340 Koko: A Talking Gorilla

Discuss releases by Criterion and the films on them. Threads may contain spoilers!
Message
Author
User avatar
Gordon
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:03 am

#26 Post by Gordon » Mon Jul 03, 2006 12:38 pm

Walkabout is also interlaced. But Criterion have been consistent over the last, say, oh 300 titles when it comes to transfering and flagging their films progressively, so it's quite suspicious, just like the recent Midnight Cowboy release. Maybe with such a release as Koko, few folks will be bothered, but Holy War will be declared if Seven Samurai comes our way with such defects. 8-[


User avatar
King of Kong
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:32 pm
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

#28 Post by King of Kong » Tue Jul 04, 2006 1:21 am

Gordon McMurphy wrote:Walkabout is also interlaced. But Criterion have been consistent over the last, say, oh 300 titles when it comes to transfering and flagging their films progressively, so it's quite suspicious, just like the recent Midnight Cowboy release. Maybe with such a release as Koko, few folks will be bothered, but Holy War will be declared if Seven Samurai comes our way with such defects. 8-[
In the words of Sgt Slaughter: "You can bet your beard on that one..." This is a disappointment.

User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#29 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:56 pm

One of the things that this doc got me to thinking as I was watching it was the obsessive nature of Dr. Patterson. She has been working on this project for five years (at the point in which this doc had been shot) without a single vacation. Obviously, objectivity has gone out the window at this point. But it got me to thinking about what kind of toll does that kind of dedication take on her personal life? Schroeder never addresses this explicitly but it is something that was sitting in the back of my mind as I watched her act as mother to Koko.

I also had wished that the doc (or an additional extra) had delved into the legal battles Patterson had with the San Fran Zoo over Koko. It's alluded to, I believe, in Gary Indiana's essay but that's it.

User avatar
Tribe
The Bastard Spawn of Hank Williams
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:59 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio
Contact:

#30 Post by Tribe » Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:25 pm

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:One of the things that this doc got me to thinking as I was watching it was the obsessive nature of Dr. Patterson. She has been working on this project for five years (at the point in which this doc had been shot) without a single vacation. Obviously, objectivity has gone out the window at this point.
The thought that crossed my mind as I watched this is that I'm not all that sure that Koko has any more signing ability than I do. It reminds me of that scam several years ago where autistic children were allegedly typing out information, but all it looked like to me was that the kids' "mentors" were doing the typing for them.

Not attempting to equate children and gorillas here...just pointing out that it all appears to be the product of wishful thinking, at best.
Last edited by Tribe on Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#31 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:07 am

Tribe wrote:The thought that crossed my mind as I watched this is that I'm not all that sure that Koko has any more signing ability than I do. It reminds me of that scam several years ago where autistic children were allegedly typing out information, but all it looked like to me was that the kids' "mentos" were doing the typing for them.

Not attempting to equate children and gorillas here...just pointing out that it all appears to be the product of wishful thinking, at best.
Yeah, I thought about that too. I mean, I'm no expert or anything but some of the claims she makes of what Koko can do seemed a little hard to believe but I like that Schroeder films his doc in such a way that he lets you make up your own mind.

Ishmael
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:56 pm

#32 Post by Ishmael » Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:26 am

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:I mean, I'm no expert or anything but some of the claims she makes of what Koko can do seemed a little hard to believe but I like that Schroeder films his doc in such a way that he lets you make up your own mind.
But that's just the problem: he doesn't give you enough information to make up your own mind. How am I supposed to guess what's going on here? There are a lot of complexities to this situation which aren't on the screen. I felt the same way that you and Tribe did, but I chalked it up to Schroeder's incompetence as a documentary filmmaker. I might as well have been watching surveillance cam footage for all the insight his film offered me. Perhaps if he had just asked Patterson a few simple questions. I had the same problem with the zookeeper at the end. I would really like to know why it was so important to him that this gorilla not be educated. Seems like a strange point of view, but he must have some reasons. But did Schroeder ask? Nope, he just let the guy stand there looking stupid. Then Schroeder takes all this shapeless footage and lets it run for 80 minutes. Oh, I guess we can give him some credit for asking about Koko's human rights at the end. Perhaps if he'd actually presented some evidence that Koko was really thinking and talking like a person then he could've actually created the ethical debate he was trying to stir up. As it is, his question is merely a random afterthought. This film deserves a prize for the least compelling use of unique and interesting footage.

