www.debbieschlussel.com

Access the detailed review of the best online casinos in the UK? Its legal status, which makes a good casino and games more. Day by day, the offer of online casinos is getting bigger and bigger. But what are the best online casinos? They are reliable online casinos, that is, they have legitimate software and they pay players correctly. From the famous Las Vegas casinos to the not so well known ones. We could have just completed this list bonushitlist.com of the best casinos in the world.

February 14, 2014, - 4:05 pm

Wknd Box Office: Robocop, Endless Love, Winter’s Tale, Run & Jump

By Debbie Schlussel

There are literally THREE remakes of bad ’80s movies at the box office this weekend. Three–“Robocop,” “Endless Love,” and “About Last Night.” Why? Because lame Hollywood can’t come up with anything new or anything decent. So, they remake crap. I did not see “About Last Night,” which was a cheesy, crappy movie then, and is silly to remake now. It was about a guy and girl who sleep together after meeting at a bar and then have the awkwardness of whether they can have a relationship after that. Today, everyone is sleeping with each other at the drop of a hat, so the very light morality (and I use that word very loosely) of the 1986 original would be laughed at today.

* “Robocop“: I never liked the vastly overrated original 1987 anti-“Big Business” original version of this movie, starring Peter Weller. This remake is slightly (but only slightly) better insofar as the CEO is just a dishonest lout, whereas the one in the original was a coke-snorting, extremely sleazy, murderous, criminal lout. And the graphics and technology are better (and more unnecessarily graphic) than the original. I did not like the anti-drones (and pro-Muslim and Edward-Snowden-esque anti-NSA) theme and so on that was present in this version, but I did like the exploration of the disturbing “brave new world” territory we’ve entered in which robot and human are merged and where bad and unethical things can come of that. I could have done without the scenes in which “innocent” Iranian Muslims are harassed and “wrongly” killed by robots and so on. But the Black Bill O’Reilly played by Samuel L. Jackson is spot on. Jackson’s “Pat Novak” and “Novak Elements” show is actually too kind to bloviating Bill Falafel/Loofah O’Reilly.

If you’ve seen the original, you know the story: it’s the future (2028), Detroit is still crime-ridden, and a Detroit cop (Joel Kinnaman) is nearly murdered and left for dead by crooks. But what is left of him–primarily his brain–is brought back to life as a robot and a cop a/k/a “Robocop” by a company that builds robots and wants a contract to police Detroit and bring down crime. When Robocop starts patrolling the streets and taking justice into his own hands, crime goes down, and the people of the city are ecstatic. But soon Robocop is too effective, and the crooks and their partners in the corrupt police department want him stopped and put out of commission. The CEO of the robot company (a somewhat zaftig and aged Michael Keaton) is sleazy and lies about Robocop to his family, plus he interferes with Robocop’s brain and software. Gary Oldman plays a doctor who works with and develops Robocop. He’s always an excellent actor (one of my absolute faves) and definitely too good for this movie.

Like I said, it’s the same movie with better graphics and a few updates, but still a mostly liberal tone.

HALF A REAGAN

Watch the trailer . . .

* “Endless Love“: More like, “Endless Movie,” as it went on and on and on. Or seemed to. I never saw the original 1981 version of this (starring Brooke Shields) from beginning to end, so I can’t compare, but what I did see was just stupid. And the same can be said for this. The movie is silly. And it has the typical stock evil White rich people characters in it. They are snobs in a way that doesn’t exist anywhere but in the movies anymore. The two lead actors in this movie are Brits playing Americans, but only one of them (Gabriella Wilde, a descendant of the British Royals, whose real name is Gabriella Zanna Vanessa Anstruther-Gough-Calthorpe) doesn’t let the English accent peek out.

The story: Alex Pettyfer plays a working class kid who’s had a longtime crush on his high school classmate, Jade Butterfield (Wilde), a waifish girl from a rich family. He finagles his way into her life and they fall in love. But he’s “from the wrong side of the tracks” and Jade’s father doesn’t like him because he’s poor and doesn’t plan to go to college. The father (Bruce Greenwood) has ambitions for her to take a medical internship, attend Brown University, and become a doctor. So the father meddles and attempts to push them apart. Aside from being cheesy and predictable, the movie is dated in a number of ways because, today, fewer and fewer men are attending college and grad school, and the majority of students are women. It’s become fashionable for men to be slackers with no ambition and for women to marry down to them. That’s feminism.

As I noted, Alex Pettyfer’s British accent repeatedly sneaks out. He’s not a bad actor, but the movie isn’t great. The only good thing about it (other than that it ends) is that it does not feature the annoying Lionel Richie/Diana Ross song of the same name that went with the 1981 original. Thank Heaven for small favors.

HALF A MARX

Watch the trailer . . .

* “Winter’s Tale“: A horribly pretentious, boring, New Age attempt at a love story thriller. It fails miserably, despite using time travel, a magic, flying time-traveling horse, amnesia, the devil and angels, and other assorted devices thrown in to make a messy muddle. The confusing, disjointed story features a thief (Colin Farrell) who is an abandoned baby that came ashore in a toy boat in New York in the 1920s or 30s or something. His parents were deported and lowered him into the water in the toy boat. He was adopted and raised by a gangster boss (Russell Crowe), who also happens to be a demon (who answers to the devil Will Smith). Farrell crosses Crowe and escapes on a flying horse. Then, when robbing a house, he meets a very sick redheaded woman who has a strange illness that makes her very hot and makes the snow melt under her feet. They fall in love, but she dies. Then, suddenly he is in the future and has amnesia and discovers his role in life is to save a redheaded little girl who has cancer. Huh? Yup, that’s this movie.

And, believe me, I’m making it sound far better than it is. Also, throughout the movie, loud orchestral music constantly plays and some woman in an English accent says silly, pretentious things, like, “What if we were all 100 stars in the sky but we were meant to be 100 jellybeans?” Okay, she didn’t say exactly that, but pretty close. Huh? times a thousand.

ONE MARX

Watch the trailer . . .

* “Run & Jump: A long, boring, pointless, pretentious waste of time about a medical researcher (Will Forte) who moves to the home of an Irish stroke victim, his wife, and family. The researcher is studying the behavior of the stroke victim, who goes a little nuts and becomes childlike. He cannot fulfill his duties as a father and husband and instead obsesses with talking to animals and carving wooden balls (he used to make furniture out of wood). The wife and kids fall for the researcher and try to make him part of their lives, but he resists at first. This movie was weird in addition to being a snoozer. Yuck.

TWO-AND-A-HALF MARXES

Watch the trailer . . .

Tags: 12 Years a Slave movie review, About & Defame Our Troops, About Last Night, Alex Pettyfer, Bruce Greenwood, Colin Farrell, Detroit, dumb movie remakes, Endless Love, Endless Love movie, Endless Love movie review, Endless Love remake, Endless Love review, Gabriella Wilde, Gabriella Zanna Vanessa Anstruther-Gough-Calthorpe, Gary Oldman, Human Robocop, Jade Butterfield, Joel Kinnaman, Michael Keaton, movie, movie review, Movie Reviews, Novak Elements, Pat Novak, Peter Weller, remakes, Robocop, Robocop Detroit, Robocop movie, Robocop movie review, Robocop reboot, Robocop remake, Run & Jump, Run & Jump movie, Run & Jump movie review, Run & Jump review, Russell Crowe, Samuel L. Jackson, Will Forte, Will Smith, Winter's Tale, Winter's Tale Movie, Winter's Tale movie review, Winter's Tale review

133 Responses

« Newer Comments

I will pass on those movies. That is the best way to deal with Hollywood.

worry01 on February 14, 2014 at 4:51 pm

The original RoboCop, directed by Paul Verhoeven, was a terrific film. It was a great action film and a satire of the Reagan era. You have to be able to laugh at your politics sometime.

Vivian on February 14, 2014 at 5:03 pm

Dear Debbie. I love you dearly, but you’re all wrong about “Robocop”, and you’re right about this remake, but for the wrong reasons.

The original 1987 “Robo” was Paul Verhoeven’s masterpiece. It was underrated, not overrated. It was a delicate and poignant allegory about Christ and the free will of humanity, but was obtusely panned by critics because it happened to be a kick-ass, suspenseful, violent, roller coaster ride of a movie.

I guess a movie has to be trite, hackneyed, melodramatic or any combination thereof to be taken “seriously” by critics as a worthwhile piece of work, but I digress.

There are a plethora of reasons why this remake is horrible (beside the tiresome, omnipresent and bleary Samuel L. Jackson who weighs down his scenes like a boat anchor) and why I will boycott it, but I’ll only point out the most egregious one: namely, that Robocop still has his conscious mind after transformation. It loses the most important aspect of the original – the allegory. It defaces the art. It’s tantamount to a vandal “updating” Michelangelo’s “David” by carving his face to resemble Obama or touching up the Mona Lisa to have more cleavage, eyeshadow and a perm.

Lastly, just a few points about some comments of the original; the CEO “Dick Jones” played by virtuoso Ronnie Cox was not the coke snorter, but he was despicable. The one who snorted coke was junior executive and project manager of the Robocop team, “Bob Morton”, played with surgical precision by Miguel Ferrer. And “Alex J. Murphy” (Peter Weller) didn’t come back to life as a robot, but rather as a cyborg.

