The Name of the Rose
Lauren Brooks
Books are an amazing gift. I look back and focus in on some of the amazing scenes from the libraries and I am amazed. I know exactly what Sean Connery’s character was feeling the moment he stepped into the library, amazement and wonder were clearly shown on his face. I love books and I think that knowing how to read is one of the best gifts that I have ever received, and having the privilege to read what I want and when I want is one of the best feelings in the world.
The lay out of the library as a labyrinth is really amazing and spectacular image that the director portrays well by showing the monks running around and around, when he states they used the same room to portray the library in the majority of the scenes. The Library is a place that contains so much knowledge and I am a firm believer of a corny saying that books can take you anywhere. It really is true, from a mystery in the big city, to a romance at the beach, to learning how to cook real Italian or your favorite fairy tale from the woods, books can make all of these places come alive in your imagination. The library in this movie makes Sean Connery’s character come alive the moment he steps into the library and gets taking back to Ancient Greece when he begins to read the works of Socrates.
The other parts of this movie were really intense and somewhat graphic for me to grasp, but I will always remember the pivotal scene of the monks finally seeing the library for the first time and the pain he felt as he watched all of the books burn to the ground.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Rent
Rent
Lauren Brooks
I freakin’ love Rent. I will preface this blog by saying that I pride myself on knowing the majority of the words and scenes from this movie and anyone who has happened to be around Amanda and I at the same time can attest to this fact. I will also state the fact that I am sure the play is way better than the movie (even though I have never seen the play), but the movie is a close second I am sure. There are so many things that I love about this movie, the music, the characters, the dancing, the message, and the actors are amazing.
It’s hard to pick a main theme from the movie to discuss, but I think the one that means the most to me are the important lyrics written by Jonathon Larson. My favorite song has to be La Vie Bohème. It’s what the whole movie is all about, their culture, their ideals, and everything that they stand for. It is also a real turning point in the movie when two characters start a relationship.
I also think it is important to show the very faithful and loving homosexual relationship played by the two characters Angel and Collins. They both are very in love and Collins was crushed when Angel slowly deteriorated due to having AIDS. The funeral scene when Collins sings to Angel always makes me cry no matter what. It’s a powerful scene that reminds us that love is powerful. Collins took care of Angel all the way to the end of his life and even cares for him after his death. I want to have someone love me that way and I want someone to care for me when I am that sick and I want to take care of someone that I love when they are sick. This movie inspires me to be a better friend and a better person in the different kinds of relationships that I have and I hope it inspires other people as well.
Lauren Brooks
I freakin’ love Rent. I will preface this blog by saying that I pride myself on knowing the majority of the words and scenes from this movie and anyone who has happened to be around Amanda and I at the same time can attest to this fact. I will also state the fact that I am sure the play is way better than the movie (even though I have never seen the play), but the movie is a close second I am sure. There are so many things that I love about this movie, the music, the characters, the dancing, the message, and the actors are amazing.
It’s hard to pick a main theme from the movie to discuss, but I think the one that means the most to me are the important lyrics written by Jonathon Larson. My favorite song has to be La Vie Bohème. It’s what the whole movie is all about, their culture, their ideals, and everything that they stand for. It is also a real turning point in the movie when two characters start a relationship.
I also think it is important to show the very faithful and loving homosexual relationship played by the two characters Angel and Collins. They both are very in love and Collins was crushed when Angel slowly deteriorated due to having AIDS. The funeral scene when Collins sings to Angel always makes me cry no matter what. It’s a powerful scene that reminds us that love is powerful. Collins took care of Angel all the way to the end of his life and even cares for him after his death. I want to have someone love me that way and I want someone to care for me when I am that sick and I want to take care of someone that I love when they are sick. This movie inspires me to be a better friend and a better person in the different kinds of relationships that I have and I hope it inspires other people as well.
Episode Eight Decalogue
Episode Eight
Lauren Brooks
The best reoccurring frame in this movie is the crooked picture, hands down. I love that it’s always crooked and fixing it has become a part of her routine just like changing the flowers and getting the mail. Although I think the story is really interesting, I felt that the movie lacked something that I couldn’t really put my finger on. It was a little hard to follow the story and figure out the person who really bared false witness against whom. In the beginning it seemed really silly that someone might try to use their faith as a reason for not trying to help someone; especially during WWII but at the same time, it’s hard to know what people were feeling at that time.
No one can really deny the irony of the lady being an ethics professor or when she insists on her staying the night at her house. It’s like the first time she was denied that privilege, but now it is being extended to her again. I did think that the scene where the lady was lost in the alley at the house was too dark of a scene for this movie. It was very scary and in your face kind of scene that I wasn’t expecting for this episode. It seemed a little too intense, the old lady was freaking out when the lady was missing and the young lady was happy to watch from the shadows as she continues to look for her and basically freaks out to the point of knocking on stranger’s doors (and some sketchy strangers at that, lol) late at night to look for her. I guess the director wanted to portray the symbolism of having lost that girl and not knowing weather or not she survived. But in the end it seemed to dark. I just expected a better story and a better ending to the non-dramatic story line.
