On Sun, 21 Apr 1996, kip wrote:
> madness as a social construct,
Have you read Thomas Szasz?
> madness as a
> viable alternative to reality,
assumes "reality". Hm. In the movie, I found that I felt the "madness"
was a logical reaction to the madness of the world rather than an
alternative.
> the animalism of madness vs. the
> technological society,
I'd like to read more argument on this ... are you suggesting that
madness is a denial of technology? Is there an opposition?
> the mentally ill as prophets, oppressed=insane
> while bourgeois=eccentric.
I too enjoyed the movie a great deal. Only just saw it on Thursday so
the impressions are still fairly sharp though I haven't had much time to
think things through.
Another aspect I found very interesting is the way the Bruce Willis
character starts out so thoroughly institutionalised, unquestioning (he is
a good *observor* but not critical), and seems to remain so through to the
end. There is also the sense of layers of observation, recording of his
actions: photographs from the past, voices in his head, the debriefing by
the scientists etc. "Independent" thought does not seem an option for him
nor does he seem to desire the opportunity.
(oooops, just occurs to me that we might ruin this film for others so
perhaps we should take the discussion off-line. Let me know.)
Take care,
chantal
cmmorton@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> madness as a social construct,
Have you read Thomas Szasz?
> madness as a
> viable alternative to reality,
assumes "reality". Hm. In the movie, I found that I felt the "madness"
was a logical reaction to the madness of the world rather than an
alternative.
> the animalism of madness vs. the
> technological society,
I'd like to read more argument on this ... are you suggesting that
madness is a denial of technology? Is there an opposition?
> the mentally ill as prophets, oppressed=insane
> while bourgeois=eccentric.
I too enjoyed the movie a great deal. Only just saw it on Thursday so
the impressions are still fairly sharp though I haven't had much time to
think things through.
Another aspect I found very interesting is the way the Bruce Willis
character starts out so thoroughly institutionalised, unquestioning (he is
a good *observor* but not critical), and seems to remain so through to the
end. There is also the sense of layers of observation, recording of his
actions: photographs from the past, voices in his head, the debriefing by
the scientists etc. "Independent" thought does not seem an option for him
nor does he seem to desire the opportunity.
(oooops, just occurs to me that we might ruin this film for others so
perhaps we should take the discussion off-line. Let me know.)
Take care,
chantal
cmmorton@xxxxxxxxxxxx