User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#33 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Thu Jul 13, 2006 4:25 pm

Ishmael wrote:But that's just the problem: he doesn't give you enough information to make up your own mind. How am I supposed to guess what's going on here? There are a lot of complexities to this situation which aren't on the screen. I felt the same way that you and Tribe did, but I chalked it up to Schroeder's incompetence as a documentary filmmaker. I might as well have been watching surveillance cam footage for all the insight his film offered me. Perhaps if he had just asked Patterson a few simple questions. I had the same problem with the zookeeper at the end. I would really like to know why it was so important to him that this gorilla not be educated. Seems like a strange point of view, but he must have some reasons. But did Schroeder ask? Nope, he just let the guy stand there looking stupid. Then Schroeder takes all this shapeless footage and lets it run for 80 minutes.
You raise some good points here. I don't need to be hand-held through a movie but Schroeder's doc almost veers away to the other end of the spectrum by not giving us enough to work with. In the interview on the DVD, he mentions that originally he was going to do a fictional film about a trainer who helps a gorilla escape from a zoo and that his initial footage of Koko was in service of this idea but he ended up abandoning the idea -- I would imagine once he found out about the legal tussle between Patterson and the Zoo. I would have liked to have seen a doc about that but I imagine he felt that Koko's teachings were more compelling material?

User avatar
Doctor Sunshine
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 10:04 pm
Location: Brain Jail

#34 Post by Doctor Sunshine » Thu Jul 13, 2006 6:10 pm

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:...the legal tussle between Patterson and the Zoo. I would have liked to have seen a doc about that but I imagine he felt that Koko's teachings were more compelling material?
As much as I enjoy legal proceedings, I'm siding with Schroeder on this one. The talking monkey was the right angle.

Ishmael
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:56 pm

#35 Post by Ishmael » Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:04 am

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:In the interview on the DVD, he mentions that originally he was going to do a fictional film about a trainer who helps a gorilla escape from a zoo and that his initial footage of Koko was in service of this idea but he ended up abandoning the idea -- I would imagine once he found out about the legal tussle between Patterson and the Zoo. I would have liked to have seen a doc about that but I imagine he felt that Koko's teachings were more compelling material?
Yes, I would have found that interesting as well. This is where Criterion can be blamed. Schroeder's film would have made a good centerpiece for a bunch of extras that explore all the different dimensions of this situation. Perhaps such a DVD would have been too expensive to produce. Frankly, though, I don't see the point of releasing this film on its own. Hopefully, somebody enjoyed it more than I did.

User avatar
Anthony
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 1:38 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA

#36 Post by Anthony » Fri Jul 14, 2006 1:20 pm

I think this film was only released by Criterion because it was in HVE's pipeline and they could no longer release it due to their buyout/merger with Image Ent. So, Criterion decided to step up and release it. I would bet that it was already digitized and ready for DVD authoring. Image passed on it, so Criterion thought, "what the heck." Hence the non-progressive transfer (very un-Criterion like) and lack of substantial supplements.

Murasaki53
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 2:54 am

#37 Post by Murasaki53 » Sat Jul 15, 2006 10:23 am

A quick query: I am contemplating purchasing this DVD for educational purposes. My students are 13/14 years old, bright and well-motivated. Currently, we look at Animal Rights and Animal Consciousness as part of an introductory course on Ethics.

Some of the people here seem to find this film insubstantial. Is it really that bad or does it feature extracts that could stimulate discussion?

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#38 Post by HerrSchreck » Sat Jul 15, 2006 10:28 am

Tribe wrote:Not attempting to equate children and gorillas here...
Tribe
If you saw my nieghbors' kids you'd freely equate thusly with and with no guilt whatsoever.
Murasaki53 wrote: A quick query: I am contemplating purchasing this DVD for educational purposes. My students are 13/14 years old, bright and well-motivated.
To hell with the little bastards.
Just kidding.

Napoleon
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:55 am

#39 Post by Napoleon » Mon Jul 31, 2006 8:53 am

Murasaki53 wrote:A quick query: I am contemplating purchasing this DVD for educational purposes. My students are 13/14 years old, bright and well-motivated. Currently, we look at Animal Rights and Animal Consciousness as part of an introductory course on Ethics.

Some of the people here seem to find this film insubstantial. Is it really that bad or does it feature extracts that could stimulate discussion?
The film raises lots of questions about ethics and asks a lot of quite substantial questions. I'm not sure how everyone seems to have missed them.
Key point being, and primary bugbear of the Zoo, does KoKo even know that she's a gorilla anymore?

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

#40 Post by zedz » Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:13 pm

Finally watched this, and I thought it was a fine, interesting film. But I have to agree with the previous posters who found this a lacklustre package. The film is crying out for contextualisation, and it's almost inconceivable that Criterion could not access any subsequent material on Koko. The Schroeder interview is short and shallow: we can see that he actually remembers making the film, but precious little else. Deeply unsatisfying and a wasted opportunity.

