How REAL are movies?

[fredv3b]

I have to admit that I really did not like 'Into the Wild' at all. But I can't clearly say why.

I'd love to spend travelling round America to see the variety of places, but then I think that there is so much in my own country that I haven't visited yet. One advantage of Britain is that is so compact, so in a days walk you can often move from one place to a quite different one.

[eastofeden]

In which world?

The aggressive capitalist human world though you can find pockets of Pandora sensibility in a few places.

[X-tra]

I am not sure about reality, although they can give a reasonable depiction of the fashion, culture and relationship values of the period...

EG:-

"Oliver Twist"
"The Patriot.."
"To Sir with love.."
"Saturday Night Fever"


I certainly hope 2012 is 100% hogwash... :eek:

X-tra

[Wintereis]

I'd love to spend travelling round America to see the variety of places, but then I think that there is so much in my own country that I haven't visited yet. One advantage of Britain is that is so compact, so in a days walk you can often move from one place to a quite different one.

I think that is a fairly common sentiment any place in the world one goes: one would like to see one's own country first.

I, for instance, used to want to go to Britain, France, and Italy when I was a child. But, as I have matured, I realized that there are far more things to see in the U.S. than in most countries (not all, but most). That, I think, is due to the fact that the U.S. is so very large, and its size enables a vast array of landscapes and ecological systems . . . that, and we've made a conscious effort to preserve large swaths of wilderness. Certainly, there are more ruins in other areas of the world, but to me, that is mostly what they are, ruins. This is also why I have never been all that fond of living in major cities. There is nothing a human can do that even comes close to that which nature itself can accomplish. There are only so many art galleries, old buildings, and concert halls once can see before they become routine, and I’ve seen enough of these already to know it.

As it is, I have whittled my bucket list down to a few essentials outside of the U.S.: Machu Picchu and the Galapagos Islands, Kilimanjaro and the African Savanna, Tibet and India, New Zealand, Brazil, and--time permitting--Ireland and Tuscany.

[marshlander]

I have to admit that I really did not like 'Into the Wild' at all. But I can't clearly say why...

That film just made me very angry :frown:

[albabonzai]

That film just made me very angry :frown:

Why Marshy?

[fredv3b]

I think that is a fairly common sentiment any place in the world one goes: one would like to see one's own country first.

In my case it's more that I feel I ought to see my own country first and that its probably cheaper and more practicable. Given in free choice there are far more places around the world that I would rather visit.

we've made a conscious effort to preserve large swaths of wilderness.

England is completely devoid of wilderness, which kind of leaves the English without a proper appreciation of it.

I understand what you mean about ruins, I much prefer buildings that although very old are still standing and in use. I am rather fond of the city of Rome, it isn't a ruin, it's a thriving city, it's just that its been a thriving city for the better part of 3,000 years.

There is nothing a human can do that even comes close to that which nature itself can accomplish. There are only so many art galleries, old buildings, and concert halls once can see before they become routine, and I’ve seen enough of these already to know it.

On the one hand I totally agree nothing can beat nature, but on the other hand there is more to human life that that, history, culture, etc. As for art galleries I would agree that there are many art galleries mostly full of pretty similar second rate art (there is a limited supply of the first rate stuff). That's why I only visit 'great' art galleries or special exhibitions. As for old buildings, if they have become routine, then I think you need to see some from new cultures and new periods in history (by 'new' I mean ones you have not seen before).

As it is, I have whittled my bucket list down to a few essentials outside of the U.S.: Machu Picchu and the Galapagos Islands, Kilimanjaro and the African Savanna, Tibet and India, New Zealand, Brazil, and--time permitting--Ireland and Tuscany.

I could never whittle down my bucket list, far too many impossible choices. I can only ever manage to decide where next. I have to ask about your list, why Kilimanjaro and why Ireland?

[Wintereis]

On the one hand I totally agree nothing can beat nature, but on the other hand there is more to human life that that, history, culture, etc. As for art galleries I would agree that there are many art galleries mostly full of pretty similar second rate art (there is a limited supply of the first rate stuff). That's why I only visit 'great' art galleries or special exhibitions. As for old buildings, if they have become routine, then I think you need to see some from new cultures and new periods in history (by 'new' I mean ones you have not seen before).?

Look at the places I want to visit. Natural beauty is a primary factor in what I want to see of the world, but it is not the only factor. I want to go to Tibet, not only to see the Himalayas, but also to see the Potala and because I am interested in Tibetan culture. I want to go to Machu Picchu, not only to see the ancient city, but to see the Andes and to experience Peruvian culture. The same goes for Brazil, India, and Sub-Saharan Africa. There are multiple factors that contribute to my desire to go to these places. If you think that I am going to go to Tuscany and not see the Uffizi or to Ireland and not see Blarney castle (not that I am going to kiss their germ ridden stone), you are crazy. It is just that these places have more to offer than just their art and architecture.