DS_ROCKS! on February 14, 2014 at 5:05 pm

I agree with your review. I like the original Robocop. The triumph of humanity over machines, corporations and big government.

Concerned Citizen on February 14, 2014 at 7:17 pm

Oh, forgot to add to the last line of my post the “ED 209” was the robot in the 1987 original, thus the distinction of how robots and humans mixing can cause problems.

DS_ROCKS! on February 14, 2014 at 5:07 pm

Good call DSR. Verhoeven’s ‘Total Recall’ was also remade into a bland action film that was forgotten the weekend after it opened. Remember how Starship Troopers also went over the heads of the sort of tastes it was making fun of? It was an action film and a satire of action films at the same time. BTW Debbie if you haven’t seen his great 2006 Dutch film ‘Black Book’ please do. It’s one of the best World War 2 films of the last few decades. About resilient Jews and the Dutch Resistance.

Vivian on February 14, 2014 at 5:09 pm

Vivian: Thanks and excellent call regarding “Black Book.” It was truly magnificent. I think Debbie reviewed it but I can’t search right now because I’m in the car (not driving it, though;) and this mobile device is too small to navigate very well. A must-see for anyone who appreciates superior cinema.

mobileDSR on February 14, 2014 at 5:20 pm

When it comes to Robocop as a Samuel L. Jackson character once said,
“If you mean it turns to vinegar, it does. If you mean it gets better with age, it don’t.”

Oh wait that wasn’t Samuel L. Jackson that was Ving Rhames.

I really enjoyed the original Robocop despite Verhoven’s police industrial complex malarkey but I’m guessing though I haven’t seen it that the message is now well on the way to vinegar.
Much, much worse.

Frankz on February 14, 2014 at 5:58 pm

Verhoeven, oops

Frankz on February 14, 2014 at 6:04 pm

Starship troopers was a real dud though

Frankz on February 14, 2014 at 6:06 pm

The film of ST was terrific – you’re manipulated into rooting for faceless blonde blue eyed Aryan youth fighting a seemingly pointless war against a meaningless planet full of bugs and at the end you find out you’ve been watching a fascist propaganda film. Verhoeven is playing Gotcha with the assumptions that action movies make about the audience.

Vivian on February 14, 2014 at 6:12 pm

Vivian: “Verhoeven is playing Gotcha with the assumptions that action movies make about the audience.”

Great observation.

mobileDSR on February 14, 2014 at 6:32 pm

Yes, today, instead of a handshake when two people meet, it’s fall on your back and spread your legs.

get real on February 14, 2014 at 6:53 pm

Samuel Jackson needs to be in a rest home for Hollywood actors now. I’d say they got their mileage out of him a decade ago. Are they going to keep wheeling him out for more roles even when he can no longer talk and is in a diaper?

get real on February 14, 2014 at 6:56 pm

Oops, I got Samuel Jackson confused with Morgan Freeman. He is the old old guy. Samuel Jackson is the black racist Obama supporter who said something about anyone not voting for Obama is a racist. Then that credit card commercial he is in now where he speaks like he’s a tuff street thug. Sheesh, he should be slapped backwards with that in-your-face attitude. Can’t stand the punk.

get real on February 14, 2014 at 7:10 pm

The only difference get real between Sammy L Jackassson and Morgan Freeman is age. They’re both hardcore racist Odummy supporters. Freeman himself croaked that the Tea Party was trying to do all it could “to get this black man out of here” during the election. Needless to say most of Black Hollyweird only voted for DA WUN because he’s Black.

Ken B on February 14, 2014 at 8:10 pm

It looks like a lot of people in America are getting Samuel Jackson confused with other black actors. For example, you mixed him up with Ving Rhames and FrankZ confused him with Morgan Freeman. You’re not the only ones. There was a funny incident earlier in the week when KTLA entertainment reporter Sam Rubin was interviewing Samuel Jackson and he confused him with Lawrence Fishburne. Of course, Jackson used this opportunity to make fun of the reporter and began shouting at him and scolding him in a comical way as only Samuel Jackson can do. It’s all over the internet and it’s pretty funny.

Burke on February 16, 2014 at 11:36 pm

When I was in Israel I watched Padilha’s first ‘Elite Squad’. The movie attacks NGOs, middle-class liberals (Focault, indirectly) and drug users. It also accuses them of financing/supporting drug dealers.
The movie was a huge success in his native country, but he was demonized by the media. After his public lynching, he decided to take the easy way: attacking “the system”, multinational corporations, corporate greed…

Andy on February 14, 2014 at 7:14 pm

I remember watching the original Endless Love. If I were a chick with bulimia, I would play the movie and save myself from using a finger to throw up.

Concerned Citizen on February 14, 2014 at 7:20 pm

OK just watched the first 10 minutes of this Robocop crappola and I have to say military industrial police state straw man bashing has finally arrived.
Kudos Samuel L. – super convincing satirical delivery. Just the way I like pizza – extra cheese.
Hoo Boy, “still a mostly liberal tone” – liberal? these people are going to end up using drones on you.

Frankz on February 14, 2014 at 7:39 pm

Yeah I could have done without the Iranian suicide vest support group too

Frankz on February 14, 2014 at 7:41 pm

uh huh. Refresh your memory about racist Samuel L here then tell me how cool he is.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2195288/Samuel-L-Jackson-Actor-causes-storm-says-Unfair-Hurricane-Isaac-avoided-GOP-Convention.html

get real on February 14, 2014 at 7:50 pm

“Very few in my profession to respect these days. Jackson is a sick, twisted, hateful racist…”

~ Audrey Russo, REELTalk Radio Show host

I hear ya’ ‘get real’. I won’t watch anything Sammy Jackson is in.

Melissa on February 14, 2014 at 7:58 pm

Thanks again for the reviews Debbie. Out of all of these I might go and see Robocop. I still have the 87 movie on VHS tape(that’s not a typo). I mean VHS tape). The rest of the dreck I’ll take a pass on.

Ken B on February 14, 2014 at 8:03 pm

Boycott Robocop. Why put money in SLJ’s pocket? I will not be seeing or wasting a dime on that trash.

Also, remember his racist comments?

One thing both Jackson and Morgan Freeman do agree on ehich both have stated — the Tea Party is raaaaaaaacist!!

M Detweiler on February 14, 2014 at 8:22 pm

Cops are corrupt and crime is the oil that keeps the corporate schemers in business.
Usual Robocop line but this one lacks Verhoeven’s jaundiced eye and the humour that made the first one engaging.
There’s just nothing here. Not one redeeming character really.
The acting is stilted apart from the big names who are just show casing Hollywood political bias along with the special effects.
None of it is connected to anything else.
Dreadful remake. Do yourself a favour and watch the original instead.

Frankz on February 14, 2014 at 10:03 pm

I agree with Debbie’s comments about the new Robocop in every way. The first part of the film which showed robots killing an “innocent” young Muslim boy was disgustingly liberal and biased just as Debbie points out. On the other hand, there was a lot that was good in this new film. Just to give one example, the portrait of Detroit as a lawless, bankrupt, crime-ridden, corrupt hellhole was refreshing in its political incorrectness.

I also agree with Debbie that the first Robocop film was overrated. In that film, Verhoeven mixed trashy and gratuitous violence, a full-blown fascist fantasy for authoritarians, along with snarky ridicule of Reagan conservatives. It was a grating combination of qualities which he mashed together in his other films, too, such as Starship Troopers. I’m afraid I wasn’t convinced by Vivian’s argument that “we conservatives need to laugh at ourselves,” since I think there’s enough smug condescension of conservatives by liberals already. Verhoeven was a hard-left, narrow-minded European socialist who mocked American culture by taking what he considered our worst qualities and building out of them a snide parody. (Haneke, by the way, did exactly the same thing with his Funny Games.)

Burke on February 14, 2014 at 11:16 pm

@Burke
Look what Verhoeven did he at least did well.

The problem with saying the first 10 minutes was “disgustingly liberal” is that it frames the entire film.
They’re just making it obvious for dummies what the implications are supposed to be for everything that follows.
What happens in Detroit microcosm goes for what happens on the international macrocosm.

So no that doesn’t fly five yards with me.

Samuel L adds the finishing touches at the end with his little satirical diatribe about how America will always be great.
At least Verhoeven managed to be snarky. This is just crap.

If you hadn’t seen the first film you wouldn’t even know what they’re supposed to be shooting for.

Frankz on February 15, 2014 at 2:00 pm

@Frankz

You make some good points which are worth answering.

I’ll concede that if Verhoeven was attempting solely to satirize stupid, violent-loving, authoritarian-fascist Americans in his Robocop film, he did a fair job.

However, I’m suspicious that what he really was doing was trying to have his cake and eat it too. That is, he was making a movie which would have broad, lazy appeal because of the story’s crass violence and value system, while meanwhile he was winking and saying, “See, I’m really better than all the dummies in America that went out to see this piece of garbage.”

When a filmmaker satirizes the very audience he’s exploiting, I don’t give him a huge amount of credit because I conclude he wants to make a point but is too greedy to make it honestly. However, there’s a fine line to be drawn here. For example, I personally liked Spring Breakers because I viewed it as wicked, practically lethal satire of teen culture; but Debbie hated the film (and I mean hated!) because she saw the film as disgusting and degenerate.

