I’m neither uneducated (I have an MA) or attention deficit, and I consider Shakespeare to be boring for the most part. Obviously there’s exceptions- some of his stuff really is very good- but overall I think “Boring” is a perfectly acceptable opinion of Shakespeare’s works.
And 2001 is interminably slow. Still a great movie, but it does rather seem to move at a glacial pace in too many places.
Have you ever been emotionally affected by a work of art? Teared up watching a movie, anything like that?
Why were you invested in something you had nothing to do with, that happened to someone you don’t know, who maybe isn’t even real?
Because you let yourself be. The story engaged you somehow and you let it. You paid attention and learned enough to understand what was important, in the context. You let yourself feel it almost like it was yours.
It’s a little like that.
I think this is what George Will referred to as “derivative glory.” I don’t get “derivative glory,” either.
George Will is a sports fan, and was talking about something entirely different when he said,
I like much of what Will says about baseball and sports generally, but disagree here. In any case, I’m not aware of him using the phrase otherwise, and he certainly knows what it’s like to live and die with a team,
Man, Chefguy, there’s a lot of stuff you don’t get.
You just made the list, sister!
Not to be a dick, or anything, but as near as I can tell, you just said, “People are sports fans because they like sports.”
Watched this movie after reading a review about the “underlying theme of anti-violence”.That was immediately after release. I didn’t get the theme.But it is an outstanding movie with some fantastic acting.
Watched it 3 or 4 times in next 16 years,with all the maturity that came with my age and experience.
To me it shows that ultimately everyone gets sucked into the vortex of violence,and there is no escaping it. Sort of " resign to the reality of violence".
Now,if too much violence is meant to be anti-violence, I am missing it.
My understanding of the movie is that it shows how everyone relies on violence to solve their problems and how the violence didn’t do such a good job. Problems got solved, but at great costs to everyone.
It’s also more realistic with it’s violence than other westerns. You wouldn’t notice unless you’ve seen a lot of westerns, but when people get shot in westerns there usually isn’t any blood and their death looks like they just fell asleep. In Unforgiven, when one of the targets of an assassination attempt gets shot, his death is slow and painful, unlike the customary western movie death.
I disagree with the above. It suggests that if you loved Rembrandt’s stuff, you would hate every other painter.
As to sport teams fandom, this:
And this just isn’t correct:
This isn’t what he said and it’s certainly not what he meant. By way of background, I adhere strictly to the adage coined by (I think) Australian comedian John Clark that “the idea that sport is important is inherently ludicrous”. Unlike a lot of Australians, I did not grow up being a fan of a football team.
However, a few years ago a friend started dragging me along to Brisbane Lions games and I started getting into it. After a while, strangely enough (or perhaps not so strangely) you start to care if they win or lose, and its fun to do so. Not because you like the sport particularly but just because, I think, you are essentially doing a mindhack on your innate tribal instincts. You start to think of yourself as a follower of a given team, you start to get to know a bit about the players and the next thing you know you actually enjoy it if they win and vice versa. It’s an emotional involvement you can tickle while at the same time, ultimately, it doesn’t matter, which makes it all the more enjoyable. Nobody’s going to die if your team loses, the whole thing is (as I said) inherently ludicrous, but it is fun to play along.
If you think this is weird, do you go to movies or read fictional books and find yourself caring what happens to the characters? Do you get tense in the key scene of a thriller about whether the bomb will go off or care if Johnny and Mary will or will not find true love? 'course you do. Yet they are just shit someone made up: there is no bomb and Johnny and Mary don’t exist.
Same thing.
Seems pretty straight forward to me. I agree that you have to have seen a lot of traditional westerns to judge it against to really get the theme. When I was a wee lass I loved The Rifleman. I watched it everyday (I guess it was already in reruns). I loved how Lucas was so righteous, how he was a great father, etc. One day during a commercial I remarked to my dad (who was sitting nearby reading the paper) What a wonderful guy Lucas was. He looked up over his newspaper and said, Why? He kills someone every day."
By showing how real violence is ugly, messy and leaves everyone involved wounded, Unforgiven is showing by example violence is not a good solution = anti-violence message.
I can see living and dying vicariously through a sports team (especially living). But it’s getting to a ridiculous extreme when fans try to be good losers by congratulating the other team’s fans. “Congratulations on rooting for the winning team”, WTF?
As a New Yorker, I would prefer that “the Canyon of Heroes” parade route be reserved for astronauts and war heroes. Sports teams can borrow the Canyon of Ethnic Groups, or the Canyon of Saturday Morning Cartoon Characters.
Master Chef.
I admit I don’t like most TV and I don’t like any reality shows that I can think of at the moment. But Master Chef was popular in my household and I became familiar with it. It was also the most watched show in Australia. I don’t get it.
My impression of Master Chef:
Scene: A Big Fancy Kitchen
Bald Host with Soulless Eyes: Your challenge today is to make…
Commercial
BHSE: … A PIZZA!
Cut to White Room with Bad Lighting
Scruffy Contestant: Our challenge was to make a pizza and I’ve never done that before.
