?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Sim-you-lation

Just so you know, in my Sims work house two people got into fights and left for ever in huffs. I find that funny and satisfying.

I'm probably going to be getting a Summer Student to look after this year, some poor dental student or other. I get to mold him in my image or something. Either way, I'm sure he's destined to become one of my tortured little Sims in time.

Jye watched a film called Equalibrium on Sunday night. For those who don't know, it is the film with that vile, hateful concept of gun kata. I mean, really, for fuck's sake. I am deeply offended by the very existance of such an idea, let alone the moronic (usually American) folk out there who think it's a good idea to emulate such an activity. And make websites about it.

Sometimes I wonder if natural selection actually works.

Comments

( 16 comments — Leave a comment )
bog_mod
Jul. 5th, 2004 06:02 pm (UTC)
http://www.queenofwands.net/d/20031208.html

Natural selection just needs help sometimes.
harkon
Jul. 6th, 2004 02:41 am (UTC)
During the bleakest hours at work - when we are in greatest need, we call upon the power of the chainsaw of natural selection for salvation...
barrington
Jul. 5th, 2004 06:27 pm (UTC)
Is it really any worse a concept than gymkata?
(Deleted comment)
morsla
Jul. 5th, 2004 07:44 pm (UTC)
Although, some HK directors have made "gun fu" into an art form. That's more a style of film (over-the-top wuxia-with-guns) than treating it as a martial art, though - which is something I have issues with too.
ex_delve955
Jul. 5th, 2004 08:39 pm (UTC)
If gunplay is going to exist, why not make it an art?
miss_rynn
Jul. 5th, 2004 09:58 pm (UTC)
First off, I have a moral objection to firearms, so my opinion is going to be biased.

I've never bought into the argument of 'just because a thing can be done, why should it not be done'. Just because a nuclear explosion in beautiful, it does not mean that dropping nuclear bombs should become or be considered art.

The use of firearms can be entertaining, but I don't think the use of guns can ever be termed a martial art. A martial art, in my opinion, is not just a matter of a series of actions that can be used in a combat situation and making them 'artistic'. There is much more to a martial art, as I have been taught, then that. It is also something that is very hard to explain, so please forgive me for being obtuse.

Enjoy it as an artform if that is what wets your whistle, but I never will.
ex_delve955
Jul. 5th, 2004 10:07 pm (UTC)
No no no, I totally agree with you and see where you're coming from... I'm not saying it *should* be done - I'm saying its a damn sight more interesting than grim-faced DeNiro gunning down people in alleyways - I think, as a film, it did some stuff with violence I hadn't seen before.

Its just that as an idea, the film took gunplay and said "what's the logical conclusion of guns in films - surely it would be a martial art that involves firearms". I think the whole film is based around that single idea. And Christian Bale.

Its not a "martial art", I agree - its a system of killing - and its portrayed as such. I think that last scene, where Bale and whats-his-face constantly parry each other with berettas is physically beautiful, a dance of hands and bullets. But yes, its just a means to an end of people's lives.

"Nuclear bombs as art" was the name of a very famous mural in England in the 80s; that in itself is a weird one. How can a nearly religious image of fear, iconic in its power *not* be part of our aesthetic life?
miss_rynn
Jul. 6th, 2004 03:19 am (UTC)
I think that some things are too horrible, too terrible to be art. In my opinion atrocities, no matter how beautiful they may seem from an abstract point of view, cannot be artistic because I am unable to divorce myself from my emotional responces.

And sure, the scenes themselves were done in an inovative way. Kudos to the director. But the people who cross that line, the ones who take the idea from a fantasy, a fiction, then bring it into reality and try to make it fact, they are the ones which disturb me.
morgan303
Jul. 6th, 2004 09:17 am (UTC)
I think that some things are too horrible, too terrible to be art. In my opinion atrocities, no matter how beautiful they may seem from an abstract point of view, cannot be artistic because I am unable to divorce myself from my emotional responces.

Bollocks, if you'll excuse my French.:)
Do you really think it's the job of art to be 'nice', and only represent 'nice' things? Do you think that art exists only to celebrate the safe, the acceptable, the easily-digestible?
Because, if that's the case, you've just wiped out a large portion of the world's best works. The Inferno? Gone. Bosch? Gone. Shakespeare? Vamoosh.

