Author Topic: A topic for FoC and PD: the basics of story telling (Read 2365 times)

Himu · « **on:** February 12, 2007, 01:13:44 PM »

This is particularly important for FoC because as we all know, his major is film. Well, how can someone get into film if they are unable to discern what a story is?

This week's lesson: rhetoric and methods of persuasion.

Using wikipedia, we will teach these guys in a fast, free, lazy, and best of all -- easy -- manner.

Today's word: pathos.

Quote

Pathos (Greek: πάθος, (Translations)) is one of the three modes of persuasion in rhetoric (along with ethos and logos). Pathos appeals to the audience's emotions. It is a part of Aristotle's philosophies in rhetoric.

Emotional appeal can be accomplished in a multitude of ways:

* by metaphor or story telling, common as a hook,
* by a general passion in the delivery and an overall amount of emotional items in the text of the speech, or in writing.

In rhetoric, pathos is the use of emotional appeals to alter the audience's judgment. A common use of pathos in argument is creating a sense of rejection if the audience doesn't agree. Creating a fear of rejection is in essence, creating a pathos argument.

Over emotionalism can be the result of an excess of pathos.

Let us for example take into account the following passage from the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche.

Every enhancement of the type “man” has so far been the work of an aristocratic society—and it will be so again and again—a society that believes in the long ladder of an order of rank and differences in value between man and man, and that needs slavery in some sense or other. Without that pathos of distance which grows out of the ingrained difference between strata—when the ruling caste constantly looks afar and looks down upon subjects and instruments and just as constantly practices obedience and command, keeping down and keeping at a distance—the other, more mysterious pathos could not have grown up either—the craving for an ever new widening of distances within the soul itself, the development of ever higher, rare, more remote, further-stretching, more comprehensive states—in brief, simply the enhancement of the type “man,” the continual “self-overcoming of man,” to use a moral formula in a supra-moral sense.

Beyond Good and Evil, 257

Here we see an almost exquisite use of the word pathos which has been used not as a definition of excellence but as a condition of excellence, thereby leading the reader into the illusion that without imposing the condition of "pathos" on human excellence there is no difference between the higher type of man and the lower type of man. Such a "pathos" of distance between man and man is anything if not unnatural. The purpose of the word itself in such terms is designed to make the reader emotionally disposed to the notion that without their own "pathos" of distance they cannot distinguish the Higher man in themselves from the Lower man in themselves. This is clearly an emotionally manipulative exercise in the power of the use of the word "pathos."

The term is still commonly used in this context by critics, especially in positive reference to the dramatic performances of actors. Naturally critics are still disposed to expressing their own type of Higher critique from that of the Lower critique, hence the appropriation of "Pathos" as a tool of critical evaluation at a comfortable distance.

TVC15 · « **Reply #1 on:** February 12, 2007, 01:16:34 PM »

I think you're starting at too advanced of a level for FoC and PD.

Himu · « **Reply #2 on:** February 12, 2007, 01:17:34 PM »

Well, where do I start then?

demi · « **Reply #3 on:** February 12, 2007, 01:17:38 PM »

doesnt this house nicca like yakuza? get out of here

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #4 on:** February 12, 2007, 01:18:37 PM »

yeah. i suggest you start with how sounds -- phoenemes, as the dirty smarties call 'em -- form words. after that, it's a crap shoot.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #5 on:** February 12, 2007, 01:19:47 PM »

Wow Garret, I'm starting to hate you.

2001 was boring and unimpressive outside of the technical aspect. It certainly wasn't about story either: it had a story of course, which can be interpeted many ways. My problem is that the movie is poorly acted with absolutely no character development, wastes considerable amounts of time with repetitive shots, and abandons story arcs at the whim of the wind, leaving the viewer confused.

It's not a great movie, I'm sorry. I saw lots of stuff I thought was cool, but as a total package I left with a high sense of indifference towards the movie

TVC15 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 12, 2007, 01:20:32 PM »

Sorry it's no FORREST GUMP, PD.

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #7 on:** February 12, 2007, 01:21:18 PM »

Guys!! Mullholland drive had the best story evar!!!!

Himu · « **Reply #8 on:** February 12, 2007, 01:22:26 PM »

PD, I have no problem with you not liking the movie, because I understand that it's not for everyone. However, when someone says it doesn't have a story, when it's core themes are presented in an obvious manner -- with all the small details that make even sweeter in the far background -- I start to question what they define a story to be.

