[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View]
Wednesday, June 19th, 2019
| Time | Event |
| 8:00a | When Stanley Kubrick Banned His Own Film, A Clockwork Orange: It Was the “Most Effective Censorship of a Film in British History”
"What in hell is Kubrick up to here?" asked Roger Ebert in his original 1972 review of A Clockwork Orange, whose marketing announced it as a film about "the adventures of a young man whose principal interests are rape, ultra-violence, and Beethoven." How could this acclaimed director really want to involve us in the "psychopathic little life" of this dubious protagonist? "In a world where society is criminal, of course, a good man must live outside the law. But that isn't what Kubrick is saying. He actually seems to be implying something simpler and more frightening: that in a world where society is criminal, the citizen might as well be a criminal, too." Others in the press leveled similar criticisms at A Clockwork Orange, most of them much simpler and more accusatory. They had more serious consequences for the picture in Kubrick's adopted homeland of England. Within two weeks of its release there, writes David Hughes in The Complete Kubrick, "right-wingers and tub-thumping MPs were baying for the film to be banned there before copycat violence could spread among the nation's impressionable youth. Under a headline that read 'CLOCKWORK ORANGES ARE TICKING BOMBS,' the Evening News predicted that the film would 'lead to a clockwork cult which will magnify teen violence.'" The direct attributions of violent incidents involving young people to A Clockwork Orange continued until the film was finally pulled from British theaters — by the filmmaker himself. "In early 1974, Kubrick and Warner Bros quietly withdrew it from circulation," Hughes writes, "refusing to allow it to be shown under any circumstances." Attempted breaches of this "most effective censorship of a film in British history" were dealt with harshly: London's Scala Cinema, for example, was forced to shut its doors forever after showing the film in 1992. A Clockwork Orange finally received a British re-release in 2000, the year after Kubrick's death. That same year the documentary Still Tickin': The Return of A Clockwork Orange, which you can watch on YouTube, told the story of the film's suppression and re-emergence. But why would such a forcefully individualistic filmmaker as Stanley Kubrick pull his own film from circulation in the first place? "Stanley was very insulted by the reaction, and hurt," Hughes quotes his widow Christiane as saying. Kubrick "didn't want to be misunderstood and misinterpreted," nor did he want to keep receiving the "death threats" that the bad press had been drawing. Kubrick "never spoke about the decision" to ban his own movie, writes Devin Faraci at Birth.Movies.Death., and surely didn't see it as to blame for youth violence in Britain, but "he was still sickened to see the clothes of his characters hung on these perpetrators. The message of his film was being missed, and he refused to let the movie take on a life of its own." Kubrick had discussed his own opposition to the idea that art promotes violent behavior during the initial promotion of A Clockwork Orange: "There has always been violence in art," he said to journalist Michel Ciment. "There is violence in the Bible, violence in Homer, violence in Shakespeare, and many psychiatrists believe that it serves as a catharsis rather than a model." In Kubrick's view, "the people who commit violent crime are not ordinary people who are transformed into vicious thugs by the wrong diet of films or TV. Rather, it is a fact that violent crime is invariably committed by people with a long record of anti-social behavior, or by the unexpected blossoming of a psychopath who is described afterward as having been '...such a nice, quiet boy.'" Either way, "immensely complicated social, economic and psychological forces are involved," and "the simplistic notion that films and TV can transform an otherwise innocent and good person into a criminal has strong overtones of the Salem witch trials." Whether or not Kubrick went too far in withdrawing A Clockwork Orange, he certainly had a clearer sense of what creates the kind of malevolent characters it depicts than many of its early viewers did. Related Content: The Making of Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange Stanley Kubrick’s Rare 1965 Interview with The New Yorker Based in Seoul, Colin Marshall writes and broadcasts on cities, language, and culture. His projects include the book The Stateless City: a Walk through 21st-Century Los Angeles and the video series The City in Cinema. Follow him on Twitter at @colinmarshall, on Facebook, or on Instagram. When Stanley Kubrick Banned His Own Film, A Clockwork Orange: It Was the “Most Effective Censorship of a Film in British History” is a post from: Open Culture. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Plus, or get our Daily Email. And don't miss our big collections of Free Online Courses, Free Online Movies, Free eBooks, Free Audio Books, Free Foreign Language Lessons, and MOOCs.  |
