Pinocchio

HEGE Series

Rabbit-Hole 01

• Humanity

  • Culture

    • Games
    • Food
    • Art
    • Music
    • Hollywood
    • Adam Curtis
    • American Adam
    • Modernism
    • Materialism

      • Christmas
  • Ethnicity

    • African
    • Asian
    • Celtic-British
    • First Peoples
    • Franco-Roman
    • Grecian-Balkan
    • Semitic
    • Slavic
    • Spanish-Latino
    • Teutonic

      • Exulanten (Exiles)
  • Racism
  • Human Body

    • Pinocchio
    • Addiction
    • Desire
    • Identity
  • Language

    • Reason
  • Personality
  • Relationship

    • Divinity
    • Creation
    • Sexuality
    • Marriage
    • Family
    • Community

      • Intentional Community
      • The Bruderhof
  • Spirituality

    • Oral Tradition
    • Philosophy
    • Psychology
    • Heterodoxy

      • Catholicism

        • Secularism
      • Protestantism
    • Orthodoxy

      • Christian Apologetics

        • Gnosticism
        • Western Esotericism
      • Iconography
      • Monasticism
      • Truth
      • Love
      • Beauty
      • Challenges
      • Lazar Puhalo

Real Person or blockhead wooden puppet (propagandized "useful idiot")?

The Person in the Orthodox Tradition — Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos
— Vlachos states that humans are only Real Persons when in comm-union with their Divine Creator who created them in His Image & Likeness, who is Himself a comm-union of Three Persons in One Godhead.
Political elite propagandists beware! Such Real Persons are united to Truth Himself and therefore immune to deceptive delusion of your Big Lies.

See — The Big Myth (Big Lie), Maximus the Confessor

Pinocchio | Wikipedia]
The Real Story of Pinocchio Tells No Lies
Discover the Italian Roots of Pinocchio: An Iconic Italian Tale
Pinocchio (2002 film) | Wikipedia — Film Clip
Pinocchio (2019 film) | Wikipedia — Film Clip
The Adventures of Pinocchio by Carlo Collodi
The Persistent Puppet: Pinocchio's Heirs in Contemporary Fiction and Film

Pinocchio Goes Postmodern: Perils of a Puppet in the United States
In the first full-length study in English of Carlo Collodi's The Adventures of Pinocchio, the authors show how the checkered history of the puppet illuminates social change from the pre World War One era to the present. The authors argue that most Americans know a trivialized, diluted version of the tale, one such source is Disney's perennial classic. The authors also discover that when adults are introduced to the 'real' story, they often deem it as unsuitable for children. Placing the puppet in a variety of contexts, the authors chart the progression of this childhood tale that has frequently undergone dramatic revisions to suit America's idea of children's literature.

Happily Ever After: Fairy Tales, Children, and the Culture Industry
How have the relatively new media of film and television affected traditional storytelling and stories, particularly fairy tales? Zipes is concerned with the "commodification" of fairy tales, a la Disney, where the films are designed more to sell a line of toys and other products than to present a story to an audience. Zipes traces the use of fairy tales in the acculturation process through various time periods, emphasizing the importance of being cognizant of the process itself.

Pinocchio & Christianity

Pinocchio and Religion
Will The Live-Action Pinocchio Capture Story's Original Biblical Imagery?
Will The Real Pinocchio Please Stand Up!
Pinocchio and Christian Parallels
The Moral Power of Pinocchio
The Gnostic Pinocchio

Subversion by Disney & A.I.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence | Wikipedia — Trailer, The Flesh Fair

Kubrick, A.I., and the Problem of Pinocchio
Kubrick always faced and never successfully resolved a tension within his story between science and myth, between a narrative of scientific orientation (humanity evolving into machines) and a narrative of fantasy and myth (a machine-boy who becomes human).

