not

postava zuckerberga dobre zahrana, storka postavena na dvojitom
sudnom spore, ilustrovanom casovymi vyletmi do zobjektivizovanej
minulosti (teda nie cez pohlady postav), toz fadna, ale nenapadlo
ma ako by sa dal masovy film o fb spravit inak. neadresovana
ochrana sukromia vobec, ani ine user-issues, a zuckerberg
z toho vyliezol ako gates of 2000s – nerdie unsexi college
superkid skyrocketed to ambivalently beloved zillionair (obdivovany
kvoli uspechu, nenavideny kvoli bezohladnosti), akurat tech
turn vystriedany social turnom. filmpostupy po technickej stranke
hromadka klise, washed out hollywood (aj ked psychologizacia
celkom dobre zvladnuta), film som bral viacmenej len
faktograficky ako epizodnu entrepreneurial lekciu z historie
internetu, napr som nevedel ze spoluzakladatel napstru (sean
parker) hral vo fb rolu – zohnal im prvu angel investiciu,
vytlacil z pozicie financneho riaditela s ktorym zuckerberg
fb rozbiehal, a pritiahol ich z cambridge do SF

zuckerberg vyviazol dobre, v podstate mu su
priznane len tri zakopnutia – uvodne fiasko s univerzitnym
webom hodnotenia atraktivity spoluziacok; prebratie idey
harvard-based socialnej siete od trojice harvard studentov;
a podraz svojho ‘jedineho priatela’ v opantani parkerom…
etickych/moralnych preslapov musel pri takej skale projektu
ale spravit ovela viac, hadam aj zavaznejsich.

plus gycova pointa – chalan ktory rozbehol siet s 500 mil
uzivatelmi mal jedineho priatela ktoreho podrazil a s ktorym
sa sudi; a stale tuzi po svojej laske ktoru verejne pospinil.

v podstate pomerne predvidatelne

———–

mark zuckerberg 84 ta 10 cimi [hra ho 83 li 10 chicchan].
Mother psychiatrist, father dentist. Parents Jewish, he considers himself an atheist.
eduardo saverin 82 pi 4 ahau. CFO. Chceli ho zodrat z 34 na 0.03, nakoniec vlastni 5%.
His father in export+real estate. Jew. S markom friends ako freshman. *fb ako sophomore, leto po zalozeni – hadka. [hra ho 3 cauac VIII]
sean parker 79 sa 13 kan VI. Napster spustil rok po skonceni strednej skoly (Fanningova [3 etznab sa 80] idea, Parker sa kvoli tomu
prestahoval za nim do SF, to bol prvykrat mimo domu vobec. ale aj na wikipedii zahmlene, zoznamili sa online ked mal Fanning 15,
Parker 14, pocas procesov ho z firmy vytlacili Fanningovi pravnici), predtym v 16tich odsudeny na communitywork za hacking.
Kodovat ho ucil otec od 7yr. S FB len cca rok dlha epizoda – od leta 04, vytlacil Saverina, dosadil sa ako President, vyoutoval sa
po kokain party v 05. Predtym v 02 spustil socialweb neskor integrovany do MS Outlooku. Party animal.
Ledva dokoncil hi school, astma od detstva, autodidakt, otec US gov oceanographer, mama TV-ad broker. Zuckerberg s nim vraj stale konzultuje ?!
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/10/sean-parker-201010
[hra ho Timberlake 81 aq 8 lamat I]
peter thiel 67 DE-moved to US – paypal co-founder, prva angel investicia do thefacebook. Chess master. Openly gay. NYC based.
In late 2004, Thiel made a $500,000 angel investment in Facebook for 5.2% of the company.
Thiel is listed as a member of the Steering Committee of The Bilderberg Group.
screenplay: aaron sorkin 61 ge 13 caban, hollywoody pise len, incl a few good men 92
FB++
Gideon Yu (investor, odisiel z FB v 09),
Chris Hughes (koder?, co-founder, 83 sc 10 caban, 12% teraz, v 08 viedol Obamovi online kampan),
Chris Kelly (zodpovedny za privacy policy na FB),
Ted Ullyot (lawyer, od 08, riesi privacy issues),
Dustin Moskovitz (koder! co-founder, teraz vedie tech staff, 6%).

FB shareholders
Mark Zuckerberg owns 24% of the company, Accel Partners owns 10%, Dustin Moskovitz owns 6%, Digital Sky Technologies owns 5%, Eduardo Saverin owns 5%, Sean Parker owns 4%, Peter Thiel owns 3%, Greylock Partners and Meritech Capital Partners own between 1 to 2% each, Microsoft owns 1.3%, Li Ka-shing owns 0.75%, the Interpublic Group owns less than 0.5%, a small group of current and former employees and celebrities own less than 1% each, including Matt Cohler, Jeff Rothschild, California U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, Chris Hughes, and Owen Van Natta, while Reid Hoffman and Mark Pincus have sizable holdings of the company, and the remaining 30% or so are owned by employees, undisclosed number of celebrities, and outside investors

