Ce vremuri, ce oameni!

0 Flares 0 Flares ×

De atunci mi-am notat să nu mă mai ameţesc înainte de-a intra în direct. Eram moderator atunci (mai 2007), însă am fost supus unui interogatoriu dur din partea unor invitaţi nepoliticoşi şi rau intenţionaţi. Se discută despre Fight Club:

via gramo

0 Flares Twitter 0 Facebook 0 0 Flares ×

12 thoughts on “Ce vremuri, ce oameni!

  1. Nu.

    Ce subtillllllll, la minutul 1:50

    “Da ma, dar tu-l vezi _dublat_” :)) (faza inregistrarii).

    Esti genial cand esti ametit!

  2. andreia

    :)) Super….m-am distrat dimineata asta si mi-am adus aminte ca vorbeai de Fight Club din anul I…ce vremuri…

  3. did

    mi-aduc aminte ca am fost si eu pe chat atunci. dar nu mi se parea ca ai fi baut ceva. :-s
    traim cu impresia ca asa esti tu in general. 😛 si asa esti.

  4. geni

    dar erai ametit?
    ..Da, intram, parcurgem o creatie artistica tocmai pt. a ne pune pe ganduri, pt. a cauta noi dimensiuni,.. un alt fel de a aborda viata.
    ..in rest, f. distractiv!!

  5. jez

    misto chestia cu “comuniunea cu celalalt” – imi aduce aminte de Crash 😉

    putin mai mult din film era undeva la gramo

  6. jez

    Graham: It’s the sense of touch. In any real city, you walk, you know? You brush past people, people bump into you. In L.A., nobody touches you. We’re always behind this metal and glass. I think we miss that touch so much, that we crash into each other, just so we can feel something.

  7. Candid

    Mie nu mi-a schimbat inca un film sau vreo carte viata, ci mai multe filme si carti imi schimba, in mod constant si insesizabil viata.

    Cat despte Fight Club sunt de acord cu tine, greu de patruns, mereu am sentimentul ca imi scapa ceva…

    Cat despre faza cu Mona Lisa vs Fight Club, esti beton, fier beton armat 🙂

  8. urdummheit

    am dat peste următorul bucat de book:
    Film as Philosophy
    Essays in Cinema After Wittgenstein and Cavell
    in care une tanti ne povesteste pretty much same things you mentioned. et voila cum:

    What interests me about Fight Club is the way that it studies what
    you might call this dialectic of desire, the way that it evokes our
    yearning for a coherent world in which we can invest ourselves,
    precisely by scrutinising the resistance to this craving epitomised in
    the stance of the modern philosopher. Fight Club relies on the trope
    of sleeplessness to map the topography of a certain state of Cartesian
    madness. It identifies this madness, figured as insomnia, as a state of
    being unable to feel or express one’s emotions. And this apathy is
    shown to produce a profound separation from other people, one
    that in effect denies their existence, so that the film ends up implying
    that the hallmark of Cartesian skepticism is an extreme, violent
    form of pathological narcissism. Fight Club claims, in other words,
    that the most important legacy of Cartesianism is ethical rather than

    blablabla and:

    At the end of the film, as Tyler’s last and grandest plot comes to
    fruition and one corporate building after the next comes tumbling
    down, Edward Norton’s character discovers where he has to stand in
    order to see the world clearly, which in his case means to acknowledge
    both his own and Marla’s flesh-and-blood existence. The protagonist
    has just killed off Tyler, mythically by shooting himself, but,
    in reality, as it were, by gazing through a widescreen window at
    Marla as she is getting dragged off the bus by Tyler’s thugs, and
    finding himself able to believe in his desire for her. Marla, who is
    absolutely furious, is hauled to the protagonist’s side and then
    stopped dead in her tracks when she sees the massive wound in his
    face.10 As the protagonist reassures Marla that he is in fact all right,
    the buildings outside the window begin to implode; and the two
    reach for each other’s hand as they stare at the window. The right
    distance from which to bear witness to what’s real, to judge the
    status of the world, this film seems to claim, is not the one that
    would have you staring into the sun. Rather, it proposes – apropos of
    both Plato and Descartes, I claim – that the right distance is the one
    at which you are inclined to watch a movie with someone you love.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.