Jump to content

du Garbandier

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by du Garbandier

  1. An even faster way of doing this is to go here and drag the javascript link under "Google Site Search" to the bookmark bar of your browser. Browser settings permitting, when you click on your bookmarklet a form will pop up which lets you do a Google site search of A&F or whatever site you happen to be looking at at the time.
  2. This usage in English can be traced back to Thomas Carlyle and Matthew Arnold. In 18th & 19th century Germany, "Philister" (Philistine) was a slang term of contempt applied by university students to non-students. That application may have originated in a sermon preached at a memorial for a slain German student; the text taken was Judges 16:20 ("Philister über dir, Simson!"). Carlyle and Arnold picked up on the German student usage and used it to classify the culturally deficient in their eyes. Arnold in particular liked to rail at the Philistinism of the British middle-class, who displayed, thought Arnold, "something particularly stiff-necked and perverse in the resistance to light" and "who not only do not pursue sweetness and light, but who prefer to them that sort of machinery of business, tea meetings, and addresses [...] which makes up the dismal and illiberal life on which I have so often touched."
  3. Let me interject here to recommend Charles Portis's other novels to those who may read True Grit because of this movie. The Dog of the South in particular is so funny and linguistically rich and zany. Very Coen-esque. It deserves a wider audience.
  4. du Garbandier

