afford to climb aboard the publicity bandwagon. And I suspect there is no simple answer to the dilemma. After all any potential patron is likely to require their pound of flesh in return for their generosity. A simple acknowledgement in the front of the book is unlikely to please any but the most altrusitic of patrons.

And then of course there will be those who would have the temerity to suggest that writing for money is somehow evil and corrupt and without any redeeming feature. But it does put tucker on the table and allow some of the simple pleasures of life such as survival.

And I cannot afford to be anybody's patron; I have half a band and two teenage sons to support!

//I'm driven to write anyway. //

What better reason do you need?

"Writing is easy. All you do is stare at a blank sheet of paper until drops of blood form on your forehead." Gene Fowler

This might also be a reflection of changes in film-making techniques/genre-change.

Supposedly (according to the guy who took me for an english paper back in 199x), breaking the 'suspension of disbelief' is one of the hallmarks of postmodernism. During the predominantly modernist era in film, the goal was to create a film so seamless that it was easy to just sit there and let yourself be sucked in to the perspective of the film/book etc. Postmodernist work, in contrast, features tell-tales reminding you that you are only watching a story, and potentially end up completely questioning the reality, perspective and truth presented in the film.

As examples of relatively unsubtle techniques, many modern films have subtitles informing you of where you are and what the time is, rather than the pictures themselves delivering the passage of time and place. Actors sometimes talk directly to the audience, and make not-so-subtle use of theatrical irony.

And then there is Mulholland Drive...

I see what you are saying limegreen, in regards to cynism or the immunities we've built up to certain cinematic tricks. I also must admit I enjoy the occasional Lynch mindwarp, and so often question motives, symbolism, etc when trying to figure out the twists when I watch those types of films, as opposed to sitting passively.

But suspension of disbelief is also I believe a non-passive effort, it requires you to adjust your mind to different set of rules, and often when I hear a film was 'unbelievable', it not in the sense that the actors didnt cut it so much as the fact that unless the special effects are top notch then the whole film isnt believable. Noted this mostly refers to special effects type films, and not necessarily David Lynch style surrealism.

//cynism or the immunities we've built up to certain cinematic tricks.

I probably shouldn't have mentioned Mulholland Drive. I agree that part of suspending your disbelief is an attitude thing. I think that's why some people (apart from being soul-less bastards) fail to find Austin Powers funny. If you go in with low expectations, then you can only be rewarded, but if you expect it to be cutting edge humour, then you end up disappointed.

I was suggesting that there is a more deliberate conspiracy if you will on the part of film makers to snap you out of your disbelief. It's like they've realised they can make film real as real, so now they're off trying to make you question it. And believe me, I prefer to suspend my disbelief, which is why I was a little bit disappointed in the slightly anachronistic humour between legolas and gimli in LOTR, because it simply didn't fit.
Whereas, a film like The Rock, plays the postmodern card fairly heavily, and (although I was anyway...) the viewer ends up taking a rather dimmer view of the american military.

Powers certainly rocks, but I know a few people who went in with totally the wrong expectations, and found it entirely unfunny!!!!

Hmm, and thinking of reviews, there is a published reviewer I'm aware of who started reviewing while still studying Film 101 (literally). He gets obsessed with technical details, techniques and flaws, and is completely unable to see the big picture. Occasionally I accidentally start reading one of the reviews and get very very frustrated, they're so uneven, and often end up with the wrong conclusion.

// but surely not everyone is ever going to agree with a review.

I'm not saying I have to agree with his review.

There is a fairly well documented phenomenon that paying too much attention to low level attributes can deflect your more global judgements. So simply, the person concerned takes a great movie, catalogues a bunch of flaws, and then concludes it's bad. Or takes an average movie, but with few flaws, but concludes it's good. Or has a movie that they particularly like for a specific reason, but having picked it to bits, has a conclusion that is unrelated to the content of the review.

