My favorite part was them getting all sorts of distressed by the suitcase of cash dropping in the ocean. For a bunch of reds, they sure do like capital
Another part that's my favourite is the way they lecture Clooney on the ethics of class struggle and try to persuade him to join their little clique, only to then order around a maid to comfort them with sandwiches and tea 😂
It has an edge of (state?) surveillance to it. While he seems to be acting with the approval of the meeting organisers, a copy of the photo or photos might well be on the way to FBI headquarters.
The man taking a photo of Clooney's character when he was taking a sandwich is rather unsettling. However, it is reckoned that in the US Communists during this period, as many as one in four was an informer or infiltrator, often for the FBI. The photographer might be one of them. A picture taken by an FBI informer at a meeting in the South in which Martin Luther King was present was later turned into a widely distributed poster - it had a red arrow pointing to King and a caption, "Martin Luther King at Communist meeting".
Man is unitary--a simple economic agent. Man’s institutions are split, expressing contradictions that must be worked through! And they are worked through in a causative, predictable way: history is science. This is the essence of the dialectic.
I know there is some deeper meaning, a next level to this scene. Don't know for sure but i think it is the total history of communism/socialism in one room. I see the passionate revolutionary in the back screaming, the founding father (seems like a pure portrail of Marx or Engels). I swear the guy taking photos is meant to be Walther Benjamin. I might just be wrong there but this movie is just a history lesson of the past 2000 years.
They really missed an opportunity to have Barton Fink as one of the writers. It would all check out, he was based off Clifford Odets who was a Communist sympathizer, Capitol Pictures is the same studio, it would be like Spider Man No Way Home but for Coen Bros fans
CJusticeHappen21 you couldn't be more correct however, to the Communist bolshevik, and to those who ORGANIZED and LEAD that party, as well as the social Democratic party. To those men, economics is history.
Economics is rooted in history and its modes, rather than universal laws, and the organization of economic knowledge can be organized mathematically in a probabilistic manner. Economics IS history, which can be approached through the scientific method. Those people are essentially correct.
socialist and communist economics Are science. there's a reason why planned economies are called scientific socialism. there are many many many variables that all have to be taken into account to provide each person with the means for them to survive. unfortunately, all of that effort is being used in a capitalistic society to actually keep those means to just the rich
David Hume identified the "is/ought" problem. You cannot prove an ought from an is. Because science is founded on observation of a phenomenon and controlled experimentation, science can only ever take place in the present, and cannot comment on the future, as the future is not observable or controllable. This means you cannot logically say that a thing "ought" to be a certain way because of the way it "is" now. In economics this is double-y so, because even in the present you cannot conduct controlled experiments on something as vast and complex as an economy. Economics necessarily exists outside of the domain of science.
@@Jcolinsol You seem to misunderstand the "is/ought" problem. The statement of the thesis is that if someone only has access to factual premises, he cannot logically infer a moral truth. It is specifically a philosophical statement with regards to ethics. Science can predict the future; given a set of initial conditions about a body, I can predict its motion using the laws of physics. Likewise, we can predict the outcomes of chemical reactions from various laws of how the constituents of those reactions behave. If we couldn't predict anything, there would be no point in doing science.
This is the part where I disliked the movie. At a period left orientated writers really struggled to make a buck thanks to McCarthynism, they are portraited as complete buffoons. this is the group Karl Tunberg the screenwriter of Ben Hur belonged too. ( who actually had to write the script under a pseudonim)
The Coens missed a great opportunity - I thought the communists were going to start fighting over the ransom money. But maybe the Coens like communists and didn't want to send them up too much.
They depicted those communists as idealistic, over-educated and naive. In the end, through their unchecked and oddly anti-materialist Faith in Marxist theory, they become the tool of a few USSR spies, whose real motives were unknown to these intellectuals, who were in fact completely detatched from the reality of the international "little guy". While the Coen Brothers' portrayal is interesting, yours boils down to a stereotype anyone could come up with. You're patting yourself on the back for a very banal thought.
the coens were showing that no matter the ideology, there is always a patsy. im glad they shitted a lot on capitalism but im also glad they didnt leave the commies untouched as well.
