Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
You
Jan 12, 2020 9:27:54 GMT -8
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 12, 2020 9:27:54 GMT -8
Through the first three episodes of season one… You is a quirky series that mixes elements of Dexter with a show about the vacuousness of social media. It’s developed by Greg Berlanti and Sera Gamble and is based on a 2014 novel by Caroline Kepnes. It’s a “Netflix Original” which (so far) makes it surprising that it isn’t a complete piece of excrement. I think it’s almost certainly true that this series is not going to have “legs.” I expect the shtick to run out soon. I give it 6 episodes, tops, before it becomes a repeat-itself-athon as so many other series of this type do. But the first three episodes are interesting. This is a dark comedy. Joe Goldberg is the boyfriend/stalker of the lovely Candace Stone. Candace is a social-climber and her friends are a bit over her social class. But she’s trying to move up. Joe works in a bookstore and is seemingly unremarkable (being “unremarkable” is one of Candace’s biggest fears). Strangely, the dialogue is good. The political correctness (so far) is under wraps. And it’s a rather stinging commentary both of social media and women who create these false narratives of themselves. The men in this are all scum, of course. But so are the women. In fact, this is another series that (so far) has only one redeeming character. He’s a kid (Paco) who lives next door to Joe. And when Joe is sympathetic toward this kid, he’s also a redeeming character. But Joe is complicated. He is a stalker. There are hints that he has perhaps disposed of a previous girlfriend. But in the context of the fake social-media life of the girl he is chasing (Candace), he is surprisingly normal within the context of the bizarre lives of modern yutes. I don’t know if this is an implicit message. But it’s there. And for a series to poke fun at modern women is a rarity. To poke fun at social media is a balm unto itself. Here’s the hard part to digest or accept. Joe may be closer to normal than we think. And I don’t now what themes in this are intentional or not. Joe clearly is more than a little creepy in terms of how he goes about relationships. But then in this modern age, creepiness seems to be the norm. I read this article yesterday (quite worth it in its own right…never mind that the title of it doesn’t describe it at all) that stated: I think we can assume as a backdrop (even though people inside the fishbowl will certainly not see most elements of it) that there is a deep dysfunction to modern yute culture because of Leftist norms and corrosive influence of social media. This series (so far) is a poke at social media and perhaps modern women who make far too much use of it. It’s limited (so far) in scope, but I think you can see the acknowledgment of that backdrop. There is subtlety and some good dialogue, which any dark comedy must have. For instance, we see the “rich kid” snowflake boyfriend of Candace. He’s a piece of work. He treats her badly. Why does she stay with him? That is explored and is not a good commentary either on Candace nor her boyfriend. At one point, in a candid remark to Joe (Joe is semi-stalking her, but they also do meet and talk with each other), she tells him that maybe she is attracted to people who aren’t good for her. A nice little inside-joke wink at the audience. One is pretty sure that Joe isn’t going to be good for her either (but the reverse could also be true). But she, in particular, isn’t good for herself. Will she do what she wants or will she try to artificially mold herself to fit into the more prestigious peer group she wants to move up into? Joe is (by all appearances) a normal, happy-go-lucky fellow. He never went to college and says he is content doing what he loves, which is books. She gains some inspiration from Joe and starts to show some teeth in her own life regarding what she wants, and who she really is, as opposed to the fake personal of social media and such. And then it will continue on from here. But, again, Joe isn’t all bad. Just like Dexter, he seems to be a basically decent guy. But, like Dexter, he may be prone to taking extracurricular methods against rotten people. Joe has a great and warm relationship with (14-year-old?) Paco. Paco lives in a ramshackle apartment next to Joe. Joe usually finds Paco sitting on the steps outside his door because his mother is fighting or otherwise engaged with her completely abusive and scummy boyfriend. Surely one of the central themes of this is that women repeatedly fall for abusive men. Joe is somewhat cast in the role of nice-guy who doesn’t necessary catch all the breaks. And yet is is without a doubt a bit creepy. Candace, meanwhile, is a “modern” woman who we once might have called a “slut” but now we simply say is a free spirit practicing the art of meaningless hookups via Tinder and other apps. And give the series producers at least small credit that they don’t show her sexual libertinism in a particularly good or wholesome light. I’ll watch a little more and see how it goes and report back. |
|
|
|
You
Jan 12, 2020 10:12:55 GMT -8
Post by timothylane on Jan 12, 2020 10:12:55 GMT -8
I read many years ago that there was a problem in young America with boys and girls both participating in a hook-up culture that involved casual sex but no actual friendship. This, at least for boys, seems to be one step beyond that (my phrasing there is deliberate, and may even be apt). I wonder if the problem is that the girls aren't like whoever they view in their pornography.