Another film I loved as satire which was roundly denounced and despised by just about everyone was von Trier’s Dogville. You either get the satire or you don’t; if you don’t get it, you’ll probably hate the movie.

As for your other point about the first ten minutes of the new Robocop framing the entire film and therefore casting it in an ugly light, I don’t think that was true. More odd prologue than an influential frame, it was bafflingly disconnected and not referred to again. By the way, I felt sorry for the boy in the scene, but part of me also felt that if had only listened to his parents instead of running foolishly onto the street while brandishing a knife, he wouldn’t have met such a sorrowful end. Perhaps the scene was placed in the film as cautionary advice to children to encourage them to obey their parents more.

As for your comment about Detroit being a microcosm of a larger macrocosm–I guess I can’t argue with that. We’re all Detroit now. Sad.

I won’t work up a sweat praising this newer film, and I notice that neither did Debbie who gave the film only a half Reagan. However, whatever the merit of the first film in terms of possibly clever snark, it didn’t work well as a story or as science fiction whereas this newer film sort of did. For example, in contrast to the film Elysium where police robots were inserted to make crudely obvious liberal talking points, here they were more realistically integrated into the action so that their menace actually had greater effect. This is what I want from science fiction: genuine, non-derivative originality, some cleverly conceived futuristic gadgetry and maybe a touch of fear or mystery. This newest film had all that. At least a little, sort of.

Burke on February 16, 2014 at 2:39 am

Burke,
I’ll agree with you on a few issues.

Hollywood only knows a few tricks.
Robocop in my opinion is really a twist on some of the themes in Charlie Chaplin’s “In Modern Times” where man is literally consumed by the machines of industry.
Robocop works on an emotional level in much the same way because Murphy is almost entirely absorbed by the technology that becomes his body.

On to trick number 2
As one of the characters in the movie says,
“The best way to steal money is free enterprise”.
This liberal truism is why the movie is so happy to wallow in gore.
Every hoodlum that gets blown away is really just a less hypocritical version of a corporate pirate who deserves a similar fate.

Since there’s no real difference between criminals and capitalists(liberals all say amen brother) it should surprise nobody that corporate America needs and uses crime to further its agenda.

Here we come to the “military industrial complex”. This tired old trojan is dragged into so many comic book Hollywood productions these days it is almost obligatory.
It is a work horse but it doesn’t really go anywhere.
Only in Robocop instead of a military industrial complex which needs war to promote its ends we have a police industrial complex which needs crime to further its ambitions.
The new Robocop makes this very clear in the first 10 minutes. America has to bully those poor repressed Middle Easterners with its superior technology because the military industrial complex demands it.
A nice piece of CAIR propaganda is all this mediocre offering amounts to.
I think its important to recognize a way point when you reach it.

Verhoeven as a carbon copy European socializer could do no other than to employ these artifices but he did manage them quite well. His film was at least entertaining. He had not been confronted by 9 11 realities when it came out.

I was prepared to accept Robocop as a cautionary tale about possible future scenario where crass commercialism triumphed and subordinated humanity but I didn’t ever believe that was the real danger.

Frankz on February 16, 2014 at 1:06 pm

FrankZ,

Thank you for putting down so many thoughtful ideas and perceptions, and also for responding to my own comments in such an interesting way. You have so many good points to make in this last response of yours that I hardly know where to begin.

I guess I’ll start with your insight that the movie Robocop is “a twist on Chaplin’s Modern Times.” Modern Times really is one of the most pernicious, shallow and foolish films of the twentieth century. Camille Paglia has some hilarious comments about the generally undeserved fan worship of Chaplin, and I agree with everything she says. The notion that machines are taking over and this is super-scary is nothing more than Luddite ignorance. Liberals want us to return to a mythical Stone Age, because only then will we become a revitalized Natural Man so that all our problems will be solved. As Paglia points out, though, where would women be today without washing machines?

Your other comments are all perceptive, too, such as when you point out that Hollywood is so happy to hear a character in the story state the liberal platitude “the best way to steal money is through free enterprise” that they then permit the film’s wallowing in gore. What many people–including those on this site–don’t seem to realize is that the wallowing in gore and the superhero status of Peter Weller is all intended as a bitter, perverse attack on “conservatives of the Reagan era” (as Vivian puts it). Anyone getting emotionally involved in the story to the extent that they cheer on Peter Weller and hope he beats up the bad guys is missing the whole message of the film. The film is actually ripping on those people who credulously believe the story’s main intent is exciting entertainment. Verhoeven despises Wal-Mart, IBM, Chuck Norris, America, commerce, masculinity, law and order, free enterprise and popular culture. He loves rose-tinted Rousseauism, European progressivism and derisive snobbery.

Burke on February 17, 2014 at 2:23 pm

You just watched a film that celebrates your destruction and you want more.

Frankz on February 15, 2014 at 2:03 pm

Jessica Findlay who stars in Winter’s Tale is being described by many critics as the “same actress who plays the beloved character in Downton Abbey.” Beloved by whom? I can’t stand most of the aristocrats in that tv series. The grandmother (Maggie Smith) is okay, but the two parents are clueless, and the daughters (and recently included cousin) are either stubborn (eldest), petty (second) or frivolous and spoiled (Findlay and the recently introduced cousin). The character in Downton Abbey who really deserves admiration, of course, is the maid Anna (played by Joanne Froggat). Now if she stars in a movie, I may go out to see it.

Going off to see Findlay in an overblown love fantasy seems to me to be pretty much pure torture–especially so soon after watching Kate Winslet’s preposterous involvement with escaped convict Brolin from just a week ago.

Burke on February 15, 2014 at 9:31 am

Yes, you’re right about O’Reilly being a two-face on islam. But that’s not how Samuel L. sees him,and why he’s playing him; he,like every other Black in The Industry,sees him as just another right-wing-White-racist,so getting to slam and attack him with this part was undoubtedly his motivation.

CharlesMartel on February 15, 2014 at 12:54 pm

I must sharply disagree with the opinion that the original 1987 Robocop is an “overrated” “anti-business” movie. It is neither.

The 1987 Robocop is a thoughtful, wonderfully imaginative and satiric thriller. It deals with a futuristic urban environment of rampant crime, political corruption, greedy and ruthless corporations that control the politicians, and a morally deficient and depraved society. Against this formidable background, a minority of decent human beings attempt to preserve law and order and human dignity. It is really an over-the-top, crazed version of our own urban world.

Don’t think politicians are corrupt? Don’t think that corporations are run by evil, greedy people who will stop at nothing for the personal profit of a select few? Then you are living a dreamworld.

There is nothing anti-business about Robocop. Insofar as what it has to say about business, it is 100% on the money.

Who do you think launders all of those billions and billions of dollars (and other currencies) of the illegal drug trade? Why the big banks of course. Yes, “respectable” banks like J.P. Morgan, Credit Suisse, Citicorp., etc. They work hand-in-hand with the drug cartels, all in the name of profit.

And what about those US “defense” corporations that manufacture weapons–weapons that are used by terrorists to kill Americans and others throughout the world?

And why do you think that the US Government has always taken positions that work to the advantage of the terrorists? Are they just stupid? Or is something more realistically sinister going on, in which CIA is working to actually support terrorism and terrorist nations, so that the munitions corporations can profit from the arms escalation?

And do you think the politicians are really working for the public? Or are they beholden to the banks and corporations that own them?

No, the 1987 Robocop is brilliant cinematic social satire in the Strangelovian tradition.

Ralph Adamo on February 16, 2014 at 2:02 am

And I would also like to point out that we are moving closer and closer every day to a morally depraved world like that depicted in the 1987 Robocop.

Whereas in the Savings & Loan Banking Crisis of the late 1980s, more than a thousand banking executives were prosecuted, imprisoned, or otherwise punished for their criminal acts, the modern Banksters–in the WORST financial crisis since the Great Depression–have not been punished in any way. Just the opposite. They have been REWARDED. (Yes, “Bankers” is the perfect term to describe them, even if the lefties use it.)

Not a single one of them has been prosecuted? Why, because the Banksters OWN the politicians and they “enforcement” agencies they control, like the DOJ and the SEC–which are really just revolving door operations for corrupt corporations and banks, much as the US Defense Dept. is a revolving door for the corrupt munitions companies.

In many ways, the 1987 Robocop depicted a more hopeful world than our own. At least in that movie, there was a Superhero who could fight those corrupt politicians and evil corporations and banksters.

Ralph Adamo on February 16, 2014 at 2:21 am

And Robocop will bring that world to life for you like no other Ralph. Just hold hands and walk down the yellow brick road together.

Companies in civil societies run by corrupt individuals generally tend to go out of business Ralph unless they have a monopoly or ties to government.
Where do they generally have the strongest monopolies?
In countries where government power is most centralized.

Some brilliant geniuses have recognized this in countries like Venezuela and tried to cut out the middle man thereby creating the strongest monopoly of all which is communism or state control of the means of production.
Now of course this isn’t you. You still like your modern conveniences.

Frankz on February 16, 2014 at 4:11 pm

Ralph Adamo: “The 1987 Robocop is a thoughtful, wonderfully imaginative and satiric thriller.”

Hear, hear!