The Communist infighting and squabbling over terminology and ideology is supposed to mirror the scene of the religious leaders agreeing yet disagreeing on the nature of God. Besides, leftist infighting is funny because it's true.
@Red Baron There were no witches Salem, however contrary to the message of Arthur Millers play, Hollywood and the state department was full of commies. The US communist party was funded by the Soviets therefore anyone who was a member of that party was essentially part of fifth brigade and traitors to the nation McCarthy had every right to hunt down and expose them. The McCarthy hearings were not started by political pressure they were ended by political pressure.
We should always be grateful to the Coen Brothers for unearthing the enormous comedic potential of George Clooney.
And the truth about Hollywood
@@goodstuff8156Just, Hollywood? ;0
@@goodstuff8156 anyone with an education
“What do the Coen Brothers SEE IN HIM?!!!”
Soderbergh probably unearthed it, but the Coens' definitely maximized it
"I've never really been much of a...student of history," he says wearing period-accurate Roman legionary armor.
The part where they are bickering about the details of man/brain/politic mirrors the scene where the religious leaders are arguing about the trinity
I just noticed the dog's name is Engels.
This is an accurate portrayal of a group of communists because they start bickering over the most trivial details of their ideology
Oof
My favorite part was them getting all sorts of distressed by the suitcase of cash dropping in the ocean. For a bunch of reds, they sure do like capital
Another part that's my favourite is the way they lecture Clooney on the ethics of class struggle and try to persuade him to join their little clique, only to then order around a maid to comfort them with sandwiches and tea 😂
The “minutes” but really hit me 😂
…and then communism doesn’t get done.
This whole scene is funny all the way, but the photographer bit KILLS me every time🤣🤣🤣
It has an edge of (state?) surveillance to it. While he seems to be acting with the approval of the meeting organisers, a copy of the photo or photos might well be on the way to FBI headquarters.
The man taking a photo of Clooney's character when he was taking a sandwich is rather unsettling. However, it is reckoned that in the US Communists during this period, as many as one in four was an informer or infiltrator, often for the FBI. The photographer might be one of them. A picture taken by an FBI informer at a meeting in the South in which Martin Luther King was present was later turned into a widely distributed poster - it had a red arrow pointing to King and a caption, "Martin Luther King at Communist meeting".
Man is unitary--a simple economic
agent. Man’s institutions are
split, expressing contradictions
that must be worked through! And
they are worked through in a
causative, predictable way: history
is science. This is the essence of
the dialectic.
I know there is some deeper meaning, a next level to this scene. Don't know for sure but i think it is the total history of communism/socialism in one room. I see the passionate revolutionary in the back screaming, the founding father (seems like a pure portrail of Marx or Engels). I swear the guy taking photos is meant to be Walther Benjamin. I might just be wrong there but this movie is just a history lesson of the past 2000 years.
Well, in a way, I think that's true.
Totally agree. It's absolutely no coincidence either that the old guy has a German accent, as Marx and Engels were German.
Benjamin had committed suicide in 1940 so it isn't him.
Apparently it's Herbert Marcuse (according to the castlist)
I stand corrected. Just that i cannot find similarities in appearance (glasses) and his role of silently taking photographs.
Hail Caesar, The Man Who Wasn’t There, and Barton Fink are among the Coens’ greatest work.
"Tea?" Clooney's character says doubtfully, like he prefers coffee or even something a little stronger.
“The body politic!”
I love that guy. He should have his own movie.
Shut up!!
I love it when they get a quiet and silently panic
jake johnson in the back kills me
They really missed an opportunity to have Barton Fink as one of the writers. It would all check out, he was based off Clifford Odets who was a Communist sympathizer, Capitol Pictures is the same studio, it would be like Spider Man No Way Home but for Coen Bros fans
Zis is ze essence of ze dialectic
Man iz oonitary...
Is it me or is the audio out of sync with the actors?
100%
ECONOMICS!
SHUT UP!
I'm dead
The Body Politic!
3:20 died at that face
I'm a communist and I recognized myself a little too much in the grouch in the corner screaming "Parasites" every five minutes.
@@papaflegaming5368 hi who are you
ummm acktually sweaty commulism killed trillions ;););) yay capitalism yay bootstraps
@@papaflegaming5368 Errr, you seem to misunderstand what capitalism and socialism are.
