1) Humans are animals. I do not view humans and non-human animals as equal, but I believe that all life is precious, and the fewer creatures that I rob of their existence, the better.
2) It is extraordinarily rare for a strict vegan to suffer negative health consequences from their food choices. It is much more common to see the adverse affects of meat eating; heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and obesity. There is more evidence supporting the notion that humans are not well equipped to handle meat eating than vice versa. I don't find either argument particularly strong, however, because either can be done in a healthy way.
3) Some good is better than no good. There actually is a difference between a handful of animals dying over the course of one's life to support one's existence, and a handful of animals dying each week to support one's existence.
Killing as few animals as possible to maintain one's healthy existence is indeed more ethical than the alternative. There's no way around it, no matter how much one wants to try to rationalize their current, personally enjoyable food choices.
Not understanding any of the logic in the second paragraph.
So if a vegan were to have to choose between eating meat and starving they would probably eat meat and this proves what exactly? That they would be hypocritical if their lives depended on it in a fictional scenario that will never happen?
Well this is looking at their music through a pretty specific lens though, isn't it? If everything is to be judged by what they are doing rhythmically, then melody, harmony, structure, emotion, lyrical content, and the sonic landscape in general are being ignored.
I understand that lyrics were touched upon earlier in this thread, but it seems that rhythm has been focused in on and that grandiose, overarching statements are being made about the band based on what they do (or don't do) rhythmically.
I'm not going to agree or disagree with what Sasha Frere Jones said in his article, because 1) Who cares about my opinion and 2) human beings read these things, and rather than try to force my point of view on others, possibly in an attempt to appear intelligent and musically knowledgeable, I will gladly not stand in the way of people loving or hating Arcade Fire's music. It isn't my job to tell people what they should and shouldn't like, and frankly, I question whether the profession of being a critic should exist in the first place.
I will say this about my experiences with Arcade Fire's music. What has spoken to me, personally, has been the emotion in it. That's the lens I view their music through. It's not the right way to view their music, and it's not the wrong way to view their music. It's just my way, and I fully understand that everyone sees it through their own, very personal lens, and I wouldn't have it any other way.
On a side note, listening to Afterlife for the first time was an emotional experience for me. I like the song, and I'm going to listen to it again right now.
So basically where I'm at right now is that I can't really think of a response to all of this, but I do want to encourage you to keep posting because I'm enjoying reading it.
I like the Sky Ferreira song. I'm not sure I would consider it dance music at around 90 beats per minute, but there's some nice stuff there. I get a little tired of hearing slightly updated 80's nostalgia songs since I had the misfortune of being alive during the decade, but I enjoy most of what is happening in the song regardless of the sometimes schlocky 80's feel.
Wait, what the hell am I doing?
This is a joke right? I mean I nailed it before, didn't I?
I went in with no expectations (regarding what a movie should and shouldn't be), surrendered myself to the surreal, acid trip nature of the film, and had an amazing time. I found the whole experience exhilarating.
Great choice for the movie club. A movie that is so open for interpretation and gets such a wide range of responses and reactions is perfect for discussion.
If a movie is genuinely romantic and genuinely very funny, which I felt this movie was, then it doesn't belong in the category "romantic comedy", since calling something a "rom-com" implies failure at accomplishing either goal, and puts it in a much larger category where the characters are seldom well-drawn and the dialogue is almost never sharp.
I felt the main character were flawed enough to make it interesting, and I thought the lead performances were very good. Bradley Cooper actually reminded me of a couple people I've known, so his performance really resonated with me.
There were a couple awkward scenes (the fight at the football game, for one), and the ending was a little too "up", but this movie really worked for me as a comedy and I thought Lawrence and Cooper's chemistry was very exciting.
I like risk and experimentation in movies, but don't believe that movies have involve risk and experimentation in order to be enjoyed. That being said, I didn't think this movie conformed to the rules of the genre it most nearly fit into.
Nominating 9 films instead of 10, when there are movies out there like The Master and Moonrise Kingdom, is ridiculous.
As for Les Mis -
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2013/01/07/130107crci_cinema_lane
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2013/01/theres-still-hope-for-people-who-love-les-miserables.html
That movie was so bad that a second New Yorker reviewer had to write an article skewering it. I'm not sure I've ever seen a movie warrant 2 separate terrible reviews in the same publication. I've seen the movie, and both articles are spot on.
Purebred kittens don't need to be any higher on the list. In fact, I would actually argue that purebred animals don't need to be on the list at all.