DS_ROCKS! on February 16, 2014 at 6:59 pm

Ok fine, DSR, I’ll rent the original Robocop and view it with your comments in mind.

skzion on February 16, 2014 at 7:27 pm

I just re-watched it last night with my wife who also wasn’t a fan from seeing it in the ’80s, but she enjoyed it with new appreciation this time when compared to the awful remake… or maybe she was just saying that to shut me up.

Anyway, enjoy!

DS_ROCKS! on February 17, 2014 at 12:42 am

“I’d buy that for a dollar”

Frankz on February 16, 2014 at 8:51 pm

“Dick!! I’m very disappointed!!”

(Sorry can’t help myself it’s a very effective movie.)

Frankz on February 16, 2014 at 8:54 pm

I appreciate some of those comic lines, Frantz. And in the spirit of dark comedy, here’s a nice commercial for “MagnaVolt”–though this is from the Robocop #2 in the series: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w39o6eSI06Y

Ralph Adamo on February 17, 2014 at 3:43 am

MagnaVolt rocks, thanks Ralph

Frankz on February 17, 2014 at 3:58 pm

Rumack: You’d better tell the Captain we’ve got to land as soon as we can. This woman has to be gotten to a hospital.

Elaine Dickinson: A hospital? What is it?

Rumack: It’s a big building with patients, but that’s not important right now.

skzion on February 17, 2014 at 4:16 pm

And if you enjoy film history, or more particularly, satires of film history, then you will get a kick out of this totally meshugina review of the Robocop remake:

http://www.theonion.com/video/the-onion-reviews-robocop,35252/

Ralph Adamo on February 17, 2014 at 5:21 am

I liked the original Robocop. Probably won’t see the remake.

But I just want to chime in on this ridiculous tangent going on here. The original was absolutely poking fun at the Reagan 80s and the (liberals incorrectly call it) greed culture. What’s dumbfounding to me is that so many of you corporate haters, conspiracy theorists, capitalism slanderers, and general leftists seem to completely misunderstand the genesis of the problems you see before you.

Government.

Business cannot be greedy, corrupt, and evil and stay in business for long without one very important element: government power. It’s as silly as the children (and childish thinking adults) who think monopolies happen all because of capitalism and free markets. When even 10 seconds of thought on the subject defeats the very premise. Without the iron fist of government, none of this corruption is possible or even probable.

Yet rail on about the symptoms instead of the cause. Yeesh. What happened to critical thought?

PitandPen on February 17, 2014 at 2:35 pm

Thank you, thank you PitandPen! I always appreciate your sharp observations on this site and this time is no exception.

I actually wanted to make the point you just made, but I refrained because I was worried nobody would get what I was saying. So I’m especially glad you’re writing it out instead of me.

The best analysis of corporate corruption and “selfishness,” in my opinion, came from Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations. In that book, Smith repeatedly rips apart business leaders and their narrow desire to increase their own profits. He shows, however, that even though business leaders are ignorant and selfish, that the “invisible hand” of competition transmutes these supposedly evil desires of theirs into wealth and plenty for the public at large. The only way this beneficial invisible hand can be corrupted and circumvented is through government expansion and foolishness–for example, through regulation and cronyism (which often amount to the same thing).

Verhoeven really doesn’t get any of this, and why should he? It requires counterintutive thinking, and once a person has found true “religion” as smug progressives think they have, that person can blithely jettison any and all logic as an unpleasant obstacle.

Meanwhile, I see you’re jumping on the bandwagon and reviling this new Robocop remake without giving it a chance, and that’s unfortunate because there is so little decent–or in this case half-decent– science fiction and it really does need all the support it can get, especially from intelligent viewers like yourself. The remake isn’t allegory or satire anymore, true, but that’s okay because the satire was weak and snide to begin with.

Burke on February 17, 2014 at 5:39 pm

burke I’ll give it a shot. I’m not hating on this Robocop. Just hadn’t planned to see it as I don’t generally care for remakes.

Also, I’m not particularly sharp. But I read Wealth of Nations, and have a similar understanding as you. Which might explain why what I’ve said rings a bell for you. Most of these (essentially) leftists haven’t bothered to apply any thought whatsoever. They simply swallow the jealousy-peddling that runs rampant in academia and drive-by media. Hate the rich, hate liberty, hate everybody that is doing better than you.

These fools honestly believe that government should have power, and more of it! Because the government will do good with it. This is why we still hear fools prattle on about communism, Marxism, the commie manifesto, and wear Che t-shirts today.

These are the leftists, progressives, “youth movement”, 99 percenters, and college mush-heads.

PitandPen on February 17, 2014 at 8:39 pm

Good, PitandPen, I’m glad you’re going to give the new “Robocop” a shot. It’s not nearly as bad as the detractors on this site are claiming. Of course, I admit that when I saw the movie, I paid only $5 for an early matinee. If you pay much more, you might wind up being frustrated by the result. Then again, I admit also that I’m personally fascinated by robots (and AI, which is much the same thing). Three of a small list of favorite movies over the last year or so have included AI or robots in their stories: “Her,” “Robot and Frank,” and “Computer Chess.” So this particular interest of mind does bias me towards liking the film.

The notion that robots can be used as police never gets old in my mind. Lucas’ beautifully original “THX 1138” was far ahead of its time in presenting nice, pleasant-talking, amiable machines that were obviously sinister and malevolent. Then we went a long while without seeing much about this, but suddenly robots are everywhere again. As I mentioned above, the recent “Elysium” (the Matt Damon vehicle that I found disgusting) pictured robots as police, really just caricatures representing evil monsters. Now this recent “Robocop” has stripped away Verhoeven’s shrill ideological commentary and in its place attempted to create a serious vision of what life will be like when robots become soldiers and cops. It was, I thought, a relatively fair account–somewhere between the improbably polyannaish “I, Robot” and the shallowly spiteful “Elysium.”

My favorite science fiction doesn’t necessarily include a lot of special effects; for example, I loved Duncan Jones’ recent “Moon” which was really little more than complex character portrait and play of ideas. However, the special effects in this film do happen to be exceptional, and that contributes towards creating a mood (occasionally) that is half-way between horror and wonder (which is what I look for in this genre).

As for science fiction remakes, I agree there are some very, very bad ones. My candidate for the worst remake in recent years is “The Day the Earth Stood Still” where little metal shavings come to life and fly around like bugs. Of course, the film was doomed from the beginning anyway, since there is no modern composer that can replace what Bernard Herrmann accomplished with the original film back in the fifties.

Burke on February 18, 2014 at 1:29 pm

However on ROBOCOP I missed my favorite car, the Pontiac 6000 SUX. The hostage taker in the bank was pretty funny in the original. But he should have asked for chicken wings too.

jake49 on February 17, 2014 at 4:52 pm

PitlandPen, you are living in fantasy land. The government is OWNED by big business. How do you think that the politicians that control the government get elected? No, they do not come out of nowhere. Each one that rises to the top has been HEAVILY FUNDED by big corporate interests. Do you think that the politicians don’t have to make sure the corporations get paid back? If you do, you are simply nuts. Any politician that dares to step out of line will find his/her career quickly destroyed. Money talks. It’s that simple.

Obama, for example, knows that he must obey the Big Banks. They call the shots on all financial matters, and he and those he controls follow the Big Banks’ orders. That’s why, after the biggest Financial Crisis since the Great Depression, not a single bank executive has gone to jail. Not one. Obama is just following orders.

And do not talk about “capitalism” and “leftist.” Big Banks WANT centralized government control because that makes it easier to control the government. They are really CORPORATE SOCIALISTS, not capitalists as that term has been used in history. They HATE competition and they HATE small business.

Are we getting it yet?

I doubt it. You have obviously been brainwashed by the media into believing whatever lies the media programs you with. Without even realizing it, you are simply downloading their garbage and feeding it back as “fact.”

Learn. Read. Study. Do these things if you dare to learn the truth. Do you dare to take the “red pill” and do wish to remain in you “blue pill” prison? Yes, it’s only a movie, but each of us has such decisions to make in reality. Dare to seek the truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE7PKRjrid4

Ralph Adamo on February 17, 2014 at 6:53 pm

LOL Ralphy, PitandPen tried to clarify things for you but it’s a lost cause.

“The government is OWNED by big business” –
Oh really then how come laws get passed by government to regulate it?
When the government clamps down on cigarette advertising do you think that’s an example of the almighty Tobacco industry lobby?

Nobody’s denying crony capitalism exists but your solution is to vote for people who promise to slap the hands of big corporations.
As you yourself know this is a hopeless position that will never really get anywhere.
Now you sit glum in Robocop apocalypse world with no way out.
And there is no way out for people like you.

Anyway I know I’m wasting my time with you. Just like I was wasting time with you as Hasimir talking about the Rollingstone Tsaernaev cover.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/64530/kudos-to-cvs-drugstore-chain-says-no-to-rolling-stone-tsarnaev-rock-star-cover-boy-treatment/

You’re a lefty media parrot. You’ve always been a lefty media parrot, and you always will be.
They have such great arguments and movies and stuff and really take it to those damn greedy corporations.
Don’t they Ralph?

