My boy and I saw the movie this afternoon (English version) in one of the theatres in Ximending. I laughed so hard that I cried. Excellent.
I was fascinated to see how vocal the local Taiwanese are. I’ve noticed in previous experiences (in different situations), that they seem to love a bit of theatre, and this was no exception.
I was amazed at how expressive the audience was. In Australia you just wouldn’t see that. People are expected to keep a lot more quiet.
Is it true? I laughed so much too. There are so many interesting stuff. Watching a moive in a theater should be relaxing, shouldn’t you laugh there?
Since when did anyone in the Western world need encouragement to be any more elitist.
When Every Child Is Good Enough
[quote=“When Every Child Is Good Enough By JOHN TIERNEY”]“THE Incredibles” is not just an animated adventure for children, at least not to the parents and teachers who have been passionately deconstructing the story of a family of superheroes trapped in suburbia. The movie has reignited one of the oldest debates about child-rearing and society: competition versus coddling, excellence versus egalitarianism."
{…}
“But the basic issue is the same one raised four decades ago by Kurt Vonnegut in “Harrison Bergeron,” a short story set in the America of 2081, about a 14-year-old genius and star athlete. To keep others from feeling inferior, the Handicapper General weighs him down with 300-pound weights and makes him wear earphones that blast noise, so he cannot take “unfair advantage” of his brain.” [/quote]
In case that’s still not enough information about what sort of message this movie is to convey…
[quote]“The public generally seems to have caught on to the social undesirability of claiming educational privileges for students who are already relatively privileged,” said Jeannie Oakes, a professor of educational equity at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Superhero kids don’t exist in such abundance that we need to develop special and separate programs for whole classes of them.”
The movie never quite resolves the issue. {…} The writer and director, Brad Bird, offered a less ambiguous answer in an interview. “Wrong-headed liberalism seeks to give trophies to everyone just for existing,” he said. “It seems to render achievement meaningless. That’s a weird goal.”[/quote]
I don’t have a problem with developing special programs for gifted children. What I do have a problem with is dull witted children of wealthy parents getting the best teachers and facilities that money can buy while bright children from poor families are left to slug it out on their own. No society can afford that kind of waste for long.
Let’s take that quote from Brad Bird about people who want to be rewarded simply for existing. In Ontario, at this very moment, there is a group of parents who are battling the government in court because they feel a secondary school diploma is their children’s right. The fact their children’s performances, either by inability or laziness, simply weren’t up to the required academic standard isn’t something they are even willing to contemplate. My child enrolled in the school system, therefore he/she should get the diploma. PERIOD.
Today a secondary school diploma is virtually useless in getting anyone a job, so it can’t be devalued much further; but we have to ask, will people then set their sites on university or college diplomas and or degrees? Isn’t it unfair that someone with an IQ of 25 can’t become a medical doctor? Shouldn’t we give them a special medical degree and allow them to practice anyway? Where does this sense of entitlement end?
Face it, communism, socialism, liberalism, or whatever the fuck else you want to call it is simply the politics of jealousy. If I don’t have it, nobody should have it. Bullocks! Can’t afford it? Then do what I did, work for twenty years, or however long it takes, and save so you can afford it.
The world doesn’t owe anyone. If you want something, earn it!
Is it true? I laughed so much too. There are so many interesting stuff. Watching a moive in a theater should be relaxing, shouldn’t you laugh there?[/quote]
People laugh in Australia, but in a more subdued manner. I’ve never heard such a rowdy group in my life. Loved it. 
Good grief, how utterly mindless. 
We need Mr Incredible to mock this lunatic idea of ‘celebrating mediocrity’. 
[quote=“Yellow Cartman”]When Every Child Is Good Enough
[quote=“When Every Child Is Good Enough By JOHN TIERNEY”]“THE Incredibles” is not just an animated adventure for children, at least not to the parents and teachers who have been passionately deconstructing the story of a family of superheroes trapped in suburbia. The movie has reignited one of the oldest debates about child-rearing and society: competition versus coddling, excellence versus egalitarianism."
