I can’t pretend to be well read on this subject at all, but it did tickle the back of my brain and I’ve been searching for this video since this sub thread started. I just couldn’t remember where I saw it.

For many years I had a print of this in my living room.

Every once in a while, I'd get a visitor who would kind of furrow their brow, and ask me what I liked about it. The simple answer was "I don't know, but I do like it very much." All that's to say, art isn't supposed to be easily explained, and you can't account for taste. The nature of it is ambiguity--it exists to jolt us from our preconceptions, whatever they may be. If there's only one way to interpret a work of art, it's not that good.

I think there's a lot of people who want art to serve a preferred narrative, and sadly, I think there's at least as many wannabe censors now as there was when Jesse Helms was above ground. The other bad trend is the idea that what you are according to some census category defines what you should like, or what you can create, or what you can imagine. I disagree, and I'm in good company.

I can’t pretend to be well read on this subject at all, but it did tickle the back of my brain and I’ve been searching for this video since this sub thread started. I just couldn’t remember where I saw it.

I find it really funny that the modern art of today is actually just memes lol

The political fringes are always talking about these conspiracies of control when it comes to the arts and culture, and for sure there's plenty of propagandistic dreck out there. There's good stuff, too, that doesn't map to easy narratives. That's the stuff most likely to change the world.

Let's just close out and say Andor's not changing the world.

Sure. That's almost certainly right. Call me a naive romantic, but for the world's sake I'll hope #codyiswrong.

The political fringes are always talking about these conspiracies of control when it comes to the arts and culture, and for sure there's plenty of propagandistic dreck out there. There's good stuff, too, that doesn't map to easy narratives. That's the stuff most likely to change the world.

Let's just close out and say Andor's not changing the world.

The book was pretty much straight reportage based on Kesey’s experiences. I know it well because I taught both the book and the film for years. You seem to be saying the movie did not change the world (because the world had already changed). At the same time, you echo several points from this article (almost verbatim), The film that changed psychiatry forever, which I think supports what I said well. Though I still love the film, I do think now it probably did more harm than good.

But do you not see how the commodification of art itself undermines its ability to influence? The fact that Art needs the media to even disseminate, should clue you in as to how the media will always use even 'dangerous' art for their own purposes. Either you never hear about it, or you hear about it through the lens of the media. And if art is a stepping stone for change, it's because either it's going that way on its own, or those in power have decided to co-opt it and go that way for their own benefit.

It's how Paul Ryan can love Rage against the Machine. It's how Gangsta rap was embraced by the establishment, pumped into the homes of suburban America where they can reshift the conversation from the depicted hardships, to the profanity and sexism. All the while teenage white girls listen without context. "I like the beats and rhymes" I'm sure you do. It scared white america, but the solution was to actually embrace and nullify it. If you don't what is being said, the best thing you can do is to give the artist a megaphone with your blessing. I assure you Compton and Watts are still bad places to live.

I see what you're saying but don't necessarily agree with it. Getting paid for art doesn't automatically corrupt it, and if people you wouldn't expect like something, that doesn't render it illegitimate. Maybe people are more complicated than the categories we create for them. Good art is definitely more complicated, as is the case with Cuckoo's Nest, whose influence could not be predicted. That's why I wince at phrases like "those in power" and the "they" who can reshift the conversation. William Goldman had it right when he said nobody knows anything. The political fringes are always talking about these conspiracies of control when it comes to the arts and culture, and for sure there's plenty of propagandistic dreck out there. There's good stuff, too, that doesn't map to easy narratives. That's the stuff most likely to change the world.

The book was pretty much straight reportage based on Kesey’s experiences. I know it well because I taught both the book and the film for years. You seem to be saying the movie did not change the world (because the world had already changed). At the same time, you echo several points from this article (almost verbatim), The film that changed psychiatry forever, which I think supports what I said well. Though I still love the film, I do think now it probably did more harm than good.