Frankz on February 17, 2014 at 7:37 pm

Ralph wasn’t Hasimir, Frankz–unless you know otherwise.

skzion on February 17, 2014 at 7:48 pm

Or were you saying that YOU, Frankz, were Hasimir?

skzion on February 17, 2014 at 7:54 pm

yeah I was Hasimir Sk

Frankz on February 17, 2014 at 7:57 pm

PitlandPen, I also believe you would benefit from paying close attention to the “Primal Forces” speech from Paddy Chayevsky’s magnificent screenplay to the great film Network. (And Ned Beatty and Peter Finch are awesome.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI5hrcwU7Dk

Ralph Adamo on February 17, 2014 at 7:01 pm

PitandPen, I hope you will not take Ralph Adamo’s advice and begin taking instruction and inspiration from Paddy Chayevsky’s screenplays. Chayevsky is a leftist who writes out all his leftist ideas in leftist screenplays for leftist admirers. The most charitable word I can use to describe him is “populist.” However, I personally believe his populism is simply a mask for his true core which is progressivism. As for Network, it certainly is not any kind of masterpiece (in my humble opinion, anyway) and I predict if Debbie reviewed it, she would judge it to be “overrated” (just as she did Verhoeven’s Robocop).

Meanwhile, Frankz, you continue to make good points as you usually do and I can see you understand conservatism and good principled government and economics better than certain others on this site.

Burke on February 17, 2014 at 8:48 pm

Regarding this exchange among PitandPen, Ralph, and Frankz, I hate to be a “moderate,” but I don’t think any of you is on firm ground (though, on a variety of issues, I find Ralph more wrong than right).

I see that one of the really interesting books that tries to wrestle with business-government-masses relationship is still available from Amazon, Politics and Markets by Lindblom. I recommend you get it used (and cheap).

http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Markets-Political-Economic-Systems/dp/0465059589/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1392684944&sr=1-1&keywords=politics+and+markets

skzion on February 17, 2014 at 8:03 pm

Well that’s perfectly OK Skzion.

I’d recommend Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose to you. It really is a miracle PBS ever gave it the green light.

There are books obviously but the series is very accessible.
http://youtu.be/f1Fj5tzuYBE

Notice Ralph never did tell me how Rollingstoned was being banned.
Instead he dragged me into a discussion about drug control. Apparently I was supposed comment their business decision because this is how drug markets work.

At this point I gave up.

Frankz on February 17, 2014 at 8:16 pm

“Free to Choose” helped shape my young skull full of mush into something closer to resembling a brain instead of soup.

Milton Friedman was a blessing.

PitandPen on February 17, 2014 at 8:42 pm

Yeah he was pretty phenomenal

Frankz on February 17, 2014 at 9:10 pm

Thanks Frank, but Free to Choose was a popularization of more formal and academic works. While I own the book, I’m not sure I’d recommend it over, say, any of the works of the Austrian Economic School.

My point in recommending Lindblom was that his synthesis cannot be found elsewhere. He nicely destroys analyses like Ralph’s, but he is attuned both to political processes and organizational processes. His paper on the politics of “muddling through” was foundational.

But ignore me if you wish. And you almost certainly wish.

BTW, I do not agree that government is required for monopoly as PitandPen claims.

skzion on February 18, 2014 at 2:30 am

Okay skzion. Tell us how a monopoly can be sustained without the power of government to prevent competition. Go on.

Ask yourself: what is the point of a monopoly anyway? Why, to completely corner the market so you can? What? RAISE PRICES yes? And rake in the cash from poor customers who have no other option but to pay.

But if you raise prices, won’t that just create massive incentive for other entrepreneurs to find a way to get in on the cash? To provide the same service, for just a little less than you? How can you stop them? Shoot them dead? Kill their family?

There is no way. Unless… you can get Big Brother to stop them via regulations, legislations, and restrictions specifically aimed at strangling them in their infancy.

PitandPen on February 18, 2014 at 2:41 am

Oh please, PitandPen. Your error is to conflate government with the exercise of power. It is fully possible for temporary economic dominance to be translated into future economic distortions. Good grief. Read Hayek.

skzion on February 18, 2014 at 2:48 am

“Temporary dominance” is not a monopoly.

You didn’t answer.

PitandPen on February 18, 2014 at 12:03 pm

Thanks Burke,
Even the book reviews make it pretty obvious. This one gets directly to the point.

“Once Lindblom captures the idea that the purpose of polyarchy is to protect the liberties of the people, he poses the question as to why the people never attempt a system of central planning in order to address collective problems. Lindblom suggests that such an experiment has never been undertaken because the process “is subversive of the existing system, specifically of the prerogatives, privileges, and rights of the business and property-owning groups”

In other words because it threatens class privilege. A straight down the line Marxian analysis of democratic systems.

Unfortunately this kind of thinking has become so mainstream these days in academic circles that it no longer even raises eyebrows.
Young students get it in their milk and cookies.

The idea of “central planning” done right is simply too tantalizing a dream for those with an intellectual bent to abandon even though the failed examples are littered throughout history. They remain enchanted with their models.

History isn’t doing it right, has never done it right but in the end success is inevitable. That’s Marxism.

Frankz on February 19, 2014 at 10:50 am

Skzion???!

I wasn’t ignoring you.
The thread was feeling exhausted and I went onto something else.

Clearly you find “Politics and Markets : The World’s Political Economic Systems” a seminal piece and the arguments hugely convincing. Great.

If you wanted to argue with me you should have started earlier on.
Glad you have the book but I’d still suggest the series to you.
However I’m sure you’ll ignore it.

“Thanks Frank, but Free to Choose was a popularization of more formal and academic works” – Uh, yes I know that but I didn’t know obviously how unworthy popularizations are of your attention. Anyway the debates that are held at the completion of each section are interesting in themselves and are not popularizations which you would know if you had actually watched the series.

I did notice that Wikipedia has that to say about the esteemed Charles E. Lindblom.

“Due to his criticism of democratic capitalism and polyarchy, and also for his seeming praise for the political-economy of Tito’s Yugoslavia, Lindblom was (perhaps predictably) labeled a “Closet Communist” and a “Creeping Socialist” by conservative critics in the west. Ironically, Marxist and Communist critics chided him for not going far enough.”

“Perhaps predictably” he is a “closet communist”.

I have to say that the advance of “Incrementalism” is in many ways reminiscent gently, softly approach of one Antonio Gramsci.

Anyway now that I’ve mauled your confidence in me sufficiently lets continue this discussion another day.

Frankz on February 18, 2014 at 4:44 pm

Frankz: well put. I read the same article in Wiki and came to the same conclusions. Thanks for writing such thoughtful posts.

Burke on February 19, 2014 at 12:01 am

So Frankz and Burke are using Wikipedia as a source? For world voltages maybe that would be sensible. Gentlemen, as I do think well of you, I am puzzled.

skzion on February 19, 2014 at 10:36 am

BTW Skzion,
I never said government was required for a monopoly.
This was your understanding.
What I said was,
“Where do they generally have the strongest monopolies?
In countries where government power is most centralized.”

That’s very different.
Because creating barriers to entry in a free market is much more difficult and centralized governments generally don’t put up with anything approaching free trade for long.
Anyway “disturbances” as you call them are a fact of life that one must encounter in life.

Frankz on February 18, 2014 at 5:14 pm

Sorry the word you used was “distortion”

Frankz on February 18, 2014 at 5:29 pm

sorry, that’s *commend* their business decision

Frankz on February 17, 2014 at 8:17 pm

The bottom line is that most of you don’t even understand what I’m talking about and are historical, financial, and economic illiterates.

The Tobacco Industry DID succeed in getting government to turn a blind eye for DECADES UPON DECADES. I did not say that the big government-big business alliance was a hopeless cause. Only through the efforts of many brave people did the “tobacco is good for you” paradigm get changed.

As for regulation, you obviously know nothing. Some members of government DID want to impose regulations which would have cause the derivatives market to be regulated. But guess what? Big business put the call in and shut it down. Then the Big Banks forced the regulators to allow banks to maintain much lower levels of capital than ever in history, allowing them to leverage to stratospheric levels.

The result? The largest Financial Crisis since the Great Depression. Then, after the Bankster finished looting the Banks, they got the Government to bail them out, giving them even more cash. Finally, whereas in the past, the Banksters from the Savings & Loan crisis from the late 1980s went to jail–this time, not one has even been prosecuted because the Banks OWN the government.

If you don’t comprehend this, I can fully understand. Knowledge and intelligence are rare qualities and if you don’t do any independent reading and investigation, and rely only on what you are spoon-ed by the media, you will forever remain the dolts that you are.

Ralph Adamo on February 17, 2014 at 11:06 pm

Oh please, Ralph. Frank went overboard in his panning of you, but you are now being just as silly.

You err in thinking that political processes are mere instrumentalities of Big Business. Autodidacts are often convinced that only they see reality, typically via some conspiratorial hermeneutic. It’s boring.

skzion on February 18, 2014 at 2:42 am

Skzion I must confess I had to look up “Autodidacts”, was it worth it? Not really.
Did you maybe have trouble looking up the word “arrogant”?

Frankz on February 18, 2014 at 5:45 pm

Regarding “autodidact,” see my comment to Burke on the matter.

skzion on February 19, 2014 at 10:41 am

Regarding your comments on Wikipedia. See my comments regarding book reviews on Amazon.

