Modernism vs. Post-Modernism

This was a blog I made 6 months ago but never submitted.  It's boring.  Enjoy.

So America is at odds with itself in a cultural civil-war based on a psychology that most people don't recognize.  Ultimately, we have the new, post-modernist younger generation versus the older, modernist generations.  Such reflects very contrastingly in society, media, work-ethic, etc.  At first, I blamed Millennials, aka "Generation Zero" and subsequently the "Generation Snowflake" starting-up, self-entitled, narcissistic, whiny babies who want to be always gushed-over and treasured for their choices and "self-identification" defying-biologistic, truth.  One could argue, "ah, but who's truth" in the vein of elegantly-put Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon (1950).  Indeed, everyone's point-of-view, everyone's "truth" is correct from their standpoint... except in scientific evidence which refutes anyone's argument.  Most of the more recent generationals would never watch Rashomon, nor would they have any understanding or patience.  Indeed, these newer generations seem afraid to even look at the previous ones, avoiding older films like the Black Death like a devilish imp might hide from holy light, "It burns!  It burns!"

Older media reflects on society at-the-time.  Modernism is what America was all about, starting around 1910 (though some would argue 1860).  Basically, Modernism is hard-work equals success.  Modernism is a lot of things, but function defines form.  Scientific research through hard work improves the world.  Some things can be symbolic, however, and there's not "all seriousness" about it.  It can be argued, as was by C.S.Lewis that Modernism might be "chronological snobbery", that new = better.  This is not the case.  Modernism merely considers to break-up traditionalism (see Fiddler on the Roof (1971)) with more sensical choices; improvement through hard-work and creativity.  "Truth and beauty derives from effort.  If you work at something hard enough, you will find truth.  Now, it doesn't matter what that truth is, but if you work hard enough, you will find enlightenment, and success.  You can see examples of this in New York architecture, such as The Empire State Building, ending in a point.  All your hard work starts in a base and builds to a spire.  Anybody can reach these truths, just work hard, and there it is." [sic] RCR (2016).  Modernism died-out about the year 2000 and gave-way to Post-Modernism which started around 1945.

Post-Modernism is not quite the opposite of Modernism.  It's past Modernism to a sense, and defines the last 16 years of generational humanity in the US.  Basically, it defines a complete mistrust of Modernism, that hard-work does NOT equal success, and it's better to accept things as-is.  Acceptance of imperfection is perfection.  Why work hard if it all goes away eventually?  It's arguably more critical of analysis, however.  Post Modernism is heavy criticism (see YouTube) as well.  It rejects the individual's efforts and prefers the anarchistic collective (see Walking Dead).  Post-Modernism rejects the notion that anything presented is more valuable than anything else.  Any media is equally as good as any other media.  Those who loved Star Trek (recent films) as much as the earlier 1966 Star Trek TV series (and subsequent films) equally.  Everything deserves to be considered as "worthy".  Snowflake-Generation.  "Know those alternative comedy rooms where the comedian doesn't even prepare, he's just "wingin' it"?  Sometimes it's good but usually not, and you're just supposed to experience it "as it comes out" and whatever that is, doesn't matter if he worked hard at it or not, that's truth.  That's excellence.  Sounds unfair, doesn't it?  Especially for somebody in the audience who works a physical job who works hard all the time but isn't successful quite yet.  From their perspective, this jack-o just shows up and blabs and gets all this undeserved success and recognition.  From their perspective, there is no hard labor or work in that." [sic] RCR (2016).

Millennials doing nothing and feeling happy about it, contributing nothing.  Where's my entitled free stuff?

So again..
 Modernism:  Success and Truth come from Work.
 Post-Modernism: Just show up and win.

Participation Award recipient, "I did nothing!  I WIN!  I play games in God-Mode!"

Problem is, Post-Modernism, without any effort, makes all things seem both excellent.. and not excellent.  There's a mediocrity, a communistic vibe of over-balance.  Nothing is best, because everything is okay.  Just like those "participation awards" given in school.  Is it wrong?  Yes and no.  Makes Modernist parents grumble that their kid gets a lame trophy for doing nothing.  Makes Modernist parents who's kid is the best at a sport or class not valued more than the dumb or slow kid.  "Hey, my kid got straight-A's and is the MVP in basketball!"  Not as important as D-minus kid who gets that dodge-ball smashed at Mach-11 into his face because he's just standing there grinning and drooling.   Grr, right?  Maybe.

F*ck this kid's participation award.  Never more has the Kobayashi Maru made more sense.