film technicky aj atmosferou genericky washed out hollywood, takze som ho bral viacmenej len faktograficky.
zuckerberg ale dobre zahrany. vysiel z toho dobre, v podstate mu su vo filme priznane len tri zakopnutia – uvodne fiasko s uni webom hodnotenim zien, ukradnutie idei harvard-based socialnej siete (mal povodne iny plan?), a podraz svojho ‘jedineho priatela’ v opantani parkerom, etickych/moralnych preslapov musel ale spravit viac.
o napster typovi som nevedel.
gycova pointa – chalan ktory rozbehol siet s 500 mil uzivatelmi mal jedineho priatela ktoreho podrazil a s ktorym sa sudi; a stale tuzi po svojej laske ktoru verejne pospinil.
lessigova kritika – rola v internetu v uspesnom rychlom raste podcenena – fincher to podla neho nepochopil.
/ fb spusteny zaciatkom 04
? preco musi nakoniec pristupit na vyrovnanie? (RECHECK)
? recenzie na knihu accidental billionaries = vela chyb
? poslal policiu na parkera/kokain zuckerberg?
/ suvislost: v Norsku a Svedsku peoples’ taxes online

zmeskanych uvodnych 15 minut:
In 2003, Harvard University student Mark Zuckerberg gets the idea to create a website to rate the attractiveness of female Harvard undergraduates after his girlfriend Erica Albright breaks up with him. Mark hacks into the databases of various residence halls and downloads pictures and names. Using an algorithm supplied by his best friend Eduardo Saverin, Mark creates a page called “FaceMash”, where male students choose which of two girls is more

attractive.
Mark is punished with six months of academic probation after the traffic to the site crashes parts of Harvard’s network, and becomes vilified among most of Harvard’s female community. However, the popularity of “FaceMash” and the fact that he created it in one night, while drunk, brings him to the attention of Cameron Winklevoss and Tyler Winklevoss, identical twins and members of Harvard’s rowing team, and their business partner Divya Narendra.

11:40 < barak> vcera som videl social network, zuckerberg dobre zahrany, storka
postavena na dvojitom sudnom spore, ilustrovanom casovymi
vyletmi do zobjektivizovanej minulosti (teda nie cez pohlady
postav), toz fadna, ale nenapadlo ma ako by sa dal masovy film o
fb spravit inak. neadresovana ochrana sukromia vobec, ani ine
user-issues, a zuckerberg z toho vyliezol ako gates of 2000s –
nerdie unsexi college superkid skyrocketed to ambivalently
beloved zillionair (obdivovany kvoli uspechu, nenavideny kvoli
bezohladnosti), akurat tech turn vystriedany social turnom.
filmpostupy hromadka klise, film som bral viacmenej len
faktograficky ako epizodnu entrepreneurial lekciu z historie
internetu
11:41 < barak> v podstate komplet predvidatelne
11:42 < wao> zillionair (obdivovany
11:42 < wao> neprislo cele :)
11:42 -!- Irssi: Pasting 5 lines to #tlis.sk. Press Ctrl-K if you wish to do
this or Ctrl-C to cancel.
11:42 < barak> zillionair (obdivovany kvoli uspechu, nenavideny kvoli
bezohladnosti), akurat tech turn vystriedany social turnom.
filmpostupy hromadka klise, film som bral viacmenej len
faktograficky ako epizodnu entrepreneurial lekciu z historie
internetu
11:44 < ach> barak: a boli tam nejake nahe baby?
11:44 < barak> zakladatel napstru snupal lajnu z pupku fanynky
11:45 < barak> inak o nom som nevedel ze hral vo fb rolu
11:45 < barak> parker
11:46 < wao> napster druhykrat spomenuty na tomto chane za relativne kratku
dobu! :)
11:46 < barak> zohnal im prvu angel investiciu, vytlacil z pozicie financneho
riaditela s ktorym zuckerberg fb rozbiehal, a pritiahol ich z
harvardu do SF

Rolling Stone:
The Social Network is the movie of the year. But Fincher and Sorkin triumph by taking it further.
Lacing their scathing wit with an aching sadness, they define the dark irony of the past decade.