| 2:00p | How Blondie’s Debbie Harry Learned to Deal With Superficial, Demeaning Interviewers
Unprofessional, obnoxious, rude, boring, bullying—all adjectives that can apply when middle-aged men comment incessantly on a woman’s looks, when that woman has met with them to talk about her career. The cringe-factor is magnified a thousandfold when it’s broadcast over airwaves, or fiber and 4G. The actresses and singers who have endured such abuse in front of audiences spans the history of radio and TV. Blondie’s Deborah Harry got the treatment. Subjected to “years of superficial, tedious, and demeaning questions from journalists,” notes documentary production company Public Interest, she finally “devises a brilliant way to turn interviews on their head.” The video above pulls together a montage of interview clips in which both male and female talking heads start nearly every conversation with Harry by referring to her as “a reincarnation of Marilyn Monroe” or something to that effect. She is visibly annoyed but keeps her cool, which a couple interviewers take as an invitation for near-harassment. [Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<div [...] http://cdn8.openculture.com/>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.] <div class="oc-video-wrapper">
<div class="oc-video-container">
</div>
<p> <!-- /oc-video-embed -->
</p></div>
<p><!-- /oc-video-wrapper --></p>
<p>Unprofessional, obnoxious, rude, boring, bullying—all adjectives that can apply when middle-aged men comment incessantly on a woman’s looks, when that woman has met with them to talk about her career. The cringe-factor is magnified a thousandfold when it’s broadcast over airwaves, or fiber and 4G. The actresses and singers who have endured such abuse in front of audiences spans the history of radio and TV.</p>
<p>Blondie’s Deborah Harry got the treatment. Subjected to “years of superficial, tedious, and demeaning questions from journalists,” notes documentary production company <a href="https://vimeo.com/338538751">Public Interest</a>, she finally “devises a brilliant way to turn interviews on their head.” The video above pulls together a montage of interview clips in which both male and female talking heads start nearly every conversation with Harry by referring to her as “a reincarnation of Marilyn Monroe” or something to that effect. She is visibly annoyed but keeps her cool, which a couple interviewers take as an invitation for near-harassment.</p>
<div class="oc-center-da" http://cdn8.openculture.com/="http://cdn8.openculture.com/">
<p>Some might claim the crude interest in Harry’s looks was justified, given her early persona as a punk-rock pinup, but note that most of the interviewers never get around to talking about the music—the reason we know and admire her in the first place. Instead, one British TV presenter follows up the Marilyn Monroe question (if it can be so called) by asking if Harry is “thinking about going into marriage.”</p>
<p>The questions aren’t always lecherous but they are always inane. Harry is clear about one thing. It’s an obligation; she’s there to sell a product. How does she turn the tables? A stuffed animal mascot, a few well-placed “can you believe this shit?” looks at the camera, and a flat-out refusal to answer any questions about Madonna, for a start. Lou Reed and Bob Dylan get credit for being some of the crankiest interview subjects in rock and roll, but Harry had more reason than either of them to hate this part of the job.</p>
<p>See how she handles it, and for contrast, read an<a href="https://daily.redbullmusicacademy.com/2018/01/debbie-harry-interview"> interview she did with Bill Brewster in 2014</a>, when Blondie released the reunion album <a href="https://amzn.to/2XqDeHe"><em>Ghosts of Download</em></a>. Brewster keeps the focus on the music, and she seems totally thrilled to get the chance to talk about it.</p>