Post-Modernists started in 1945 with the nuclear bomb, a nice little metaphor there for the kids, duck-and-cover not withstanding.  So the idea is here that despite man's best works, it can all be annihilated instantly with a wink, so why try?  If all your hard work can be just washed away like a sand-castle, then what's the point of all that toil?  Makes sense a bit, right?  Instead, just frolic and accept Life as it is.  This notion is a bit dangerous.  Current Youth, current fans of what seems to be Communism and Socialism think that everything should be shared.  That's actually a very Christian doctrine, even if sharing is indeed forced by a governmental agency.  The Youth believe that the wealthy have not toiled for their wealth, that it just happened, either by ancient inheritance or dumb luck of some kind or was just born under the right stars.  Such easily come-by wealth should indeed be shared!  This is an understandable point-of-view, but it is flawed.  The notion that someone is wealthy for no good reason except luck is an ancient Arabic belief.  If you read 1001 Nights and the collection of Tales of the Arabian Nights the overall theme is that fortune comes from blind luck and is purely random.  Fortune, wealth, benefit, all comes from a random consequence without any effort by the individual.  Likewise, misfortune also comes from randomness, usually in the form of a djinn, efreet, or genie.  Now, the Post-Modernist, today's Youth believe in this very much.  Hillary voters, particularly young ones, really, really take this to heart.  They believe that their misfortune: student-loans, poverty, being unliked, etc. is a random event and NOT one that they brought onto themselves.  They do not accept the concept that their lives they lived up to that point caused where they are today.  Indeed, it's more of a bad-luck idea, that misfortune just occurs and they deserve and demand balance amongst Americans!  It's not their fault they are where they are now!  The concept of cause-and-effect are alien notions; mythologically convenient lies by the rich and affluent.  Furthermore, those that are rich (ie. the 1%'ers) came upon their fortune by no good reason.

The Post-Modernist basis is unlikely.  Though true, there is beauty in just the way things are, the purity of it, there is also beauty in great works of man.  It's my belief a 2002 Pontiac Firehawk is more beautiful than a 1975 Chevette and is superior to it, but then again, I'm a Modernist.  I believe with my heart that work = success.  Now, there are some that fail the Modernist design.  Some work and work and work and get nowhere, usually due to a society stigma, such as India expecting to stay within a Caste System, or being too dumb to make that work actually beneficial towards improvement.  The "getting stuck in a rut" failing.  Sometimes, with a nod to Post-Modernism, you sometimes just can't get lucky based on various factors as well.  I've known quite a few decent musicians who get nowhere and some poor ones do well for themselves as an example.

Chippie...

Hunk...

And a chocolate Christmas to you

OUT.

Trump WINS!

The Magnificent Seven: The Motion Picture 2016

Cast of The Magnificent Seven (2016)

 Sigh.  Sure aren't enough REEEEEEBOOTS this year!  GB must be thrilled!  Movie trailers over the last few years have insisted on a subwoofer-dive (also known as a bass drop) effect.  You can hear it here:




  It's supposed to create a sort of focusing effect that draws attention in some way, perhaps slowing-down the action in a scene, adding dread, etc.  I'm pretty sure it was first used in Star Wars (1977) when Obi Wan was shutting down the Death Star's tractor-beam (which had script written in its own Empire language-base, later changed to English for the ruined, "Special" editions).  You can CLICK THIS LINK to see the original theatrical shut-down sequence (having a subwoofer helps).  In Star Wars, the effect was put to good use.  It's pretty easy to duplicate on a computer, just a (for x=500 to 1; play sound (x) Hz; next) kind of a thing (syntax based on whatever your flavor-language-of-the-month is).  In Star Wars it was likely done using an analog tone-generator and a knob, manually, but this can also be accomplished with a Theremin.  Whatev's.

Hi, yes.. I play backup rhythm Theremin in the band Gay Robot, have you heard of us?  No?  Well pooie.

  Now you'll hear this subwoofer-dive bass-drop in a lot of movie trailers, usually inappropriately so.  I remember the worst such case was in the trailer for the film, Disney's The Lone Ranger (2013) at the 2:17 mark when a train-piece flies through the sky.  What is that, a wrench?  Something like that...




Really?  So a train piece makes an electronic, sub-woofer sound as it's thrown?  Let's try it.