    Yi Yi

    I think of this movie often and fondly. That is all.
  5. Title: The Ruling Class (1972) Director: Peter Medak Running Time: 154 min Language: English IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069198/ YouTube Link (a clip of the film): Link to the A&F thread on the film (if there is one): http://artsandfaith.com/index.php?showtopic=22924 Title: Metropolitan (1990) Director: Whit Stillman Running Time: 98 min Language: English IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100142/ YouTube Link (a clip of the film): Link to the A&F thread on the film (if there is one): http://artsandfaith.com/index.php?showtopic=10467 Title: Barcelona (1994) Director: Whit Stillman Running Time: 101 min Language: English IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109219/ YouTube Link (a clip of the film): Link to the A&F thread on the film (if there is one): http://artsandfaith.com/index.php?showtopic=10467 Title: The Last Days of Disco (1998) Director: Whit Stillman Running Time: 113 min Language: English IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120728/ YouTube Link (a clip of the film): Link to the A&F thread on the film (if there is one): http://artsandfaith.com/index.php?showtopic=10467 Title: Life of Brian (1979) Director: Terry Jones Running Time: 94 min Language: English IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079470/ YouTube Link (a clip of the film): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVHhg67RVd4 Link to the A&F thread on the film (if there is one): http://artsandfaith.com/index.php?showtopic=2546
  6. I definitely understand what you are saying, Peter. But that definition is necessary only if we distrust the community to the extent that we suspect it will put on the List a plethora of blatantly non-film materials. The line between films and books is not nearly as porous and complex as that between films and television (a closer--though not complete--analogy to the latter relationship would be between books and e-books). If some rogue nominator nominates the Oxford English Dictionary, or the Oxford English Dictionary video game for that matter (coming soon, I promise), let them do so and withstand the coals of just derision that certainly would be heaped upon them in consequence. If the worry is about too many zany nominations, then require a simple Seconding or Thirding of nominations. In other words, I say build into the voting process as much stress as possible on the community's prerogative to consider whatever it wants to consider, and trust that people will not be stupid about it. In cases where the lines are blurred, let voters decide in voting how much that blurring should factor in deserving or not deserving a place on the list. In group decisions and procedures, simplicity should prevail wherever possible. Since Dekalog has already been on the list so consistently, why not simply let that stand as precedent and allow any future Dekalogs to win their spot in the same fashion?
  7. Generally speaking, a community list that discloses whatever inconsistencies may obtain within that community's understanding will be more interesting than the list that tries to eliminate such inconsistencies as part of its voting procedure.
  8. Surely the most consistent method is to trust the community to reveal its understanding through its choices. Otherwise we will become mired in mind-numbing divagations on hypothetical complexities. The distinction between television and film really is an interesting topic, but there is no need to plow that particular field here when a much less complicated option exists.
  9. Dark Times Befall 'Painter Of Light' What caught my eye here is something said by a Kinkade admirer: That phrase is a remarkable echo of a line in "The Bright Field" by the Welsh poet R. S. Thomas:
  10. Echoing Buckeye, I say let anyone nominate whatever they please, in whatever form they please, and likewise let the community strike down whatever it pleases. Let the nominator bear whatever onus of persuasion they believe their nomination requires. No doubt this approach will have its downsides, but I think it is sane. Saner, at least, than chasing down the rabbithole after unimpeachable definitions of "film" versus "TV."
  11. This album is $1.99 at Amazon right now until midnight (Pacific Time). Update: it's still $1.99 as of Sunday night.
  12. Why not Top Comic Films or some iteration thereof, like Top Satires or Black Humor? Although I now kind of regret nominating M. Hulot for the top 100, I would like to see how a faith community handles comedy. This angle would dovetail nicely with the neglected Golden Age period that has been mentioned.
  13. I believe Stillman mentions he is a Christian on the commentary track of one of the Criterion discs (I don't recall which one).
  14. I like McCrum's idea of a prize for short books. But I don't believe in the "Once upon a time" when "there was a strong literary preference for the shorter book." Yes, there are many wonderful short books. But Anthony Powell's impossibly delightful A Dance to the Music of Time weighs in at 12 volumes, and has always had its fair share of critical respect, though perhaps not here in America. And Powell was born within two years of three writers McCrum mentions (George Orwell, Graham Greene, and Evelyn Waugh). Samuel Johnson, whom McCrum quotes, deeply loved Samuel Richardson's immense Clarissa. He may not have wished it longer, but I doubt he would have wished it shorter either. And he also loved a book I really love myself, Robert Burton's massive Anatomy of Melancholy. If you look over this list of very long novels, you'll find some that are excellent (Marcel Proust), some that are terrible (Ayn Rand), and some that are in-between. I think the laconic style of the Waughs and Woolfs and Orwells and others of that particular slice of modernity was in some ways a reaction against Victorian literary style. In other words, the boisterous verbal overflow of Charles Dickens and George Eliot no longer seemed appropriate. If today's books are too long, and it does seem like publishers keep churning out a lot of fat dreary books no one reads, the problem is really one of style rather than simple length: when authors fail to find a proper style tailored to the world of their (and their audience's) concerns, an unpleasant reading experience seems bound to follow. And when most authors in that position seem incapable of recognizing such failures, there is something of an institutional or systemic problem, a sort of cultural arrhythmia. Also related is the question of whether today's authors of fat or skinny books can really connect with audiences in such a culturally fractured society as ours.