The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment · « **Reply #9 on:** February 12, 2007, 01:23:29 PM »

2001 did indeed have a story, what I think these guys are complaining about is the lack of a steady, constant narrative throughout.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #10 on:** February 12, 2007, 01:24:31 PM »

sometimes, pd, a narrative can be about a concept rather than a character. for example, a dialectic -- which is what a great deal of 2001 actually is -- examining the meaning of consciousness. we follow the exchange to come to a realization about a concept, not to find out more about the participant. Dave and HAL are talking, and the results are spooky. sometimes, people like you simply aren't ready!

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #11 on:** February 12, 2007, 01:25:12 PM »

Quote from: The Dark Shake on February 12, 2007, 01:23:29 PM

2001 did indeed have a story, what I think these guys are complaining about is the lack of a steady, constant narrative throughout.

There are a bunch of images that can be explained into a story, but only by someone who read the book. (Or wikipedia entry)

TVC15 · « **Reply #12 on:** February 12, 2007, 01:26:23 PM »

I'd like to see PD watch Blowup. He'd be like THERE"S NO STORY I ARE DUMMMM (JESUS).

The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment · « **Reply #13 on:** February 12, 2007, 01:26:59 PM »

Quote from: FlameOfCallandor on February 12, 2007, 01:25:12 PM

Quote from: The Dark Shake on February 12, 2007, 01:23:29 PM
2001 did indeed have a story, what I think these guys are complaining about is the lack of a steady, constant narrative throughout.

There are a bunch of images that can be explained into a story, but only by someone who read the book. (Or wikipedia entry)

Uh, no. The story of 2001 is pretty clear: an examintation of the advancements inacted by the human species over the course of history, most prominently dealing with their exhibitions into the deep reaches of space.

Himu · « **Reply #14 on:** February 12, 2007, 01:27:09 PM »

Who did Blowup? TVC, can you suggest more movies in the same story telling vein as 2001?

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #15 on:** February 12, 2007, 01:27:56 PM »

Quote from: Himuro on February 12, 2007, 01:27:09 PM

Who did Blowup? TVC, can you suggest more movies in the same vein as 2001?

You would like Mullholland drive. It has even less of a story. But it's TeH Intellectual.

Himu · « **Reply #16 on:** February 12, 2007, 01:29:32 PM »

I do love intellectual stories.

I hope all this rabble doesn't make me come off as an intellectual elitist, because I hate those fucks. But facts are facts!

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #17 on:** February 12, 2007, 01:30:36 PM »

The fact is that 2001 is technologically a sound film. Great cinematography. But the story is weak at best.

and what the hell is with the fucking light show at the end. That PoS went on for 10 minutes.

The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment · « **Reply #18 on:** February 12, 2007, 01:31:05 PM »

Quote from: Himuro on February 12, 2007, 01:29:32 PM

I do love intellectual stories.

I hope all this rabble doesn't make me come off as an intellectual elitist, because I hate those fucks. But facts are facts!

I BET YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT THE SQUARE ROOT OF 36 IS, FAGGURT.

U R INTELLECSHUAL ELITIST TOTAL

TVC15 · « **Reply #19 on:** February 12, 2007, 01:31:23 PM »

http://imdb.com/title/tt0060176/

It's by Michelangelo Antonioni. It's heady, based off of a Julio Cortizar short story. There's not much dialogue. It is very much a movie about its own theme, not around a coherent narrative (though it has one of those, too -- it just doesn't hold your hand). It's a gorgeously shot movie.

It kind of established the popular idea that being a photographer is a really cool job, too. It's also an authentic portrait of mod england. Austin Powers is a sort of parody of it.

There are some fantastic tits in the movie. Nudity. Great stuff.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #20 on:** February 12, 2007, 01:53:28 PM »

Quote from: Drinky Crow on February 12, 2007, 01:24:31 PM

sometimes, pd, a narrative can be about a concept rather than a character. for example, a dialectic -- which is what a great deal of 2001 actually is -- examining the meaning of consciousness. we follow the exchange to come to a realization about a concept, not to find out more about the participant. Dave and HAL are talking, and the results are spooky. sometimes, people like you simply aren't ready!

