Mad Max Fury Road and Tolerance
So far we know the word 'Tolerance' as a great and good ideal. Have you seen 'Whiplash'? There are moments where I just, well - don't get it!
Whiplash is supposed to be a controversial movie picturing a music-teacher who isn't very tolerant, but that just in a very certain sense.
In his defense, it has been the pupil who did it all to himself - basically - where of course, age, menthal ripeness - all sort of things
are issues that finally lead up to the big controversial outcome of the film. Well, that is my oppinion - although it isn't much of an
oppinion but more of a point of view. There is a very simple oppinion, which is that this teacher guy is simply a douche. That however isn't
very tolerant. OK, we might talk about it and come to the end that he is a douche; But I will not tolerate this end if I'm simply supposed to
ignore my perspective - and that isn't just a matter of oppinion or being a dick about it - it is simply a matter of my consciousness; That I
have an elaborative perspective which to me personally is like a wireframe, a construct of physical facts. That this construct may not be
perfect is part of what I'm saying here. Therefore we might argue, elaborate perspectives and come to an 'additive' end.
But a discussion that would be following the order of "In my oppinion he's a douche" followed by nothing but the same of it, or even worse
along the lines of "in my oppinion he should be locked away" - that is, drumroll, requiring me to fill in the blanks. I have my construct and
I need to interprete the other persons oppinion according to my point of view - which means that I a) made the intellectual effort of building
it plus b) making the intellectual effort of blending the other oppinion into it while all that the other person says is "He's a douche".
Eventually such efforts become straining and more than that: Confusing. In order to properly communicate I need to lessen my understanding
to a compatible degree and while therefore ignoring certain aspects of my oppinion in order to frame out the other persons mindset about it
I loose sight upon my insight and to a certain extent that isn't all that bad. Sometimes one has to build something new - for instance if
someone mentions something that has been entirely outside of the own sight - that would though be something I could work with.
Tolerance. Tolerate means: 'To Tolerate'. Tolerance is like - no; GOOD Tolerance is like having good Sex. Having an orgasm is always about
building up some sort of tension that grows and grows until it explodes. But for this tension to grow there is a margin of Tolerance. Too
much or too little won't do the trick! Even in BDSM it doesn't matter how "Hardcore" you are - the fun is always a play with the senses, a
game, starting with what works and moving on along the outskirts of the tolerable. And so we come to flavours. A taste in the sense is a
criteria unto flavours. If I'm into BDSM my taste is different as if I were not - and because when it comes to my taste I'm not supposed to
be tolerant I can simply dislike certain flavours of Sex. This is where we usually get to the saying: "It isn't my thing". Take Speed Metal
for instance. When we talk music, in the most tolerant way, we may have to make a distinction between dissonant and harmonic music. If you
talked about Speed Metal while you actually had no clue about it; You should be tolerant enough to finalize your position by "It isn't your
thing". If you say that you don't hear any melody - you simply didn't listen close enough. Or open enough. 'TOLERANT' enough. Thus if you
continued to provoke people by saying that there isn't any of it - as you simply don't hear it - you're going to make people angry! This is
the same as discussed in the Whiplash segment regarding Oppinions. There is just a point - a point beyond which I simply cannot tolerate an
expressed oppinion anymore.
Mad Max Fury Road is simply that good of a Movie I don't think I can really tolerate any negative oppinion about. I can, looking at it from
the perspective of someone else, but then have to understand that this person didn't really get it! Therefore any controversial discussion
about that movie would to me simply be a discussion about how stupid the other person is - without really saying anything along the line!
Sometimes it anyway seems just like people are judging on behalf of a trailer. Doing so is like ... might we talk about Godzilla here? I
was spoiled by all the negative oppinion about it that I was willing to embrace the "fact" in my heart that it is a bad movie! I guess I've
even been saying the one or the other time how bad I felt about the situation of Godzilla not getting a lot of screen-time. So I did put the
movie together in my mind that it was simply an excuse of a storyline carried by (about to become) over-rated actors while having Godzilla
show up here ... and maybe even there! But after seeing it I don't know how much more to expect from a movie where he gets a lot more
screentime! I uhm, was a huge fan of Emmerichs take on that guy; And for a Godzilla fan it did not work out for me to have him degraded to
a Characterless Reptile like that - but the Reptile and the movie did work out for me in other regards.
I've had a lot of time to think about my taste recently. That was mostly due to a more extreme exposure to things I wasn't familiar with;
And that most basically because of having friends that so happened to have totally different interests. Therefore I was open about what
they liked - mostly because I learned of the ways they are that certain prejudices that I'd have of people who like this or that don't fit.
The most shocking turn of events thereby has been that the last time I saw Episode 1 I really saw, with my own eyes, how badly Jar Jar sucks!