  

 

Magnificent Seven Gays wins a Tony

Nope.  The movie bombed terribly because it was very unrealistic.  I find a film that requires me to NOT have to have a suspension of disbelief usually is very good, though some boring dramas are painful to watch as they're very dry so that formula is not the best one to make a good movie.  There is a need for a bit more to keep my interest, but attention-to-little-details, (such as the minutia in Ridley Scott's Alien (1979)) make for a good film, as well as actor-interaction (which makes Walking Dead and Captain America: Civil War ultimately fail for me, personally because they all act like 13 year-old kids).  By comparison, in Alien, though not "perfect", the actors are at-odds over contractor fees, quarantine concerns, power-struggles very subtle over finishing coffee.. very real stuff.  Background items in Alien such as checklist yellow-stickies as temporary procedures is spot-on with current space-operations today.  Little details like catalogue cut-outs taped to personal sleeping quarters of the latest new car when they get back, etc. are very distant and subtle, and it makes for a realistic ambiance.  Even the beer in the film was Coloradan with Weyland/Yuntai logos on it (the buyers for the ore and also Ash's over-riding agency that makes him attempt to collect an alien) made just for a few scenes!  It's little stuff like that which make a film great.

Alien (1979) beer in the background actually their corporate logo!

  People and clothes being dirty when it's, well, dirty outside makes sense.  The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly (1967) is a dirty Western because showers were rare and hard to come-by and often too expensive over a cigar anyway, as well as barbers and shaving.  John (Marion) Wayne film-lovers like that King Arthurian Legend Western dimestore style where the secondary hero is shot, turns on his stiff-bodied heel in a pirouette, still blood-trickle out of the corner of the mouth, lilly held against the chest, falls, and tells John, "Get 'em for me, Chief!" then tilts-head and dies quietly, eyes closed.  Stupid.  It's my choice though.  It's what I like.  Not the John Wayne, Disney Western stuff, I like the grittier, rawer, more realistic stuff.  Just me.  I've lived a LOT of life.  I've done a LOT of things; been in the dirt; been in war twice (not in a trench, mind-you).  I've seen C-beams glitter off the shoulder of Orion, etc.  

Promo-poster for the new Magnificent Seven 2016

  I prefer the real stuff. (careful on that click)..;p  There's very little of that now-a-days.  Keep in-mind that if it's a fantasy/sci-fi piece, if it keeps with the physics-defying mythology, I'm okay with that too.  Hercules is very strong, Superman can indeed fly, Ninjas can teleport with a smoke-bomb, lasers make sounds (pew-pew), sure.  Okay.  It's accepted as mythological okay-ness, and my suspension of disbelief is not taxed.

Simple truths, Tuco.. simple truths.

This year (like 1996), there are no very good movies yet, and only a handful of mediocre films, which is concerning to the cinemaphile such as myself.  Zootopia was a kid's flick, but okay if you're into that.  I just watched Deadpool (a character I despise) and didn't like it, though I give 1/2 star for a poorly-rendered X-Men's Colossus who stayed in-character.  Wade is a discount, sociopathic Spiderman with a penchant for vulgarity who I don't care about his survival because he's quasi-immortal and therefore very boring like Marvel's Beyonder.  Is anyone worried that Wade is going to die?  Nope.  Writers had to create tension by adding a mortal girlfriend.  Yawn.  Deadpool is a jerk who's immortal with a bad, sleepy storyline that makes me care less about him more than ever.  Got great reviews though.

Deadpool disagrees with me.  UN-sucks?

  I consider myself a Modernist; that is, awesome comes from hard-work.  Today's society is the opposite, Post-Modernism, which indicates that everything is equally perfect as-is, which means nothing really is truly great and like Ourbus it eats its own tail.  Effort is not required in post-modernism, you just get.. well, lucky.  It almost has an early Arabic feel to that, such as in the earliest tales of 1001 Arabian Nights which I recommend reading when you're over 30 years old.  The recent Real Car Reviews nicely touches on that during a review of the PT Cruiser.  Ultimately, this lazy Generation Zero and the forthcoming Snowflake Generation want to be special without being special, and Deadpool is circumstantially omnipotent and simultaneously narcissistic-sociopathic.  Definitely the "rap music" generation gets this guy, success = no-work + easy-crime.  Whereas a Modernist thinks, success = suffer + work over time.  It's my opinion the post-modernist will fail, surviving only on liberal-minded socialism to trickle-feed the unlucky (99% of every lazy person) and the Nation will fall.  Marijuana helps this along nicely and feeds into that design, "The rich will share their wealth with my lazy, high ass so I can do nothing!"  The rich MUST be FORCED to do so.  The Modernists who WORKED MUST pay-up!  Clash of psychologies there.