BORING

I'd rather watch A Beautiful Mind. Now that's classic cinema from a real director

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #21 on:** February 12, 2007, 01:54:35 PM »

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on February 12, 2007, 01:53:28 PM

I'd rather watch A Beautiful Mind. Now that's classic cinema from a real director

You and me are through, PD

TVC15 · « **Reply #22 on:** February 12, 2007, 01:57:50 PM »

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on February 12, 2007, 01:53:28 PM

Quote from: Drinky Crow on February 12, 2007, 01:24:31 PM
sometimes, pd, a narrative can be about a concept rather than a character. for example, a dialectic -- which is what a great deal of 2001 actually is -- examining the meaning of consciousness. we follow the exchange to come to a realization about a concept, not to find out more about the participant. Dave and HAL are talking, and the results are spooky. sometimes, people like you simply aren't ready!
BORING

I'd rather watch A Beautiful Mind. Now that's classic cinema from a real director

Dude, that movie is one of the worst Academy Award winners. Only Forrest Gump and Crash are worse (in recent history).

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #23 on:** February 12, 2007, 01:58:59 PM »

Quote from: TVC 15 on February 12, 2007, 01:57:50 PM

one of the worst Academy Award winners. Only Forrest Gump and Crash are worse (in recent history).

i was REALLY disapointed that Moulin Rouge didnt win that year. That was one of the only nominees I actually cared about. And why didnt Baz get nominated for best director that year!!!

Himu · « **Reply #24 on:** February 12, 2007, 01:59:31 PM »

Is Moulin Rogue a good movie

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #25 on:** February 12, 2007, 02:00:13 PM »

Quote from: Himuro on February 12, 2007, 01:59:31 PM

Is Moulin Rogue a good movie

I liked it alot.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #26 on:** February 12, 2007, 02:03:48 PM »

Quote from: TVC 15 on February 12, 2007, 01:57:50 PM

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on February 12, 2007, 01:53:28 PM
Quote from: Drinky Crow on February 12, 2007, 01:24:31 PM
sometimes, pd, a narrative can be about a concept rather than a character. for example, a dialectic -- which is what a great deal of 2001 actually is -- examining the meaning of consciousness. we follow the exchange to come to a realization about a concept, not to find out more about the participant. Dave and HAL are talking, and the results are spooky. sometimes, people like you simply aren't ready!
BORING

I'd rather watch A Beautiful Mind. Now that's classic cinema from a real director

Dude, that movie is one of the worst Academy Award winners. Only Forrest Gump and Crash are worse (in recent history).

What does that tell you about 2001? :santocry

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #27 on:** February 12, 2007, 02:04:54 PM »

Quote from: Himuro on February 12, 2007, 01:59:31 PM

Is Moulin Rogue a good movie

The girlfriend adores it.

Himu · « **Reply #28 on:** February 12, 2007, 02:05:34 PM »

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on February 12, 2007, 02:03:48 PM

Quote from: TVC 15 on February 12, 2007, 01:57:50 PM
Quote from: Phoenix Dark on February 12, 2007, 01:53:28 PM
Quote from: Drinky Crow on February 12, 2007, 01:24:31 PM
sometimes, pd, a narrative can be about a concept rather than a character. for example, a dialectic -- which is what a great deal of 2001 actually is -- examining the meaning of consciousness. we follow the exchange to come to a realization about a concept, not to find out more about the participant. Dave and HAL are talking, and the results are spooky. sometimes, people like you simply aren't ready!
BORING

I'd rather watch A Beautiful Mind. Now that's classic cinema from a real director

Dude, that movie is one of the worst Academy Award winners. Only Forrest Gump and Crash are worse (in recent history).

What does that tell you about 2001? :santocry

2001 came out in the 1960's and won several awards.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #29 on:** February 12, 2007, 02:06:30 PM »

Quote from: Himuro on February 12, 2007, 02:05:34 PM

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on February 12, 2007, 02:03:48 PM
Quote from: TVC 15 on February 12, 2007, 01:57:50 PM
Quote from: Phoenix Dark on February 12, 2007, 01:53:28 PM
Quote from: Drinky Crow on February 12, 2007, 01:24:31 PM
sometimes, pd, a narrative can be about a concept rather than a character. for example, a dialectic -- which is what a great deal of 2001 actually is -- examining the meaning of consciousness. we follow the exchange to come to a realization about a concept, not to find out more about the participant. Dave and HAL are talking, and the results are spooky. sometimes, people like you simply aren't ready!
BORING

I'd rather watch A Beautiful Mind. Now that's classic cinema from a real director

Dude, that movie is one of the worst Academy Award winners. Only Forrest Gump and Crash are worse (in recent history).