Sean Parker:
/
One day—in a scene fictionalized in The Social Network—Parker saw Thefacebook, as it was then known, on the computer of his roommate’s girlfriend, a student at Stanford. (In the movie, he gets his first peek after spending the night with a woman whose name he barely knows.)
^ toto bola dost nasilna nepodarena scena/sposob ako vtiahnut parkera do deja
/
Matt Cohler, who joined Thefacebook shortly after Parker, is awed when he thinks about that pivotal e-mail. “Napster and Facebook are two of the most significant companies in the history of the Internet,” he says, “and in both cases Parker spotted them earlier than anyone—other than the people who invented them.”
/
Parker impulsively flew to New York, where he met Zuckerberg for dinner, and the two quickly bonded. A few months later, in June 2004, they ran into each other on the streets of Palo Alto, where Parker, unemployed (but still driving around in a BMW 5-series), was living with yet another girlfriend.
/
Says Moskovitz (fb co-founder), known for his dry humor, “Sean probably deserves less credit for turning Facebook into what it is than he thinks he does, but also more credit than anybody else thinks he does.”
/
In the financing that Parker negotiated with Thiel, as well as a much larger deal signed seven months later with the Accel Partners venture-capital firm, Parker was able to negotiate for Zuckerberg something almost unheard of in a venture-funded start-up: absolute control for the entrepreneur. Because of that, Zuckerberg, to this day, allocates three of Facebook’s five board seats (including his own). Without that control, Facebook would almost certainly have been sold to either Yahoo or Microsoft, whose C.E.O., Steve Ballmer, offered $15 billion for it in the fall of 2007—only to be met with a blank stare from the then 23-year-old Zuckerberg.
/
On a kiteboarding trip to North Carolina in 2005 he was arrested during a party at his rental house on suspicion of cocaine possession. Though he was never formally charged, some of Facebook’s investors and employees felt Parker could no longer effectively serve as company president. With much anguish, he agreed to depart.
/
divides his nights between a San Francisco apartment and a palatial (rented) New York town house.
/
The Parker of the script is also greedy, which is not Sean Parker’s big issue. More than money, he wants credit and recognition.

* Spike Jonze 69 13 eb III: videos– Beastie Boys, Bjork, Fatboy Slim, Weezer; films– Being John Malkovich (99), Adaptation (02); cocreated Jackass; 99-03 married to Sofia Coppola
* Michel Gondry 65 fr: videos– 6x Bjork, White Stripes, Chem Bros, Kylie Minogue; ads– levi’s, smirnoff; invented ‘bullet time’ technique (sequence slowed down, frozen, camera rotates around); films– Human Nature (01), Eternal Sunshine.. (04) both screenpl by Kaufman
* David Fincher 62 ta 10 eb* X co/denver: animator; videos– Madonna, George Michael, Aerosmith, Rolling Stones; ads; films– Alien 3 (92), Se7en (95), The Game (97), Fight Club (99), Panic Room (02)
* Julien Temple 53 sa 6 manik XII uk/london: rockumentaries– Sex Pistols (80) + The Filth and the Fury (00), Mod culture; films– Bullet (96), Pandaemonium (01)
* Russell Mulcahy 53 ca 6 chuen IV au/melbourne: videos– Elton John, Duran Duran, Billy Joel, Spandau Ballet
* Singh Tarsem 61 ge 12 akbal VI in: films– The Cell (00)

three Bazin principles, where he suggested that cinema came from literature, the theater and painting. I would suggest actually that very little of cinema comes from painting..
..images which are constantly slaved to texts. I challenge you to acknowledge the notion that when you watch ninety-nine percent of cinema you can see the cinema maker following the text. The text is the prime organizer of ideas and of the narrative structure, as well as the prime organizer of the way the characters are envisaged

cinema is in deep trouble because it has been a slave to four separate tyrannies.
First of all, I believe as already indicated that the cinema is a slave to text. We should had an imagistic cinema, not a cinema which is essentially created by writers.
..second tyranny would the tyranny of the frame. This might seem strange to you, but all of us watch cinema primarily in a dark space sitting down, looking in one direction at a single frame. The human body doesn’t like sitting still, it’s obviously restless, and the notion of a single concentration on a single space is a most extraordinary situation.. A frame doesn’t exist in nature, it’s entirely artificial.. The television ratio of 1 to 1.3 has begun to create a great straitjacketing, a great closure of the ability in which the whole world is now seeing its moving picture imagery.. My desire is to break away from the conventional relationship of a seated audience in the dark focusing on one single screen throwing shadows of a hallucinogenic nature.
third tyranny would be the tyranny of the actor. Now we all know that the actor and actress are the best possible publicity stunts cinema could ever ever imagine. The actor or actress offscreen creates an environment which affects how you look at them on the screen. The whole media of the world in all its gossip facilities is very highly geared in order to create this particular relationship, but to repeat a phrase I’ve used at least fifty times in this room in the past three days, the cinema does not exist as a playground for Sharon Stone..
We have to get rid of the camera. The camera has made us arrive at cinema almost at level six on the Richter scale. We’ve already created pictures of the world which we know are grossly inadequate. The world out there is always going to be more exciting, more fascinating, more adventurous, more extraordinary than what can be presented through a camera.. cinema of the last hundred years has been very much associated with the production of a photographer, that whole situation has been changed around so that the king in terms of cinema manufacture will now be the editor. The editor, thanks to new technology, can do anything with anything.

