# Koyaanisqatsi: A pretentious, overrated "movie." **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [September 18, 2005, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koyaanisqatsi-a-pretentious-overrated-movie/322208 "2005-09-18T11:05:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2006, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koyaanisqatsi-a-pretentious-overrated-movie/322208/61 "2006-05-06T04:21:08Z")
> [@Yookeroo](#): > > “Life out of balance” does not necessarily mean it’s technophobic. Far from it. Shoot, even if what you take from the movie is that technology is creating lots of pain and ugliness in the world, that’s not necessarily technophobic. The movie is more subtle than that. It does show some of the beauty of technology. It sure as hell isn’t painting a black and white “tech is evil” picture. I never said it had a “tech is evil” stance. But it has a definite “life out of balance” stance, does it not? What’s it saying, with all its pretty pictures? My original stance in resurrecting this thread was that it was just life-suckingly boring. ---
**Author:** ![jackelope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a6a055/32.png) [@jackelope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackelope)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2006, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koyaanisqatsi-a-pretentious-overrated-movie/322208/62 "2006-05-06T07:38:15Z")
> [@jackelope](#): > > (3) The premise is that the change from natural perfection to polluted shithole has happened over time; the film suggests that it’s been an accelerated change that occurred mostly on a geologic time scale. > [@foolsguinea](#): > > The film **does not say this**. Jackelope inferred it, then complained about it. I beg to differ; the film quite clearly _does_ say this, as clearly as a flm with no dialogue or scripted action can “say” anything. The film begins with a long series of shots of “unspoiled” nature; stunning desert scenes, mountains, etc. As the human elements are introduced, the film gives over to scenes of mankind’s destruction of those natural environments. As one watches, it’s perfectly clear that there’s a chronological progression in the editing; the destruction and degradation of the landscape is presented as a relatively recent event, brought about by–or at least inextricably related to–man’s rise to planetary power. And I’d appreciate a little elaboration on my being “sick in the head.” ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2006, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koyaanisqatsi-a-pretentious-overrated-movie/322208/63 "2006-05-08T22:37:39Z")
> [@jackelope](#): > > And I’d appreciate a little elaboration on my being “sick in the head.” Nah. This isn’t the Pit. You’re insisting that it’s strictly chronological, but that’s your interpretation. Considering all the photography is recent, it can’t be strctly chronological, therefore your interpretation is wrong. It’s more a travel through different places: the unspoiled, & the spoiled. Anyway, it’s supposed to be trippy; sort of a religious experience. Reading this thread, I now look at it less as an argument than as a measure of the audience. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2006, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koyaanisqatsi-a-pretentious-overrated-movie/322208/64 "2006-05-09T01:03:55Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Nah. This isn’t the Pit. You really have things to say about someone interpretation of a _movie_ that you can only say in the Pit?! That’s… um… Well, that’s pretty pitworthy in and of itself. > [@](#): > > You’re insisting that it’s strictly chronological, but that’s your interpretation. Considering all the photography is recent, it can’t be strctly chronological, therefore your interpretation is wrong. It’s more a travel through different places: the unspoiled, & the spoiled. The fact that it wasn’t filmed in chronological order (most films aren’t) does not mean that it wasn’t intended to be understood as a strict chronological progression. Of course, that might not have been the intent at all, but **jakelope** ’s interpretation is at least as valid as your own, and seems to be quite a bit more common, from what I’ve read. > [@](#): > > Anyway, it’s supposed to be trippy; sort of a religious experience. Reading this thread, I now look at it less as an argument than as a measure of the audience. As is all art. ---
**Author:** ![jackelope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a6a055/32.png) [@jackelope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackelope)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2006, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koyaanisqatsi-a-pretentious-overrated-movie/322208/65 "2006-05-09T04:16:42Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Nah. This isn’t the Pit. You’ve got to be kidding. > [@foolsguinea](#): > > You’re insisting that it’s strictly chronological, but that’s your interpretation. Considering all the photography is recent, it can’t be strctly chronological, therefore your interpretation is wrong. _sigh._ Yes. I am aware that all the photography is recent. I can’t believe I’m even pointing this out, but here goes: At no point did I suggest, or believe, that the film was actually _shot_ over the course of millions of years. I didn’t say the film itself was _made_ on a geologic time scale. I said the film presents a point of view about events that, supposedly, _happened_ on a geologic time scale. The film was no more shot millions of years ago than Mel Gibson had to travel back in time to make _The Passion of the Christ_. Think of the mountains in the film as actors, playing the roles of the mountains that existed millions of years ago. In fact, I refer you to my [first post in this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6594689&postcount=13). Please pay extra attention to the second paragraph: > [@](#): > > The premise is that the change from natural perfection to polluted shithole has happened over time; the film suggests that it’s been an accelerated change that occurred mostly on a geologic time scale. > > The problem with this: _The film was all shot at the same time_. In other words, the unspoiled natural grandeur seen in the film, and the urban shittiness seen in the film, exist contemporaneously. This does not seem, to me, to be “life out of balance.” The premise that the world is out of balance is belied by the existence of the film istelf; they had to shoot all of it somewhere. Do you see now? The exact thing you’re suggesting I don’t understand was, in fact, part of my original point. > [@foolsguinea](#): > > Reading this thread, I now look at it less as an argument than as a measure of the audience. On this we agree. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koyaanisqatsi-a-pretentious-overrated-movie/322208.md?page=3)