{…}
“But the basic issue is the same one raised four decades ago by Kurt Vonnegut in “Harrison Bergeron,” a short story set in the America of 2081, about a 14-year-old genius and star athlete. To keep others from feeling inferior, the Handicapper General weighs him down with 300-pound weights and makes him wear earphones that blast noise, so he cannot take “unfair advantage” of his brain.” [/quote]
In case that’s still not enough information about what sort of message this movie is to convey…
[quote]“The public generally seems to have caught on to the social undesirability of claiming educational privileges for students who are already relatively privileged,” said Jeannie Oakes, a professor of educational equity at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Superhero kids don’t exist in such abundance that we need to develop special and separate programs for whole classes of them.”
The movie never quite resolves the issue. {…} The writer and director, Brad Bird, offered a less ambiguous answer in an interview. “Wrong-headed liberalism seeks to give trophies to everyone just for existing,” he said. “It seems to render achievement meaningless. That’s a weird goal.”[/quote][/quote]
That sounds like an excellent message to me. Certainly what I gleaned from it.
That’s none of the above - it’s just simple hippyism and idiocy.
That’s none of the above - it’s just simple hippyism and idiocy.[/quote]
Nobody is wrong. We’re all differently right.
It is painful to see people educated in the Fox News school of debate discuss an issue that is so complex. The issue of whether humans have a right to, or a common interest in, egalitarian treatment is one that goes right back to the nature of humans and the structure of their societies. It seems that we live in an Age of Ignorance that celebrates playground name calling over rational or even logical debate. One side is determined to believe in the ultimate atavism of humans, prefering to see competition as a ‘natural’ mechanism for ‘weeding out’ people whose ‘natural’ skills or attributes are insufficient. The other side can’t understand why a system that perpetuates, nay exaggerates, inequality and causes so much destruction, physical, mental, emotional etc, should be allow to continue. Nevertheless, despite protests from the right that their position is unideological, both sides are blinkered by their adherence to perceptions of relaity that fail to stand up to scrutiny when measured against the track record of history. In short, both use ideology to convince the other that their position is natural and accurate. To the person who worked for 20 years to get what they wanted… good for you. However, that does not mean that the system under which you laboured is any sense fair or natural. It does not take account of the fact that under our present system of organising capital, we delibrately maintain a 0/0 sum calculation of resources that limits opportunity to a small minority. We have never achieved a position where the general mass of people are so well educated that don’t feel the need to achieve what the ruling elites tell them they should. It is not a case of a person being rewarded for their natural ability and also the reverse because so few people have special abilities. Those people that rise to the top of the ‘ladder’ (which by the way nobody mentions is an optional choice) do so because they have developed the strategies to achieve that within the social framework through which they feel they can best funtion. The dominant social structure also binds a majority of the population of the world into a non-voluntary agreement. Nobody is asked whether they want to be part of the human ‘race’ of capital and social competiton. Indeed, the history of humans over the last 600 years has been one of enlightenment followed now by an anti-enlightenment social darwinist capitalism that wants to impose an ideological slavery upon the world population. It wants to convince people that the way humans live today is ‘right’ and ‘natural’ and cannot be changed and, more importantly, that it has always been the same way (it hasn’t). In historical perspective, it is really just another ‘age’ or ‘aeon’ which in itself will eventually collapse under the weight of the diparity between the reality as people percieve it (whether accurately or not) and the reality that is demagogically preached to them. As a previous post put it, why should bright poor children miss opportunities whilst dull rich children get them all? Why should we judge and measure and categorise children all through their childhoods telling them what they can or can’t achieve whilst ignoring the possibility of another means of existence … one that feels no need to take part or compete … one that attaches little importance to capital aquisition or ‘winner takes all’ as a means of judging individual success? The Incredibles is an entertaining film but one that unfortunately taps into the latent reactionism of neo-conservatives by arguing, however intentionally, that those with special abilities shouldn’t be restricted by the mass without them. An imagined ‘benefit culture’ or ‘compensation culture’ is conveniently blamed (a force always needs an