And I had to wonder how I didn't see that the first time! As it turns out is it so: While we're growing up we are just half as smart as we
think we are. The point is that we can for instance see and say of little children already that they are smart, pretty smart, smarter than
we might (want to) think. But what is a good example? The Goonies! Jurassic Park! Jurassic Park is in the extremest sense just a tour through
a Jurassic Park. Thats something a kid doesn't have a hard time to be entertained by! What I'm getting at is that every child has this
growing cluster of consciousness. It learns and of what it learns it does understand. But if we take Isaac Asimov - he's valued and appreciated
mostly for things that a child doesn't even know about. A Spielberg might now go and take Asimovs ideas and spice them up with things a child
would understand - but that wouldn't make the child understand all the things that others like Asimov for. We might therefore go and compare
E.T. with District 9. District 9 is E.T. - even the scale of it. While E.T. exists in the hidden, he is as large to the Child as District 9 is
to the Human Race. Therefore the whole situation is much more complex and diverse - but in the end its about E.T. trying to get home and the
friendship between Humans and Aliens.
So do certain things convey certain ideas that require a certain mindset to be appreciated. As "half-smarts" we think we know it all - but
matter of fact we only know what we know and think our own part about the rest; And tend to be quite oppinionated about our point of view as
well. I could for instance go and be distasteful about Melancholia - maybe - simply because the name of the movie already implies a certain
topic that shrieks of boredom. Well, it wouldn't be my thing. And here is where the difference between "half-smart" and 'smart' isn't simply
a matter of knowledge, intellect or finesse - its more an inversion of the own being from ... well, treasuring to gathering in some sense.
Treasuring is about denieing things that aren't compatible to our mindset. Thereby we grow, explore and in-deed gather - until we're eventually
saturated. Gathering as opposed to treasuring however is about putting the own "Treasure Box" aside, having it locked up inside as a part of
ones self - but being open for new things. It is where we don't have any internal conflicts about consuming something new and therefore can
enjoy these things more openly; And isn't an act of denial.
To the point that is that I didn't particularly like Episode 1 because of Jar Jar Binks, or the absolutely Terrible story telling, or the
entirely hideous character development; But because it showed me an absolutely colorful and vivid world wherein Light-Saber wielding Warrior
("Monks") embark on an adventure against a Phantom Menace. Reviewing Paragraph 1 of this Article reveals that the therein discussed concepts
can be applied herein to show two cognitive approaches on the matter; And as one who liked it I may have simply been too young to understand the
other side or simply not grown enough to see beyond what I enjoyed.
So, evidently we are sometimes fine enough with things sub-par for as long as they stick to the tunes we appreciate. For instance is there
always something fun about a game no matter how terrible it "supposedly" is (I mean, people play Facebook games for crying out loud, hell,
I played Facebook games ... (but don't tell anyone ;) - just kidding!)) - and thats how we eventually get to micro-phenomena such as Firefly.
Is it good? Is it bad? Ignoring the fun-fact that Revolvers that make Laser-Sounds are a bit off - its pretty good for what it is. Its a
unique Universe and to someone who has seen it all, but that, it might be a nice and short experience that even has a closing movie. Anyway -
all that does exist next to officially regarded Masterpieces; Which have it about them that some people just don't get them! I mean, 2001
is a movie that I simply don't get! Shining isn't all that outstanding either. 2001 is a bit boring and Shining is just another Stepehn King
movie that is possibly not as good as the book! But aside of that is all critic I can give that of those things being just not my thing.
When it gets to Mad Max Fury Road, we should in my oppinion all be capable of comming down together and that to the point that it is an
awesome movie. It is in my oppinion that good of a movie that any other oppinion just doesn't make any sense! No matter the taste! We have it
that we believe that taste cannot be argued about. Taking my construct into account we may first of all find that there is no space for
disliking anything outside of "it not being ones thing" at all; And I want to enhance that construct a little bit into just that direction.
We might take Sex as example and as we come to the point that we may discover that all flavours of sex have one thing in common: The Orgasm -
we might already step back and be as tolerant as to suggest that there are certain flavours where not having an orgasm is the point. But then I
have to wonder: Where's the point? Tantra is as close as I can get - and maybe it is just my misconception that the climax yet has to be a part
of it. Other than that there is the way that matters, the sensetion of building tension rather than the explosion. But without explosion, can
that mind be truely reliefed? To say: Such people would in-deed be odd to me, odd to the point that I'd be skeptical about it. But the truely
common thing is as integral as wet to water: Tolerance. Outside of a given tolerance taste is simply not tasteful anymore.
Next I would elaborate on my oppinion that taste is our own greatest weakness! So - our big "Nemesis" for this case is "Tastelessness" as taste.
