Hacker Cinema
Less Than Zero
1987 · Film · 98 min
Directed by Marek Kanievska
A college freshman returns to Los Angeles for Christmas at his ex-girlfriend's request, but discovers that his former best friend has an out-of-control drug habit.
2 neutralfrom 2 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
2 comments on Hacker News
>The problem is that you have absolutely no basis for assuming what you pick up that you think is intended symbolism has anything to do with what the author is trying to convey unless they tell you.
Language is ambiguous, but not THAT ambiguous. People generally understand symbolic cues, unless we're talking about some extreme "avant guard" kind of art.
Most of these clues after all have been honed for millenia, and are part of the cultural landscape.
And if people are at least partially involved in art/literature etc, they learn even more of classic tropes and symbolic use of words (or images, in cinema).
And if the miss a few symbolisms, they can still get others in the same work, and have a general grap of the message. One of the joys with songs/poems/fiction etc is discovering new levels and depth you didn't see at first (e.g. as you gain more experience with life to relate to them, or as you learn some cultural information that helps you decipher a clue).
In the end, it's also up to how good the poet/writer/storyteller is, and how opaque or transparent he wants to make his story.
>People ignore "don't do drugs" not because it's straightforward, but because it is trying to command you to do something without making a persuasive argument why
Not really (from the point I come from). Even combined with a 8 page detailed pamphlet, with what can happen to you, side-effects et al, most young people still sneer at it and ignore it. For one, they think those things don't apply to them (they are industructible, they can control it, etc) and second they aren't cool.
Reasons are the uncoolest things to try to convince teenagers with.
It's when you spice up the story, make it cool, or make it impactful, that they might pay attention and think "hmm, maybe drugs aren't so good after all". That's what drug songs like "Needle and the damage done" can do, or books like "Less Than Zero". But at this point you're into symbolism and artifice too.
I used to feel that way, but not so much anymore. The difference for me is that I think reading good literature or maybe even watching a good film can help make you a better person, depending on how you define "better". Sometimes literature can bring up ethical or philosophical issues: consider how "Antigone" makes you think about the relationship between citizen and state, "Cat's Cradle" discusses the dangers of technology, or "Less Than Zero" sheds light on the alienation and social dysfunction of the wealthy suburban middle class. It's easy to think about the tragedy of child soldiers in Africa, but it wasn't until I read "Beasts Of No Nation" by Uzodinma Iweala that I realized just how horrific things really are. Reading classics like "The Odyssey" or Dante's "Inferno" will help you understand Western culture in general. Certain novels are important from a historical point of view, e.g. "The Jungle" or "Uncle Tom's Cabin." This is one of the reasons I prefer reading to most other forms of entertainment: a movie or a video game can be fun to watch or play, but beyond that, there's usually not much else there.
I'm not suggesting that people only read fiction for self-improvement or to make you better at conversation: there's nothing wrong with reading something for it's own sake. Is reading something for its own sake better than watching a movie or playing a video game for its own sake? Probably not.