Cut to BFK
Pig Face Host: OK, we’re going to divide you into teams based on…
Commercial
PFH: …PULLING NAMES OUT OF A HAT!
Cut to WRBL
Stupid Glasses Contestant: We had to pull names out of a hat and I’ve never done that before.
Cut to BFK
Big Gay Host: I wear a cravat. BUY FROM OUR SPONSORS, PEASANTS. Now, run around, contestants, and run back here. COOK!
BHSE: Scruffy Contestant, have you ever made a pizza before?
SC: No.
Commercial
PFH: Stupid Glasses Contestant, YOUR PIZZA IS ON FIRE!
Cut to WRBL
SGC: My pizza caught fire.
Cut to BFK
BGH: I guess we didn’t waste enough time because we have 15 minutes to kill and the pizzas are done. BUY FROM OUR SPONSORS, PEASANTS.
PFH: Let’s hype the shit out of the results, drag them out endlessly, and then make them not matter by bringing back people we eliminated or scoring a dish “eleven out of ten”.
Commercial
BHSE: Scruffy contestant! You win! I’d weep if I had feelings!
Cut to WRBL
SC: I won.
Cut to BFK
BGH: I hope you noticed all the subtle plugs we gave to our sponsors during the show. BUY FROM OUR SPONSORS, PEASANTS.
And thank you for being civil and not saying that it sucks to be you, if you don’t get it!
Not to pit this thread or anyone in it, but is it really that hard to understand why people like that that you don’t?
The Jersey Shore is a huge piece of trash that may be one of the stupidest shows ever on TV. Outside of it being made fun of on The Soup, I will never find any enjoyment out of it. But I can understand how people might find the stupidity hilarious, or they might be envious of a group of young people who go out to party every night, or maybe they’re just like the people on the Jersey Shore.
Are we so above everyone that we just don’t get how people like “bad” things? Or am I just reading too much in the weekly “hate-fest” thread.
I don’t get how people can not get sports.
It’s fandom, just like being a fan of a television show, or an author.
The difference is it’s real-life drama. Unless you’re watching wrestling, nobody knows the outcome until the final whistle blows. So you have stuff like the NFL playoffs, where the defending Superbowl champion gets beat in the first round by a team with a losing record, and the mighty Patriots get beat by the team that talked all the smack and basically were expected to be beat into a pulp.
I’m not a fan of any of these teams, but it was quite exciting to watch.
It’s a little ridiculous to say that you shouldn’t care because the team doesn’t know who you are. Most writers, actors, or directors don’t know who you are either. Does that diminish your admiration and enjoyment of their craft?
I think sport fandom is about, as a poster mentioned, identity. Fandom is rewarding because you belong to a group. You can chat and argue about your shared interest. And if you’re lucky, your team might win more than lose. You have common experiences that are shared with family and friends that become part of your best memories. Pretty simple, really.
I think people who don’t get sports often say this to appear sophisticated. We’re all fans of something.
Now, to the thread:
Russell Brand (yes, I know he’s been mentioned before - I really don’t get him or his appeal)
Fantasy football (and the way that most shows about football have embraced it, by having a “fantasy expert”)
Glenn Beck
Most of the disposable female pop artists out there (Katy Perry and Nicki Minaj come to mind)
The Kardashians
The ubiquity of reality shows (people who run pawn shops? Really? I admit I watched an episode and it was mildly interesting)
Well, I don’t have any doubt that wasn’t what he meant! But I can’t really wring any meaning out of the post beyond what I wrote above.
I actually get that part. There’s a part of me that, when I hear a local team is doing well, thinks, “Yay us!” But that doesn’t really explain the appeal of actually watching a game.
I don’t mean to give you a hard time, but that makes absolutely no sense to me. It’s as if I had asked, “Why is the sky blue?” and you said, “You know how grass is green? Same thing.”
I mean, I get fiction. I understand how it works. I know the devices it can use to elicit the responses it wants. I don’t see how any of that is portable to spectator sports. At best, I can see how it might work in a very crude and ineffective manner. Which, I think, is what makes the whole thing especially frustrating, because like enalzi said, with most other things I don’t have any trouble understanding the appeal, even if I don’t like it. I hate reality TV, but I can absolutely understand why others enjoy it. And I can do that because I do precisely what you explained in your post. I can get a handle on America’s Top Model by comparing it to stuff I like, and seeing where it’s using the same devices. But when I try to apply the same approach to spectator sports, I can’t find any purchase on it. I simply cannot perceive what is entertaining about watching someone else play a game.
Not to single you out or anything, but this is exactly what I’m talking about. How can you say “I think people who don’t get sports often say this to appear sophisticated. We’re all fans of something.” but then go on to talk about how you don’t get how someone can little reality shows? How is that any different from someone “not getting” sports? And I say that as a fan of both sports and reality shows. And Russell Brand. But not a fan of Glenn Beck or the Kardashians.
Sorry, this board has made me very cynical and I should not be posting this late at night.
Sports.
I understand why people have fun playing sports. But watching sports, talking about sports and sports loyalty all confuse and frustrate me.