but the refusal of any discourse at all does not create another type of discourse? the director is refusing to add any "intellectualization" or expression of his rage via his own words, but his own images, how he editted them, assambleged them is not his non-verbal visual discourse of denunciation? I guess my point here is to think why do you see a missing affect in the missing verbal discourse although it seems clear there is an adding affect in the visual discourse...anyways, I'll see you after and ask you to borrow the movie and see it with my own eyes.
rafaq | 16 Feb, 2009 - 12:33 pm | #

Let me be clear... I'm not saying that the affect is missing because the verbal dialogue is missing. I'm saying that there's an affectlessness in the bodies themselves on the screen.

Of course, an added complication is that affectlessness is itself an affect.
Jon | Homepage | 16 Feb, 2009 - 4:11 pm | #

I understand there is a distinction between "pitching in" and exploitation but it makes for an interesting discussion as to what it is. While childhood should be an opportunity to learn, grow and have fun so should adulthood and work that is not a commodity has intrinsic, experiential value for people of all ages.Under capitalism it becomes affectlessness.
troutsky | Homepage | 19 Feb, 2009 - 6:31 am | #

Thanks for the review, Jon. If I had netflix, this would go straight into the queue. I'll have to see if I can get it at my local film, ice cream, coffee joint.
old | 03 May, 2009 - 5:23 am | #

Actually, I don't think it's received a cinematic release yet, let alone going to DVD. I hope that it does, however.
Jon | Homepage | 03 May, 2009 - 11:07 pm | #