Fair enough. I take that to be an issue of managing different audiences when creating a movie that's basically an art film but was marketed to the masses. Do you think you'd feel differently if it had a more restricted and sophisticated audience?

Which made the movie ultimately not really about freedom struggles, or not really about their political/social role. More about the extremities of humanity that can be involved in them and also just using these movements as a metaphor for disillusion and alienation

But does it aim at verisimilitude? I read it as intentionally fantastical. Totally agreed about fetishization in the first half of the movie, but I also read that at at least partially intentional since a lot of the motivating drama in the second part is about the aftermath of that fetishization?

Curb is just as emotionally manipulative and harder to watch if cringe and bad acting hurts you more than melodrama

It’s his best work. Just the right level of insane

I think the Greeks had a term for that

Of course, the right wing had been attacking universities before that--Red Scares, attempts to drum out progressive economists in the 1910s and 20s, etc--but by the 1960s they had basically lost bc of expertise-worshiping consensus & military funding. Protests disrupted exactly that

Yes, but the fundamental break was the 1960s. Student protests--first around civil rights, then free speech, then Vietnam--rent universities apart internally and made it much easier to attack them from the right externally (w FBI collaboration). It opened up new questions that couldn't be resolved

I mean, canceling all of them for all time was never on the table. Administering his forward-looking programs would have been even more complicated! (I’ve got a coauthored piece coming out arguing that’s one reason they couldn’t have succeeded even without change)

Totally. That's not now law-and-econ achieved dominance!

bsky.app/profile/look...

hardest part is to avoid making a stinkface and sarcastic asides when you're describing the standard explanation

We love to see it.

Does Bowman have a response to the very obvious concerns that every bank regulatory scholar is articulating or is she just resting on the old "red tape holds back valuable innovation"?

Cheers.