Posts by Zachary King5

Pavičić said quite a lot in his column that someone shared here earlier.
Between those Republican Party plants, the Braco types, the debates over marriage equality and IVF, and all the Oliver Stone and Slavoj Žižek nonsense fed to the masses, they are all just serving the true masters of our sovereignty—the very sovereignty we fought so hard to secure, thinking we were finally masters of our own destiny. We’re a proud nation of just a few million souls in a world where massive superpowers increasingly act like nothing matters at all.

Regarding the referendum and the low turnout.

I find the argument that citizens truly spoke their minds during the referendum to be fundamentally flawed. While I am certainly frustrated with the people who stayed home—because I believe this issue carries far more weight than your typical local municipal squabble—one has to consider the legal requirements for referendum participation. If we applied those same strict rules consistently, almost no local election in Venice would even be valid, not to mention the previous referendum on joining the European Union that someone already brought up.
A huge portion of the population simply doesn't care what happens; they have their money, their small businesses, their vacation rentals, and frankly, they couldn't care less. Many people are technically registered in the DU, but in reality, they are living in the big city or out on a boat somewhere; they have the legal right to vote because they are on the rolls, but they lack any actual physical opportunity to show up.
And let's not forget the propaganda that insisted none of this mattered, promising that it would create millions of jobs and make everyone's life better.
As for the topic of the referendum itself and the federally mandated rules for state-sanctioned votes, someone else has already touched on that, and there's really no point in beating a dead horse.

The second argument is that people voted for the parties that stated their position on Srđ, and that was their intention.

When people cast a ballot for a specific party, they aren't just voting for or against Srđ; they are also implicitly voting for or against marriage equality, LGBTQ+ rights, and various other ideologically charged issues like "these guys stole" versus "those guys didn't." They are voting for their own interests—voting for the politician whose seat they want to protect, or for the development of Srđ even if it's done poorly, or perhaps for their daughter's career advancement. It is undeniably true that there were people who voted for the Democratic Party while simultaneously opposing the apartments on Srđ, or maybe they voted for the Republican Party because they see them as a shield against communist remnants, yet they still oppose the golf course.

They are all cut from the same cloth.

That is the real question, isn't it? It's a question about the fundamental purpose of this entire political system, this method of conducting elections, and what could possibly serve as a coherent alternative to what we currently endure.
What is the point of voting against a loathed Republican Party or a Democratic Party, only to watch them eventually form a coalition at the behest of some big boss like Frankel? Will the betrayed voter actually choose a new option next time when genuine ideological and value-based polarization occurs?
Even though this is a local matter, arguably less burdened by heavy ideology, shouldn't the practical garbage in the gutter be more important than the ideological filth? Honestly, it's hard for me to wrap my head around how a die-hard Republican soldier, who sees communists lurking in every corner, feels when his own party members form a coalition with the very communists he despises.
An average Democratic voter, however, seems a bit less ideologically rigid, so it probably doesn't hit them as hard. They are essentially an ideological blank slate, an EU bureaucrat type, much like Zoran Milanović.
Ultimately, it's all quite pathetic. The core issue is how we can organize any meaningful alternative to the system we have now, and that isn't just a question for Venice or America, but a much broader one.
We all know the current situation is an absolute cesspool.

nimblemarlin17 said:Sure, but Irreversible features scenes that frankly, any sane person would want to look away from. Regardless of how much you try to wrap it in pretty packaging, it’s just inherently disturbing.

I suppose if you could actually define what constitutes a "sane person" for the rest of us, then maybe we could have a real conversation about this.

We inhabit a world where people turn on one another over ideology, nationality, or faith—where some even gouge out eyes, tear off ears, and methodically dismantle a human body with terrifying creativity, prolonging the agony for days on end. We live in a reality where wealthy predators buy seven-year-olds for their own sick gratification and sexual assault is a daily headline. But honestly, the most infuriating thing is when a masterfully crafted film—which I’ll allow people to interpret however they like, though no rational person would ever claim it incites violence, quite the opposite actually—presents two scenes that aren't even half as gruesome as the actual segments of reality we face every single day.

Then, of course, the self-appointed moralists emerge from the woodwork to whine about "unprecedented brutality." They start questioning where this decadent West is headed and asking where our place fits in all this—clinging to the idea that we are the eternal bastion of Christian morality, or perhaps invoking that old "cast the first stone" sentiment from the Almighty Himself.

