Orwell's 1984 and Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 combined?

[Brian37]

I find the above posts very interesting, portraying culturally a different reading than I am used to, good art adapts to different audiences.

Another example of missing the point in art that sends a message would be Malcolm X. When that movie came out, both blacks and whites missed the message. The movie was broken up into 3 parts. The first part dipicted his poverty and his criminal acts, but blacks while rightfully pointing out the oppression of blacks glossed over the fact that he was human. The second part rightfully depicted his escape from crime and poverty. But the third part was the reall meassage both sides missed. In the end he finally saw humans as individuals and because of the corruption in his own ranks he finally learned that good and bad happen in all groups and that we really are in this all together.

Whites were in an uproar over the burrning of the flag in the opening scene. Blacks were shouting "Black power" but missed the closing scene where white kids and black kids in a classroom were saying "I am Malcolm X.

Now you skip the religious and political labels and focus on the motifs of that movie and 1984 the lessons are a human condition issue once you strip all the labels out of it. No one wants to live under absolute power like 1984. And you can accept yourself as being human first while not being perfect, which Malcolm X finally learned and that humans struggle is something we all can identify with.

Art is a very benifitial aspect of society, but like anything in life without criticism it's messages can be missinterpreted or parts of it missed which lead to memes I see falsely being used on social issues and economic issues.

Art is a prism, but it is always subjective.

[jonb]

Ah, is your primary source the film or the book?

[Brian37]

Ah, is your primary source the film or the book?

The film, but that does not mean I am not aware of his style of activism was seen as hateful, and at a time it was. But it still doesn't negate that when you kick any human in the gut long enough they will do what evolution does and react with hate.

But the split in the Nation of Islam did cause him to back off his us vs them mentality.

Both blacks and whites saw him as "militaint" but who wouldnt be if someone is constantly beating ths shit out of you? It still amounts to a human condition issue not a label issue. But I do not think Spike Lee would put that realization of being in it together as humans at the end of the movie. That certainly was a minority of his life, but right before he was murdered, he did come to that realization. It just never gets any attention because he became famous for his black sepratist attitude.

If Spike had solely been about promoting black rights and Islam in that movie, why portray Malcolms criminal life or the affairs that I lisiah Mohammed had?

I don't think he glossed over a thing and while every move takes some licence I do not think the over all message was far from the real life of Malcolm.

[thesummerqueen]

I have recently read the two books and let me tell you this: I think right now, in the year 2012, our reality is like a combination of these two books. I wonder what you think:

In Fahrenheit 451, people have flat panel TVs on their walls (!) and never read books.

In 1984, everyone has a TV in their flat that CANNOT be turned off.

Wait a second - I went through news reports about 50 Shades of Grey being at the top of Amazon lists just to discover no one reads? Wtf are women doing with those books then?

I guess I better get rid of my kindle AND the over 200 books stuffed in my bedroom.

---

(In other words, I actually kinda hate alarmist wonderings about whether or not we've reached a dystopia.)

[cratehorus]

there is no such thing as totalitarianism

The concept of totalitarianism was first developed in a positive sense in the 1920s by the Italian fascists. The concept became prominent in Western anti-communist political discourse during the Cold War era

George Orwell's books Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm are famous for their dystopian depiction of totalitarian society, as is their lesser-known predecessor, We by Yevgeny Zamyatin. Additional totalitarian regimes are also depicted in The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood and Brave New World by Aldous Huxley.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism

[Darth]

Not according to your own link... (seems to be a recurring pattern).








Turns on the t.v...
Yup, dystopia.

[festive1]

there is no such thing as totalitarianism

Perhaps not in the 1984, complete lock-down sense. The countries my husband is examining in his book on are Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea, and Rwanda. The premise of the book is how these governments are totalitarian and why regimes like these keep springing up in Africa. I'm not a political expert, but he is, and I trust his opinion on the matter. He says they meet the full definition of totalitarianism.

[cratehorus]

Not according to your own link... (seems to be a recurring pattern).
Turns on the t.v...
Yup, dystopia.

oh stue your so silliful

Perhaps not in the 1984, complete lock-down sense. The countries my husband is examining in his book on are Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea, and Rwanda. The premise of the book is how these governments are totalitarian and why regimes like these keep springing up in Africa. I'm not a political expert, but he is, and I trust his opinion on the matter. He says they meet the full definition of totalitarianism.

the only self described totalitarians were the italian fascists, for the most part this phrase was popuarized by anti-communist propaganda in an attempt to link Communsim to Nazism. Ethiopia played a role in the cold war, Siad Barre was creating a socialist "Greater Somalia", which encompassed most of East Africa, American intrests instead backed a <blank> government in Ethiopia in a very bloody proxy war

Now you say your writing a book that calls them totalitarian, but alot of people would call this government, a "free" capitalist democracy, others a fascist military dictatorship.

However, rwanda doesn't really apply????

[festive1]

I'm not writing the book, my husband is. He's a political expert on Africa. He has a masters in international economics and another in African politics. He works with the National Endowment for Democracy, and has worked in African politics for about 20-25 years. I'll ask him to explain why these examples are totalitarian. African politics is not my area of expertise, but it is his.

[cratehorus]

really? tell him to make an account on this website, i'm sure we would love to hear your husbands opinion about democracy in Africa, especially since he has a double masters in international economics and african politics (is it african politics or something else) did he go to the university of london, or the U of Exeter?