The screaming communist is David Krumholtz who played Bernard the Elf in _The Santa Claus_... SHUT UP!
Your ideology killed 100 million people in the last century.
3:22 that face
Malibu Marcusean Marxists
Economics is not history is not science. They all interact, but they aren't the same thing.
CJusticeHappen21 you couldn't be more correct however, to the Communist bolshevik, and to those who ORGANIZED and LEAD that party, as well as the social Democratic party. To those men, economics is history.
Economics is rooted in history and its modes, rather than universal laws, and the organization of economic knowledge can be organized mathematically in a probabilistic manner.
Economics IS history, which can be approached through the scientific method. Those people are essentially correct.
socialist and communist economics Are science. there's a reason why planned economies are called scientific socialism. there are many many many variables that all have to be taken into account to provide each person with the means for them to survive. unfortunately, all of that effort is being used in a capitalistic society to actually keep those means to just the rich
David Hume identified the "is/ought" problem. You cannot prove an ought from an is.
Because science is founded on observation of a phenomenon and controlled experimentation, science can only ever take place in the present, and cannot comment on the future, as the future is not observable or controllable. This means you cannot logically say that a thing "ought" to be a certain way because of the way it "is" now.
In economics this is double-y so, because even in the present you cannot conduct controlled experiments on something as vast and complex as an economy. Economics necessarily exists outside of the domain of science.
@@Jcolinsol You seem to misunderstand the "is/ought" problem. The statement of the thesis is that if someone only has access to factual premises, he cannot logically infer a moral truth. It is specifically a philosophical statement with regards to ethics. Science can predict the future; given a set of initial conditions about a body, I can predict its motion using the laws of physics. Likewise, we can predict the outcomes of chemical reactions from various laws of how the constituents of those reactions behave. If we couldn't predict anything, there would be no point in doing science.
This is the part where I disliked the movie. At a period left orientated writers really struggled to make a buck thanks to McCarthynism, they are portraited as complete buffoons.
this is the group Karl Tunberg the screenwriter of Ben Hur belonged too.
( who actually had to write the script under a pseudonim)
commies never talk about central Bank jewish printing
So, was John Millius supposed to be guy standing/sitting behind Clooney?
Probably not. Did you mean Mike Millius?
lol he would only be there to fight the other writers, he is a conservative, dude
LOL naw he was way too young in those days
Those things definitely can be a nuisance, lol. 2A anyone?
The Coens missed a great opportunity - I thought the communists were going to start fighting over the ransom money. But maybe the Coens like communists and didn't want to send them up too much.
They depicted those communists as idealistic, over-educated and naive. In the end, through their unchecked and oddly anti-materialist Faith in Marxist theory, they become the tool of a few USSR spies, whose real motives were unknown to these intellectuals, who were in fact completely detatched from the reality of the international "little guy".
While the Coen Brothers' portrayal is interesting, yours boils down to a stereotype anyone could come up with. You're patting yourself on the back for a very banal thought.
hollywood is full of commies
the coens were showing that no matter the ideology, there is always a patsy. im glad they shitted a lot on capitalism but im also glad they didnt leave the commies untouched as well.
The Communist infighting and squabbling over terminology and ideology is supposed to mirror the scene of the religious leaders agreeing yet disagreeing on the nature of God.
Besides, leftist infighting is funny because it's true.
That would be hilarious. Haha.
Is Michael Moore a member of this club?
McCarthy was portrayed as a nut and a fascist. But in reality, he was a genius.
I have some bad news, you may be a nut.
@Red Baron There were no witches Salem, however contrary to the message of Arthur Millers play, Hollywood and the state department was full of commies. The US communist party was funded by the Soviets therefore anyone who was a member of that party was essentially part of fifth brigade and traitors to the nation McCarthy had every right to hunt down and expose them. The McCarthy hearings were not started by political pressure they were ended by political pressure.
@@Reaganator2 yikes bad take
McCarthy was portrayed as a nut and a fascist because he was a nut and a fascist.
you don't fight ideas by silencing them, or anything that resembles them, you just make yourself more of a communist
live footage from the WGA negotiating during the strike
Beeman, Bo Munk, Minkowski, Fischler, and Joel Glicker