I’ve always been clean, drug-wise. I’ve gotten drunk a couple of times, but even then not until I was over 21 years old (at least, not intentionally until I was over 21… but that’s another story). Some people do drugs to rebel against their parents. I’ve never done drugs to rebel against my parents, as they were both heavy drug users, even as I was growing up.
Anyway, none of that is really important. Here’s what is: so, I sat down to watch some movies today, some of my old cult-classic favorites (Tommy, The Wall, and A Clockwork Orange, in that order). Some of my friends came over near the beginning of Tommy (just before his adoptive father, “Uncle Frank,” kills his real father) and decided to sit through the others. They agreed that there was no merit to any of the movies I was watching unless one was on drugs. Having never done drugs, I don’t know if it’d change the experience, much less enhance it. However, having watched the movies, I can only imagine that being under the influence of <I>something</I> would probably help them make a lot more sense…
Anyway, just thought I’d ask for input. I, of all people, don’t want to glorify drug use. If anything, I’d rather attack the frequent use of drugs (yet another story no one wants me to go into).
Your friends are idiots, no offense or anything. A Clockwork Orange has no merit unless you’re high? Same with The Wall? Holy shit. While I admit those movies probably don’t have the best message or anything, the point of them is that they are ENTERTAINING. You shouldn’t have to be high to enjoy something. They probably just don’t enjoy those movies, and would laugh at them while high. Having done drugs myself, I can say that the only enhancing being high does to movies is make you stop thinking about the movie and just watch it. It’s different for everyone… but man, I’ve never heard that said about A Clockwork Orange. Never.
A Clockwork Orange is an anti-violence and anti-rehabilitation movie/book. A brilliant one, at that (although I disagree with its prudish message… you’d have to know about the author to know what I’m talking about). Tommy has some pretty ANTI-drug messages in it (the whole song “Acid Queen”). The Wall views the world through someone who uses drugs, but you don’t need to do drugs. Pink is mentally ill, too… would that mean that someone who watches the Wall would have to be mentally ill to enjoy it? Jesus. Your friends really don’t know what they’re talking about, no offense to them.
Knowing what it’s like to be intoxicated in such a way is normally not necessary to understand a movie. That wouldnt make any sense. No director would tell people to take drugs so you can understand his movie. Well, unless he’s high. oO The main point of the movies isn’t how the characters feel under the influence of drugs, that would be an entirely different topic (and would probably involve a lot more shiny shiny and colours colors!).
Snarl. Nobody attacks my beloved a clockwork orange. <3 If you don’t get the critique about the interference into the morality of man, you shouldn’t be wtaching it anyway.
Drugs dull sensitivity, not heighten it. That’s why they’re so popular - few people want to be even more aware of what’s going on around them, because the more aware you are, the more afraid you tend to be…
I’d have to disagree slightly. I first saw that mvoie before I did any drugs and I thoroughly enjoyed it, and even understood it. It’s not some mysterious drug riddle!
I don’t know about that, some drugs do heighten sensitivity, such as stimulants and hallucinogens. Most of the time they just heighten the input of what we perceive, and force the brain to see things in ways that we don’t normally perceive them. Mind you, I’m not trying to make drugs seem cool, because they practically are a waste of time. I just wouldn’t say all drugs dull sensitivity.
But that doesn’t necessarily mean that drugs can’t enlighten you. Look at Rastafarianism. The use of marijuana is very spiritual and goes along with meditation. Other religions/cultures have done the same thing. Native Americans smoked peyote and went on spirit quests.
Reality is subjective. What works for one person might not work for another. But nothing is as black and white as you’re making it sound.
I can learn a lot about Major Leage Baseball by reading a book or watching a movie about the subject. But I’m never going to truely understand what its like to play MLB without actually doing it.
I disagree, I think humans <I>are</I> capable of objectivity, thus why we can have people argue points they don’t believe in. Many people can agree on the basic tenants of reality, thus, it’s a constant, and not subjective. However, I think we’re getting dangerously close to the “what constitutes a man/soul/etc” question at this point, or at least the “what constitutes reality” question.