I'm with Rilke, on this one: Beauty is the last glimpse of terror we're still just able to hear. The day art can only be 'nice', is the day I don't respect it any more. And the day you lobotomise humanity.
hege_mon
Jul. 6th, 2004 05:04 pm (UTC)
"I am unable to divorce myself from my emotional responces"

Isn't the goal of real artwork to create emotional responces? Doesn't mean it's good art... but art none the less.
boomzilla
Jul. 6th, 2004 07:20 pm (UTC)
"The use of firearms can be entertaining"
"I think that some things are too horrible, too terrible to be art"

wow beck. what the fuck? fair enough you are entitled to your own opinion babe, but how is chopping people up with swords any better than shooting them?

what I think you're objecting to is the idea of a brand new martial art being created for maximum violence, as opposed to an old violent martial art being turned into something creative/healthy/whatever
morgan303
Jul. 6th, 2004 12:37 am (UTC)
I loved Equilibrium.
And Gunkata. Thought it was brilliant, especially with the inclusion of Buddhist mudras into the forms...and they were contextually right, too. Guns are a weapon, essentially designed for killing in the same way that a samurai sword is designed for killing (admittedly, I'll pay that usually guns deal out a distanced sort of death, often in large quantities). Guns have been responsible for a lot of awfulness, and a nasty part of American culture. They carry that taint. However, there's no reason why they can't be used in a beautiful, intricate ,intimate for mof martial arts as well. Yeah, guns are bad. And the samurai used to test their swords at crossroads, on passing peasants. That's not much better. Weapons are weapons; there's nothing romantic about them unless you make it so.
miss_rynn
Jul. 6th, 2004 03:14 am (UTC)
I think there is a very big difference between firearms and non-firearms. In fact, a fundemental difference, which largely shapes my biased opinion against firearms.

Guns don't give an opponent a fair chance.

Any idiot can use a gun to kill someone, with no training and no respect for the weapon that they are using. It's a popular misconception that a sword, for example, is an easy weapon to use to kill someone. But it's not. The argument can be used to say that anything, even a rolled up newspaper, can be used to kill someone. But it requires training, and an understanding of how to apply such an object as a weapon.

A martial art is not just about using something, sword, war-fan, hands, whatever, to theoretically kill someone. Virtually all martial arts - with the exception of something like iaido, which usually branches from an understanding of other martial arts first such as kendo - are about a partnership between an attacker and a defender/responder. It is rarely about beauty, more about a kind of symbiosis between the aggresive and the passive elements of movement. It is not about the weapon.

When someone faces you with a gun, you cannot defend yourself. You can only hope to have a gun yourself, and shoot them first. This is not a partnership. In my opinion, which I have already admitted as terribly biased, if there cannot be a partnership then it is not a martial art, but simply a system of combat.
morgan303
Jul. 6th, 2004 09:11 am (UTC)
I agree with you. To an extent. But I also think that *that* is the essence of what gunkata is trying to capture. Perhaps your basic dislike of guns is slanting your opinion on this, though.:)

I thought it was quite a beautiful concept, and one that was quite balletic and innovative, with a hefty dose of poetry. A stylish, deadly ballet based on human skill, in which the director based more than a few shots on the composition of paintings. As a motif in a very highly-stylised film, I think it worked beautifully. And, as you mentioned before, like any martial art, it was based on partnership, intimacy, and skill.


When someone faces you with a gun, you cannot defend yourself. You can only hope to have a gun yourself, and shoot them first. This is not a partnership. In my opinion, which I have already admitted as terribly biased, if there cannot be a partnership then it is not a martial art, but simply a system of combat.


This goes, by the way for any weapon, even a sword or naginata. They may have loads of lovely romantic history behind them, but they're still used for killing people, and were often used for killing defenseless people.
boomzilla
Jul. 6th, 2004 07:24 pm (UTC)
maybe gunkata also represents the ability not only to kill someone easily but how to do it well. Being shot dead instantly has gotta be better than being shot in the stomache, or heaven forbid, pepe & lying in an alley bleeding to death while pisssing white hot razor blades.
( 16 comments — Leave a comment )