<p><strong>Related Content:</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.openculture.com/2019/04/hear-debbie-harrys-stunning-ethereal-vocal-tracks-from-heart-of-glass-call-me-rapture-and-one-way-or-another.html">Hear Debbie Harry’s Stunning Ethereal Vocal Tracks from “Heart of Glass,” “Call Me,” “Rapture,” and “One Way or Another”</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.openculture.com/2017/07/watch-iggy-pop-debbie-harry-sing-a-swelligant-version-of-cole-porters-did-you-evah.html">Watch Iggy Pop & Debbie Harry Sing a Swelligant Version of Cole Porter’s “Did You Evah,” All to Raise Money for AIDS Research (1990)</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.openculture.com/2013/07/watch_blondie_play_cbgb_in_the_mid-70s_in_two_vintage_clips.html">Blondie Plays CBGB in the Mid-70s in Two Vintage Clips</a></p>
<p><a href="http://about.me/jonesjoshua"><i>Josh Jones</i></a><i> is a writer and musician based in Durham, NC. Follow him at <a href="https://twitter.com/jdmagness">@jdmagness</a></i></p>
<!-- permalink:http://www.openculture.com/2019/06/how-blondies-debbie-harry-learned-to-deal-with-superficial-demeaning-interviewers.html--><p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.openculture.com/2019/06/how-blondies-debbie-harry-learned-to-deal-with-superficial-demeaning-interviewers.html">How Blondie’s Debbie Harry Learned to Deal With Superficial, Demeaning Interviewers</a> is a post from: <a href="http://www.openculture.com">Open Culture</a>. Follow us on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openculture">Facebook</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/openculture">Twitter</a>, and <a href="https://plus.google.com/108579751001953501160/posts">Google Plus</a>, or get our <a href="http://www.openculture.com/dailyemail">Daily Email</a>. And don't miss our big collections of <a href="http://www.openculture.com/freeonlinecourses">Free Online Courses</a>, <a href="http://www.openculture.com/freemoviesonline">Free Online Movies</a>, <a href="http://www.openculture.com/free_ebooks">Free eBooks</a>, <a href="http://www.openculture.com/freeaudiobooks">Free Audio Books</a>, <a href="http://www.openculture.com/freelanguagelessons">Free Foreign Language Lessons</a>, and <a href="http://www.openculture.com/free_certificate_courses">MOOCs</a>.</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/OpenCulture?a=08mpZT_qcWw:-mCCwtBsHC4:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/OpenCulture?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/OpenCulture?a=08mpZT_qcWw:-mCCwtBsHC4:V_sGLiPBpWU"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/OpenCulture?i=08mpZT_qcWw:-mCCwtBsHC4:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/OpenCulture?a=08mpZT_qcWw:-mCCwtBsHC4:gIN9vFwOqvQ"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/OpenCulture?i=08mpZT_qcWw:-mCCwtBsHC4:gIN9vFwOqvQ" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/OpenCulture?a=08mpZT_qcWw:-mCCwtBsHC4:qj6IDK7rITs"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/OpenCulture?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/OpenCulture?a=08mpZT_qcWw:-mCCwtBsHC4:I9og5sOYxJI"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/OpenCulture?d=I9og5sOYxJI" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/OpenCulture/~4/08mpZT_qcWw" height="1" width="1" alt="" /> |
| 4:00p | How to Argue With Kindness and Care: 4 Rules from Philosopher Daniel Dennett
Photo by Mathias Schindler, via Wikimedia Commons Drawn from Aristotle and his Roman and Medieval interpreters, the “classical trivium”—a division of thought and writing into Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric—assumes at least three things: that it matters how we arrive at our ideas, it matters how we express them, and it matters how we treat the people with whom we interact, even, and especially, those with whom we disagree. The word rhetoric has taken on the connotation of empty, false, or flattering speech. But it originally meant something closer to kindness. We might note that this pedagogy comes from a logocentric tradition, one that privileges writing over oral communication. But while it ignores physical niceties like gesture, posture, and personal space, we can still incorporate its lessons into spoken conversation—that is, if we’re interested in having constructive dialogue, in being heard, finding agreement, and learning something new. If we want to lob shots into the abyss and hear hundreds of voices echo back, well… this requires no special consideration. [Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<div [...] http://cdn8.openculture.com/>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.] <p><img class="alignnone wp-image-1066133 size-full" src="https://cdn8.openculture.com/2019/06/18214836/Daniel_dennett_Oct2008-e1560924810533.jpg" alt="" width="320"/></p>