appositional force with which to define itself against) for preventing the ‘true’ development of excellence when from the first, that excellence always came as a result of priviledge - e.g. access to resources - namely time and information. Now that more people want to be able to learn and develop and have some degree of autonomy over their lives, elites are struggling both to maintain the illusion of the success of capital / corporatism as a means of viable resource distribution and the ‘freedom’ to acquire, upon which the system is based. Thus we have the ideologically childlike USA which is divided between those who feel that ‘rights’ should be limited and those who would agree if they ever happened to fall inside the category of people who interests are best served by those limited rights. When you educate into the young a perception of self that tells you you have the RIGHT to happiness and then find that living with others means a continual process of compromise over the definition of happiness (you should count yourself lucky you have a job - without the elites, you wouldn’t have a TV now etc) then you breed disaffection. In the USA, the constitution itself declares everyone has a right to happiness but that does not stop one person from achieving theirs at the expense of others. That is not an inevitable process. Resources are not scarce, they are wasted by elites in every nation that achieve power purely to serve their own interests, no matter how grand their posturing about their social responsibility or patriotism is. We could choose to live with a lot less material attachment, define our personalities through our endevours and not through our consumption and understand that as an adult, the world does have restrictions but that those restrictions should be equally shared. If people have freedom on paper but not in practice they will eventually tear up the paper, because it no longer performs its original function - protection of the individual through responsibility of the mass. The USA mentality is childlike because it demands but does not seek to understand. It is comprised of people who feel that they have the right to stick their heads in the sand rather than risk the burn of the sun that covers us all. They will not concede that right out of fear - a fear that is born out of a system of competition that is at all times undermined by anyone who has sufficient wealth. In short, it has become entirely corrupt. The world view supporting that system is crumbling under the stress of alternative perceptions of reality demanding a voice and under its abject failure to deliver what it promises. I suggest that people watch ‘Mean Girls’ which I woud say is a more accurate description of the way our society opperates than a cartoon based upon the entirely surreal idea that humans have special powers - how child like is that?. We waste our time fawning over super heros to save us from ourselves whilst all the time ignoring that super hero in ourselves and failing to appreciate the real ‘special powers’ that we around us (the man who survives an earthquake and saves a child, the child that passes a prejudiced test, the person who recovers from a traumatic event to create something beautiful).
Let us not confuse the loudest shouter with the most reasoned.
Having been one of those children expected to hide their abilities and/or have to be held back and unable to learn and study and achieve at my potential just so those dumber than them can get a pat on the back for not drooling on the desk while they get chided for being better at something than many others, I just want to say:
Fuck you.
Why should people who can excel not expect to be able to enjoy their ability to the fullest? I know, beyond a doubt, that I could have learned more and done more in school had I been allowed to try and go as hard as I could rather than sit and twiddle my thumbs while kids who at 10 still shit themselves in class get congratulated for spelling their own names correctly. I’m not saying those who aren’t talented should be sacrificed, but why should we have to stifle those that are and devalue their achievements just because they’re good at something?
Oh, and regarding your “pursuit of happiness at the cost of others” thing - did it ever occur to you that stifling those that excel while celebrating those that don’t just because “we’re all smart in our own way” is pursuing the happiness of those less talented at the expense of the talented?
[quote=“dragonfly”]The issue of whether humans have a right to, or a common interest in, egalitarian treatment is one that goes right back to the nature of humans and the structure of their societies. It seems that we live in an Age of Ignorance that celebrates playground name calling over rational or even logical debate.
[color=red]blah, blah, blah[/color]
To the person who worked for 20 years to get what they wanted… good for you. However, that does not mean that the system under which you laboured is any sense fair or natural. It does not take account of the fact that under our present system of organising capital, we delibrately maintain a 0/0 sum calculation of resources that limits opportunity to a small minority.