Incidentally, a friend of mine at Purdue once said that he saw a porno movie once a year to remind himself why he didn't go more often. Having seen a few at that age, I decided I didn't need yearly inoculations. And with maybe a single exception (Body Double in many ways is a typical Brian de Palma thriller and Hitchcock homage, but also something of a porno film and featuring a porn star as a major character).
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
You
Jan 12, 2020 11:06:50 GMT -8
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 12, 2020 11:06:50 GMT -8
My guess is that the real problem isn’t pornography or girls not matching up to pornography. Guys can look at pictures of naked women like women can window shop for jewelry and never run out of that particular passion.
Again, I’m guessing. But I would say the problem is that men needn’t respect women. There used to be some value in saving yourself for marriage and for guys to have to work hard to be worthy of one of woman’s most precious gifts.
But that aspects has been almost 100% devalued. And with men being picked on, marginalized, and demonized for normal masculine (especially chivalrous) behavior, what is the upside of wanting women, especially if they are giving it out so readily (in a misguided attempt to be “equal” to men in this regard)?
Women no long complete men like they once did. They’re becoming a parasite on men.
Yes, one can say that men are increasingly adult juveniles. But whose fault is that? It’s the fault of women. You can’t be equal and special at the same time. Women are, by and large, not worth the effort. Video games, pornography, and (now…and coming in a big way) sex bots are just the natural outlet for men in a hostile environment.
I think homosexuality is also, to some extent, a reaction to this. We know there are some species of fish, for example, that can change sex in response to environmental pressures or opportunities. Only the willfully blind cannot see how “men” these days are physically becoming more girl-like.
But, good god, the social media insanity in this series I would think is a pretty good example of an addiction running rampant that is hitting both sexes. But I do believe this is more of a woman-thing. Facebook is their pornography. It’s the platform of drama. And as men get sucked into the paradigm of women, they can easily find themselves doing the same thing.
The one great piece of shtick in this is that Candace lost her phone and Joe found it. Candace did not password lock her phone so Joe can follow everything she is texting to friends, and vice versa. It’s a hoot.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
You
Jan 13, 2020 8:25:18 GMT -8
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 13, 2020 8:25:18 GMT -8
I’d say this series goes about 3-1/2 episodes where the storing arc is compelling. But, alas, it’s devolved to simply repeating itself. Still, the sheer boredom of winter weather drove me to stay with it through 8 episodes. And like a bad book, I find myself literally starting to skim (fast-forward).
All subtlety and cleverness is now gone and it’s turned into a brute-force series not even remotely intersecting on topics of general interest. This is now just Joe and Beck in an up-and-down relationship with a little stalker bloodshed here and there. Joe has also somehow magically become invisible. He can stalk wherever he wants (including inside someone’s home, even when full of people) without being seen.
This would have made an interesting, tight series if wrapped up in about 5 episodes. But economics, not storytelling, drive these things. They must tried to milk it, to stretch it out, to get several seasons out of it if they can. And this is abundantly clear given the repeating and circular plot lines. It’s just the same stuff happening over and over with the mannequins and window-dressing changed a bit here and there.
It’s not amazing to see someone (Netflix, in this case) trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip. It’s what they do. The interesting thing is to see all the “1o-out-of-10” reviews at IMDB. IMDB’s ratings have always been skewed up for junk. But this plethora of 10-out-of-10s for mediocrity is interesting. This cannot be about an honest assessment of an artistic product. I can certainly enjoy 6-out-of-10 star productions without believing I’m watching Casablanca.
But for modern yutes, it seems this is not the case. I can only conclude that because they’ve spent their precious Snowflake time watching something that they are putting a value on their time, not the artistic content.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
You
Jan 13, 2020 13:46:30 GMT -8
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 13, 2020 13:46:30 GMT -8
One of the elements introduced in the latter episodes of season one is a shrink who is counseling independently both Joe and Beck. This shrink is by no means the no-nonsense and decidedly non-girly-man Dr. Dix as played by William Devane in the Jesse Stones series. But he is interesting in not dispensing a lot of baloney considering the profession portrayed. Which brings us to: Moralistic Therapeutic Judaism. I read that article recently and one part of reminds me of perhaps the largest pitfall of so-called “social media” which is a central feature of this series: One of the frightening develops (particular in the soft sciences) is the idea that “Who are we as adults to tell children what to think?” And this attitude now (perhaps not then when it started) makes sense when you have an audience of pupils who are expected to be entertained, to have their emotions validated, their current beliefs (however they acquired them) ratified. God forbid, no one is going to ask them to eat their spinach. Obviously in the world of constant entertainment and validation (or attempts at such), there is no room for the dastardly P-word, pedagogy. “I know this, you don’t, so shut up and listen.” And you can see in this “You” series that when people have the ability to fine-tune their choices — filtering out all the “bad” stuff and letting in only the “good” (aka “flattering”) stuff — you’re not preparing people for the real world, let alone being thoughtful, patient, generous, and all the other characteristics that allow for millions of people to live in close proximity and more or less peacefully.