<p align="right"><small><em>Photo by Mathias Schindler, via <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett#/media/File:Daniel_dennett_Oct2008.JPG">Wikimedia Commons</a></em></small></p>
<p>Drawn from Aristotle and his Roman and Medieval interpreters, the “classical trivium”—a division of thought and writing into Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric—assumes at least three things: that it matters how we arrive at our ideas, it matters how we express them, and it matters how we treat the people with whom we interact, even, and especially, those with whom we disagree. The word rhetoric has taken on the connotation of empty, false, or flattering speech. But it originally meant something closer to kindness.</p>
<p>We might note that this pedagogy comes from a logocentric tradition, one that privileges writing over oral communication. But while it ignores physical niceties like gesture, posture, and personal space, we can still incorporate its lessons into spoken conversation—that is, if we’re interested in having constructive dialogue, in being heard, finding agreement, and learning something new. If we want to lob shots into the abyss and hear hundreds of voices echo back, well… this requires no special consideration.</p>
<div class="oc-center-da"http://cdn8.openculture.com/>
<p>The subject of sound rhetoric—with its subsets of ethical and emotional sensitivity—has been taken up by philosophers over hundreds of years, from medieval theologians to the staunchly atheist philosopher of consciousness Daniel Dennett. In his book <a href="https://amzn.to/2Rt8HDu"><em>Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking</em></a>, Dennett summarizes the central rhetorical principle of charity, calling it “<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=9SduAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA34&dq=%22You+should+mention+anything+you+have+learned+from+your+target.%22+%22Intuition+Pumps+and+Other+Tools+for+Thinking%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi03JKkpPTiAhXSOn0KHSh1CYYQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22You%20should%20mention%20anything%20you%20have%20learned%20from%20your%20target.%22%20%22Intuition%20Pumps%20and%20Other%20Tools%20for%20Thinking%22&f=false">Rapoport’s Rules</a>” after an elaboration by social psychologist and game theorist <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatol_Rapoport">Anatol Rapoport</a>.</p>
<p>Like their classical predecessors, these rules directly tie careful, generous listening to sound argumentation. We cannot say we have understood an argument unless we’ve actually heard its nuances, can summarize it for others, and can grant its merits and concede it strengths. Only then, <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=9SduAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA34&dq=%22You+should+mention+anything+you+have+learned+from+your+target.%22+%22Intuition+Pumps+and+Other+Tools+for+Thinking%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi03JKkpPTiAhXSOn0KHSh1CYYQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22You%20should%20mention%20anything%20you%20have%20learned%20from%20your%20target.%22%20%22Intuition%20Pumps%20and%20Other%20Tools%20for%20Thinking%22&f=false">writes Dennett</a>, are we equipped to compose a “successful critical commentary” of another’s position. Dennett outlines the process in four steps:</p>
<ol><li>Attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: "Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way."</li>
<li>List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).</li>
<li>Mention anything you have learned from your target.</li>
<li>Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.</li>
</ol><p>Here we have a strategy that pays dividends, if undertaken in the right spirit. By showing that we understand an opponent’s positions “as well as they do,” writes Dennett, and that we can participate in a shared ethos by finding points of agreement, we have earned the respect of a “receptive audience.” Alienating people will end an argument before it even begins, when they turn their backs and walk away rather than subject themselves to obtuseness and abuse.</p>
<p>Additionally, making every effort to understand an opposing position will only help us better consider and present our own case, if it doesn’t succeed in changing our minds (though that danger is always there). These are remedies for better social cohesion and less shouty polarization, for deploying "the artillery of our righteousness from behind the comfortable shield of the keyboard,” as <a href="https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/">Maria Popova writes at Brain Pickings</a>, “which is really a menace of reacting rather than responding.”</p>
