Media junkie dall'oltretomba
According to the latest reports, we now have enough nuclear bombs not only to destroy all life on the planet but also to blow the planet itself, empty and cold, out of its orbit altogether and into the immensity of the cosmic void. I find that possibility magnificent, and in fact I'm tempted to shout bravo, because from now on there can be now doubt that science is our enemy. She flatters our desires for omnipotence -- desires that lead inevitably to our destruction. A recent poll announced that out of 700,000 "highly qualified" scientists now working throughout the world, 520,000 of them are busy trying to streamline the means of our self-destruction, while only 180,000 are studying ways of keeping us alive.
The trumpets of the apocalypse have been sounding at our gates for years now, but we still stop up our ears. We do, however, have four new horsemen: overpopulation (the leader, the one waving the black flag), science, technology, and the media. All the other evils of the world are merely consequences of these. I'm not afraid to put the press in the front rank, either. The last screenplay I worked on, for a film I'll never make, deals with a triple threat: science, terrorism, and the free press. The last, which is usually seen as a victory, a blessing, a "right," is perhaps the most pernicious of all, because it feeds on what the other three horsemen leave behind.
...
Only one regret. I hate to leave while there's so much going on. It's like quitting in the middle of a serial. I doubt there was so much curiosity about the world after death in the past, since in those days the world didn't change quite so rapidly or so much. Frankly, depite my horror of the press, I'd love to rise from the grave every ten years or so and go buy a few newspapers. Ghostly pale, sliding silently along the walls, my papers under my arm, I'd return to the cemetery and read about all the disasters in the world before falling back to sleep, safe and secure in my tomb. Buñuel 1983.
3 Comments:
What do we teach the children? How to we lead by example? What do we tell them about their children?
teaching - to presume we know the world, ourselves, and those needing to be taught - and yet, in the aliveness of the child, not yet subsisting in some mediated intensity of supervised official cognitive dissonance, there's perhaps something for us to attend to. About their children...? What do you think, Phil?
Jon, thanks. 15 years or so ago, I became aware that certain of my co-workers, of the Gen X cohort, spent most of their watercooler time at work discussing characters on Friends and other TV series. There were no communicational markers to indicate that they were discussing fictional characters, not actual friends. There were also no markers distinguishing between the actors who played the characters and the characters. The world of Friends was a porous, fungible one. Happy Days!
Post a Comment
<< Home