And, in this series, when they run across the "bad stuff" (unflattering comments on social media), this is a make-it or break-it thing for them. The obsess on it. Image is everything. There's not even the thought of whether a comment has merit. It's something to be erased or rationalized away. Repeat and rinse, and you have this self-boxing behavior that is turning people into zealots and kooks.
Another thought (especially in connection with this series) is how woman-centric so-called “social media” is. And how this (given the nature of women), social media is going to focus on what’s wrong with the world. This is what women do. They tell you what’s wrong, what you’re not doing right. It can easily become chronic complaining. And social media facilitates this. Both men and women should be aware of this. But men, in particular, should be wary of being sucked into what is essentially a woman’s game. This is why men (traditionally, by and large) when involved in the arts tended to paint beautiful things. It was about the wonders of the world. But as Leftism (inherently feminism) infects our arts, art has now turned to be just one grinding complaint about how rotten things supposedly are. One of the central characters of this series — Beck — is a chick writer. And whether this is presented as intentional satire or not, the people (almost all women) who get the most kudos from the professionals for their writing are the ones who can write the biggest victim or sob story. As repetitious as this series is, I think you an glean all sorts of themes from it — many of which I suspect are unintentional. |
|
|
|
You
Jan 13, 2020 15:06:17 GMT -8
Post by timothylane on Jan 13, 2020 15:06:17 GMT -8
Interesting. So in Judaism as in Christianity, the more orthodox/conservative your church, the better it's holding up in this secular age. I think this happens because the more a church resembles a social club, the more it suffers from the increasing decline of social groups, as documented years ago in Bowling Alone. A church needs to sell its product, so it needs a product worth selling. Genuine religion and morality still work as a product. Progressive politics combined with kumbaya doesn't.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
You
Jan 14, 2020 14:52:20 GMT -8
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 14, 2020 14:52:20 GMT -8
You has gone pretty dark. Dark comedies are only good so long as there is some humor. I think the people who wrote this are morally sick. I’m not sure what it says for the viewers either. But the first three episodes were pretty tight.
Everywhere else out there, Progressivism is doing big business. It makes sense that religious leaders chuck the Bible and replace it with pro-environment and pro-homosexual stuff. It will be interesting to see how this ultimately plays out.
|
|
|
|
You
Jan 14, 2020 16:16:22 GMT -8
Post by timothylane on Jan 14, 2020 16:16:22 GMT -8
I'm not sure how much business progressivism actually does. Going left sometimes hurts (e.g., the NFL and ESPN have been hurt by going woke), but most people don't care. The problem with mainstream churches is that progressivism isn't an ancillary aspect of the business, but their whole product. And there's not much of a market for that.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
You
Jan 14, 2020 19:11:31 GMT -8
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 14, 2020 19:11:31 GMT -8
Who knows what people want? I don’t go to church. I’m only guessing. My hunch is that even in more traditional churches, there is far too much touchy-feelgoodism and not enough “thou shalt not.” I’d love for other churchgoers to give their opinion and get a spectrum of what's going on out there.
|
|
|
|
You
Jan 14, 2020 19:44:53 GMT -8
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 14, 2020 19:44:53 GMT -8
It has been something like 15 years since I visited a church service. The closest thing to a church service that I have recently attended has been a memorial service given by a rabbi for a friend who died last year.
Growing up, I went to church three times a week and there was a fair amount of "thou shalt not" taught. No dancing, no smoking, no drinking, etc. Excommunication was taken seriously and was, on occasion carried out. But the slipshod or malicious way this might be handled was brought home to me personally.
One day during a Sunday service, one of the elders got up in front of the congregation and read out the names of church members who had not attended church for some time and who were in danger of being excommunicated. Amazingly, my brother's and my name were among those read out.
My father went through the roof (one would have to know my father to understand how big a hole this would leave) and called the elders out. This happened sometime in the 1980s, as I recall. My father made the the elders look like fools or knaves when he pointed out that my brother had moved north of Dallas and had joined another congregation there; and I lived overseas. Both of us had moved away from Dallas several years before this happened yet nobody had contacted my brother, myself or my parents, who had been members of the church since 1957 (i.e. one year after it had been founded) and who attended church every week. Most of the time, they attended two or three services a week.
