tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post8985149838547934666..comments2023-11-05T07:27:43.837-05:00Comments on Narrative and Technology: Adamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-63226527676674991562014-02-22T11:37:40.007-05:002014-02-22T11:37:40.007-05:00I like the idea that Marcuse can provide the words...I like the idea that Marcuse can provide the words and Chaplin can provide the visuals to one argument - it's an interesting approach.<br /><br />"Marcuse’s discussion about automation and human slavery is illustrated through the film and shows how humans have become nonentities." -- you do a very good, detailed job of showing how Chaplin can operate as an illustration for Marcuse. It's good because you are good with the details of both, especially of Marcuse. But even at this early point, I'd like to understand more clearly what the *value* is of using the two together? In other words, can we do anything more or different by combining the two of them the way at that you do, or are you just noting a connection?<br /><br />Your analysis of the eating machine is fine, although not quite as compelling - maybe because it seems like more of the same.<br /><br />You are successfully connecting the two works, but toward what end? What are *you* trying to accomplish here? The prompt pushed you to do something with Marcuse's understanding of what art is and does (and how it fails) in our world - does Chaplin's work fail in the way that Marcuse says our contemporary art fails, or does it rise about that tendency toward failure? These are not necessarily the questions that *you* need to answer - my point is that we need to understand not only that we *can* connect the two works, but what we get out of doing so. Why, in other words, does this connection matter?Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-12003158311208275932014-02-22T02:15:02.707-05:002014-02-22T02:15:02.707-05:00I really liked your argument about how both Modern...I really liked your argument about how both Modern Times and One-Dimensional Man focus on the same premise from two distinctly different media, and really, the two pieces really complement each other well. The comparison about the soul-draining nature of industrial work was really well thought out, and covered most aspects of industrial work. However, I think there is definitely some room for expansion of meaningful comparisons. For example, the fact the main characters are generally silent in the movie unless performing on stage aligns well with Marcuse’s reasoning about art being an element that frees one from the imposing effects of industrialization. Modern Times has more to say about industrialization than just what was explicitly seen in the factory scenes, so some expansion would be great in really solidifying your thesis.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04845210295365139528noreply@blogger.com