Sometimes you don’t need to look further than the shop window to know what’s on offer.

Unfortunately that seems to be the case here.

Trashing Wikipedia is cute but really irrelevant since even the most basic facts make it clear where the analysis you favour originates.
Wikipedia can generally be trusted for the basics. Its interpretation I agree is more in line with your “mushy middle” but that’s the reason I used it.

Frankz on February 19, 2014 at 11:31 am

Frankz, I wasn’t relying on an Amazon book review. I read the book years ago. One all of its chapters, “Circularity in Polyarchy” was widely reprinted.

While I don’t recommend judging a book by its cover, if you had looked at the front cover of this book (the lower third) you would have read the following: “a great book, certain to be one of the most influential written by a political scientist in the last quarter century.”

Everett C. Ladd, Jr., Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution

School is never out my friend. If it were, we would all be no better educated than we were when we finished our education.

skzion on February 19, 2014 at 12:31 pm

I loved the original “Robocop.” Corporations can be too influential in government…look how everything is contracted out today by all governments. Corporations are not above criticism. Look how the Republican Party was going to bend over backwards on immigration because of pressure from the Chamber of Commerce?

Jonathan E. Grant on February 18, 2014 at 12:09 pm

I have to laugh when I read Ralph Adamo lecture us sternly about our lack of “that very rare quality found only in some humans: intelligence.” (I’m paraphrasing here.) On the one hand, I’m doing my best to keep up with a discussion that involves Friedman, Hayak, Adam Smith, Lindblom and a whole raft of abstract and historical propositions and arguments related to higher level economic theory. Then in the background, there’s Ralph incongruously scolding us for all being “dolts.” It reminds me of the scene in Princess Bride when Wallace Shawn keeps erupting with “Inconceivable!” whenever anyone blurts out the tiniest bit of contrary comment. He was an autodidact, too, you know.

Burke on February 18, 2014 at 12:16 pm

I’ve now carefully read all the above comments and it appears everyone who has commented falls into one of four camps:

1) The Clueless: these viewers have little or no understanding of the subtext of the film. They like the movie because they enjoy seeing things blow up. They may have a vague idea that there is a attempt in the story to link the hero with the sentimental notion that machines are bad and evil and therefore, paradoxically, not only is Weller an awesome hero for confronting various bad guys, he’s also a a pitiful martyr for being the target of sinister corporate manipulation.

2) The Progressives: These viewers understand the subtext of the film completely, realize it’s progressive propaganda against free enterprise, capitalism, commerce, Reagan culture, big business, action films and “stupid conservatives” and only wish more films could be made with the same message. This group loves Paddy Chayefsky, Kubrick and every other progressive thinker who’s ever lived, and hates Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Hayak, Mise and even Rothbard. They voted for Walter Mondale, McGovern, Ralph Nader and Obama.

3) The Mushy Middle Group: This admittedly small group is quite capable of understanding subtext but hasn’t actually seen the original. They take great pains to be open-minded to the extent that a single word of praise of the film by DSR elicits the promise that they will run out and go watch the film themselves. They lavishly praise moderation and when the argument gets heated, they calm things down by saying it’s all “silly.” They despise all autodidacts, instead being devoted to moderates. When reading early economists, they studiously avoid Saint-Simone, Owen, Fourier, Adam Smith, Malthus and Spencer because they are too extreme, and they instead spend all their time reading J.S. Mill who contradicts himself every other sentence in order to plant himself firmly in the mushy middle.

4) Champions of Free Enterprise: This raucous group understands the subtext of the original Robocop perfectly. They “get” that Verhoeven is a loathsome and smug European radical who hates free enterprise, and they are disturbed by the leftward tilt of Hollywood. However, some in this group like the film anyway, despite it’s leftist tilt. Others prefer movies displaying a greater amount of wisdom.

Burke on February 18, 2014 at 2:16 pm

Burke, as the sole member of the mushy middle here, I think you err in claiming that I necessarily praise moderation. I have even coined the term “moderation troll.” I have no problem with Smith either, and have read his book The Theory of Moral Sentiments cover to cover. Have you? And, while I haven’t bothered with the “Utopian socialism” of “Saint-Simone” [sic], I have certainly read most of Marx. Have you? True, I did so so for class. I also don’t have anything against autodidacts if they demonstrate a good education.

I especially value the opinions of certain people here. Since renting a movie is easy, I have no problem doing so if such people are emphatic enough about one.

skzion on February 19, 2014 at 10:26 am

Here you are starting to become insufferable Skzion.
Do you imagine you’re the only kid that ever went to class?

We’ve all been through the ringer but school is out now my friend.

Frankz on February 19, 2014 at 11:50 am

Frankz, see my comment above about school never being out.

skzion on February 19, 2014 at 12:34 pm

sorry reply is below, explains why I don’t consider the purchase a priority

Frankz on February 19, 2014 at 1:16 pm

Do you actually even read my posts before responding?

Frankz on February 19, 2014 at 1:34 pm

Never said anything at all about you needing the Amazon review.
That had nothing to do with anything except the point that you didn’t require it which doesn’t really interest me.

Frankz on February 19, 2014 at 1:37 pm

In fact the only real argument you’ve made here Skzion is that you somehow know better.
Central planners always claim to know better.
Let me spare you the suspense. You don’t.

Frankz on February 19, 2014 at 3:31 pm

Skzion? Are you ignoring me?

Not going to bother try to explain to me how I’m misjudging your precious manuscript.
No, in fact one of the most meaningful works by a political scientist ever.
Which is really saying something.
And me sitting on Amazon here blissfully unaware of the importance of the analysis that shakes my world.

An autodidact wouldn’t understand hmm?

Frankz on February 19, 2014 at 4:23 pm

Skzion, you’re basically a good fellow but generally I only encounter your level of pompous non engagement in leftist ideologues.

Frankz on February 19, 2014 at 6:01 pm

Thank you, skzion, for your comments. I always appreciate what you have to say, even when it’s only a curt reproof such as “Go read Hayek”” or the like. You have a good mind, far superior to mine, certainly, and I would never argue anything else. In fact, between the principal contributors to Debbie’s site, I would judge in terms of IQ that you and Debbie were at the top; then there would be a tie between Frankz, PitandPen and Vivian; and then finally way down at the bottom would be myself and perhaps the socialist Ralph (no offense intended here, Ralph). I only get this out of the way so that there will be no silly clashes between you and me based on ego.

As for your question of whether I’ve read Marx, the answer is: yes, I have, every word, at least six times—-including all his relevant letters to Engels. I’m not saying this to brag, either, but simply answering your question as honestly as I can. It might have even been seven times, actually.

Now let’s discuss The Theory of Moral Sentiments, since that book was forced upon you in school so you apparently feel obliged to discuss it with me. Yes, I’ve read it (I won’t tell you how many times, because I doubt you’d believe me). In my opinion, Wealth of Nations cannot be properly understood without Adam’s preceding great work TMS because all sound economics (and philosophy) should be first predicated upon a soundly developed theory of man (which is exactly what Adams tries to accomplish in this earlier work). Walter Kaufmann in Critique of Religion and Philosophy makes this point repeatedly about philosophy and philosophers in general, and I agree with him. Incidentally, you might want to go and order this book quickly so that you can understand future comments I might make on this site.

Since I sense curiosity on your part, here are my favorite philosophers and their philosophical works (not in order):

1)Darwin’s Origin of Species
2)Smith’s Wealth of Nations and Theory of Moral Sentiments (which I consider as one)
3)Bacon’s Novum Organum and Advancement of Learning (which I consider as one)
4)Newton’s Principia
5)Edmund Burke’s collected writings and speeches

And, no, I’m not a partisan Anglophile; if Kant or Sartre had written any of these works, I would have liked them just as well. Hayek’s theory of knowledge and prices also gets a small nod of approval from me, by the way. (He started doing exceptional work once he moved to England.)

As you can see, I deliberately didn’t list Saint-Simone [sic] in that group, and maybe that’s because I’m no fan of Utopian socialism, the French, or any author whose name is hard for me to remember how to spell.

And now I have a confession to make which is embarrassing after I teased you about running out to rent Robocop after DSR recommended it; and that is that I myself “ran out” and ordered from Amazon the very book you’ve been touting on this site, Politics and Markets. It may very well amount to nothing more than worthless rubbish—-and, between you and me, that’s what I’m predicting– but I’ll keep an open mind anyway since that’s only fair.

Burke on February 19, 2014 at 1:59 pm

Let me spare you the suspense Burke.

The book is almost certainly not the random class conspiracy mumbo jumbo polemics one would expect from “Das Kapital”.
So you’re setting yourself up for a predictable surprise there.

Anyhoo,
Personally I generally don’t buy books simply to say I’ve read them or complete collections.
Generally I buy books to encounter new ideas or new arguments. I’m not convinced there are any in Lindblom’s I won’t find regurgitated all over the place elsewhere.

Skzion’s original recommendation carried some weight with me but now it carries much less. His responses have been very disappointing I have to be honest.

Thanks for my ranking on the IQ totem pole. How!