User avatar
Thomas J.
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 7:32 pm
Location: Monticello

#41 Post by Thomas J. » Thu Feb 07, 2008 2:50 pm

Murasaki53 wrote:A quick query: I am contemplating purchasing this DVD for educational purposes. My students are 13/14 years old, bright and well-motivated. Currently, we look at Animal Rights and Animal Consciousness as part of an introductory course on Ethics.

Some of the people here seem to find this film insubstantial. Is it really that bad or does it feature extracts that could stimulate discussion?
With regard to animal rights: Yes. I came away wondering for the first time where we should draw the line on conducting certain types of scientific research on animals, particularly the research conducted on Koko. Namely, she's taught ASL, and Dr. Patterson freely admits that she thinks she has "people-ized" Koko to an extant that Koko deserves the right to live, for example, which is a right that any traditional human is born with. Logic follows, then, that if Koko has become a person, she has ceased to be a gorilla. Therefore, Patterson has converted a gorilla to a human. That in itself impinges upon a traditional animal's right to remain as such.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot: Say a PhD. student attempts to take a newborn infant and place him/her into a controlled gorilla environment so that this newborn can be raised by the gorillas. First of all, would the human internally become a gorilla, since it perhaps wouldn't mature beyond that of the gorillas? Moreover, is this even an acceptable scientific experiment? If not, why is the flipside acceptable with regard to Koko? Should humans attempt to people-ize non-humans? I think after watching the film, Koko shouldn't be given human rights because lacking Dr. Patterson influence and teachings, Koko wouldn't exhibit human characteristics.

Instead, what really should be the focal point of the research is that the gorillas potentially have the cognitive capability of communicating...or do they? This leads me to my major contention with the framing of the research, which is that the approach to the research shouldn't be with an eye to animal psychology, but to intra-communication as it leads to self-realization. You ask about animal consciousness. Well, even if Koko is self-aware, as indicated by the fact that she acknowledges her appearance as a gorilla rather than a human, Dr. Patterson also argues that Koko shares commanilities with humans due to her influence. Then if Koko is self-aware with regard to her own existence in an introspect sense, it's as a human. After all, Patterson says Koko couldn't go back into the wild ever again and survive. Then, no matter how you slice it, Koko really can't introspect as a traditional animal. Therefore, this study shows that gorillas, as such, can't self-realize. And this is because to do so, they have to self-realize with human communicative methods rather than those freely devised by themselves, and even the first part of this proposition is questionable.

The film presents the material to broach this topic of discussion - how the creation of communicative symbols and signs to reflect upon one's existence marks the separation of man from all other animals - but doesn't directly recognize this kind of approach can be taken to the material. Rather, a little bit of the animal rights / legal aspect is touched upon, and most of the philosophical musings regard whether Koko should be given human rights depending upon whether or not Koko is a human.

I take a communication-centric approach to the material, which I haven't gone into in more detail here because this isn't the place for that sort of thing. But I really appreciate the subject of the film, and am grateful to have seen it, even though where I want to go with the film differs from where the filmmakers want to go.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#42 Post by HerrSchreck » Fri Jun 06, 2008 11:33 am

Producer doing promo for KoKo yuk yuk. YUK indeed.

Incredible, though.

User avatar
Lemmy Caution
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:26 am
Location: East of Shanghai

Re: 340 Koko, A Talking Gorilla

#43 Post by Lemmy Caution » Tue Aug 08, 2017 1:38 pm

Chantek, the orangutan who went to college, dies at 39
Her human trainer also trained Michael who was Koko's younger companion.
Unfortunately after 8 years it became difficult to keep a full-grown orangutan on campus, and Chantek got stuffed into a zoo. Reportedly could sign up to 150 words. Could direct the way from campus to Dairy Queen.
Was part of Ape-Net, the non-human branch of the internet.

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Re: 340 Koko, A Talking Gorilla

#44 Post by Gregory » Tue Aug 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Lemmy Caution wrote:Could direct the way from campus to Dairy Queen.
Routine occurrence around the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga in the '80s: "We're lost again and desperately in need of Peanut Buster Parfaits! I fear we may have been traveling in circles this whole time. Wait, perhaps we're saved: go ask that orangutan for directions."
Was part of Ape-Net, the non-human branch of the internet.
The what now?

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: 340 Koko, A Talking Gorilla

#45 Post by zedz » Tue Aug 08, 2017 4:52 pm

Lemmy Caution wrote:Ape-Net, the non-human branch of the internet.
So that's what they call it.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: 340 Koko: A Talking Gorilla

#46 Post by matrixschmatrix » Tue Aug 08, 2017 8:16 pm

'Branch' eh

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: 340 Koko: A Talking Gorilla

#47 Post by hearthesilence » Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:12 am

This has already been posted in the "Passages" thread but Koko has passed.

Post Reply