a man who wants nothing is invincible.
 

....still, how the fuck does he get what he wants, then??? :confused:

Perhaps invisibility is to take a holiday in nothingness?

It's like in that movie Angus, George C. Scott talks about Superman, how he isn't brave. Superman isn't brave because he's invincible. If you want nothing, what's the point of living?

he wants nothing.

He buys them. :rolleyes:

desire is the cause of all unhappiness

martyrdom is pretty popular these days.

hey, yes?
buddha kerouac.

i also noticed that desire can bring some happiness.
thats when you get something you desire.

like, right now, some dinner.

not invisible


INVINCIBLE!

but this only applies to men, i see now.

what if the desire is to be invincible?

Beans on toast? :D

Aw, shit, you're right. I misread. I prefer my misreading, though.

if someone "has no want for _______," does that mean that they have _______ in surplus and are satiated or that they have no _______, but are not frustrated by their lack of _______ because they have no desire for _______?


...does this phrase mean simultaneously itself and its opposite re: have/have-not?

a man that has everything has everything to lose and a man who temporarily feels that he wants nothing might temporarily feel invincinble.

so it's like a video game, then? you get the invincibility, you grab some arbitrary item that you no longer want but that you wrote down on a wishlist before you became invincible by renouncing desire for material possesions and worldly pleasures, and then when the invincibilty wears off you have what you want...? is that the idea behind becoming a monk?

A man who desires nothing ain't no man.

Perhaps desires, like emotions, are animal artifacts, so those who desire really haven't reached that higher kharmic level of 'human'.

is this marcus aurelius or some sort of ersatz zen? (i mean the original question of this thread-- the rest i haven't read yet)

I think one of the most unforgivable forms of human ego is the belief that we're anything more than animals.

ha. no classical philosophy here... in Once upon a Time in Mexico, Enrique Iglesias asks Antonio Banderas why they are doing this if they're not getting paid. Banderas says "A man who wants nothing is invincible," and then steps out from behind cover to blow away all the bad guys.

this struck me as an intellectually indefensible position if the only reason for seeking invincibilty is to make getting what you want easier...

^^ bwuahahhahah

oh, that's the crappy mainstream version of 'el mariachi", isn't it? if so, i'd bet money that it's ripped off from a bad dubbing of a kungfu movie and the bastardized origins are buddhist---some kind of zen story-- there are plenty of those around.

but the logic in this one, of course, is utter crap as you point out. if he wanted nothing he would not have wanted to shoot the extras. for bastardized orientalism, "ghost dog" did it much much better.

ghost dog knew it was bastardized! I love that movie!

that gangster rappin Flava Flav!

all the el mariachi movies were made by robert rodriguez/troublemaker studios, they only became more 'mainstream' as rodriguez became more 'mainstream.' ...still how mainstream is a dude who resigned from the Writer's Guild after making this movie and later resigned from the Director's Guild so he could work with Frank Miller?

Once Upon a Time in Mexico is a very different feel than El Mariachi or Desperado, it was shot digital and was sort of a test case for the methods used in sin city. for most of the movie, they used foam rubber prop guns and then added flash, smoke, blood, bullet holes in post production.

rodriguez also continues his "one man film crew" method on this film - he produced, wrote, directed, operated the camera, did the editing, wrote and performed the music, and also did the production design, whatever that is... at any rate, it's not his best film and it's a shoot-em-up for sure, but rodriguez absolutely deserves to be called "the rebel without a crew." he shot this in under a month from a 45 page script for less than 30 million... sure he made el mariachi for like 500 dolllars, but he's hardly become mainstream as he's grown into larger budgets (still pocket change in hollywood)...

this made me want burritos.

here you go

they are very cute indeed.

word for the wise: never fuck with a wild burro. they can smash coyotes into fur-pancakes with their back legs, their tasty tasty back legs.

Honestly....I didn't even enjoy el mariachi that much...

This is retarded. If he wants nothing then I'm sure he doesn't have a bullet proof vest or any kind of protection and would easily be shot/and or stabbed to death.

not that i'm a huge fan of logic, either.

Put on wreaths of ivy, take up the thyrsus and do not be surprised if tigers and panthers lie down, purring and curling round your legs!!!1111

oh, i totally admire his production methods and his financial independene from holly-wood and he's got ballz of steel, no doubt. his "10 minute film school" is one of my favorite websites of all times. hats off to the fucker on that regard.

but i really think he watered down el mariachi and made it extra-cheezy in order to make money to buy & equip his garage studio-- his day job, of sorts. shark boy and spy kids or something? ayayay, the terror-- again, day job, or parental indulgence, who knows.

i did like sin city though...

orpheus schmorpheus had no hand in el mariachi i'm afraid!