But do you not see how the commodification of art itself undermines its ability to influence? The fact that Art needs the media to even disseminate, should clue you in as to how the media will always use even 'dangerous' art for their own purposes. Either you never hear about it, or you hear about it through the lens of the media. And if art is a stepping stone for change, it's because either it's going that way on its own, or those in power have decided to co-opt it and go that way for their own benefit. So in that sense, yes I can concede that it can 'change' things, but only because those in power allow it to change in a way that makes them more powerful.

It's how Paul Ryan can love Rage against the Machine. It's how Gangsta rap was embraced by the establishment, pumped into the homes of suburban America where they can reshift the conversation from the depicted hardships, to the profanity and sexism. All the while teenage white girls listen without context. "I like the beats and rhymes" I'm sure you do. It scared white america, but the solution was to actually embrace and nullify it. If you don't like what is being said, the best thing you can do is to give the artist a megaphone with your blessing. I assure you Compton and Watts are still bad places to live.

Talk about harm, though. Foucault… [shudders in disgust]

Please expand! From where I'm sitting, he nailed a lot.

Totally shows up Chomsky.

You always have interesting things to say, Cody, and I know you do creative work, which is why this thread is so disappointing to me. Of course individual works of art can change the world--it's just astounding to me that you don't think so. I'll give one example in your domain. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest changed the world. Without that movie, for better or worse, it would be much easier to institutionalize the mentally ill today.

Great Example, because the book was published at the height of the anti-psychiatry movement. It didn't lead the way, it rode the coat tails of philosophers like Szasz and Foucault. By the time the book was published these ideas had already entered the cultural sphere. The book didn't stop lobotomies: the development of antidepressant and antipsychotic medications did.

By the time the film was released, what you saw on screen was already obsolete. If anything this newfound "compassion" made it easier to deflect the problem of the mentally ill. Oh, look, we don't put them in loony bins anymore. We aren't barbaric. The illusion of care, meanwhile the mentally ill don't get the help they need even today. It has the opposite effect intended, since they can point and say see? We aren't like that anymore!

The book was pretty much straight reportage based on Kesey’s experiences. I know it well because I taught both the book and the film for years. You seem to be saying the movie did not change the world (because the world had already changed). At the same time, you echo several points from this article (almost verbatim), The film that changed psychiatry forever, which I think supports what I said well. Though I still love the film, I do think now it probably did more harm than good.

Talk about harm, though. Foucault… [shudders in disgust]

You always have interesting things to say, Cody, and I know you do creative work, which is why this thread is so disappointing to me. Of course individual works of art can change the world--it's just astounding to me that you don't think so. I'll give one example in your domain. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest changed the world. Without that movie, for better or worse, it would be much easier to institutionalize the mentally ill today.

Great Example, because the book was published at the height of the anti-psychiatry movement. It didn't lead the way, it rode the coat tails of philosophers like Szasz and Foucault. By the time the book was published these ideas had already entered the cultural sphere. The book didn't stop lobotomies: the development of antidepressant and antipsychotic medications did.

By the time the film was released, what you saw on screen was already obsolete. If anything this newfound "compassion" made it easier to deflect the problem of the mentally ill. Oh, look, we don't put them in loony bins anymore. We aren't barbaric. The illusion of care, meanwhile the mentally ill don't get the help they need even today. It has the opposite effect intended, since they can point and say see? We aren't like that anymore!

Individual works of art can change the world.

Citation needed.

And I never said individuals can't change the world. They can if they mobilize enough people to change the power structures.

Let's see. You've said:

We CAN'T see the true evil in the world, much less defeat it.

And art exists only to ...

Control.

Because ...

the system

(whatever that is)

will always co-opt art for its own purposes..

art can't inspire us to change because...

asking individuals to change never works.

But now you say you didn't say individuals can't change the world, but they can if they mobilize enough people to ...

change the power structure.

And the circle is complete. This is precisely why I said using the word system was a conversation ender, because any assertion made thereafter can be challenged by some variation of that abstraction, which could mean anything you want it to mean. Even as you admit that people can effect change, you want to take the people out of it, and make it about power structures.