[color=red]blah, blah, blah[/color]
In historical perspective, it is really just another ‘age’ or ‘aeon’ which in itself will eventually collapse under the weight of the diparity between the reality as people percieve it (whether accurately or not) and the reality that is demagogically preached to them.
[color=red]blah, blah, blah[/color]
We waste our time fawning over super heros to save us from ourselves whilst all the time ignoring that super hero in ourselves and failing to appreciate the real ‘special powers’ that we around us (the man who survives an earthquake and saves a child, the child that passes a prejudiced test, the person who recovers from a traumatic event to create something beautiful).[/quote]
What a load of whining crap. Those who can, do. Those who can’t, preach the sort of nonsense you do.
Anyone with a brain can find a way to use it if they want to. If they don’t put in the effort, why should they be rewarded the same as someone who does?
It’s not a zero-sum game. Watched a DVD lately? Where do you think it came from? Someone’s creativity and inquisitiveness caused plastics, lasers, reflectors, electronics, and electricity to be discovered, developed, and harnessed. It didn’t come out of thin air, and nothing else was destroyed in order to create these.
All it takes to “survive an earthquake” is luck. Bad luck = get crushed by falling building; good luck = be out walking in a treeless park when it happens. Big fat hairy deal.
Getting back to the movie.
Fair to midling. A good James Bond type adventure but nothing more. Simple story with heavily borrowed plot points bordering on cliche. Quite vapid in the first half hour (after the train rescue) as the unneccessary litigation angle is developed. Really, why spend such a long time on an angle of the story that does not add up to any big emotional or dramatic payoffs? Was anyone really rooting for Mr I when he got back into costume? Did anyone at any point really believe he would stay in hiding forever? There was no genuine crisis here. Would the movie have suffered if the domesic and mid-life angles were removed? Not by much.
The movie was amusing in parts but far less than I’d expected. Even my 13 year nephew left disappointment. As dual fans of the Simpsons, Monty Python, etc, we expected real wit. There was none. Plenty of visual gags certainly, but the dialogue failed to generate much more than a smirk or a chuckle. Edna was amusing (though so heavily cliched I had to roll my eyes. “Darling” anyone?) but mostly for the way she looked. Her genuinely funny line about “egyptian cotton” stood out largely because it was so alone.
I am quite astounded by the reviews. Mediocrity has nothing to fear as long as work like this is lauded.
Republicans - The situation desribed in Ontario is appalling but has nothing to do with what I am saying. What I am saying is that in a world as complicated and interdependant as this one it makes sense to ensure that the brightest and most motivated students get a chance to study. The problem in the States especially I think is that a lot of potential is wasted right from the start. Kids born into poor families get poor nutrition, a bad environment, lousy teachers and worse role models. Their potential is wasted and your entire society suffers as a result. The extreme left fails to see the value of personal initiative. The extreme right fails to recognize the interdepence upon which society functions. Failing to ensure educational equality is just the worst example of this.
Dragonfly summed it up beautifully when he wrote "The USA mentality is childlike because it demands but does not seek to understand. It is comprised of people who feel they have a right to stick their heads in the sand rather than run the risk the burn of the sun that covers us all. They will not concede that right out of fear - a fear that is born out of a system of competition that is at all times undermined by anyone who has sufficient wealth.
MaPoSquid,
First of all my apologies for the excessive length of my last post both to you and the Forumosa admins staff and apologies for the double post.
To cut my waffle short:
-
I do believe and agree that were it not for the opportunity to explore and experiment and take risks, human society would not have developed at the pace it has. Entrepreneurs and business people through hard graft that bring us new technology have every right to feel that they have contributed something worthwhile - depending upon a factual analysis of the impact of their inventions upon peoples lives and the environment - an impact audit if you like. Has one ever been done?