Reich

youth can be the subject for a good fiction film. In his youth he was a charismatic leader, a young doctor in the revolu- tionary movement in Germany, who tried to introduce sex and love into the revolutionary movement and keep the movement alive. But what happened to Reich actually: he started the Sexpol movement in Germany; in 1930 they had about 30,000 members and organized lec- tures all over Germany. Reich’s ideal was that the Communist Party should organize youth around dance-halls, not to try to get young peo- ple to dull political lectures-to find young peo- ple where they really are. I even remember reading about young Nazis, members of the Hitlerjugend, coming to hear Reich and leaving the Nazi Party after getting a deeper understanding of their own inner troubles, their rea- sons for being politically active. I have heard from our ambassador in Paris-he attended Reich’s lectures when he was a student in Prague in 1934-that there were thousands of students just all over the hall, sitting on windowsills and in the staircases, like Columbia in April ’68, or Berkeley; and he was a kind of prophet of a new time, an affirmative culture-some kind of new integrity between man and his social life.

What happened at the end of the Sex- pol movement was that Reich was thrown out of it. It was organized by the Communist Party; and what he was teaching was too much for them. First they banned his books from all Party bookstores; and then they organized a majority in the Sexpol movement and threw him out. It was just a few months before Hitler came to power, so it is not widely known. So you see first he was oppressed by people in his own movement. He was very devoted to the revolu- tion, but he realized that the revolution didn’t need him. And when Hitler came to power, his books were suppressed and then burned. And then it was repeated, in ’56 and ’57 by such a democratic government as the American one.

Reich was actually sent to prison for con- tempt of court. They chased him because of “illegal interstate sale of orgone accumulators”- devices that had not been scientifically proved. But then he didn’t appear before the court; he said “Science has to judge me, and not an agency for food and cosmetics that is connected with the interests of the cosmetics industry.” He was very angry, and had good reason to be. He got two years for contempt of court.

WR

what was very important for me was to preserve the in- tegrity of every piece. So that means I didn’t mix into documentary shots with his patients; or there is stock footage of Reich and his col- laborators, and the commentary that is run over it is some sort of just interpretation of what people were talking about then. The film is very complicated; there is a lot of playing in the film; but I never played in the separate pieces, I kept them as separate blocs.

I thought for years about how Reich could be explained.

Reich says that contemporary human beings have re- actionary bodies-rigid bodies. And our charac- terological stiffness is rooted in muscular armor. Psychological armor equals muscular armor, on the biological level. And we are conditioned to be like that from our early months of life. So it seems that the task of changing people is much more complicated than it looks like if you just feel you can apply Marx’s theories and make a redistribution of wealth or abolish private prop- erty, and everything will be OK. That’s not true, because people are repeating-that’s what happened in the whole so-called socialist world today: it’s just one great repetition of all the rigidity of bourgeois society. So when I made my film Man Is Not a Bird I was trying to ex- plain that you can have global changes but peo- ple can still stay the same, unhappy or awkward or privately confused; and in all my other films I try to follow this line, and I came gradually to Reich, who really explained why we are un- able to change quickly. We are able to change, but not so quickly, and probably some people are unable to change at all.

Well, I will tell you that we got a recommendation from the International Evan- gelical jury in Berlin-composed of priests and people connected with the ecumenical move- ment-and they gave a recommendation for the film to be seen and discussed on the subject of the “importance of eroticism, sexuality and love for political freedom.” So it seems that people understand that the main topic of the film is not sexuality but human personal happiness con- nected with political freedom, which means men in the social environment. Generally reactions in Europe were more political than sexual, to the effect that “sex is not so important in the film.” (In fact, that’s not true.) But it seems that people are getting the message that the main thing in sexual repression or sexual freedom is actually the political content of human personal freedom

In Yugoslavia we got in trouble very quickly when we came back from Cannes [where the film won the grand prize]. A screening was organized by people hostile to the film-they got about 400 people, mainly older people, some of them connected with some sort of preservation of traditions, that means people who are taking care of monuments and graveyards and museums, plus old revolution- aries, so-called hard-liners who are now out of the main social activities and are on the margin of social life taking care of their memories of our glorious past-and they were mad. It was terrible. People just started shouting. It was an extremely unpleasant experience.
On what grounds were they angry?
Because Stalin was connected with sexuality! Stalin was connected with the phallus. And they are just completely unable to see any connection between political power and sexual potency; the sexual meaning of political power was completely strange to them, and they were completely sexually upset. They were sweating, trembling, a lot of physical signs: they were just showing complete physiological distress. But these reactions were expressed in very political terms: “politically unacceptable,” “ideologically wrong,” “attitude of the enemy,” this kind of political cliche were all activated against the film.
Have they banned the film?
They succeeded in stopping it, so far, on administrative grounds, although we have the necessary signatures on the censorship board. But they didn’t dare to send the police to take the film away from us; they don’t want to fight us in the courts. Meanwhile new censor regula- tions have been set up and a new board has come in, so we are tied up in all this legal procedures business.