You always have interesting things to say, Cody, and I know you do creative work, which is why this thread is so disappointing to me. Of course individual works of art can change the world--it's just astounding to me that you don't think so. I'll give one example in your domain. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest changed the world. Without that movie, for better or worse, it would be much easier to institutionalize the mentally ill today.

Countless volumes have been written describing how works of art changed the world. I just read a book that described how individual works of literature changed the world. I can't get my head around this being a debatable proposition.

Individual works of art can change the world.

Citation needed.

And I never said individuals can't change the world. They can if they mobilize enough people to change the power structures.

Such presentism. If you're spinning what I said into good guys always win in real life, that was proved wrong long before 1977. If art can't inspire us to see the world more clearly, and can't inspire us to live an heroic life, what the fuck is it for?

Control.

The powers that be love art. It's a 'safe' way to sublimate revolutionary urges in a way that ends up being non threatening, and non effectual. Even more so if the artists themselves believe in the 'power' of art.

Wow. Either I’m completely misunderstanding you, or this is nonsense on stilts. How could it be wrong, on one hand, to believe that art is powerful, yet at the same time believe that somehow there’s these puppet masters somewhere that control artists, and use their art to control others.

Art can be powerful, which is why the system will always co-opt art for its own purposes. It is powerful for the system. Not for you.

Oooh, the all-powerful system! Why didn't you say so?

I think that's an overused word that people use to explain what they can't otherwise explain. It's a conversation ender. And so this conversation ends.

Nope. It's a shorthand way of referring to all of the separate forces of power that align independently. Same way you talk about magnetic poles rather than the quintillions of individually spinning electrons. It provides understanding, rather than hides it. The macro effect becomes clear. Of course forces of power can be broken down since there aren't as many as there are electrons, but you do not need to in order to point out its effects.

You do need to if you're going to give agency to human beings.

But that's the point. Individual agency is swallowed when it's the sum of forces. The magnet won't stop being a magnet if one electron flips. But it will if half of them do. This is why asking individuals to change never works and doesn't solve anything on a macro scale. The power structures that motivate people to behave a certain way must be altered or dismantled for change to occur.

But this is impossible with Art alone, since it always works inside such power structures one way or another.

You speak in abstractions: forces, powerful structures. These are non-falsifiable by design. Individuals can change the world. Individual works of art can change the world. Asking individuals to change never works? What’s saddest about that is the self-fulfilling prophecy set up by that belief. It’s utterly depressing. Ugh.

Such presentism. If you're spinning what I said into good guys always win in real life, that was proved wrong long before 1977. If art can't inspire us to see the world more clearly, and can't inspire us to live an heroic life, what the fuck is it for?

Control.

The powers that be love art. It's a 'safe' way to sublimate revolutionary urges in a way that ends up being non threatening, and non effectual. Even more so if the artists themselves believe in the 'power' of art.

Wow. Either I’m completely misunderstanding you, or this is nonsense on stilts. How could it be wrong, on one hand, to believe that art is powerful, yet at the same time believe that somehow there’s these puppet masters somewhere that control artists, and use their art to control others.

Art can be powerful, which is why the system will always co-opt art for its own purposes. It is powerful for the system. Not for you.

Oooh, the all-powerful system! Why didn't you say so?

I think that's an overused word that people use to explain what they can't otherwise explain. It's a conversation ender. And so this conversation ends.

Nope. It's a shorthand way of referring to all of the separate forces of power that align independently. Same way you talk about magnetic poles rather than the quintillions of individually spinning electrons. It provides understanding, rather than hides it. The macro effect becomes clear. Of course forces of power can be broken down since there aren't as many as there are electrons, but you do not need to in order to point out its effects.

You do need to if you're going to give agency to human beings.

But that's the point. Individual agency is swallowed when it's the sum of forces. The magnet won't stop being a magnet if one electron flips. But it will if half of them do. This is why asking individuals to change never works and doesn't solve anything on a macro scale. The power structures that motivate people to behave a certain way must be altered or dismantled for change to occur.

But this is impossible with Art alone, since it always works inside such power structures one way or another.