Frankz on February 19, 2014 at 2:25 pm

I said: “you will forever remain the dolts that you are.” Strike that, meant to say “a-dults.” 😉

And as for Burke’s comment that “the clueless . . . enjoy seeing things blow up”–he should be aware that two of the greatest film critics of all time, the late John Candy and Joe Flaherty (in character) on SCTV use “blow ups” as key aesthetic criteria for rating movies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHkvD7-u7y8

Ralph Adamo on February 18, 2014 at 5:28 pm

Ralph, thanks for the you-tube link to SCTV. That was hilarious.

You know someone else who bragged about liking blowups in films: Manohla Dargis, maybe the most respected critic of the last decade (now over at the New York Times). Many years ago, she wrote a film review over at the LA Times where she’d just started working. In one of her first reviews for that paper, she wrote that she adored good blowups and was hugely biased in favor of any film that had a lot of them. Soon after, she was sacked and I’ve always believed the sacking was due to the outrage she must have caused by that mischievous confession she made so early in her career.

Burke on February 18, 2014 at 6:21 pm

I though the same thing on Sunday, Debbie

“There are literally THREE remakes of bad ’80s movies at the box office this weekend. Three–”Robocop,” “Endless Love,” and “About Last Night.” Why? Because lame Hollywood can’t come up with anything new or anything decent. So, they remake crap. ”

In fact I am no screen writer, but was think about this, and they could really take inspiration from real life like the life story of this WWII (and Israeli) hero Orde Wingate, if you take the time to read the Wiki entry on him, you’ll agree with me that his life story (and others) would make MUCH better movies than 99% of the crap they make now days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orde_Wingate

J Sallee on February 19, 2014 at 1:18 am

Burke,

On what basis was Kubrick progressive? He has as much an understanding of man’ innate depravity as any filmmaker ever.

Vivian on February 19, 2014 at 11:56 am

😛
If School is never out how can we ever graduate?

Skzion, yes I know the book is widely praised. If you had read what I said about the Amazon book review or bothered to try to understand you recognize that’s implicit.

Still I didn’t expect you to acknowledge that Lindstrom’s analysis is primarily Marxist in character.
Why would you bother examining that question with a bunch of autodidacts?

I’m relying on the Amazon review to consider whether the book is worth buying.
Congratulations on having made the purchase though Skzion.

Your quote is interesting,
“a great book, certain to be one of the most influential written by a political scientist in the last quarter century.”

The reason I prefer Free to Choose is that was not put forward by somebody who is primarily considered to be a “political scientist”.
They tend not to come up with political analyses of economic questions.

Frankz on February 19, 2014 at 1:13 pm

Vivian, thank you for your question about Kubrick, and thank you in particular for leaving your question at the end of the comments section rather than somewhere up in the middle where it might get lost. This site has become so confusing what with everyone and his brother and sister making all kinds of complicated speeches and comments about speeches and comments that are now all half-forgotten and lost in a dense jungle of verbiage practically impossible to keep up with and digest. I thought Debbie’s blog was supposed to stop on Sunday, not go continuing way into the week like some Godzilla monster on the rampage.

Anyway, the question about why I believe Kubrick to be a radical progressive rather than a filmmaker who’s attempting to define man’s innate depravity (as is your suggestion) is a good and important one and very simple to answer, and I’ll get to that as soon as I’m done with all my errands (probably late tonight or tomorrow). And just to make it easy for you to find what I have to say, I’ll leave my comment at the bottom of the comments section so it won’t get lost in the bewildering and tangled thicket of opinion and expostulation that has become Debbie’s blog.

Then you can take issue with my comments, if you like, since it seems like you have a strong point of view yourself, and I’d be glad to hear what you have to say.

Burke on February 19, 2014 at 2:17 pm

Good to hear B. BTW everything you said about the original Robocop was pretty much true. But it did those things extremely well…enough for me enjoy it as a satire. I have no idea what Verhoeven’s politics are. He’s a natural filmmaker though (check out his great Dutch film ‘Black Book’).

Vivian on February 19, 2014 at 5:25 pm

I second Burke’s suggestion that the conversation here has become very confusing. Oh, and I do not accept his comments about IQs here, certainly not his graciously self-deprecating comments about his own.

Frankz, sometimes I can’t spend much time on DS, even though it’s the only place I post nowadays. That does not mean that I’m ignoring you. The order of responses has apparently gotten messed up as well.

Regarding Lindblom, I mentioned him in part because of his devastating commentary on hard leftists such as C. Wright Mills who believe that there is some kind of coordinated “power elite” who run things. (Now Ralph, don’t get sore.) But in addition, his work was part of a movement in public policy, organization theory, and economics away from explanations based on an assumption of perfect rationality based on perfect information. Others in that movement include Herbert Simon and James March. Concepts such as “bounded rationality” arose from this movement. I thought that Lindblom’s facility with real data, as opposed to mathematical or graphical economic constructs, would be useful for followers of Friedman (whose work I certainly value).

The study of so-called “political economy” has traditionally meant some kind of Marxoid blather by those inexpert in either political science or economics. In that I agree with Frankz, whose complaints actually target these types. Lindblom again differs from this tradition. I remember being extremely annoyed in grad school with the Marxoids, which I did have to read. So perhaps my appreciation for Lindblom has something to do with the contrast between him and them.

I am sorry that I have disappointed Frankz and perhaps others. The reason I seem pompous is because regulars keep telling me that I’m an ignoramus and/or stupid (Ralph), or dense enough not to understand the self-evident (PitandPen), or averse to anything but middleton mush (Burke). And even when I think I have been precise, I encounter misunderstandings such as Frank’s. I quoted Lindblom’s cover not because it contained a favorable blurb but because the blurb was from the Hoover Institution (before the Arab oil money poured in). Frankz and Burke, it will be recalled, “came to the same conclusion” that Lindblom was some dreadful leftist.

I gotta go, but I’d like to reply futher to Burke. In fact, I have more to say about the substance of some of these issues.

skzion on February 19, 2014 at 9:49 pm

Skzion,
Well, since you mentioned I might be ignoring you yesterday I thought perhaps the conversation might have held your attention for longer but be that as it may.

I’m really not concerned with Lindblom’s critique or how devastating his attacks on fellow Marxists were.
Marxists are always launching devastating attacks within their own ranks.
I’m not going to pretend to be familiar with Lindblom’s data.
What I would have been interested in is a response to the points I made.
That his critique is basically class orientated. That this is probably axiomatic in his work.
What I get is you waxing lyrical about his manifold contributions to a movement from which originated “bounded rationality”. Impressive but having absolutely nothing to do so far as I can tell with a validation of his ideas on what he termed “polyarchy”.

Don’t know what you mean by not a “dreadful” leftist? Not an openly revolutionary or rabid Marxist?
Marxists believe what they believe. The rest is a question of temperament and whatever gifts they may have.

I’m not saying you should have a problem with him being a Marxist or at least arguing from a vantage point that would certainly have to be seen as very amenable to a Marxist perspective.

I just really don’t like the way you’ve avoided my perfectly up front observations about it.

Anyway I’m running out of time now also so whatever.
You can respond to whoever you’re interested in responding to.
Don’t worry you won’t get any more easy points from me.
That was a one time offer only.
Most of the time I’ve had to bash you over the head just to get you to go in the right direction.

The reason you seem pompous is because you claim to have a vastly greater intellectual understanding of the issues than anybody that questions you.
Kind of like an ad hominem attack except on your own behalf and at everybody else’s expense.
Lets not get silly here.

Frankz on February 19, 2014 at 11:54 pm

Well I have a bit of time but am now stuck with an Android keyboard.

To pandp and Frankz: I don’t recall Uncle Milty insisting that monopoly requires government, but pandp implied that he had. It’s wrong. The moment a business gains a substantial advantage, it can weaken competition by spending money on undermining competitors, just as unions can sometimes enforce compliance even in formally right to work states. While it helps to have government muscle behind you, it certainly isn’t required.

skzion on February 19, 2014 at 11:24 pm

Yeah I already answered this for my part but maybe it got lost somewhere or maybe you’re just looking for easy points again.
The question is how it can be sustained. It’s not simply a question of government muscle. Regulations are a huge part of it too.

Frankz on February 20, 2014 at 12:02 am

“What I would have been interested in is a response to the points I made.
That his [Lindblom’s] critique is basically class orientated. That this is probably axiomatic in his work.”

Frankz, I would say “no.” He focuses on different systems of authority, each containing economic and political subsystems. The boundedness of rationality is very important, as it guarantees that economic subsystems run by a government will inherently be unable to meet economic demands overall, although on a small number of objectives, such economies will be very capable. The phrase is “strong thumbs, no fingers.” “Polyarchy” refers to a set of political attributes. Technically, a state is not a polyarchy, but states that we think of as democratic republics contain polyarchal subsystems.

“The reason you seem pompous is because you claim to have a vastly greater intellectual understanding of the issues than anybody that questions you.”

I do. We are in my core area of academic competency. While that does not justify rudeness on my part, it does explain why, under certain unusual conditions, I might vent impatience. I expect that if you started lecturing a biologist about the absurdity of evolution you would risk a similar type of response–if you got one at all. You have also scornfully commented on my core academic area. Again, that does not justify rudeness on my part, but it does shed some light on it.

“The question is how it can be sustained. It’s not simply a question of government muscle. Regulations are a huge part of it too.”