The film contains some very satirical scenes against organized Communism-for instance that scene where the madman is banging his head against the wall and on the sound track is this hymn to the glorious Communist Party, “from which all our blessings flow,” and so on. Is the film attacked as being anti-Com- munist, and if so how do you reply?
D.M.: It’s interesting that the film was at- tacked on those grounds by a very tiny portion of Party members, and in fact not so much by Party members as by ex-Party members who were thrown out of the Party as Stalinists. It seems that for most people in the country it is clear that the film is not anti-Communist but anti-Stalinist.
J.M.: It’s also anti-Leninist, however.
D.M.: Oh, no, that’s not true. The film is dis- cussing some points in Leninism, or about Len- in, but the film is not anti-Lenin, in my opinion. Even some people in high Party positions told me the film is clearly anti-Stalinist, and the film is clearly against blocs, and the film is for inde- pendent communism or independent socialism. So it seems many people understood the film politically as an honest contribution to inner discussion in the communist movement. Now about Leninism. In the film you have direct quotations from Lenin in two places: one is where the awkward Russian figure-skating champion is trying to talk to the Yugoslavian revolutionary girl, and they have no other way to talk with each other but to whisper political ideas in a very tender way: so they speak about “what are the tasks of youth,” and this is an exact quotation from Lenin.
J.M.: And the other is the statement about the Appassionata Sonata and how it makes him want to treat people nicely and pat them on the head, when what is needed at this time is to hit them over the head.
D.M.: Yeah, because he believed that we must change people. Lenin was a true neurotic, a man torn by his wish to change people and the world, and his wish to help people. So I think to talk about Leninism in terms of a theoretical outcome of a deep wish to change-this is an effort to understand, both to criticize and to understand, but I don’t think it is just hostile if you are critical. And then if you remember the moment when the Russian says, “In prin- ciple we are against any violence,” and she touches him on the most important part of his, uh, revolutionary organism, which he is trying to forget-and then he hits her. So at the mo- ment he turns to pure violence. You remember what is the next shot? She looks at him, but he is not there any more: there is Stalin. Stalin crying. That’s a beautiful shot, and I took it [from a Russian feature]. Stalin watches the bench in the snow where Lenin used to sit, and he is crying. This is pure demagogy, and I loved this scene for its shallowness, this kind of kitsch quality, surrealist qualities. But I introduced it into the film at a moment connected with Lenin. Of course everything is distorted a little, or made into caricature, because the music that follows the skater Vladimir Ilyitch’s speech-he is a kind of positive hero, beautiful, an artist- not the real Lenin, he is kind of a marzipan rein- carnation-that music is of course not the Ap- passionata but some Hungarian gypsy music entitled “Like a Beautiful Dream”: low-level music, not Beethoven. So there is another shift in meaning between his speech and the music on the sound track. Then if you remember the scene that follows, Stalin is receiving a letter that is addressed to Lenin. So I think that Stalin is the worst possible reincarnation of Lenin- all forceful features of Lenin, all Lenin’s efforts to change things forcefully, they were reincarnated in Stalin. This is the part of Lenin’s revo- lutionary program that I can’t agree upon; be- cause forceful change can’t bring change: that’s I think very simple.

E.C.: Do you think that traditional “organ- ized communism” is inherently anti-sex? Can the anti-body, anti-sex attitude of the tradition- al left be escaped?
D.M.: I think it is not only communist or- ganization that has been anti-sex; it seems to me that all organization in the world-look at the churches, look at governments, look at the police, the army, everything is anti-sex; the es- sentially homosexual structure of the whole gov- ernment is completely hidden; we have only males in business, in politics, in the army and police-so all that is a pure continuation of boy- hood; this kind of homosexual male period is projected into the structure of the whole so- ciety, so women are completely outside of the image of any kind of meaningful social organization. They are kept just to medicine, teach- ing, and “humanitarian” cages, completely out of the main power structure. The only movements that were connected with the body were fascist movements: they were talking about blood, and earth, and body, but again in I think a different kind of homo- sexual overtones, and not in a fully heterosexual meaning. It seems to me that the sexual significance of movements and organizations is completely de- stroyed in our alienated style of living. And my idea was to build a movie that is a kind of interplay between organization and spontaneity. For it seems to me that the all-anarchism of, let’s say, the New American Cinema or the an- archism of the New Left, this kind of totally unorganized way in which people are now re- acting to power structures, is inefficient because it lacks organization; yet if it turns to organization it takes the same old forms, like the high- ly organized, militant, puritan, self-sacrificing groups, so this just perpetuates the old system of power and fighting power with power. And it seems to me that we have to fight power with spontaneity and humor, but in a more organized way than it is done. It seems to me that some future society which I believe in, a society organized on work and love without any politi- cal mediators-work, love, and communication, let’s say-must be a highly organized kind of society that has a lot of space for all kinds of spontaneous activities. In my film-I worked eight months on it in the editing room to get this kind of strong organization, yet trying to preserve all the spontaneity possible in the film. And I feel that’s the reason it is puzzling: peo- ple are not sure where I am leading them.
Actually the film is very traditionally struc- tured. There are the first three reels of docu- mentary introduction, and then we have this very slow dramatic exposition, then we have the conflict say in reels five and six, and those highly emotional things in reel eight-the plas- ter-caster scene, which is a kind of climactic scene; and then you have a melodramatic con- tinuation in reels nine and ten which in purely dramatic terms explain this conflict between personality and society: “You are able to love mankind but you are not able to love a human person.” (The women’s libbers are very happy with this scene, where she is hitting him trying to awaken him to real masculinity instead of this empty masculinity.) And then you have this kind of cathartic song at the end. So as you see the whole structure is very traditional: you are supposed to be relaxed for a few reels, then puzzled, then you have a build-up of the con- flict, then the big chase, and then you have catharsis! But this traditional organization is completely invisible in my film: there are a lot of other attractions, and they are done in this kind of open-structure way so that everybody is projecting his own thing into the film. I call it the “liberating trap”-an open structure that forces people to throw their own irrationalities into the film. There are so many things left un- answered, so many questions posed-you must answer them in order to be able to “survive,” to be able to follow the story, to go on. And there is not time enough left for thinking, just for projecting your own wrong ideas, your own misinterpretations, your own irrationalities into the film-but then to go on. At the end many people are very restless, puzzled, confused-but highly interested in the subject. They’re ready to come see the film again, to read more Reich, to ask me about all kinds of things.