Such presentism. If you're spinning what I said into good guys always win in real life, that was proved wrong long before 1977. If art can't inspire us to see the world more clearly, and can't inspire us to live an heroic life, what the fuck is it for?

Control.

The powers that be love art. It's a 'safe' way to sublimate revolutionary urges in a way that ends up being non threatening, and non effectual. Even more so if the artists themselves believe in the 'power' of art.

Wow. Either I’m completely misunderstanding you, or this is nonsense on stilts. How could it be wrong, on one hand, to believe that art is powerful, yet at the same time believe that somehow there’s these puppet masters somewhere that control artists, and use their art to control others.

Art can be powerful, which is why the system will always co-opt art for its own purposes. It is powerful for the system. Not for you.

Oooh, the all-powerful system! Why didn't you say so?

I think that's an overused word that people use to explain what they can't otherwise explain. It's a conversation ender. And so this conversation ends.

Nope. It's a shorthand way of referring to all of the separate forces of power that align independently. Same way you talk about magnetic poles rather than the quintillions of individually spinning electrons. It provides understanding, rather than hides it. The macro effect becomes clear. Of course forces of power can be broken down since there aren't as many as there are electrons, but you do not need to in order to point out its effects.

You do need to if you're going to give agency to human beings.

Such presentism. If you're spinning what I said into good guys always win in real life, that was proved wrong long before 1977. If art can't inspire us to see the world more clearly, and can't inspire us to live an heroic life, what the fuck is it for?

Control.

The powers that be love art. It's a 'safe' way to sublimate revolutionary urges in a way that ends up being non threatening, and non effectual. Even more so if the artists themselves believe in the 'power' of art.

Wow. Either I’m completely misunderstanding you, or this is nonsense on stilts. How could it be wrong, on one hand, to believe that art is powerful, yet at the same time believe that somehow there’s these puppet masters somewhere that control artists, and use their art to control others.

Art can be powerful, which is why the system will always co-opt art for its own purposes. It is powerful for the system. Not for you.

Oooh, the all-powerful system! Why didn't you say so?

I think that's an overused word that people use to explain what they can't otherwise explain. It's a conversation ender. And so this conversation ends.

Nope. It's a shorthand way of referring to all of the separate forces of power that align independently. Same way you talk about magnetic poles rather than the quintillions of individually spinning electrons. It provides understanding, rather than hides it. The macro effect becomes clear. Of course forces of power can be broken down since there aren't as many as there are electrons, but you do not need to in order to point out its effects.

In the latter half of the series, Luthen gives what is probably the most powerful Star Wars speech ever delivered. Nothing in it fits nicely on a lunch box. There you go.

I'd buy a lunch box with 'I burn my decency for someone else's future' carved on it.

You'll get some looks, but sure. ;)

And that's different from every other day... how?

In the latter half of the series, Luthen gives what is probably the most powerful Star Wars speech ever delivered. Nothing in it fits nicely on a lunch box. There you go.

I'd buy a lunch box with 'I burn my decency for someone else's future' carved on it.

You'll get some looks, but sure. ;)

In the latter half of the series, Luthen gives what is probably the most powerful Star Wars speech ever delivered. Nothing in it fits nicely on a lunch box. There you go.

I'd buy a lunch box with 'I burn my decency for someone else's future' carved on it.

All the best, man. [Insert a Yoda-ism here.] Seriously, reach out if you want access to some old ears (not quite as big as Yoda's, but getting there). Sometimes that helps.

The offer is appreciated.

My suspicion is that the writers were too lazy to fill in that background, they prioritized subverting expectations as a good in itself, and they felt that Luke's struggle hadn't been presented with sufficient complexity before, but that now, as superior 21st century denizens, the audience could finally handle moral relativism and understand that there was actually no difference between the Empire and the Republic, because their guns came from the same place. These are the kind of epiphanies that, in the haze of a late-night dorm room, seem like the height of sophistication (but aren't).