What does that tell you about 2001? :santocry

2001 came out in the 1960's and won several awards.

So did Million Dollar Baby

But even that was better than 2001

TVC15 · « **Reply #30 on:** February 12, 2007, 02:07:32 PM »

Quote from: Himuro on February 12, 2007, 01:59:31 PM

Is Moulin Rogue a good movie

I like it a lot, though it is a bit long-winded. There's nothing quite like it.

Now I want to see it again. Might have to nab it today.

The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment · « **Reply #31 on:** February 12, 2007, 02:08:39 PM »

MDB > 2001?

You're trying too hard now, PD.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #32 on:** February 12, 2007, 02:09:24 PM »

Quote from: Himuro on February 12, 2007, 01:59:31 PM

Is Moulin Rogue a good movie

It's better than 2001 and Blade Runner, so I'd say it's ok.

The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment · « **Reply #33 on:** February 12, 2007, 02:11:14 PM »

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on February 12, 2007, 02:09:24 PM

Quote from: Himuro on February 12, 2007, 01:59:31 PM
Is Moulin Rogue a good movie

It's better than 2001 and Blade Runner, so I'd say it's ok.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #34 on:** February 12, 2007, 02:12:29 PM »

Quote from: The Dark Shake on February 12, 2007, 02:11:14 PM

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on February 12, 2007, 02:09:24 PM
Quote from: Himuro on February 12, 2007, 01:59:31 PM
Is Moulin Rogue a good movie

It's better than 2001 and Blade Runner, so I'd say it's ok.

2001 would have been better if the laser light show featured a musical

Howard Alan Treesong · « **Reply #35 on:** February 12, 2007, 02:21:11 PM »

Moulin Rouge is one of my favorite films. It's so unabashedly itself.

brawndolicious · « **Reply #36 on:** February 12, 2007, 03:59:33 PM »

What was good about A Beautiful Mind? I'm not going to ask about forrest gump because that's your "distinguished mentally-challenged certificate" so I understand why you need to keep it.

And Moulin Rouge sucked shit.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #37 on:** February 12, 2007, 04:07:08 PM »

I loved a Beautiful Mind. I made sure to go into the movie with no information on Nash, so it was quite a surprise. The acting is great, and there are some powerful scenes. Crowe is terrific in the movie though; has anyone questioned that?

I'd say it's about twice as good as 2001.

I was forced to watch Moulin Rouge about 100 times on a cruise (before the DVD came out lol). After like the 50th time of seeing them turn Smells Like Teenage Spirit into a musical I kinda was...entertained. But it was still MEH

The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment · « **Reply #38 on:** February 12, 2007, 04:09:04 PM »

A Beautiful Mind is a terrible film, let alone even worse when you compare it to 2001.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #39 on:** February 12, 2007, 04:10:44 PM »

The only thing 2001 does better than A Beautiful Mind is the special effects. And considering A Beautiful Mind doesn't have special effects this isn't much of an accomplishment.

TVC15 · « **Reply #40 on:** February 12, 2007, 04:12:58 PM »

It doesn't surprise me that the Gump fan is also gay for A Beautiful Mind.

The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment · « **Reply #41 on:** February 12, 2007, 04:14:09 PM »

RON HOWARD IN '08

Pandering to America One Film at a Time.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #42 on:** February 12, 2007, 04:14:52 PM »

Two classic movies from two classic directors

Robert and Ronny>Stanley

Himu · « **Reply #43 on:** February 12, 2007, 04:42:50 PM »

Kubrick is amazing.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #44 on:** February 12, 2007, 05:13:59 PM »

If he was amazing he'd still be alive

brawndolicious · « **Reply #45 on:** February 12, 2007, 05:59:36 PM »

A beatiful mind was pretty shitty actually.

Horrible "plot".

Very worthless story-telling considering that it's based on a real person.

News:

Author Topic: A topic for FoC and PD: the basics of story telling (Read 2365 times)