Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by walrus01 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

walrus01

> Jodorowsky

I recently got a copy of this and could only come to the conclusion that they were doing a lot of drugs in the 1970s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holy_Mountain_(1973_film)

View on HN

If you think Jodorowsky's Dune was weird, you should see his Holy Mountain[1]

Also, millions of people did a lot of drugs in that time, but there is only one Jodorowsky. Drugs alone can not explain his vision.

[1] - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qmR0vi0ifzE

Yes. That's the movie the comment you responded to was talking about.

Did you even read the comment before responding?

I see this kind of the comment--legible, complete sentences, no grammatical errors, but otherwise totally missing some basic element in what they're replying to--from time to time, generally only on HN, and I wonder if they're edge cases from some kind of bot school.

Did you have to be rude about it?

Parent obviously read the comment (which doesn't mention any particular movie in its text), but didn't follow the link, assuming it was about Dune (which was the context that started the subthread).

Jodorowsky has said he’s only taken psychedelics once. There’s also overt criticism of drug use and dependence throughout his body of work, including in Holy Mountain itself, so that seems like a self-limiting conclusion to come to.

> only taken psychedelics once

And said that it was the experience of limitation and impotence - "what if I now had to react in front of an emergency".

Holy Mountain is hilarious. I always think about the scene where the President's advisor says they need to kill millions of people to save the economy lol

Truth is stranger than fiction.

I think that was pretty widely accepted? Not sure if total drug use was higher than it is now but especially hallucinogenic drugs were much more popular than they are today.

I don't think the colourful styles of the 60s/70s were a coincidence either, no :)

By the way: the very author of "Golden Brown" stated that creativity is an effect of lucidity - intoxication limits it.

"Golden Brown" is a riddle: how many individuals may have thought (as the original poster supposes) that it takes «lot of drugs» to compose it?

(Of course, "riddles", "artistic work" and "non-literal descriptions" remain distinct. Though for all of them, in general, if you have to suppose a reduction to "fantasies" you probably have not understood them.)

He deplored with disgust that he sometimes had to work with "junkies" - so, they were frequent.

I think it's not uncommon for recreational psychedelic users to have a disdain and aversion to actual junkies, if using the 1970s sense of the word, would literally mean heroin addicts. Big dividing line between the two sorts of drug users.

I cannot remember if he used 'junkie' or 'drogado' or other terms when referring to those actors that had been a dangerous nuisance in the filming process. Surely he was fuming and rightly, commonsensically contemptuous remembering the episodes (one almost killed him and left scars).

Whatever the drug, it is the exact opposite of what that work stands for. The "sleeping intoxicated bum" is the very beginning.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com