Jump to content
lokisnow

Bakker LVI: the Rectum of Creation

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, ير بال said:

whoa Sologdin is back.

 

Bakker has basically come down against any sort of merchandising or crowd-funding or crowd-funding-merchandising (you know $5 to the kickstarter and you get a shirt!).  For some reason, he thinks it's demeaning.   He said something along the lines of he'd rather eat his own shit or something when I asked him about it on the Second Apocalypse Q&A.

 

Yeah, the chances of us ever seeing more books at this point just dropped to like..very very tiny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

locke--

thanks for the replies. the hurley sounds cool.  will excogitate.

i just read brecht's baal this weekend, as it happens--a curious little thing, ain't it?

Edited by sologdin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

There's a movie called Bone Tomahawk y'all may want to check out.

Edited by nah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sologdin said:

the summary is quite enough.

It's actually a pretty good movie. The point that it took George Miller 150 million dollars, and Bakker 6 books to make, Zahler does in a three week shoot with less than 2% the budget of Fury Road. And the dialogue can stand up with some of Tarantino's best stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nah said:

The point that it took George Miller 150 million dollars, and Bakker 6 books to make, Zahler does in a three week shoot with less than 2% the budget of Fury Road.

To reimagine Blood Meridian?  I'm not sure what "the point" you are describing actually is.  What are Zahler, Bakker and Miller "trying to do" in this sense?  I mean, I've never seen either of those movies, so I am certainly missing what the connection should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, .H. said:

To reimagine Blood Meridian?  I'm not sure what "the point" you are describing actually is.  What are Zahler, Bakker and Miller "trying to do" in this sense?  I mean, I've never seen either of those movies, so I am certainly missing what the connection should be.

Oh, theres something at the end of the movie that really reminded me of the Whale Mothers in TGO. The point I think Bone Tomahawk and Fury Road make, and one of many that Bakker makes, is that if deprived of feminine influences in our lives/societies, we're nothing more than violent, impulsive, hyper-sexed animals driven only by our biological needs and a child-like reverence for and obedience to masculine authority.

You just gotta watch it man. Fury Road too. That wasn't a dig at Miller or Bakket earlier, what I said about Zahler's budget and time constraints. Fury Road is another what I'd call a must view for Bakker fans. Spectacular film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, nah said:

Oh, theres something at the end of the movie that really reminded me of the Whale Mothers in TGO. The point I think Bone Tomahawk and Fury Road make, and one of many that Bakker makes, is that if deprived of feminine influences in our lives/societies, we're nothing more than violent, impulsive, hyper-sexed animals driven only by our biological needs and a child-like reverence for and obedience to masculine authority.

You just gotta watch it man. Fury Road too. That wasn't a dig at Miller or Bakket earlier, what I said about Zahler's budget and time constraints. Fury Road is another what I'd call a must view for Bakker fans. Spectacular film.

I wasn't aiming at taking offence, I just have found there are more ideas about what Bakker's "point" is, seemingly, than there are numbers of Bakker readers.  So, more honesty curiosity what "it" was in this context.  I'll try giving both movies a shot when I have some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That really isn't the point of fury road in the least. Or bakker for that matter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That really isn't the point of fury road in the least. 

It is, though. The antagonists are an amalgam of every toxic male subculture from the vikings to the off-roading quasi-skinhead metal cliques of today, who wind up ditching most of their posturing once "mommy" is around to provide an emotional outlet of some kind beyond the death-worshiping cult of testosterone that Immortan Joe used to maintain control. There's some interesting yonic imagery in the third act that drives this point home pretty hard, IMO. And then there's the whole "who killed the world" thing. Yeah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That critique would make a lot more sense if there weren't actual women around in the movie. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's actually a pretty good movie. The point that it took George Miller 150 million dollars, and Bakker 6 books to make, Zahler does in a three week shoot with less than 2% the budget of Fury Road. And the dialogue can stand up with some of Tarantino's best stuff.

understood.  i think that the summary description is enough; these are not images that i am wanting to see.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Kalbear said:

That critique would make a lot more sense if there weren't actual women around in the movie. 

Mmm, it's almost as if the influence of patriarchal cultures is pervasive enough to subvert one's own sense of identity and mold a person into a reflection of the society that raised them, and that was the whole point of the movie.

All of the women we see in the movie before the third act are either servants or (literally) livestock. The only one with any kind of power clearly got there by shedding her femininity and "out-manning" the dudes around her. I mean she shaves her head and rubs axle grease where the hair used to be. From a woman born in a tribe that seems to focus on preservation and making things "grow", it doesn't get much more symbolic than that.

Edited by nah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's kind of chilling to have a movie where women are either slaves or basically put up a mask of masculinity and for someone to say 'But there are women in it!'. It's technically true. It's not the best kind of correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Callan S. said:

It's kind of chilling to have a movie where women are either slaves or basically put up a mask of masculinity and for someone to say 'But there are women in it!'. It's technically true. It's not the best kind of correct.