  15. Barnes & Noble members can get 25% off on top of the half-off sale with these coupons: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/email/nav.asp?r=1&PID=36218 http://www.barnesandnoble.com/email/nav.asp?r=1&PID=36217 http://www.barnesandnoble.com/email/nav.asp?r=1&PID=36216 Anyone, including non BN members, can use this 25% off coupon: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/email/nav.asp?r=1&PID=36219 These coupons expire Nov. 14th and are good in-store only, with no online code. Conceivably you should be able to use all four coupons on four different Criterions, though probably not in the same purchase.
  16. Thanks, gentlemen. But will no one speak up for Gas-s-s-s??
  17. I don't know if this belongs under Top Horror necessarily, but the other day I found the following horror DVDs at a thrift store for a very cheap price. I'm not terribly (horribly?) interested in the horror genre and will probably resell these on eBay. But first I wanted to check here and see if anyone would recommend (or discommend) any of these. I know the Hammer films are worthwhile but I have my doubts about most of the other stuff.
  18. Oh, I don't know. I know of similar statements by Reformed folk. For instance, note the J. I. Packer quotation here: Here is Edwin Palmer in The Five Points of Calvinism: Palmer does not frame this as a "free will" defense, which of course he says no man has; rather he uses the term "free agency," designating mankind's freedom "to do exactly what he wants." And of course Keller himself is Reformed.
  19. I've read one of Tim Keller's books and a number of his sermons. I respect him deeply. What I appreciate most about Keller's teaching on Hell is the emphasis on its self-chosen nature. This is something that Christians of many theological stripes have spoken on in similar terms. Keller has already mentioned C. S. Lewis; you can find more from Keller on the subject here or in chapter 5 of The Reason for God. Let me give a few other illustrations. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware (aka Timothy Ware) in The Orthodox Church (concluding with a quotation from Vladimir Lossky's The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church): Elsewhere, Ware considers Saint Isaac of Syria: Thomas Merton, New Seeds of Contemplation: W. H. Auden, “Anger.” In The Seven Deadly Sins, various authors (with a Foreword by Ian Fleming, of all people): When you really consider it, the Hell-as-torture-chamber model is comparatively easy to swallow and easy to reject. Easy to reject because nothing puffs up righteous indignation like the prospect of blatantly unjust victimization, the "moral monstrosity no decent person could believe"; easy to swallow because unjust victimization is, in fact, the perpetual fantasy of many sinners, lending as it does a certain pretext of justification sufficient to our idolatrous predilections and purposes. The consolations of theological victimhood are undeniable. The Torture Chamber model flatters the two mutually reinforcing self-conceptions between which we sinners are all prone to vacillate: that we are utterly worthless and without value and beyond redemption, and that everything else is worthless except in relation to us. For those who surrender the burden of creaturehood and give themselves over to one of these two lies--i.e., despair and pride--capricious torture is precisely the form divine punishment would be expected to take. Once you accept that this is the Christian proposition, Christianity is a piece of cake...to reject or to accept. The really hard pill to swallow is the proposition that we are "created to love and be happy" and are promised the desire of our heart. That our freedom means something in the scope of eternity and divine love can be terrifying to someone culturally predisposed to think of choice in strictly arbitrary terms, bearing no intrinsic relation to what is. That we were so created for and by love without our consent is something of a paradoxical offense. But in my view the freedom to stand and reject that paradox hinges on its (the paradox's) solidity, which is the very branch beneath our feet.
  20. The Vanilla Ice Project commences tonight on the DIY channel. I am surprised and pleased to learn that Ice is a "successful general contractor and home improvement expert" who is "passionate about renovatin' homes." Leaving the show aside, I am glad to see celebrities take these kinds of stabilizing vocational directions instead of the usual sad path of dissolution and wanton self-destruction. It is good for celebrities and artists to stay grounded. What if Elvis Presley could have staved off the Fat Years by applying himself to Cadillac repair and maintenance? Imagine if Errol Flynn had maintained, at least on an amateur level, his early interests in marine biology, which I believe he inherited from his marine biologist father? Why couldn't M. C. Hammer have found stability with a nice fabric supply company, converting his no doubt vast supply of parachute pant nylon into parachutes and tents and similar goods? A blessing on any celebrity wise enough to appreciate the study and making of things beyond one's image.
  21. "Today only," the University of Chicago Press is giving away Roger Ebert's Awake in the Dark: The Best of Roger Ebert in eBook form.
  22. Effusive comment expressing my feelings about the slide of one season into another. Concomitant indication of my soon-to-be-consummated desire to partake in my favorite seasonal food item. Mention of impending changes in weather-appropriate attire and my timetable of planned adjustments thereto. My incredulity at the swift passage of the previous season and the looming approach of certain holidays. Bold defiance of upcoming season's least desirable aspects. A parting benediction.
  23. There's always the Buzz Aldrin approach: When you come down to it, conspiracy theorists are not really interested in exploring the truth about their pet issue, which they know they already possess. As Ted Goertzel says in that link, And as the article also mentions, the internet multiplies theorists' collective fact-wielding, flaw-finding power exponentially. So you have a surprisingly large number of like-minded people for whom it isn't enough merely to point out the limits of human knowledge in any particular historical thread (which theorists are very good at doing). These people are not duped by such simplicitudes. Every gap in knowledge has a clear explanation that has been suppressed; there has to be some deliberate intelligence at work behind the scenes. The masses may be fooled but theorists, through hard fact work, have demonstrated their rightness. They are like Manley Pointer: "I may sell Bibles but I know which end is up and I wasn’t born yesterday and I know where I’m going!" The trouble for those who value meaningful conversation is that theorists also know that people who don't buy their theories are either fools or liars, and are wont to call them just that. Or even if they don't call you a liar, they only seem to know how to talk on their pet topic, perhaps because they feel they haven't accumulated sufficient facts and flaws to beat you down in other areas. The burdens of persuasion do not trouble them, and the delights of conversation are alien to them (so to speak).
  • Create New...