Microsoft did not need government regulations to gain its near monopoly. In fact, it kept Apple afloat for years to attempt to placate government (this was before the iPod, which secured Apple from Microsoft’s predations). You are totally right that regulations–aka government muscle–can turn out to be tools for powerful companies to solidify their power against competitors. In fact, regulatory capture by the so-called “regulated” is a well-known problem in the political science literature. Such capture can even advantage whole industries, as it has, for example, life insurance. You seem to think, however, that government is *necessary* to sustain monopoly or near monopoly. This just isn’t true. In the long run, though, all companies fail. But then so do all governments.

“Or maybe you’re just looking for easy points again.”

Now you’ve pissed me off. Enough.

skzion on February 20, 2014 at 11:57 am

skzion:

I love all your comments, by the way. Don’t ever leave Debbie’s blog (for good) because you get “pissed off” by someone or something. Please!

You seem to believe that my earlier attempt to hierarchically order everyone on this site using a simple IQ schemata (what Frankz humorously termed an “IQ totem pole”) was unnecessary. However, I disagree. It was getting increasingly confusing because everyone had a point of view about everyone else’s intelligence, but none of it made much sense. The confusion began when PandP claimed she wasn’t “all that smart”–but that was patently absurd, as everyone immediately realized. Then Ralph added to the confusion by ranting on about how you and Frankz were “dolts.” That was foolish, too. That was just the beginning, though. There then followed a large number of personal slurs, almost all of them based on a wrong estimation of everyone else’s intelligence.

A simple, hierarchical chart was needed to stem the disorganized madness, and that’s what I put forward. Frankz approved of the chart right away and I didn’t even place him at the top. Your own objection that I only put myself on the bottom because of “graciousness” is simply laughable and I don’t accept it.

With the hierarchy I’ve proposed, I believe we can proceed into the future without any more personal slights. Nobody needs to prove anything anymore. Everything important to be said about intelligence lies in the totem pole. We can now concentrate on each other’s ideas in a productive way.

Burke on February 20, 2014 at 1:51 pm

Vivian:
Vivian:

Thanks for being patient. I did see “Black Book” when it came out and I enjoyed it. I’ve enjoyed all of Verhoeven’s works, even Showgirls (!), but that doesn’t mean I don’t have problems with this director and his messaging as well. For example, the question I have in evaluating his “Robocop” is: How much of the story is pure satire (of American stupidity), how much is pandering (to clueless Americans who want to see a senselessly violent movie and so will help Hollywood get rich by running to the theater) and how much is a character-driven story with genuine investment in watching Peter Weller’s sentimental martyrdom at the hands of evil corporations? The lines between these three potentially contradictory ambitions which combine the lofty, lazy and cynical are blurred in the film. If you go back to my comment at Feb. 16, at 2:39 a.m. about “having his cake and eating it too,” you’ll see a better restatement of what I consider the problem, and I’d be interested in your response to it.

Now on to Kubrick who is idolized by many and in fact considered one of the greatest filmmakers of the twentieth century. For many years I argued that he was just a hack. Then my thinking of him evolved and I came to think of him as just a stupid liberal. My current view of him is that he’s part hack and part stupid liberal.

Don’t get me wrong. I still think he’s a masterful stylist, and I also appreciate what he did in bringing so many important classics to the screen. However, in order for a filmmaker to have stature as a true auteur genius, he needs to originate some good ideas of his own, and this is where I think Kubrick fails. The classic argument that he is a hack begins with his work on “Spartacus” which is generally acknowledged even by his fans to be a silly, empty, overblown spectacle without any of Kubrick’s usual distinctive style. If he’d gone through his career making similar big, splashy spectacles, he wouldn’t be admired today. Instead, though, he made a lot of films based on interesting novels such as Anthony Burgess’s “Clockwork Orange,” Schnitzler’s “Eyes Wide Shut,” Nabokov’s “Lolita,” Stephen King’s “The Shining” and so forth. What Kubrick’s fans don’t seem to realize is that he doesn’t alter or add to these admittedly interesting works when he adapts them to screen. We give Kubrick more credit than he deserves for ideas that aren’t his.

Real auteur filmmaking involves writing original screenplays, or perhaps it might mean the selection of screenplays that are distinctive and which together articulate something original and profound. Examples of auteur filmmakers who I personally admire include Aronofsky, the Coens, von Trier, Fellini, Woody Allen, Cronenberg, Todd Solondz, Charlie Kaufman, Haneke and about fifty others altogether.

Kubrick, though, seems to have merely selected critically admired books of wildly different genres and then appeared to make them his own by investing them with his peculiar and recognizable style which combines meticulous precision, cold detachment toward the characters, gorgeous style and what liberals admire as “ideas.” But the ideas aren’t original and they don’t gel together as a whole.

Back in the fifties, John Huston used to take classics and adapt them to film: Melville’s “Moby Dick,” Hammett’s “Maltese Falcon,” the well regarded novel “African Queen,” and Flannery O’Connor’s “Wise Blood” were some of these. Houston has always been admired as a filmmaker, but, very correctly, he’s not been idolized for all the ideas he helped put on the screen by adapting these great works. “Moby Dick” the film is a profound artistic accomplishment, but the ideas are Melville’s, not Houston’s, and because Huston didn’t invent any particularly distinctive style for his films, his authorial distance from the originals is taken for granted. He’s just an adapter, not much more. This view hasn’t been the same for Kubrick. My point here is that Huston was a fine and skillful filmmaker, but in terms of original ideas, he had little or none and so could, in that one sense, be considered a “hack,” floating from project to project. The same should be said about Kubrick.

This was my first idea, that Kubrick was a hack, admired more than some because he chose books to adapt that were interesting and intellectual to begin with, but adding nothing worthwhile on his own except a beautiful and frostily detached style. More evidence for this point of view came with his film “Barry Lyndon,” since Thackeray, the nineteenth century Englishman whose book was adapted this time, wasn’t even a liberal. Instead, he was a very committed Victorian conservative who disliked uppity women (“Vanity Fair”) and uppity Irish (“Barry Lyndon”). It was obvious to me at this point Kubrick was choosing scripts and books almost randomly. His only interest was in being able to claim that he’d now done every possible genre known to man including sci fi (“2001: A Space Odyssey”), horror (“The Shining”), Vietnam war film (“Full Metal Jacket”), costume drama period piece (“Barry Lyndon”), and so forth. The only glue between all these disparate choices of his was style.

As I grew older, though, I came to realize that even though Kubrick was partly just a hack, drifting from project to project almost randomly, he was at bottom probably also a stupid liberal. “Lolita” was made to tweak middle class prudery and convention (but it’s still a wonderful adaptation for which Nabokov should be given a lot of credit); “2001: A Space Odyssey” was chosen because it promoted an idealistic vision of authoritarian fascism by a “higher and more enlightened power,” the very type of authoritarianism liberals love (this political idea as sci fi ideological parable is even plainer in “The Day the Earth Stood Still”); “Paths of Glory” (based on a novel with the same name) was chosen to tweak the military; there’s more of that in the crudely obvious (but still funny) “Dr. Strangelove.” “Clockwork Orange” is an example of liberal silliness: a sociopath and his buddies vandalize and rape, but all the sentiment in the movie is poured out towards the supposed bathos of Alex when—oh, no!—his memory of Beethoven is erased by the baddies who run the prisons. I could go on. “Eyes Wide Shut” is a “hack” work sticking very closely to Schnitzler’s original stream-of-consciousness German novel from the early part of last century; it’s main alteration from the original is a superficial updating and the introduction of AIDS.

Viewing Kubrick as possibly just a stupid liberal as I am now, I want to return to his early work on what appears to many a boringly conventional and style-less “Spartacus,” often criticized as Kubrick’s mercenary project. The story of Spartacus, though, has an interesting intellectual history. Back in 1939, the well-known intellectual Arthur Koestler wrote an important novel about the real historical Spartacus which he titled “The Gladiators.” This was intended as communist parable representing an idealized triumph of the proletariat over capitalist rule. Koestler afterwards soured on communism thanks in part to the influence of Orwell and that’s when he wrote the politically incorrect “Darkness at Noon.” “Darkness at Noon,” though, was squashed in Hollywood (the notoriously black-listed Communist Joseph Losey bragged that he’d accomplished this single-handedly). In contrast, Koestler’s earlier more radical communist work was provided an enormous budget and turned into Kubrick’s lavish spectacle.

So, in conclusion, it seems to me that Kubrick is mainly just a stupid liberal choosing works which promoted his limited and foolish ideological biases. All liberals are stupid, and Kubrick was no exception. Sometimes Kubrick became an intellectual hack, as when he drifted from project to project in a practically random manner. But most of the time he simply promoted what the so-called intelligentsia loves and embraces and for much this reason ultimately became a widely worshipped idol.

Okay, Vivian, your turn. Convince me Kubrick’s a deep, soulful, original genius writing about man’s innate depravity. One of my favorite authors from the last century, William Golding, writes on this very theme and I certainly consider it an important idea (even if I disagree with it myself).

Burke on February 20, 2014 at 12:36 pm

« Newer Comments

Debbie Schlussel

Support My Work

Join My Mailing List!

Follow Me

Search

Categories

Sponsored Links

Wknd Box Office: Robocop, Endless Love, Winter’s Tale, Run & Jump

133 Responses

Leave a Reply

Sponsor My Work!

Advertisement