It seems that we cannot argue against it because 'taste' - but everyone who has already undergone a change of taste may understand the idea of
"Being technically capable of enjoying everything". The thing that makes us enjoy something finally is 'acknowledgement'. To enjoy something
does come hand in hand with acknowledging it. Therefore we cannot enjoy things that contradict to our scope of acknowledgements either! This is
how we eventually come to 'hate' things. If we so dispensed all of our taste we might grow hateless, but would in consequence have to hate
anything that has any kind of taste as simple mechanism to acquire that state of tastelessness. The final piece in the picture is the term and
the things that come along with the term: 'Righteousness'. I mention that because in order to understand this concept of tastelessness I must
picture a mind that is perfectly capable of utmost neutrality and there in first place only find God. God in turn would in that sense be
perfect, somehow, but it makes sense to me that He as an individual, as something that needs to come down to at least one point of acknowledgement
to exist within margins of reason, yet acknowledges Righteousness and therefore is enjoying righteous behaviour. As consequence He hates
iniquity - which by all means for sake of reason is the opposite to Righteousness. Any twist of logic defies the point - for in the absolute
sense something that is iniquity cannot become righteousness. It exists in defiance and thereby can acquire forms of righteousness - but unless
it turns righteous in the center it remains iniquity.
When it gets to Righteousness, we can either see an end to Tolerance or we prioritize Tolerance in favour of iniquity. Therefore I do have no
shame in confessing that I'm not perfectly Tolerant. In that sense I'm only 'reluctant' - though it is in my reasoning the immediate consequence -
that there needs to be some differentiation between "these" and "those"; In some 'faschistic' sense. Dumbed down and dis-armed we might at first
talk of 'taste faschism'; Which is what I describe the 'elite' of art-lovers as. Despite the fact that this elite may not always come down in
agreement - there is now finally a movie with the dullest, dumbest, most idiotic and absolutely moronic negative responses I've ever seen; Which
feeds my oppinion, that is anyhow fed with a large influx of positive critique to the same, that it is an absolutely ... awesome ... motion
picture! Take for instance the Characters. Those that describe them as flat or dull don't seem to get the idea of what role they play in the film.
Such critique is like ordering vegetarian food and complaining about a lack of meat. Desiring different Characters is like wanting to cook
pork-steak and using beef-hack instead. What would you have them do? Let Max wear a pink Tele-Tubby costume and recite Shakespeare while Joe
dances Ballet? This is finally an instance of Tolerance: Tolerance unto what the Movie tries to be - and definitely succeeds in! If Action ain't
ones thing OK - but you can't criticize an Action movie for its Action! You could criticize an Action movie for too much or too little of it -
but if it were to get any less subjective - watch Mad Max Fury Road and Understand what I'm fucking trying to tell you here! Its on point!
But if you don't like action, you may like the Pictures instead! You will have to want to hate the movie to not actually quite enjoy the ride!
What I'm most amazed about is how bluntly Max and Furiosa develop their Relationship over the course of the movie - and how true each Character
thereby stays to what he/she is! They are as real and believable as a Hollywood Movie gets; And although Max is supposed to be your Typical
Anti-Hero, its not exagerated to the point where it starts to hurt! The appearances of the bad guy not either! You know it, from films, that the
Bad Guy is your Typical Bad Guy who at the end is simply stronger than everyone else because he is the bad guy - and even one who doesn't look
like it gives the hero more trouble than anything else in the movie; So that sometimes its simply: "Oh no, Bad Boy time!". Then you're in for
the cliche show-off where the Hero Survives (*Total Recall: I'm looking at you) heavily damaged and then its all good somehow. My favourite
moment however is that where Furiosa walks on that Dune and falls on her knees. Maybe it did help that I saw it in 3D; But this moment is
just perfect. Perfect like every other moment where the movie stops for a while - just like the final shot with Max and Furiosa standing there
in the end; Which is basically the typical cliche depiction of the Hero Figures but it isn't just and simply "Badass" - its just necessary! And
thats what the movie is in a nutshell! Necessary! Or: Nothing is Unnecessary! Hmm, OK, one thing! Max was a Police Officer which suggests that
he was already an adult in the pre-apocalyptic world and yet the entire world seems like at least 2 generations in - but then - both things
make the whole crazy mix possible for me. Max as sophisticated Character and the World as just that Post-Apocalyptic world that the Mad Max
series ... well, steered towards. That is another thing: The movie tones down every once in a while, but that without loosing pace. It feels
like being left stranded in the middle of a desert; I usually just get that once a movie turns into a plot-segment too abruptly - which in
this film are simply fades into black; Two to be precise. Finally I would say that for as long as you can enjoy pictures of beautiful Landscapes
you can enjoy Mad Max Fury Road! You may have seen the Sandstorm in the Trailer - and I was a bit scared that this thing would actually not
fit in; Like all the crazyness and stunts; But thats where the Trailer is no worthy representation of the whole! I give it a smooth and juicy
or so the smoothest and juiciest 10/10 I ever gave anything; As juicy as it gets! The worse of the whole
movie are the 'normal' scenes that however finally do make the movie complete!