WHAT'S your problem with society again and HOW do you not fit-in with everyone else, Mike?

 So there's a remake of one of the most world-renowned films of all-time, The Magnificent Seven.  This film was made in 1960 and is considered one of the best Westerns ever made.  Arguably I don't think so as some of the acting is hammy at-times.  Watch the 1960 trailer on YouTube if you want.  It's not terrible, and the overall theme is very good.  

Magnificent Seven on-location 1960.

  This movie is considered sacred-ground, that is, it's part of the Criterion Collection I mentioned earlier as being culturally significant, such as is with Lawrence of Arabia or Star Wars (the first one, sorry Millennials [not]) and, apparently Ghostbusters The Motion Picture 2016.  Such films in society are perfect and cannot be improved-upon.  Recently, such movie-hacks such as JJ Abrams have tried to sneak-in their versions of Star Trek II and Gone in 60 Seconds (the original 1974 is brilliant aside from non-actors attempting to act.. I recommend watching it, and also the 60-second VITAL introduction by the director's wife now on BluRay).

Reboots are the BEST MOVIES EV-VAR!

  Indeed, it was based-on the 1954 film Seven Samurai by Akira Kurosawa as an "Americanized" (aka worsened.. though sometimes bettered) version.  So, what would I have changed?  Better acting and a slower-pace.  I wouldn't mind the director of Hell on Wheels, particularly the saloon gunfight-scene in the most recent episode puts Sergio Leone to shame (or honors him, whichever) to re-direct The Magnificent Seven 2016.  Not happening.  Might as well have been Michael Bay.  Check out the trailer..  as you do, I want to point-out that any subwoofer-dive bass-drop gets one-star lost from the overall score.  Maximum score can be 5 stars.  Each bass-drop removes a full star.  Any non-period music also removes a full-star (sorry Tarantino).



What's more insulting is the music, which is a remake of House of the Rising Sun by a band called, "Heavy Young Heathens" borrowed insultingly by "The Animals" (1964) which a song about a whore-house in New Orleans.  The Magnificent Seven is originally about a group of hired gunmen to protect a village in Mexico.  This is stupid.  There's plenty of Mexican songs to choose from that would be appropriate, or heck, they could MAKE one, but this generation is all about stealing, not working.  Modernism v. Post-Modernism.  

What's-a-matter, Mikey?  Don't you like big, thick Westerns?   I got a hint, Mikey, I ain't gotta gun per-se.

  Movie machines rob and scavenge music hoping no one notices.  Sorry, I do, and it's inappropriate and rude. Sure, the composer's gonna get a big cut of $900,000 but James Horner or John Williams in your arsenal means it's going to be memorable and noteworthy and take you up 2 stars JUST FOR THE MUSIC instead of a garage band attempting Tom Sawyer by Rush for $3.50 and street-cred.  No, you won't get lucky, and neither will that garage band.

So, SEVERAL subwoofer-dives, SEVERAL modern-music licks to get the distracted-generation to look away from their iBricks, and cut-scenes, and jump-cuts, and bang-bang!  Oh, and look, a black-guy because we're modern and black-lives-matter!  Not to say that in 1860 he'd be taken into slavery in Mexico, or Texas, or wherever, and the prejudice at the time would make him ineloquent and speak pidgen-talk like Jim from Huckleberry Finn.  It would be an odd curiosity he'd have an IQ over 70 and 99.9% couldn't read or be allowed a fire-arm or be allowed to ride a horse.  Yep.  He'd be mocked as a curio and attacked EVERYWHERE in the entire world except parts of Africa (where he'd just be attacked by warring tribesmen, and THEN enslaved).  Sure.  Black cowboy.  Okay, fine.  Impossible, but whatever.  Maybe in 1910 or 1920, but NOT 1860.  Impossabaruuuuu!

No!  MORE!  REBOOT-A-ROOOOOOOOS!

I'm not watching this junk.  Bad actors, bad acting, bad music, pew-pew.  Dumb, and it's no Criterion Edition Ghostbusters The Motion Picture 2016 5 STAR God-ness.

Ghostbusters 2016 reaction of all of America except me.

Chippy times...

Well Mike, what about an all-cowgirl cast of The Magnificent Seven?

and for the ladies..

I'm your cowboy.

No?  Okay how about this one...

I'll just lie here on this fallen tree limb and sort of wait with my lemon-Fruit-Stripe-gum-belt melts.

OUT.