I'm basing this hypothesis on a fairly well documented phenomenon.
This is a bit of a tangential example, but they got a bunch of wine-drinkers to try some wine. Half of them were asked to describe the flavour of the wine, the other half did some unrelated stuff. They were then given a couple of glasses of wine, and asked to pick which one it was. The people who had described it failed miserably. They then tried it again with a bunch of wine-writers. Wine-writers were able to pick the wine even after describing it. (This effect holds for things other than wine, including preference for art).

So what I'm suggesting is, this person is inexperienced as a reviewer, and in the process or writing the review, completely destroys their holistic judgement of the movie. I'm well aware of the subjective nature of critiquing movies, but even allowing for differences of opinion, there is generally some consensus (even if some reviewers, and some movies may have greater variation than others).

// Progress is inevitable

It is perhaps only inevitable like growth on the sharemarket. There is certainly huge precedent for knowledge being forgotten, and then rediscovered (such as concrete, which got lost for a few hundred years). Whether modern communication will help halt this process is not yet clear. But we may continue to progress in fits and starts, sometimes going backward for a time.

The problem with new information technologies is that it also helps people access and preserve incorrect information.

The biggest problem with progress (at least as I see it) is the expectation that techonology (and I am assuming we are talking primarily about technological progress in this discussion) will always make things better.

I work in Information Technology. I have been involved in Communications and Information technology for over 27 years. I have seen things evolve from crude crystal controlled, valve based technology to microprocessor controlled VLSI stuff. And believe me it is not all good.

All too often when people have some sort of problem they try to throw technology at it and wonder why they don't get the results they expect. This is because most problems are not technlogy problems but are more often people or process problems.

Properly applied advances in technology can help but technolgy certainly does not provide a panacea to all the ills of the world.

For the record, I was making a comparison between the slow 'natural' degradation of paper based knowledge, and a widespread technical failure that is catastrophic in its suddenness. Of course, as stated up above a well thought out archiving system can hopefully protect this.

//All too often when people have some sort of problem they try to throw technology at it and wonder why they don't get the results they expect. This is because most problems are not technlogy problems but are more often people or process problems.

Big Stu I think that is a great example of my 'tech progress vs. human evolution/progress' point. With all the self-congratulatory fascination with technology we have, we often forget that it requires us to utilise even an automated system effectively. This also runs with Stefan's theme of stating the obvious - it's the obvious things that are the first to be forgotten.

//The evolution of technology threatens humanity's ego.
No way! In general it boosts it.

//The less control we have the more frightened we become.
This is true, but it's not directly due to technological evolution that we feel we are losing control. Technological evolution is a way of trying and gaining control. The reason people feel like they are losing control is two-fold:

Firstly, the comment I made before - by providing solutions to one problem, we discover some more advanced problems. People feel like they're out of control because the new problems have become more global and more advanced than the old ones. New problems require greater effort (often by a great many people) to resolve. Who hasn't lain in bed and freaked out about the social and ethical problems that have been caused by solving simpler problems like how to keep our food fresh?

Secondly, control is like currency - if one person has more control, it means that someone else has less. One person makes a great technological leap, and they have gained some control, and others have lost it. These apocalypse movies like Terminator and the Matrix are created by those whose concern isn't technology (if that was the case, then the movies wouldn't have all those cool special effects), but how other people are developing technology, and their motives for doing so. They don't fear losing control to technology, but to the people wielding it.

//I think those movies are more a broad social commentary than specific groups of people. They make us question our reliance on technology and is it right for us to attempt to play god.//

Nah .... These movies are fun!!! Maybe James Cameron had some message to give to the viewing public about technology, lack of control etc ... but for me the Terminator movies are great fun. And the technology bit of it all with the robotic stuff was just an excuse for a cops and robbers, cowboys and indians type story. Goodies versus baddies.

The thing I like about the technology aspect of these movies is that it gives the viewer a reason not to question how the hell Arnie can survive all the physical trauma that he suffers. If he is a robot then he can fix himself up etc. Unlike Commando (my all time favourite Arnie flick) where he is just a man ... but what a man. The only guy I know who can completely destroy a building with a single anti-personnel mine placed outside the building ... amazing!!!!