This is unrelated, but that kitten is closer to two weeks old than four. It would be much more mobile at four weeks.
The random-ass music balcony is cracking me up. It's Sheila E, the Slumdog composer, and Pharrell right? And that electric violin...wow. What a clusterfuck.
Predictions
Picture: Descendants
Actor: DuJardins
Actress: Streep
Supporting Actor: Plummer
Supporting Actress: Spencer
Director: Hazanavicius
Original Screenplay: Midnight in Paris
Adapted Screenplay: Moneyball
Foreign Language Film: A Separation
Animated: Rango
Art Direction: Hugo
Cinematography: Tree of Life
Costume Design: Artist
Documentary: Undefeated
Documentary Short: Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom
Editing: Artist
Makeup: Iron Lady
Music: Artist
Song: Man or Muppet
Short Animated: A Morning Stroll
Short Live Action: Time Freak
Sound Editing: War Horse
Sound Mixing: War Horse
Visual Effects: Rise of the Planet of the Apes
We are all self absorbed assholes, yeah. Unless, of course, we want something or aren't allowed to be assholes for some reason. These characters are us but with exaggerated traits, because that's what they teach you to do in writing class.
Whitney Houston bombastically sang some of the schmaltziest songs of all time. In the late 80s and early 90s you couldn't escape that hideous song about the children being the future. I think I saw it performed by self indulgent girls in talent shows and assemblies at school six times in one year. And then there was "I Will Always Love You".
I think the fascination with her the last couple weeks has been more about her tabloidy lifestyle and demise, because everyone knows her music was terrible.
John C Reilly and I can both do without Lars Von Trier.
Also, Margin Call got a screenplay nod but deserved a lot more. Spacey and Irons should be duking it out for best supporting actor and it could easily replace 3/4 movies on the best picture list. And yes, I've seen them all minus the Help, which I refuse to see.
I thought Ricky was good. Funnier and more down to earth than he has been. As was pointed out, the Madonna Like a Virgin joke was terrible but not as terrible as Madonna's self congratulatory acceptance speech that followed.
On another note, there seems to be an unwritten rule that when women win awards at these things they need to appear surprised and overwhelmed. I'm sure they are both surprised and excited, to a degree, but they play it up and exaggerate it to the point that it looks fake. Nothing like the confidence of an acting award to make you think you can fool a room full of your peers. Meryl Streep, on the other hand, had to have known she was walking home with that award the other night (since she was incredible as usual and it's that sort of role) and looked genuinely surprised and a little overwhelmed. Just another example of how brilliant of an actor she is.
I think you are all overlooking that the man lost 20 lbs, giving him the right to be a self indulgent diva who no longer has the ability to laugh at himself. Shirtless photos with careful tricep flexing, tight black shirts, and bad-ass rockstar behavior are only logical following a transformation of that magnitude. The Gervais/Cook 2012 comedy tour is going to be one sexy laugh fest.
iTunes didn't replace Napster or Limewire or whatever came after Napster, Torrentz did. Free wasn't replaced by pay, it was replaced by free, of course.
And pirating is 100% about getting things for free. A convenience argument is invalid now because of sites like iTunes. It is now just as easy to obtain things on the internet legally, but most people steal. It was, in fact, invalid before, because people were taking hours to download things on dial-up before iTunes. People will do what is less convenient if it means getting something for free.
As for the last point, SOPA may not be the solution we need, but clearly something is needed. The slippery slope argument that our government will somehow use this bill to censor the internet like China does is absolutely absurd.
Theft isn't karma for the music industry not anticipating how we would steal things next, and it's not a referendum on how much money is being spent to make films. It's simply theft. However, if people are used to getting things for free, you can put ads on music and movies and offer them for free. This is really the only change that can take place that can compete with piracy, because a pay alternative will not be chosen over piracy by a majority of the population. We have seen this already.
Will ads bring in enough money? Are there enough advertisers out there? Will people be willing to accept commercials mixed in with their albums and movies? If piracy is still not regulated, will people choose to pirate ad free copies instead? These will the questions that need answering.
As for addressing pirating outside of something like SOPA, entertainment companies need to start suing Google, Mozilla, Microsoft, Apple, and other internet service providers for not blocking access to piracy sites. Force them to regulate themselves, since they seem to not have a desire to do it on their own. And please don't confuse free speech with being allowed to steal. These things are completely unrelated. The word "censorship" cannot be twisted enough to be applied here no matter how much our own selfishness blinds and biases us.
Comments