I am very skeptical about systems, liv- ing in a country which is not in this big bloc of “freedom-loving” nations in NATO, and also is not in the big bloc of “freedom-loving” na- tions in the Warsaw Pact; in Yugoslavia we don’t see very many differences between life in America and Russia as far as big ideas are con- cerned: these big, beautiful, patriotic ideas that enable big countries to smash small countries and kill people in the name of humanity, or im- pose their own systems of values on others. So I think these big superpowers may have the same policy on the global level. On a practical level of course America is very different from Rus- sia-because in Russia each individual has his own happiness delivered to him by the govern- ment or Party, and here everybody has to fight for his own happiness in the market. But it seems to me the sets of illusions are very simi- lar, and the inflexibility of the two systems is very similar. Of course the American system is much more flexible in responding to the mar- ket, but politically many things that are against all economy are perpetuated. So more and more, all over the world, people feel that something must be done: systems that start from people spontaneously organizing themselves in some sort of meaningful groups, and then not alien- ating their power to some sort of more “repre- sentative” higher levels-just preserving their own communal power. I think the new means of communication that we have in the media, in this electronic world, enable us to live in our small ethnic groups, or very specific groups, yet being able to communicate all over the globe without the necessity of having this type of power structure to mediate in our names. I be- lieve in a world without states, a world without politicians, without these political structures rep- resenting alienated power.
R.S.: A kind of loosely structured anarchy?
D.M.: No, a kind of well organized anarchy! I think the failure of world communism to do anything meaningful is that it built some sort of very militant, Christian-style militancy of fighting for a paradise that will come for our grandchildren, and for them we must put our- selves through the fire; and this leads to terrible things, like millions of people put in concentra- tion camps by their own comrades, and many of them in the camps even believing that the camps were good for the system. You remem- ber that many people died shouting “Long live Stalin!” even when they were being killed on Stalin’s orders. This self-sacrificing revolution- ism is the same kind of religious, Judeo-Chris- tian kind of bullshit.

[prolog]
00:43 < barak> tiez stale nechapem preco ma tak bavi suicide
00:44 < barak> asi ze som doteraz nic pocitovo podobne nepocul
00:55 < pht__> :) namotal si sa?
00:56 < barak> waga waga

SHAVIRO – POSTCINEMATIC AFFECT
(hudba a film hovoria o komplex social procesoch, ale nereprezuntuju ich az tak ako na nich aktivne participuju)
These works are symptomatic, in
that they provide indices of complex social processes, which they transduce,
condense and rearticulate in the form of what can be called, after Deleuze
and Guattari, ‘blocs of affect.’1 But they are also productive, in the sense
that they do not represent social processes, so much as they participate
actively in these processes, and help to constitute them.
(filmy a hudba generuju AFEKT ~ are machines for generating affect +
and for capitalising upon, or extracting value from, this affect.)
As such, they are not
ideological superstructures, as an older sort of Marxist criticism would have
it. Rather, they lie at the very heart of social production, circulation and
distribution.
(cize nie su marxisticky kritizovatelne? su proste nevyhnutne, neexistuje alternativa?)
They generate subjectivity and they play a crucial role in the
valorisation of capital.
+
1 Strictly speaking, Deleuze and Guattari say that the work of art ‘is a bloc of
sensations, that is to say, a compound of percepts and affects’ (1994, 164).

