WWWBoard/LT

Revolutions Forum   Humanities & Classics 1003

[ HOME] [ POST ] [ SEARCH ] [ HELP ]

This movie was as boring as this post is late. Just atrocious. The movie and the texts do not seem so deeply intertwined now that I have familiarized myself with them, perhaps I wasn't lookin hard enough. Marx marx marx said that after much exploitation, the proletariat was going to rise up and strike the burgoise where it hurt- I suppose that this could be seen when the man servant walks out on charles. Though it doesn't really jive because as I recall, the servant was going to go out and start his own business and hopefully become part of the high society- dreams of wealth etc. Is that what Marx says- the proletariat just wants a bigger piece of the pie, doesn't want to be reliant on the upper class for anything? The reason that the proletariat rises up is the same reason that the burgoise exploit- greed? The idea that I get from the manifesto is that the worker has been so oppressed that they can take it no longer- they are like slaves- barely able to exist on their wages. If the example of the servant was supposed to suggest communist rise up, then it was astoundingly ineffectual. The man was well dressed, put up in a nice house and had money enough to start his own business. Only if his position of "servant " were symbolic would the scene have any power. Similarly, the father of Estima who was a self made industrial man - cashing in on the revolution was an example of a proletariat gone big time. This again suggests that the opportunity is there for anyone with wits and gumption enough and that if you don't make it, you probably don't deserve to. Survival of the fittest- sexual selection. Seemed that charles had his pick of the ladies what with his vigor and wealth and status. He made poor decisions concerning the future of his seed, but as Darwin acknowledges, this is often the case with humans. Instead of marrying into more incredible wealth and higher social standings, which were and are two governing factors in sexual selection, he opted for a poor, socially repugnant and maybe mentally unfit member of the lower class to pursue. A woman that Darwin might not have let reproduce in his utopian world and who, in fact could not reproduce in the film. Is this to show the complete irrelevance of Darwins theory as applied to humans or does it coincide with it? I don't know.

Follow Ups:

POST FOLLOWUP

NAME:
E-MAIL:
SUBJECT:

RESPONSE:
: This movie was as boring as this post is late. Just atrocious. The movie and the texts do not seem so deeply intertwined now that I have familiarized myself with them, perhaps I wasn't lookin hard enough. Marx marx marx said that after much exploitation, the proletariat was going to rise up and strike the burgoise where it hurt- I suppose that this could be seen when the man servant walks out on charles. Though it doesn't really jive because as I recall, the servant was going to go out and start his own business and hopefully become part of the high society- dreams of wealth etc. Is that what Marx says- the proletariat just wants a bigger piece of the pie, doesn't want to be reliant on the upper class for anything? The reason that the proletariat rises up is the same reason that the burgoise exploit- greed? The idea that I get from the manifesto is that the worker has been so oppressed that they can take it no longer- they are like slaves- barely able to exist on their wages. If the example of the servant was supposed to suggest communist rise up, then it was astoundingly ineffectual. The man was well dressed, put up in a nice house and had money enough to start his own business. Only if his position of "servant " were symbolic would the scene have any power. Similarly, the father of Estima who was a self made industrial man - cashing in on the revolution was an example of a proletariat gone big time. This again suggests that the opportunity is there for anyone with wits and gumption enough and that if you don't make it, you probably don't deserve to. Survival of the fittest- sexual selection. Seemed that charles had his pick of the ladies what with his vigor and wealth and status. He made poor decisions concerning the future of his seed, but as Darwin acknowledges, this is often the case with humans. Instead of marrying into more incredible wealth and higher social standings, which were and are two governing factors in sexual selection, he opted for a poor, socially repugnant and maybe mentally unfit member of the lower class to pursue. A woman that Darwin might not have let reproduce in his utopian world and who, in fact could not reproduce in the film. Is this to show the complete irrelevance of Darwins theory as applied to humans or does it coincide with it? I don't know.

LINK URL:
LINK TITLE:
IMAGE URL:

---

[ HOME] [ POST ] [ SEARCH ] [ HELP ]

---

[ FOLLOW UPS ] [ POST FOLLOWUP ]

---

 

v 1.1 is made possbile by:

Original WWWBoard design and code by Matt Wright.  See the original at Matt's Script Acrhive. WWWBoard v2.0a © 1998 Matt Wright. WWWBoard/LT Upgrade by Lion Templin of Leonine Computational Resources.  © 1998 Lion Templin. Tom Bacig, University of Minnesota, Duluth.  © 1998 Tom Bacig.