<p>Yelling, or typing, into the void, rather than engaging in substantive, respectful discussion is also a terrible waste of our time—a distraction from much worthier pursuits. We can and should, argues Dennett, Rapoport, and philosophers over the centuries, seek out positions we disagree with. In seeking out and trying to understand their best possible versions, we stand to gain new knowledge and widen our appreciation.</p>
<p>As Dennett puts it, “when you want to criticize a field, a genre, a discipline, an art form… don’t waste your time and ours hooting at the crap! Go after the good stuff or leave it alone.” In “going after the good stuff,” we might find that it’s better, or at least different, than we thought, and that we're wiser for having taken the time to learn it, even if only to point out why we think it mostly wrong.</p>
<p>via <a href="https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/"> Brain Pickings</a>/<a href="https://boingboing.net/2013/05/22/daniel-dennet-on-how-to-argue.html">Boing Boing</a></p>
<p><strong>Related Content:</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.openculture.com/2013/05/philosopher_daniel_dennett_presents_seven_tools_for_critical_thinking.html">Daniel Dennett Presents Seven Tools For Critical Thinking</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.openculture.com/2014/02/oxfords-critical-reasoning-for-beginners-will-teach-you-to-argue-like-a-philosopher.html">Oxford’s Free Course Critical Reasoning For Beginners Will Teach You to Think Like a Philosopher</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.openculture.com/2016/10/monty-pythons-argument-clinic-sketch-reenacted-by-two-vintage-voice-synthesizers.html">Monty Python’s “Argument Clinic” Sketch Reenacted by Two Vintage Voice Synthesizers (One Is Stephen Hawking’s Voice)</a></p>
<p><a href="http://about.me/jonesjoshua"><i>Josh Jones</i></a><i> is a writer and musician based in Durham, NC. Follow him at <a href="https://twitter.com/jdmagness">@jdmagness</a></i></p>
<!-- permalink:http://www.openculture.com/2019/06/how-to-argue-with-kindness-and-care-4-rules-from-philosopher-daniel-dennett.html--><p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.openculture.com/2019/06/how-to-argue-with-kindness-and-care-4-rules-from-philosopher-daniel-dennett.html">How to Argue With Kindness and Care: 4 Rules from Philosopher Daniel Dennett</a> is a post from: <a href="http://www.openculture.com">Open Culture</a>. Follow us on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openculture">Facebook</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/openculture">Twitter</a>, and <a href="https://plus.google.com/108579751001953501160/posts">Google Plus</a>, or get our <a href="http://www.openculture.com/dailyemail">Daily Email</a>. And don't miss our big collections of <a href="http://www.openculture.com/freeonlinecourses">Free Online Courses</a>, <a href="http://www.openculture.com/freemoviesonline">Free Online Movies</a>, <a href="http://www.openculture.com/free_ebooks">Free eBooks</a>, <a href="http://www.openculture.com/freeaudiobooks">Free Audio Books</a>, <a href="http://www.openculture.com/freelanguagelessons">Free Foreign Language Lessons</a>, and <a href="http://www.openculture.com/free_certificate_courses">MOOCs</a>.</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/OpenCulture?a=kZAoyVO9fEQ:YEbULkFwxnU:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/OpenCulture?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/OpenCulture?a=kZAoyVO9fEQ:YEbULkFwxnU:V_sGLiPBpWU"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/OpenCulture?i=kZAoyVO9fEQ:YEbULkFwxnU:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/OpenCulture?a=kZAoyVO9fEQ:YEbULkFwxnU:gIN9vFwOqvQ"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/OpenCulture?i=kZAoyVO9fEQ:YEbULkFwxnU:gIN9vFwOqvQ" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/OpenCulture?a=kZAoyVO9fEQ:YEbULkFwxnU:qj6IDK7rITs"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/OpenCulture?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/OpenCulture?a=kZAoyVO9fEQ:YEbULkFwxnU:I9og5sOYxJI"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/OpenCulture?d=I9og5sOYxJI" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/OpenCulture/~4/kZAoyVO9fEQ" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> |
| << Previous Day |
2019/06/19 [Calendar] |
Next Day >> |