I don't know if I'd agree about the laziness, that may be your distaste/bias speaking. I don't think there's enough information to confidentially determine that "subversion for the sake of it" was so driving a force that it explains all shortcomings and led to ignoring the substance necessary to achieve that goal. In fact, I rarely believe anything that goes wrong in creative endeavors is the result of laziness, but that's a separate conversation.

Oh, I'd love to have that conversation. I certainly believe in a group effort like filmmaking, there's often many handmaidens to failure or success. I think in TLJ, many other aspects of it were great--a lot of talented people did the best they could with what they had. Writing is kind of unique, though. It's not as dependent on outside restraints. I guess I'm speaking for myself on some level, but when I've had something not work in a short story, it's usually because I was lazy. I wanted to get to the next scene or the ending (an example in TLJ might be that they loved writing the scene where Luke ditched the lightsaber, but getting him to the point where it was believable was hard). I would know in my heart a section was weak, but I couldn't think of a way to make it better right away. I didn't want it to be as hard as it is.

I took a lot of creative writing workshops in my 20s, and it was my experience that many people wanted writing to be easier than it is. They got defensive when receiving criticism. (I certainly was guilty of this!) The strongest writers seemed to ask questions or get quiet. If something didn't work for someone, that was a data point. The trick was figuring out what was behind that data point. In really competitive workshops, it was possible it was just competitive sniping (I was fortunate not be exposed too much to that). More likely, it was a legitimate sign that something could be improved. As you got to know your readers, you might realize that if something doesn't work for Laura Ann, that's okay because she's not the reader you're writing for to begin with.

All valid and all makes sense. I still, however, rebuff the concept of laziness. It is an umbrella term with a negative connotation for more detailed, reasonably explained reasons that can be better understood and directly dealt with.

I would know in my heart a section was weak, but I couldn't think of a way to make it better right away. I didn't want it to be as hard as it is.

You faced an obstacle that you did not find yourself capable of overcoming with the level of effort you were willing to put in. That's a matter of priorities and interest, not of a lack of caring, no? You wanted to fix it, yet laziness is typically viewed as a lack of desire to do anything. You had that desire to fix it, you just lacked the desire and/or willpower to put in the effort necessary to overcome your deficiency; it just meant that you didn't care enough about fixing it to put the effort in. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.

Don't be offended on my behalf because I called myself lazy. I was. I took shortcuts. I didn't treat every part of my story with the same attention. And I've never been in a group of writers who didn't concede that there was such a thing as lazy writing. A character walks into a scene and dumps a load of exposition on the reader, out of the blue. That's lazy writing. That's really what I'm talking about, not personal laziness (although I have no problem talking about the latter either--hell, I embody it a lot of the time!).

In the case of TLJ, they have deadlines. They did not have the capability to execute on it properly, IMHO in large part, as I said before, I believe that they bit off more than they could chew trying to tell the story they wanted to tell. It was already a difficult task, even a decently skilled writer on a deadline would struggle to make it work. That's not laziness, that's not realizing the obstacles and limitations involved early enough to course correct. Whether or not they realized the flaws, they likely did the best they could with the decisions they'd made. I doubt that they looked at the flaws and decided they didn't even care to fix them.

This is all just my outlook on people's struggle to achieve their goals. There are many psychologists who believe that few people are truly lazy, there is simply an obstacle they struggle to overcome, not that they don't care about what they want to achieve, and I don't think the writers of TLJ didn't care, I just don't think they had the talent/skill to execute on what was already a difficult concept to convey, at the point in the story they were writing for, in the timeframe they had. I would not classify that as lazy.

Sure they cared, sure they had deadlines. I again draw a parallel with Tony Gilroy, who I see as quite similar to Rian Johnson. Both directors had a reputation based on working on very different kinds of projects. Gilroy dug into the lore and found something that resonated with him and the stories he likes to tell. Johnson is a more subversive, indy filmmaker. Both men had similar constraints, did what they found interesting, and created what I'd call fresh takes. To me--let me emphasize to me, one feels true to the spirit of the Star Wars, the other is more interested in, what the academics might call, interrogating the suppositions of Star Wars. It made for a more challenging project--perhaps too challenging.