Comments on: Bad Movie

By: Barry Ritholtz

Barry Ritholtz — Sun, 17 Aug 2003 02:29:27 +0000

The Matrix did it. By that same logic, we should soon be over run by gay men looking to makeover us straights, fix up our apartments, get us grooming products, and teach us how to dress. 30 years ago, Dick Cavett used to make fun of the violence on TV issue: “There’s so much comedy on television. Does that cause comedy in the streets?”

By: Ronald

Ronald — Thu, 14 Aug 2003 13:03:36 +0000

Just wondering, if the violence in The Matrix has a bad affect on people, do you think that invading Iraq could have a bad effect also? (I hear its production was particularly tougth on the extras.)

By: Robert Schwartz

Robert Schwartz — Thu, 14 Aug 2003 07:14:26 +0000

IIRC the first Matrix was trashed in the wake of Columbine. The interesting question is why was this one such a crummy movie? I had the same feeling seeing Reloaded as I did when I saw Phantom Menace. They took a really good movie and tried to do the same thing again with more special effects and made it much worse.

By: Realish

Realish — Thu, 14 Aug 2003 02:03:48 +0000

I have an advanced philosophy degree and can use the phrase "X referred to Y at Z" with the best of them, but honestly, it annoys me when philosophers denigrate the kind of 'philosophy-lite' you get in movies like The Matrix and Waking Life. I love those effing movies. As far as I'm concerned, anything in a popular medium that gets anyone thinking in any kind of rigorous way about anything is a gift that we should do everything in our power to encourage, not sniff at. Every showing of The Matrix should have a group of philosopher-cheerleaders outside chanting "How do you know your world is real? Come inside and take the pill!" (Yes, I know that doesn't rhyme, and yes, I know philosopher-cheerleaders would be gross.)

By: Kieran Healy

Kieran Healy — Thu, 14 Aug 2003 01:47:04 +0000

Why don’t you like Ender’s Game? Come to think of it, what I really didn’t like was the awful author’s introduction to the paperback edition that one of Laurie’s students gave to her last semester.

By: natasha

natasha — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 21:03:34 +0000

I seem to remember very fuzzily that the band Judas Priest was once brought into court on charges that one of their albums had caused a teenager to shoot his parents. And then there were those who tried to blame the Columbine shootings on Marilyn Manson. Does the doctrine of personal responsibility for the things that an individual takes it upon themselves to do suddenly end when confronted with the mystical, hypnotizing power of pop culture?

By: rea

rea — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 17:11:51 +0000

Who knows how much teen sex and suicide is attributable to Romeo & Juliet? Ban Shakespeare!

By: Kieran Setiya

Kieran Setiya — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:08:48 +0000

Why don’t you like Ender’s Game?

By: Kieran Healy

Kieran Healy — Tue, 12 Aug 2003 22:14:12 +0000

My understanding of the editorial policy, not that there is one, is that criticism of important political philoisophers is on-topic for CT, while ridicule isn’t. Hmm, hadn’t seen you’d beaten me to the punch on this one, D2. I’m not sure how I feel about the criticism/ridicule distinction. I used to have a fairly good line in ridicule. Maybe I got old or something.

By: clew

clew — Tue, 12 Aug 2003 21:16:19 +0000

There ought to be a looser, less inherited sense of ‘communitarian’, in which one of the duties between the community and its members is to leave the members room to dree their peculiar wierds.

By: Russell L. Carter

Russell L. Carter — Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:58:11 +0000

Why stop with The Matrix? Twinkies, modern technological society, and Jodie Foster should be banned as well.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:14:02 +0000

On the one hand, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to offer (and write and post) opinions about things like putative effects of movies and other cultural items. I don’t think one necessarily has to have ‘a point’ in the sense of thinking Something Will Be Done as a result of one’s opinion. Well I would think that, wouldn’t I, because otherwise I would have to shut up so much of the time when I want to talk and talk and talk. But on the other hand, communitarianism causes me to want to pack a small valise and move to a shack in Montana that’s so tiny I can’t stand up straight even in the middle of the room. Communitarianism was big with the Clinton folks, too, and while I suppose it’s preferable to W’s weird sense of humour, still…I’m too keen on thinking in my own peculiar way to be a fan.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:55:31 +0000

My understanding of the editorial policy, not that there is one, is that criticism of important political philoisophers is on-topic for CT, while ridicule isn't.

By: Jeremy Osner`

Jeremy Osner` — Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:38:04 +0000

Hey, you must have missed the memo from D²: criticism of Etzioni is to be posted on your own site, not CT.

By: Charles Stewart

Charles Stewart — Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:29:05 +0000

Hardly surprising: this has been a bit of a hobby horse for Etzioni for quite some time, so I expect the point is simply to add more to the stockpile. I have the idea (not sure where it came from) that Etzioni supports the idea of suing the producers of violent films: why do you think this is anti-communitarian?