As far as your statement about the museums, I am not certain how I should take that. It seems that you assume that I have not been to a "great" art museum. Or, perhaps, you think the art museums of the United States are second rate? Or both. In any of these scenarios, you would be shamefully mistaken. I am not entirely certain why this is, but it seems like Europeans prefer to see Americans as rustics when it comes to culture whether it is true or not. Indeed, it seems to cause many (not all) Europeans a great deal of consternation that Americans no longer view them as the height of human culture. Benjamin Franklin may have donned a coonskin cap to entertain the French, but this is not the 18th century. Since you seem to want to open this can of worms, Fred, here we go:

First, American culture has developed along its own lines since its break with Europe, adding and developing its own forms of art, music, and literature, which have been highly successful not only in the U.S. but around the world.

Secondly, when it comes to traditional European culture, the U.S. has largely outstripped much of Europe's prowess when it comes to its own aesthetic and intellectual endeavors.

For instance, the U.S. has the largest library in the world:

The Library of Congress states that its collection fills about 650 miles (1,046 km),[12] while the British Library reports about 388 miles (625 km) of shelves.[13] The Library of Congress holds about 130 million items with 29 million books.

In addition, the U.S. has the largest museum system in the world thanks to British Scientist, James Smithson, who was so pissed off at his own country that he left his entire fortune to the development of an intellectual and cultural institution in the United States:

The Smithsonian Institute is home to Smithsonian Institution research and education center, at Washington, D.C.; founded 1846 under the terms of the will of James Smithson of London, who in 1829 bequeathed his fortune to the United States to create an establishment for the "increase and diffusion of knowledge among men." The institution began as a museum and today "the nation's attic" is the largest museum complex in the world, with 19 museums, nine research centers, and the national zoo.

The U.S. is home to the three largest opera houses in the world. Additionally, it is home to five of the top ten concert halls in the world followed by Austria with three. And the U.S. has seven of the top twenty symphony orchestras in the world followed by Germany with four. Despite the fact that the list was created by British Gramophone, the LSO is the only U.K. symphony to make the list.





The U.S. is also home to four of the top ten art museums in the world.




In addition, American Universities have the largest number of top ranked institutions of higher learning in the world and the U.S. is home to more Nobel Prize winners than any other nation. The second in both of these categories is Brittan.

Finally, the U.S. and Brittan are continuously vying for the number one position for the most new books published per year. With Brittan taking the number one position three times out of the past twenty years.


Brittan is a great place too, I am sure. And my intention was not to indicate otherwise. Now, I am sorry if you feel insulted because Brittan is not at the top of my places to visit before I die, but my personal preference for travel are in other parts of the world. Just as yours might be other places than the U.S. And I did not say that old civilizations, buildings, concert halls, and art galleries were not of interest to me. I just happen to know enough about myself to realize that there are only so many of these I really wish to see. In other words, they have not grown routine yet, but I can envision them becoming so if I dedicated my travel to these things alone.

[fredv3b]

I'd appreciate it if you did not put words in my mouth. I NEVER suggested that you had not been to a 'great' art gallery or that America was devoid of such institutions. Pretty much by definition most art galleries cannot be great, as far as I am aware that is as true in America as it is in the rest of the world. If you have had the good fortune to visit only great art galleries, then count yourself very lucky and rest assured they should not become routine.

I am well aware of America's cultural, literary and scientific achievements. I don't exactly see where in my previous post I doubted them.

Now, I am sorry if you feel insulted because Brittan is not at the top of my places to visit before I die.

Strangely, I don't require my national pride to be bolstered my hoards of tourists, American or otherwise.

[Wintereis]

[quote=fredv3b]
On the one hand I totally agree nothing can beat nature, but on the other hand there is more to human life that that, history, culture, etc. As for art galleries I would agree that there are many art galleries mostly full of pretty similar second rate art (there is a limited supply of the first rate stuff). That's why I only visit 'great' art galleries or special exhibitions. As for old buildings, if they have become routine, then I think you need to see some from new cultures and new periods in history (by 'new' I mean ones you have not seen before).
quote]


Then, why would you assume that I was speaking from a perspective in which I had not been to a major gallery? You say that one would never get tired of seeing first rate galleries. Well, in my opinion, that is not true. Perhaps you should be more careful about how you state things in the future. Tone can be as much a part of meaning as the words themselves.