-
I agree that we need a society that is creative but to suggest that capitalism is the best and ONLY system capable of guaranteeing that creativity ignores the entire renaissance period when capitalism didn’t exist and yet there was a phenomenal expanssion of thought and invention which contrasts nicely with our current self satisfied mythologising about our ‘achievements’ over the last 200 years.
-
I too was held back my school system (put down a grade in English - now I’m an English Teacher) - but if i was a poor black student instead of middle class and white, i very much doubt I would have continued to get so many opportunities to explore my own capabilities - and that’s the crux of the issue. Its not only that the talented have their talent wasted (across the classes) but that TOO MANY people are not given ANY opportunity to develop talent at all. Surely the mark of a successful economy is that allows the maximum number of people to have the opportunity to develop their natural skills rather than drill into them skills useful for propping up a capital system that regards them as ‘collateral’ or as a ‘resource’ that must be managed. We are asked to respect the leaders and innovators of our society but not the blue and white collar workers who support that society, take away the trash, fight our fires, process our money and provide us with food.
-
The ‘bully for you’ attitude to success is great if you feel you have ‘made it’ but that would indicate that you prefer a world of obligatory and unfair competition and accept the massive stress that it places on people as a ‘fair price’. Just because you can thive in that environment doesn’t make it ‘right’, ‘fair’ or ‘natural’. You also seem keen to defend a system that could at any time plunge you into poverty and / or war. Doesn’t anybody remember the 1930’s depression?
-
Lastly, yes it is good fortune if you survive an earthquake. What i was talking about was finding the courage to sacrifice your immediate concern for your own welfare in the interests of protecting another person’s. Where in the capitalist social darwinist view point does it try to explain how ALTRUISM and not atavaism, suppoted by anthpological / archaeological study, has been just as prevalent and integral to all human societies throughout history. If we can all take the view to ‘look after yourself only’, why don’t we? What makes humans work together and help each other when clearly self interest should direct us to hurt our friend as much as possible?
Why are you so angry that you resent those who wish to help others?
You mean those who can get away with it will threaten, bully, interogate, kill, burn, blow up, make bankrupt, and terrorize others. Those on the other end - tough shit stop whinning. That seems to be the logical conclusion of that argument.
I’m sorry … what does that mean exactly? Surely we are biologically programmed to choose those strategies that appear to us to be the best ones to ensure immediate survival? What’s using your brain got to do with finding a way to survive … at the base level the vast majority of people have sufficient skills and co-ordination to protect their own interests - no matter how violently. You are talking about using your intellect to make yourself ‘successful’ as defined in narrow material terms.
Tell that to the workers in the free trade zones in the phillipines, indonesia and china who work 14 hour days in appalling conditions for tuppence. How long are you going to do a job where you work endlessly, get no recognition or protection, endure horrible conditions and if you speak out you lose your job or get beaten, or even killed? Life’s good in Taiwan huh?
I’m sorry… are you telling me that the industrial process to make that DVD player created no chemical by products or waste that cannot be recycled? If the DVD came from Japan, it came from the ashes of industry that arose after two of its cities were reduced to rubble by nuclear weapons - hows that for destruction?
TETSUO [quote]Why should people who can excel not expect to be able to enjoy their ability to the fullest?[/quote]
When haven’t they? More to the point they made it a principle to make sure that they continued to enjoy their abilites to the fullest, at expense of others. Besides, I never argue that the ‘talented’ couldn’t or shouldn’t be able to enjoy the fruits of their abilities. It all depends upon what you call ‘talents’ of course…
If you were that kid shitting in class and getting shit all the times, I guess your sense of self worth would be pretty low … and any form of positive reinforcement would be welcome. If that kid shitting in class hinders your development then you have to ask to what extent do you want to share the resources of your educational system. Sounds to me like you would have preferred a private education where time and money make them more productive. My question… why can’t all schools be as good as the private ones. They we’d have the resources to deal with all that shitting in class.
Who exactly is doing that? Turn on the TV and see people celebrated because they can stuff a knife down their throat… In what way are the talented being stifled? An example?..
See answer above … define ‘talented’.