I'm mentioned this before but I find it hard / don't find it hard / ought to but maybe don't always find it imprecise and/or difficile to understand the message (even the syntax) of Deleuze and Guattari - I try, page by page, line by line and I'll keep trying ("I must go on. I can't go on. I'll go on." etc) but now I'm faced with an even bigger philosophical conundrum...
You see, I've just watched Law Abiding Citizen
and...
well...
I'm trying to understand the ethics...
I'm sure it's there: the 18 Certificate suggests it, the DVD extras imply it but....
I can't find which ethical system they might be using, or trying to use.
It's a brilliantly misconceived, potentially dangerous and destabilising film (in all the wrong ways). It twists in turns in ways you don't expect i.e. the plot doesn't twist, the plot is brutally obvious but the morality twists, in a way oddly more confusing and certainly more disturbing than any Haneke film. If there's a commentary implied here, it got lost in the edit.
You kind of want one person to win, then the other, then everyone....
Actually...
You want one person to lose, then the other, then everyone...
That might be the point.
It might be unintentionally brilliant but I'm pretty sure it's unintentionally shit. I could be wrong. I feel almost certain that i must be wrong. I can't be wrong. I'm wrong.
2 comments:
It's not you.
Deleuze (and Guattari) is a terrible writer. I tend to the opinion that he's not saying anything useful or valuable even when you take the trouble to attempt to decode it.
(And I've got a Philosophy degree...)
thank God... I thought I'd developed some axful kind of 'concept blindness'
Post a Comment