I don't really see how "chilling" is the appropriate adjective. As much as Fury Road is (as I viewed it), a cautionary tale about the consequences of unrestrained masculine impulses, it's also a love letter to the sheer spectacle of the gas, gunpowder, and testosterone driven genre that the film comments on.

And actually it's the subtle moments between the explosions and gunfire that really communicate what you could call the masculine "positives". My favorite might be when Max tosses Nux the boot that he grabbed for him after he "retaliated first" against the bullet farm crew. He looks down at the thing like he can't quite believe it, and you can tell how happy he is to have the paternal sort of approval that life as a "Warboy" was basically built around gaining. IIRC, this comes right before Max uses "mother's milk" to wash the blood from having killed the Bullet Farm peeps off of his face and hands. Like I said, lots of symbolism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Callan S. said:

It's kind of chilling to have a movie where women are either slaves or basically put up a mask of masculinity and for someone to say 'But there are women in it!'. It's technically true. It's not the best kind of correct.

That is such a fundamental misreading of what kal actually said that I almost don't have words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

EDIT: Just rewatched that scene, and actually it wasn't just the boot. Nux had kind of a look when Max hands him the wheel for the War RIg, like a sense of trust and comradery that goes unspoken with the passing along of a totemic weapon, which seems to mirror the chest-bumping posturing he had when wrestling over the wheel with his friend in the first scene where we meet him. The contrast is between healthy and toxic masculinity. Max's stoicism vs Immortan Joe's personality cult.

4 hours ago, Callan S. said:

It's kind of chilling to have a movie where women are either slaves or basically put up a mask of masculinity 

It's not that women are segregated into a servile class by their gender, as Kal pointed out we do see women in positions of power and authority. It's that society, by this point, seems to have so turned its back on what you could call "feminine" virtues that it's ready to ride a flaming train full of George Carlin's Deadly Male Subsculture straight into a oblivion.

It's in the third act that we are presented with a path to redemption seen through a matriarchal, conservationist way of life, framed specifically through the lens "let mommy take the wheel."

Edited by nah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, nah said:

It's that society, by this point, seems to have so turned its back on what you could call "feminine" virtues that it's ready to ride a flaming train full of George Carlin's Deadly Male Subsculture straight into a oblivion.

Well, what I was trying to discuss last page is related to this, but one, I am not smart.  Two, I am bad a communicating.  Three, I don't think anyone really is interested in engaging the idea.

Basically, if we imagine that a "patriarchy" exists, and we can definite that in any way we really want, it sort of necessarily has to be the elevation of "maleness," "masculinity," "male identified traits/behaviors" in some way, even if we still only want to think about it in terms of "Power."  So, if "Feminism" (again, define it however you want) is at least in some way set on removing, disestablishing, subverting, whatever, this "Patriarchy" is, then it seems reasonable to me to question the movement of women into "male roles" and calling that "action against Patriarchy."  Because, in a sense, that isn't removing the Patriarchy, it's just putting (elevating, if you will) women in the role of the patriarch.  And this is what I was trying to discuss a potential way to look at what Bakker was doing.

This is why I framed it within the idea of Marcuse's idea of the "one-dimensional man" in the sense that if we ascribe value to a particular way of being, then we necessarily limit what we view as viable ways to just be a human.  So, I think Marcuse was mostly thinking about it in term of economics, how if you don't follow the ideal of what a "good capitalist worker" would be, then you are somehow sort of defective and that needs to be rectified, in some sense.

So, would seem plausible to me to frame gender relations in that sense as well, at least to some degree.  I'll likely be accused to "rigidly defining femininity" again, or something, but that it not what I am trying to do at all.  No, really I am trying to "place no limit" on what women could/should/would be at all.  Or on what men could/should/would be.  The point is to be the human best fit for you to be.  Humans (perhaps through culture as well) categorize things necessarily, because it makes the overtly, overwhelmingly complex world easier to assimilate into our mental frameworks, but categories necessarily fail at the level of any individual.  So it is no surprise to me that ways of being get "gendered" as a matter of course.  And some of those ways get "valued" to greater or lesser extents.

But, to "flip the script" and say, well, lets take category X and flip it's value with Y does not solve the "problem" with their being unequal valuation between X and Y.  Rather, it only places the shoe onto the other foot.  So, in a blunt way, to me, to say that women should just be put in "traditional male roles" is a bit of an insult to women and what being a woman could be.  In fact, it would seem to be pure violence, because it still places the value of someone contingent upon how well they align with "masculine virtue."

So, I guess I am taking a long-winded way to say that I think I agree mostly with what you are saying.  I mean, as far as I think I can, still having not seen the movie in question.  But maybe I am just delusional and don't understand a damn thing really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think you do need a definition of patriarchy for that post to be operative.  

perhaps the feminism that assimilates to patriarchal norms would not identify those masculinist norms as patriarchal or even as norms.  it's the distinction between radicals and liberals, maybe.  i doubt either liberals or radicals would care for the language of 'male roles' or 'masculine roles,' seeking to abolish the gendering of most practices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×