|
|
Post by jtrodreigez on Jun 22, 2007 15:50:31 GMT
I'll reiterate, i'm 28. In 1988 i was 10. Do not tar me with your old, withered brush.
|
|
|
|
Post by large michael on Jun 22, 2007 16:05:56 GMT
arf.
|
|
|
|
Post by carolyn on Jun 22, 2007 16:09:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jtrodreigez on Jun 22, 2007 16:10:32 GMT
It's an old Icelandic term used to confuse people of low moral fibre.
|
|
|
|
Post by large michael on Jun 22, 2007 16:18:45 GMT
arf again my icelandic friend.
|
|
|
|
Post by jill on Jun 22, 2007 17:21:43 GMT
The big difference between now and the period in which my film is set is our level of isolation. In 1983, people still cared about society as a whole but now they'll keep their mouth shut as long as they've got the house, the job and the car they want. Trouble is though, in my humble opinion, we all sound like Thatcher's babies, like it or not.  I agree with what Shane says, but I read it a bit differently from some people. I didn’t interpret it as an ‘in my day, things were better/people were better’ rant or ‘if you’ve got a nine to five job, you’re life must be shit’ put down. To me, it’s about how we seem to have lost any sense of something bigger than our own individual lives (or family maybe) that we should actually care about and either don’t care enough to want to influence or change things, or maybe have lost faith in such possibilities. Nostalgia is as much about forgetting as remembering, but I think the 1980s really did mark a significant turning point (a revolution if you like). It’s true that people in Britain work very long hours, but historically that’s always been true so to me it doesn’t explain why there’s now a widespread indifference to anything that doesn’t directly affect us. To me Thatcherism wasn’t just about the privatisation of utilities and selling off social housing, but about the total privatisation of life: people tend to be highly individualistic in their thinking, planning and acting and when social problems visit them directly, they find individual solutions-moving to better neighbourhoods etc. This isn’t a dig at anybody; my point is this now describes most of us. Anyway, I’m not going to go on one here. Just to say that while TIE isn’t about Thatcherism per se, it does put individual life stories in a broader social and political context. IMHO that one of the major reasons it’s struck a chord with a wider and more diverse audience this time around. Edit: I don't seem to have mastered the multi-quote thing; no plagiarism intended  |
|
|
|
Post by DeLarge on Jun 22, 2007 21:32:23 GMT
It's Leave, Biff. Leave!
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by jill on Jun 24, 2007 20:36:24 GMT
The subject of poverty and all it's forms was overlooked. There are 14 million people in Britain who are living in poverty (that's almost a quarter of the population). The media or film doesn't completely ignore so-called 'issues.' London to Brighton is a great film (doesn't deal with poverty as such, but does powerfully and graphically expose the dark heart of contemporary Britain). Cathy Come Home made a massive social and political impact when it first appeared. Why isn't there a similar reaction today? Edit: I hate Big Brother. I'm not a snob-I quite like the way channel 4 champions popular culture, but there's no real 'merit' to the show-it's not an interesting social experiment-it's just a lot of exhibitionists playing a game so they can get into Heat and make make some cash....it bores me rigid, sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by PatrickCoyle on Jun 24, 2007 22:05:10 GMT
Cathy Come Home made a massive social and political impact when it first appeared. Why isn't there a similar reaction today? Life moves faster - things come and go in the media, and they're forgotten. Plus with all the choice, nobody is as glued to the telly, especially not for drama. Cathy Come Home couldn't be replicated now in terms of impact. Prove me wrong, telly. Prove me wrong. I'm begging you. |
|
|
|
Post by jill on Jun 24, 2007 22:35:37 GMT
...things come and go in the media, and they're forgotten. Cathy Come Home couldn't be replicated now in terms of impact. Prove me wrong, telly. Prove me wrong. I'm begging you. Ha, ha how bizarre that I'm agreeing with you a lot of the time on this thread! (no offence; mean that in a good way) Yes, it's a 'soundbite', remote control culture-as you said...that's terrible..ooh BB's on. Al Jazeera's pretty good, but not many people watch it. Sadly, I think you might also not be proven wrong.......but then we're back to the question of is this apathy (can't be arsed, don't give a shit) or something else? Edit: this is totally random and might not make sense to anybody but me.......this discussion made me think about Monty Python's Meaning of Life...'What were you saying about hats?' |
|
|
|
Post by large michael on Jun 25, 2007 8:00:20 GMT
Britains got talent.13 million people watched the final, thats all i have to say.
|
|
|
|
Post by carolyn on Jun 26, 2007 9:19:24 GMT
i'm really leaning to making a little move What are your plans JT. Is it musical? |
|
|
|
Post by anonlytwin on Jun 27, 2007 17:15:38 GMT
I see you hid your email. I'm sorry about that man, never meant any harm. A simple reply would have been fine. But its okay now, I understand and will not forget. I won't bother you or any of your movies ever again. Well that reply has confused me. Shane was replying to me wasn't he? i'd love to hear an explanation for this.... v weird!! anyway, this is some question Jill and i certainly don't have a grasp of all the necessary disciplines that i feel are probably intrinsic to a thorough confrontation and understanding of this question. i wouldn't mind saying a couple of things. firstly- and you've already noted this issue- is the media age not at a point where protest is able to adopts multiple forms that even ten years ago where not possible?? (obviously the effectiveness of these protests is another issue, but hasn't that always been the case?) and secondly- and i would say that this is almost certainly a generational thing- are we maybe at a stage of history where apathy has almost become almost a badge of honour? not voting (etc) being the only way a lot of people feel they can exert any real opinion about the state of the nation... not really sure i believe either ot these statements... but then again maybe that is simply a reflection of my own inherent apathy... |
|
|
|
Post by jill on Jun 27, 2007 19:48:31 GMT
anyway, this is some question Jill and i certainly don't have a grasp of all the necessary disciplines that i feel are probably intrinsic to a thorough confrontation and understanding of this question. i wouldn't mind saying a couple of things. firstly- and you've already noted this issue- is the media age not at a point where protest is able to adopts multiple forms that even ten years ago where not possible?? (obviously the effectiveness of these protests is another issue, but hasn't that always been the case?) and secondly- and i would say that this is almost certainly a generational thing- are we maybe at a stage of history where apathy has almost become almost a badge of honour? not voting (etc) being the only way a lot of people feel they can exert any real opinion about the state of the nation... not really sure i believe either ot these statements... but then again maybe that is simply a reflection of my own inherent apathy... I agree with some of what you say Anonlytwin. I think that forms of political engagement have changed and that media technologies are part of the explanation for this. So it's not necessary channeled through political parties anymore-e.g anti-globalisation, the World Social Forum etc and internet campaigns-like the famous Nike campaign a few years back. But because it's sort of amorphous it's less effective maybe-not sure. Also, the mainstream parties tend to absorb and pacify protest by adding on, piecemeal, bits and pieces to win votes-'green issues' being a classic case I suppose. Personally, I think there are different ways to read the decline in voting too. First, it's over-exaggerated especially when it comes to these 'young people' ;D-like the perpetual myth that more young people voted in BB than the last election-not true actually. Second, it might also be that that political parties are so similar and 'managerial' that a lot of people think (maybe rightly) think that it doesn't make a lot of difference whether or how they vote. So, yes, not voting might be a sort of protest, but again ultimately it's ineffective. But I also agree with Shane's point about many people being apathetic; content to just withdraw and not think much or care much unless they're directly affected. It's ironic that the West (especially the US) is currently involved in all sorts of interventions in the name of 'spreading democracy', when democracy in the West is in such a sorry state |
|