I only heard about this sometime later when I happened to visit my parents on a trip back to the States. My father was still annoyed.
Someone said something like, "Don't credit maliciousness for an action when stupidity will account for it" and I think this may often cover bad actions. But I had my doubts about the motivation of the elders. Christians my ass.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
You
Jan 14, 2020 19:52:37 GMT -8
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 14, 2020 19:52:37 GMT -8
Yikes. You’d think regarding something like that you’d want to get your facts straight.
Smells distinctly like a Kungian rule. And it’s probably good advice. Not knowing the situation there (my omniscience having long ago been repossessed for lack of use), I don’t know the motivation of the elders. A disinterested outsider might have observed that perhaps this was a case to calmly explain the situation, not take offense, and turn the other cheek.
But I had a father as well. And he would have likely done the same thing. He could go ballistic about certain things. And you could never be sure what those things would be.
|
|
|
|
You
Jan 14, 2020 20:09:49 GMT -8
Post by timothylane on Jan 14, 2020 20:09:49 GMT -8
I know I've seen that principle given elsewhere, usually as an argument against conspiracy theories. This is especially true when dealing with the Behemoth, where stupidity and ineptitude are abundant. But as we're seeing with regard to Trump and his people, malice is abundant when political differences become involved (indeed, Joe L. Hensley made a career out mysteries with political themes, particularly those in the series with Donald Robak as the hero, though he probably made more money as a judge in Madison, Indiana). This is especially true today, with the increasing political bigotry of the left.
|
|
|
|
You
Jan 14, 2020 20:11:54 GMT -8
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 14, 2020 20:11:54 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
You
Jan 14, 2020 20:16:21 GMT -8
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 14, 2020 20:16:21 GMT -8
Who can say exactly what their motivations were, but let me say that as a child, teenager and young man I thought a couple of them were pious frauds. I saw them virtually every week for 18-19 years and was taught Sunday School by at least one of them. So I knew them pretty well.
The fact that they saw my parents a couple of times every week for several years without asking about my brother's or my whereabouts shows either extreme stupidity or maliciousness, in my humble opinion. Think how normal it would have been to approach my father and ask, "Kung, we haven't seen Fu Zu for a long time is he well or has he moved? We are a little worried about him."
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
You
Jan 14, 2020 21:28:05 GMT -8
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 14, 2020 21:28:05 GMT -8
Some of those surface vessels were seriously messed up. They had a lot of great angles of the explosion. That was a pretty big 21 kilotons.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
You
Jan 14, 2020 21:29:56 GMT -8
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 14, 2020 21:29:56 GMT -8
That definitely would have been a better approach.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 14, 2020 21:53:50 GMT -8
I thought so too. The Castle Bravo detonation was much larger, but the hydrogen bomb explosion's filming was taken much farther away than the atomic bomb's, so one doesn't see the full power of the boom.
|
|
|
|
You
Jan 14, 2020 22:21:14 GMT -8
Post by timothylane on Jan 14, 2020 22:21:14 GMT -8
I've read about it, but I never saw what sort of damage the ships received. I suppose these were the closest with the full blast and the highest heat. A little further away, the ships were still theoretically functional despite the damage.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
You
Jan 15, 2020 9:47:28 GMT -8
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 15, 2020 9:47:28 GMT -8
Yes, I think that’s a good observation.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
You
Jan 15, 2020 10:03:05 GMT -8
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 15, 2020 10:03:05 GMT -8
Who among us is without sin and should cast the first stone? But no one said anything about mud! I was thinking a little more about this, Mr. Kung. I consider you a man of reason, honesty, and generally good will. But the church elders might have had a point for you really did become an apostate, at least to their church. My overall shtick is admittedly a vapid one and not one the market wants. But I believe there is a reasonable place between the caustic atheism of Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” and Robert Schuller’s Crystal Palace. (Crystal Cathedral. Whatever.) This article notes they had a Jumbotron. They had The Crystal Palace as the answer to a Jeopardy! question just the other day. I can’t believe I missed it. But I seriously digress. By the way, apparently the Crystal Cathedral fell on hard times and was bought by the Catholics and rechristened the Christ Cathedral. I wonder what they call the Jumbotron now. I’ve digressed again. I’m just saying, I think there is a place for the searching person of honest soul and intellectual depth that lies between the caustic atheists and the Jumbotron palaces. I hate the arrogant, nasty atheists. But in the same token, I get kind of creeped out by the groupthink of religious communities. Anyway, you’ve certainly gained a fairly broad view of the whole question….even without benefit of the Jumbotron. |
|