Growing nowhere: Pinocchio subverted in Spielberg's A.I. Artificial Intelligence
What Collodi's novel celebrates is self-actualization in the context of community, a process that involves finding one's way imperfectly in a most decidedly imperfect world....
Collodi's puppet learns and grows until he becomes a real boy. Not so in Disney's film...Disney and his sources created a new image of Pinocchio-as-child: "In this new imagery no longer is the child's goal to grow up, mature, and transform. Rather, its goal is to be a good child, a loved and commended child, a child who enhances Family Harmony and promotes Family Solidarity. Its goal is to continue as a child!". Disney's puppet's purposeful non-growth means that he never develops individual initiative or judgment. The ideology of the film requires that the child not question received ideology. As Jack Zipes writes in Happily Ever After: Fairy Tales, Children and the Culture Industry, "Pinocchio will aim to please and will repress his desires and wishes first and foremost that his father is happy. Such a boy is easily manipulated for the good of the country, the good of the corporation, and the good of the Disney studio"....
If Collodi's Pinocchio grew ad hoc, Disney's was the result of a premeditated vision and a well-conceived marketing plan. That any differences between his film and Collodi's book are intentional is easily proven. Richard Wunderlich observes that, "It is clear that Disney was conscientious in his endeavor to know Collodi's Pinocchio: the Studio purchased several copies of the novel in both Italian and various English translations, as well as the plays by Remo Bufano and Adams T. Rice. Furthermore, Disney contracted to have his own translation written by Bianca Majolie (a staff member)". Unlike the journeyman freelancer Collodi, who accepted the invitation to write Pinocchio as just another writer's gig, Disney was aiming for a blockbuster. As Wunderlich tells it, "Drawing on the great popularity of his existing cartoon characters, audience familiarity with his studio name, and the tactics already learned and used to merchandise his creations in myriad ways, Disney launched a market saturation campaign to attract audiences for the upcoming film". In this respect, he is a precursor of Spielberg rather than an heir to Collodi....
[A.I.] David's inherent inability to mature marks the essential difference between A.I. and Collodi's novel; in fact, that this feature has been consciously built into him inverts completely Collodi's themes of sound child mentoring and mutual sacrifice. The scope, if not the character, of villainy is greater in A.I. than in The Adventures of Pinocchio, but David's range of options is nothing like Pinocchio's because he has been built to be a toy, an intelligent toy, but a toy nonetheless. There are two types of Mecha or robot in A.I.: those that do work and those that give pleasure; both are selfless servants. David is the latter, though, unfortunately for him, he has a self. As a number of commentators have pointed out, there are no decent human characters whatsoever in A.I. That harsh judgment seems reasonable given that the humans not only wreck the earth, but they also create a mechanical race that they exploit, torture and kill....
A.I. reinforces a theme often expressed in SF [sci-fi] stories about artificial people: all too often, humans, freed from the moral restraints prescribed (though not necessarily followed) in human relationships, will exploit androids unethically. In one of the classics of the genre, Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, a novel which shares theme and to a large extent setting with A.I. (that is, a world ruined by people), a snippet from a television ad appeals to the perverse needs of the audience: "--duplicates the halcyon days of the pre-Civil War Southern States! Either as body servants or tireless field hands, the custom-tailored humanoid robot--designed specially for YOUR UNIQUE NEEDS, FOR YOU AND YOU ALONE"....
By likening androids to American slaves, Dick is suggesting that the tendency to use others predates the invention of robots and is, in fact, as old as coercive behavior itself, which must be very old indeed since slavery is such an ancient human institution....
Though A.I.'s humans are detestable, some of its pseudo humans are not. Gigolo Joe protects David and even pilots him to Manhattan, a very dangerous act considering that it is a Mecha-free zone and he is a fugitive. Teddy the Supertoy truly loves David and has the sentimentality (and, it turns out, the foresight) to save the lock of hair that David clips from Mommy. The tradition of robots exhibiting behavior that is more humane than that of the humans who made them is common in SF, the most popularly known examples occurring in Isaac Asimov's robot stories and in the "person" of Lt. Commander Data of Star Trek: the Next Generation. Because they are imprinted via programming, Asimov's humanitarian Three Laws of Robotics have tended to be more powerful than the Ten Commandments that free-willed humans violate with impunity, but programmed or not, they have contributed to SF's many positive robot role models, up to and including the evolved Mechas that appear at the end of A.I. In fact, one of the most important elements in the more human than humans robots is that they appear to transcend their programming (or actually do transcend it), so that their actions are clearly laudable choices rather than programmed reflexes....
Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics require absolutely that robots subordinate any ego that they might have to the needs of humans. Fictional robots in this tradition may be created in the image of humans, but without the human penchant for egotistical behavior--what the Dalai Lama, a man who might be said to preach a human version of Asimov's laws, calls "an exaggerated self-centeredness" (Dalai Lama 4) incompatible with human happiness. If Asimov's robots and their descendents have the advantage of knowing in whose image and for what purpose they were created, humans do not necessarily have the same advantage....
When asked in the opening scene by a Black colleague (and who would appreciate the moral quandary more than a descendent of slaves?) whether it is ethical to create a robot-boy whose sole purpose is to love a human unconditionally and forever, he answers (with an ominous roll of thunder in the background), "Didn't God create Adam to love him?"...
This heavy-handed example of hubris shows what in this film damns the human race. Professor Hobby, like Victor Frankenstein before him, believes he can play God; so too do all of the humans who have contributed, consciously or not, to the global warming that in A.I. dooms life on the planet. In A.I. humans have squandered Eden and made a mockery of the stewardship which they have interpreted as God-given dominion and license....
David's obsession with his unreality is the core of the film; the underground world of Rouge City is the place where technology and the Dionysian meet. Martin's cruelty, the Flesh Fair, and the Mecha body parts dumping so reminiscent of Nazi atrocities are evidence that "when manipulated by humans--adults or children--toys embody all the temptations and responsibilities of power." Finally and most importantly for Professor Hobby and A.I., "when toys come alive as beings created by humans (usually male), they replicate 'divine' creation and imply vital possibilities for human creativity while arousing concomitant anxiety about human competition with the divine. These creations also threaten human hegemony". Professor Hobby, despite his Geppetto-like vest, is what Kuznets calls the "bad toy maker." Imagine the scene in which David is provoked to violence when he returns to his maker's lab and is addressed by a perfect duplicate of himself as you read Kuznets' description: "the atmosphere that surrounds the bad toy maker can make the toy shop a fiercely threatening place to be". As soon as they are endowed with sentience and self-consciousness, both robots and toys become us, even when we choose to ignore this fact. To be a plaything is to be objectified; to be a self-conscious plaything is to be abused....
Since it is very clear in the film that humans are directly responsible for doing themselves in and for taking every other species down with them, the robots' nostalgia for the human past does not make a whole lot of sense, especially since these mechanical beings seem capable of a depth of feeling that no human in the film ever shows. We are told that humans had "spirit," some ineffable quality or faculty that robots lack, yet the evolved Mechas form a post-human just community that compares favorably with Collodi's just community and that contrasts vividly with the out of control selfishness and irresponsibility of their human forebears....In this respect, A.I. is consistent with what Brian Aldiss said in a 1997 interview in Wired (quoted on "The Kubrick Site") was Kubrick's belief that androids would "'be an improvement over the human race'"....
Collodi's Pinocchio is not a utopian novel, but by positing a world in which responsible boyhood and adulthood are possible, it distinguishes itself from works like A.I., in which maturation is purposely and systematically denied. Ironically, the production schedule for A.I. would have been more leisurely had it been filmed in a world where growing up is impossible. According to Dustin Putman, the film was shot in 20 weeks rather than a year because Haley Joel Osmet was maturing too fast for comfort....
A.I.'s disturbing and somewhat incongruous conclusion marks it as a dystopia of childhood, a world in which perpetual childhood leads to endless frustration....

[P]aternalistic totalitarianism treats everyone as if they were children and treats children as chattel.

PINOCCHIO Trailer (2020)