Not all messages are displayed:
show all messages (26 of them)
his logic goes off the track with "an era that perceives itself as post-ideological" - everything after that operates w/ the assumption that 'we're in a post-ideological age' or at the very least 'everyone thinks we are' neither of which are remotely true
― iatee, Monday, 19 December 2011 21:27 (twelve years ago) link
i think the funniest thing in the link is probably this progression:
And this is why Fiennes's Coriolanus is like the eyes of God or a saint in an Orthodox icon: without changing a word in Shakespeare's play, the film looks squarely at us, at our predicament today, offering us the figure of the radical freedom fighter.
Slavoj Žižek's most recent book is "Living in the End Times" (Verso, £12.99)
“Coriolanus" (certificate 15) will be released in the UK on 20 January
Get the full magazine for just £1 a week with a trial subscription. PLUS get a free copy of Penny Red: Notes from the New Age of Dissent by Laurie Penny
xpost i don't think he is? but mainly my takeaway from this is 'the new statesman has given up subediting slavoj zizek'
― thompp, Monday, 19 December 2011 21:29 (twelve years ago) link
ie that death you may have heard of coming from non-religious leaders is surely some kind of mistake, but on the other hand we shouldn't preclude killing as a totally bad thing...
So, yes, Coriolanus is a killing machine, a "perfect soldier", but he has no fixed class allegiance and can easily put himself at the service of the oppressed. As Che Guevara put it: "Hatred is an element of struggle; relentless hatred of the enemy that impels us over and beyond the natural limitations of man and transforms us into effective, violent, selective and cold killing machines. Our soldiers must be thus; a people without hatred cannot vanquish a brutal enemy."
There are two scenes in the film that provide a clue for such a reading. When, after his violent outburst in the senate, Coriolanus leaves the large hall, slamming the doors behind him, he finds himself alone in the silence of a long corridor and confronted by an elderly cleaning man. The two exchange glances in a moment of quiet solidarity, as if only the cleaner can see who Coriolanus is now. The other scene is a long depiction of his voyage into exile, done in road movie style, with Coriolanus as a lone rambler, anonymous among ordinary people. It is as if Coriolanus, obviously out of place in the Roman hierarchy, only now becomes what he is and gains his freedom.
The only thing that he can do is to join the enemy Volscians. He does not join them solely in order to take revenge on Rome. He joins them because he belongs there. It is only among the Volscian fighters that he can be what he is. Coriolanus's pride is authentic, but it has no place in imperial Rome. It can thrive only among the guerrilla fighters.
incoherent in a way, unless you count two rhetorical aims: minimize any communist atrocities, avoid putting up any moral lines that would prohibit future, necessary communist atrocities
― slandblox goole, Monday, 19 December 2011 21:33 (twelve years ago) link
i am psyched for that movie, always cool when the lesser known plays get a movie treatment. i'd love to see someone try a winter's tale.
altho taymor's titus andronicus was pretty bad
― slandblox goole, Tuesday, 20 December 2011 17:48 (twelve years ago) link
tempted to start reading zizek again, use this thread to liveblog
― thompp, Tuesday, 20 December 2011 19:57 (twelve years ago) link