Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings212
ferdinand1932's rating
Reviews220
ferdinand1932's rating
In ''Ulysses'' Joyce's uses the phrase 'ineluctable modality of the visible' to state that there is a reliance upon vision in perceiving the world. A sort of ''Esse est percipi''. This movie expresses that to the nth degree. But it is not interesting in anyway at all and its length elongates the torpor of its mediocrity to a degree that Joyce and Berkeley might have groaned at.
The Substance expresses Christopher Laschs's 1978 book ''The Culture of Narcissism'' quite perfectly. That is to say, that the torments of aging and the loss of physical beauty are the ineluctable anxiety of the narcissist and of the narcissist culture that fostered it: in other words, those that live by the sword, die by the sword. The nature of narcissism is manifold and has been in articulated in great and analytic detail, and it is accepted as a commonality of modern life, at least since it was empirically documented over 40 years ago. (Lasch uses statistics in the US to show that the increase in narcissism is a quantitative fact. It rise everywhere since is demonstrable)
As such, and without deviance from the logic of that argument, The Substance uses horror tropes and a simplistic deterministic linearity to drive its dramatic point home with the same spirit that a dull-witted student had used AI to write a paragraph. This aspect is manifest in the coy depiction of the multiple ''butt'' shots, whereas the loss of youth, and with it, fertility, ought really to be expressed in the transformation of the sexual organs, but because of censorship rules, and the obvious refusal by actors to do such scenes, cannot be done in a film. Thus, the impotence of the thesis is clear in the film medium.
That the camera work, the direction and editing are of singular point of view does not elevate the piece to anything of note. It does, if anything, underline the gruesome idiocy of its own narcissism.
The Substance expresses Christopher Laschs's 1978 book ''The Culture of Narcissism'' quite perfectly. That is to say, that the torments of aging and the loss of physical beauty are the ineluctable anxiety of the narcissist and of the narcissist culture that fostered it: in other words, those that live by the sword, die by the sword. The nature of narcissism is manifold and has been in articulated in great and analytic detail, and it is accepted as a commonality of modern life, at least since it was empirically documented over 40 years ago. (Lasch uses statistics in the US to show that the increase in narcissism is a quantitative fact. It rise everywhere since is demonstrable)
As such, and without deviance from the logic of that argument, The Substance uses horror tropes and a simplistic deterministic linearity to drive its dramatic point home with the same spirit that a dull-witted student had used AI to write a paragraph. This aspect is manifest in the coy depiction of the multiple ''butt'' shots, whereas the loss of youth, and with it, fertility, ought really to be expressed in the transformation of the sexual organs, but because of censorship rules, and the obvious refusal by actors to do such scenes, cannot be done in a film. Thus, the impotence of the thesis is clear in the film medium.
That the camera work, the direction and editing are of singular point of view does not elevate the piece to anything of note. It does, if anything, underline the gruesome idiocy of its own narcissism.
This is not a good film. The themes it covers are explored in depth and well in the Cronin biography. Read that book instead.
This is not a good film because it squanders its talent, though they are all able, but the shrewish depiction of Suzanne is unfair and is a simplistic device for Beckett to seek affection elsewhere.
It is not good because the locations are obviously neither shot in Paris nor in France.. The latter may seem a quibble but the scenes of the war time in Roussillon are critical to rendering Beckett's life with Suzanne and to his development as a writer.
It is not a good film because it uses reductionism to render a stereotype of man in his relationships with women, that is not historically accurate and glosses over essential facts that would provide context: thus, the time of the Bray affair Beckett and Suzanne had lived separate lives, loyal, yes, but more as lodgers in the same apartment. The time spent on the unfortunate Lucia is wasted as it has no import but to display the relationship with Joyce, and if it was seen as important, it might have shown Beckett visit Lucia in the asylum as he did.
Where it has promise is in the duologue between the Becketts, which allow for a dramatic exposition of his inner life. Or some variant of it; ready for a streaming platform and easy consumption. These scenes were quite effective but not enough to save the overall feeling of superficial understanding and cliche: Beckett quoting an American review of Godot is ridiculous.
This is not a good film because it squanders its talent, though they are all able, but the shrewish depiction of Suzanne is unfair and is a simplistic device for Beckett to seek affection elsewhere.
It is not good because the locations are obviously neither shot in Paris nor in France.. The latter may seem a quibble but the scenes of the war time in Roussillon are critical to rendering Beckett's life with Suzanne and to his development as a writer.
It is not a good film because it uses reductionism to render a stereotype of man in his relationships with women, that is not historically accurate and glosses over essential facts that would provide context: thus, the time of the Bray affair Beckett and Suzanne had lived separate lives, loyal, yes, but more as lodgers in the same apartment. The time spent on the unfortunate Lucia is wasted as it has no import but to display the relationship with Joyce, and if it was seen as important, it might have shown Beckett visit Lucia in the asylum as he did.
Where it has promise is in the duologue between the Becketts, which allow for a dramatic exposition of his inner life. Or some variant of it; ready for a streaming platform and easy consumption. These scenes were quite effective but not enough to save the overall feeling of superficial understanding and cliche: Beckett quoting an American review of Godot is ridiculous.
Movies don't tend to pass a test of logic and cogency, but as this one is about a comprehensive argument and a GUT, it unusually, necessitates a logical analysis.
The development of an anachronistic anthropological unified theory is perilous and this film's presentation of that work does not succeed for a few clear reasons.
It is reductionist; it relies on fundamental informal, and formal, fallacies of inference which are central to the project,and because of its logical deficiencies, fails to make its final conclusion valid. The vaulted ambition to unite phenomena into a single entity is a common fault of human reasoning, and whilst plausible and excusable in everyday thinking, it is absolutely wrong.
As an undergraduate university essay it would be failed on those grounds; qualified logical reasoning should not make such simple errors.
This analysis does not necessarily dispute the arguments about social hierarchy, disadvantage and the bogus historical racialist theories, but examined, rather as discrete, noncontiguous identities, not in aggregate.
As a piece of art, the movie is quite commonplace, at least in terms of contemporary production and directing style, which is not to give it a plaudit, but it is certainly too long A sharper edit would inject a sense of intellectual pursuit.
The development of an anachronistic anthropological unified theory is perilous and this film's presentation of that work does not succeed for a few clear reasons.
It is reductionist; it relies on fundamental informal, and formal, fallacies of inference which are central to the project,and because of its logical deficiencies, fails to make its final conclusion valid. The vaulted ambition to unite phenomena into a single entity is a common fault of human reasoning, and whilst plausible and excusable in everyday thinking, it is absolutely wrong.
As an undergraduate university essay it would be failed on those grounds; qualified logical reasoning should not make such simple errors.
This analysis does not necessarily dispute the arguments about social hierarchy, disadvantage and the bogus historical racialist theories, but examined, rather as discrete, noncontiguous identities, not in aggregate.
As a piece of art, the movie is quite commonplace, at least in terms of contemporary production and directing style, which is not to give it a plaudit, but it is certainly too long A sharper edit would inject a sense of intellectual pursuit.