(afekt vs emotion via Massumi)
I follow Brian Massumi (2002, 23-45) in differentiating between affect and
emotion.
For Massumi, affect is primary, non-conscious, asubjective or
presubjective, asignifying, unqualified and intensive; while emotion is
derivative, conscious, qualified and meaningful, a ‘content’ that can be
attributed to an already-constituted subject.
[naozaj si hudbu pustam ako stimul pre vytvaranie pocitov,
vnimam ju v ramci multitaskingu, paralelne,
zaroven nad nom aj rozmyslam, cize okrem pasivneho prijimania afektov
syntetizujem pocity viazuce sa k nej ale aj k ostatnym veciam ktore robim]
[TYMITO POCITMI PRAVE HOVORIT O HUDBE –
je ale kazdy album vzdy dobry na uzky okruh pocitov?
alebo si dokazete pri rovnakej hudbe v roznom case syntetizovat rozne pocity?]
Emotion is affect captured by a
subject, or tamed and reduced to the extent that it becomes commensurate
with that subject. Subjects are overwhelmed and traversed by affect, but
they have or possess their own emotions.

re: Beller (stavia na nom, ale beller podcenuje rozdiel medzi cinematic a postcinematic,
co teda rozvija Shaviro)
However, I
think that he underestimates the differences between cinematic and post-cinematic
media: it is these differences that drive my own discussion here.

(subjekt = ekon.jednotka, ktora je sama pre seba kapitalom, producentom aj zdrojom prijmov=
“mal by som viac pracovat a zarobit lebo mam malo prachov”=zdroj prijmov
“potrebujem si spravit toto a tamto, v ramci vlastnej vyroby na vlastnu ‘zakazku'”=producent
“moj kapital su moje schopnosti, osobnost, profil”)
[uz par tyzdnov mam pocit ze sam seba exploitujem, ked chcem nieco dokoncit a podobne]
@neolib capitalism we see ourselves as subjects precisely to the extent that we are
autonomous economic units. As Foucault puts it, neoliberalism defines a new
mutation of ‘Homo oeconomicus as entrepreneur of himself, being for
himself his own capital, being for himself his own producer, being for himself
the source of [his] earnings’ (2008, 226).
(tomuto ale nerozumiem: )
For such a subject, emotions are
resources to invest, in the hope of gaining as large a return as possible. What
we know today as ‘affective labour’ is not really affective at all, as it
involves rather the sale of labour-power in the form of pre-defined and prepackaged
emotions.3
3 (nesuhlasi s Hardt+Negrim v tom ze):
For Hardt and Negri, ‘unlike emotions, which are mental phenomena, affects refer
equally to body and to mind. In fact, affects, such as joy and sadness, reveal the
present state of life in the entire organism’ (2004, 108)
(lebo):
(wrong) because there is no such thing as ‘mental phenomena’ that do not refer
equally to the body. The division between affect and emotion must rather be
sought elsewhere.
(preferuje massumiho definiciu pocitu)
emotion as the capture, and reduction-to-commensurability, of affect.
It is this reduction that,
among other things, allows for the sale and purchase of emotions as commodities.
(inak to je asi fakt pravda, tiez sa priklanam k massumovi)
(toto prirovnanie je divne):
In a certain sense, emotion is to affect as, in Marxist theory, labour-power is to
labour. For labour itself is an unqualifiable capacity, while labour-power is a
quantifiable commodity that is possessed, and that can be sold, by the worker.
(affective labour – @hardt+negri: sluzby produkujuce emocie, @shaviro: su tie sluzby
uz objektifikovane emocie):
Hardt and Negri’s own definition of affective labour in fact itself makes sense
precisely in the register of what I am calling labour-power and objectified emotions:
‘Affective labor, then, is labor that produces or manipulates affects such as a feeling
of ease, well-being, satisfaction, excitement, or passion. One can recognize affective
labor, for example, in the work of legal assistants, flight attendants, and fast food
workers (service with a smile)’ (108).

[tanecna hudba je velmi o emociach, idem do klubu a chcem sa zextatnit]

However, emotion as such is never closed or complete. It also still
testifies to the affect out of which it is formed, and that it has captured,
reduced and repressed. Behind every emotion, there is always a certain
surplus of affect that ‘escapes confinement’ and ‘remains unactualised,
inseparable from but unassimilable to any particular, functionally anchored
perspective’ (Massumi 2002, 35).
(teda ze pocit sa vzdy nadalej viaze k povodnemu afektu z ktoreho som ho
syntetizoval; pretoze tam stale ostava otvorene co z neho mozem dalsie
syntetizovat)
Privatised emotion can never entirely
separate itself from the affect from which it is derived. Emotion is
representable and representative; but it also points beyond itself to an affect
that works transpersonally and transversally, that is at once singular and
common (Hardt and Negri 2004, 128-129),
(tym ze je pocit zosobneny, tak sa vzdy viaze k afektu — ten je
transpersonalny a transversalny ——– ???? asi ze osobny a zaroven
spolocny–napriklad afekt produkujuci videom lady gaga)
and that is irreducible to any sort of representation.
Our existence is always bound up with affective and
aesthetic flows that elude cognitive definition or capture.
(ano, z afektov mozeme stale syntetizovat nove pocity,
ktore su este nesyntetizovane)4
4 (monoskop!!):
Fascism and Nazism in particular are
noteworthy for their mobilisation of cinematic affect; though arguably Soviet
communism and liberal capitalism also mobilized such affect in their own ways.