The movie aired late at night, clearly flagged as not for anyone under 18; it isn't pornography, unlike the way certain political figures in Washington have been brainwashing every thinking person for years now. It is a work of art. Besides, there is a gun on the television, and more importantly, a remote control that makes it incredibly easy and painless to simply shut the damn thing off if such content is supposedly offending someone's lack of intellect.

Jonathan Brooks8 said:Quality is about how concentrated value is, whereas quantity tells us just how scattered it’s become.
Why on earth does this strike you as some deep philosophical riddle? To me, it feels like a straightforward technical distinction.

If one is attempting to grasp the Platonic essence of what quality actually represents, then I suppose we could label that philosophy—or perhaps we're just dressing up our curiosity in philosophical robes to make it feel more significant.
The real question is whether I can truly comprehend how we extract a universal "idea" or concept of quality from all those disparate things we collectively label as "high quality," once we strip away their physical properties.
But you've likely already provided the answer yourself. It's the concentration of value.

Quincy:

And ultimately, how can we even be sure it exists at all?

Well, if we have just finished defining it, then it surely exists—at least within the confines of our own minds.

Zachary King5 said:That short film about Killing is actually one of the stories from The Decalogue—it was originally part of a TV series based on the Ten Commandments, though they eventually expanded it into a feature film. Honestly, I really ought to track down a copy of The Decalogue on VHS somewhere. I’ve already got the whole "Tricolor" trilogy, of course...😎 Kieslowski 🙏 🙏 🙏

And that short film about Love is just an extended version of the sixth episode of The Decalogue, though from what I understand, they tweaked the ending for the theatrical release.

By offering a direct window into our shared collective subconscious, that dreamlike landscape spun through films like Blue Velvet, Lost Highway, or Mulholland Drive proves to be simultaneously terrifying, maddening, eye-opening, and utterly chaotic.

If this is really the justification for why he takes the top spot, I have to wonder if these critics are just playing some sort of pretentious game to convince themselves they’ve found the pinnacle of cinema, or if they actually grasp what he's doing—assuming "grasping" is even a thing when it comes to his work. Personally, I feel like we actually get him; he’s out there dissecting the subconscious, blurring those jagged lines between dreams and reality, and forcing us to confront that terrifying moment where one melts into the other.

Personally, I find myself stuck between two rather grim conclusions: either the director is outright mocking the audience by treating us like idiots, or these films possess some deeply personal significance that is so intensely subjective it becomes impossible to decipher what was actually intended with such a script—at least regarding those last two mentioned above. Looking back at my own viewing history, I found Wild at Heart and Blue Velvet to be nothing more than mediocre, and Dune was one of those rare instances where I simply couldn't bring myself to sit through to the end (I even managed to struggle through the New York gangs, though God knows what I was expecting from them). It feels almost shameful to admit, but I truly find Mulholland Drive to be utterly senseless; the screenplay is an incomprehensible mess, and despite the technical proficiency on display, all those supposed "keys" to unlocking the film feel like nothing more than cheap mystification designed to hide a lack of substance. To make matters worse, even the atmosphere fails to resonate with me. Honestly, it’s embarrassing to even say it out loud.

Where on earth am I supposed to track down more Errol Morris films? Aside from *The Fog of War* and that one documentary about Hawking—which, let's be honest, is pretty easy enough to find online—I feel like I've hit a wall.

I’m not necessarily looking to start an argument or post anything controversial, but if anyone could walk me through the logic of why Lynch would be considered the greatest director working today, I’d truly appreciate the insight.

Richard Hernandez13 said:Good grief, the state of these comments! 🙄

This whole ranking was compiled using the exact same formulaic approach used for just about every "important" list you see nowadays:

a) You round up a representative sample of industry insiders.
b) You ask every single one of them to draft their own list of top contemporary directors based on their own subjective criteria.
c) You aggregate all those individual lists into one definitive final tally.

It’s far from perfect, I'll grant you that, but it’s really the best methodology we have at our disposal right now.

The selection process itself can be heavily manipulated by who you choose to poll, but honestly, that's beside the point. My main gripe was simply that a few names felt missing—though if you actually look at it, it should be becoming increasingly obvious to anyone paying attention that Wenders has already hit his peak, while Scorsese and Lynch are probably just getting warmed up.

To list is, quite frankly, an absolute joke.
I honestly can't wrap my head around what kind of logic could possibly produce something this half-baked.
If the goal was merely to highlight the younger generation of filmmakers, then half these names are redundant while others are glaringly absent; however, if they were actually attempting to curate a broader selection as the title implies, then this whole thing is just utter garbage.