(@postmod nezmizol afekt ako tvrdi jameson, ale subjektivne pocity sa vytratili)
On the basis of his distinction between affect and emotion, Massumi
rejects Fredric Jameson’s famous claim about the ‘waning of affect’ in
postmodern culture (Jameson 1991, 10-12). For Massumi, it is precisely
subjective emotion that has waned, but not affect.

5 (anti-oedipus sa snazil spojit nekritizovatelnost afektu[massumi zastanca–ked kritizuje
jamesona napr..: ‘affect is not ownable or recognisable and is thus resistant to critique’]
a marxistickou teoriou, ktore su inak vacsinou stavane ostro proti sebe oboma tabormi):
Affect theory, or ‘non-representational theory’ (Thrift 2008), is usually placed in
sharp opposition to Marxist theory, by advocates of both approaches. I am
arguing, instead, that we need to draw them together. This is precisely what
Deleuze and Guattari attempted to do in Anti-Oedipus (1983). The attempt was
not entirely successful, but it seems prescient in the light of subsequent ‘neoliberal’
developments in both affective and political economies.
(via latour: sietove socialne procesy sa nedaju vysvetlit kategoriami ‘capital’ alebo
‘social’ lebo prave tie potrebujeme vysvetlit, co ale zaroven neznamena ze su
nepouzitelne, iba ze ich potrebujeme skonstruovat resp samokonstruovat znovu,
k comu upada latour v nepozornych momentoch)
I am largely sympathetic to Bruno Latour’s
insistence that networked social processes cannot be explained in terms of global
categories like ‘capital,’ or ‘the social’ – because these categories themselves are what
most urgently need to be explained.

Affect and
labour are two attributes of the same Spinozian substance; they are both
powers or potentials of the human body, expressions of its ‘vitality,’ ‘sense of
aliveness,’ and ‘changeability’ (Massumi 2002, 36).

(mapa:)
aesthetic of affective mapping.6 For Jameson and Deleuze and
Guattari alike, maps are not static representations, but tools for negotiating,
and intervening in, social space. A map does not just replicate the shape of a
territory; rather, it actively inflects and works over that territory.

[page 7]

…..(poznamky v printoute)
[7-24]

[25]

pavel skopal:
zdar, tu knihu ani autora neznám a popravdì dobrovolnì bych ji neèetl:)
ale zdá se, ¾e to mù¾e být v oblasti media studies/visual studies docela
dùle¾itý text,
na obalu knihy ji chválí Cubitt a Mirzoeff, to jsou ¹pièky, a dal¹í
známá figura, Steven Shaviro,
ji velebí tady: http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=561
nemyslím, ¾e ji bude u nás nìkdo podrobnìji znát, ¹anci by jsi mìl mo¾ná
u lidí z pra¾ské katedry filmových studií –
Petra Hanáková, Kateøina Svatoòová, Sylva Poláková, nebo mimo obor filmu
tøeba Ladislav Kessner.

Beller recasts marx’s theory of alienation, and of value into a simple film setting

cinema, tv, video, computer, internet = deterritorialised factory
imaginal functions are part of perception
‘cinema’ as social relation = sociality
image is mise-en-scene of work
social theory needs become film theory
looking = (value-productive) labour
we labour in the image
‘attention theory of value’ ~ ‘labour’ = source of all value production
human attention = production of value for late capital
attentional biopower is transferred into capital
sociality = visuality
task of film theory = write political economy of culture as a mode of production
labour theory of value must be reformulated as attention theory of value

+ page-based notes @ mendeley @ umax’ windows

[26]

[22]

[21]

inspirovany real banking skandalom v 91 | MI5 had learned in 1987 that Abu Nidal had been using a company called SAS Trade and Investment in Warsaw as a cover for ANO business deals, with the company director, Samir Najmeddin, based in Baghdad. All SAS’s deals went through BCCI in Sloane Street, where the balance in the SAS account always hovered around ₤50 million, and consisted largely of selling guns, night-vision goggles, and armored Mercedes-Benz cars with concealed grenade launchers, each deal often worth tens of millions of dollars. Bank records showed ANO arms transactions with many Middle Eastern countries as well as with East Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_(film)

How do you behave when confronted with something that you should actually admit responsibility for? These are the sort of strategies that interest me, talking yourself out of guilt. It’s like this: we all believe we’re so fantastically liberal. None of us want to see immigration laws tightened. Yet when someone comes to me and asks if I could take in a foreign family, then I say, well, not really. Charity begins at home with the door firmly shut. Most people are as cowardly and comfortable as I am. | I can’t pretend I don’t come from this Judeo-Christian tradition. The issue of guilt is always in the air at such latitudes. Which is why I always come back to it. One of the thoughts which inspired the film was to confront someone with something that he’d done as a child. In cases like this we find it particularly comfortable to talk ourselves out of the problem. Georges takes a couple of tablets to help himself sleep. This is the sort of awkward situation I find fascinating.
http://www.signandsight.com/features/577.html

[122]

[135]

[174]

[179]