Lauren Brooks
The best reoccurring frame in this movie is the crooked picture, hands down. I love that it’s always crooked and fixing it has become a part of her routine just like changing the flowers and getting the mail. Although I think the story is really interesting, I felt that the movie lacked something that I couldn’t really put my finger on. It was a little hard to follow the story and figure out the person who really bared false witness against whom. In the beginning it seemed really silly that someone might try to use their faith as a reason for not trying to help someone; especially during WWII but at the same time, it’s hard to know what people were feeling at that time.
No one can really deny the irony of the lady being an ethics professor or when she insists on her staying the night at her house. It’s like the first time she was denied that privilege, but now it is being extended to her again. I did think that the scene where the lady was lost in the alley at the house was too dark of a scene for this movie. It was very scary and in your face kind of scene that I wasn’t expecting for this episode. It seemed a little too intense, the old lady was freaking out when the lady was missing and the young lady was happy to watch from the shadows as she continues to look for her and basically freaks out to the point of knocking on stranger’s doors (and some sketchy strangers at that, lol) late at night to look for her. I guess the director wanted to portray the symbolism of having lost that girl and not knowing weather or not she survived. But in the end it seemed to dark. I just expected a better story and a better ending to the non-dramatic story line.
The Seventh Seal
The Seventh Seal
Lauren Brooks
Despite the age of this movie I really enjoyed the questioning aspect of the knight. He was so conflicted internally with what would happen after his death that he was willing to play a game of chess with death to prolong his time on Earth to figure out the answer. I can not imagine knowing that I was going to die as soon as I finished a game of chess.
I think in each of us there is a little a bit of the knight and a little bit of the squire. I think the majority of people are afraid of death or dying, it is a time when beliefs, values and faith really play out. The knight is so unsure of what happens after death and really wants a guarantee that the choice in makes in life will be the best one for him in the afterlife. I especially love that the way the director chooses to portray death in this movie.
At this time period, death was all around with the outbreak of the black plague and in the movie he was seen constantly taking people. In the movie he seemed to play a neutral role in the afterlife and it was something that you hardly ever see in movies these days. Usually death is full of negativity about the afterlife and only comes when after death will be someplace similar to hell. Death takes his time with the knight and even offers to prolong the knight’s death with a chess game. The whole time the chess game is going on the knight ponders over the options of life after death, but gets no where with Death in the end. Finally Death comes for them all and they are able to face Death head on. I think the knight finally realizes that faith is a huge part of life after death no matter what you believe happens. At some point you have to take the leap and the chess game was just his way of trying to prolong that leap.
Eventually we all die, it’s just a fact of life and we have to make a decision about how we feel about the mystery of life and death, because I don’t know about you but I don’t play chess,.
Lauren Brooks
Despite the age of this movie I really enjoyed the questioning aspect of the knight. He was so conflicted internally with what would happen after his death that he was willing to play a game of chess with death to prolong his time on Earth to figure out the answer. I can not imagine knowing that I was going to die as soon as I finished a game of chess.
I think in each of us there is a little a bit of the knight and a little bit of the squire. I think the majority of people are afraid of death or dying, it is a time when beliefs, values and faith really play out. The knight is so unsure of what happens after death and really wants a guarantee that the choice in makes in life will be the best one for him in the afterlife. I especially love that the way the director chooses to portray death in this movie.
At this time period, death was all around with the outbreak of the black plague and in the movie he was seen constantly taking people. In the movie he seemed to play a neutral role in the afterlife and it was something that you hardly ever see in movies these days. Usually death is full of negativity about the afterlife and only comes when after death will be someplace similar to hell. Death takes his time with the knight and even offers to prolong the knight’s death with a chess game. The whole time the chess game is going on the knight ponders over the options of life after death, but gets no where with Death in the end. Finally Death comes for them all and they are able to face Death head on. I think the knight finally realizes that faith is a huge part of life after death no matter what you believe happens. At some point you have to take the leap and the chess game was just his way of trying to prolong that leap.
Eventually we all die, it’s just a fact of life and we have to make a decision about how we feel about the mystery of life and death, because I don’t know about you but I don’t play chess,.
What I want
What I want
Lauren Brooks
I was discussing this class with a friend the other day and talking about the really weird movies that we had the privilege of watching in our movies class. I told her about the difficulty I had understanding some of the movies and their plots and what they were trying to express to the viewers. I was telling her that I have basically learned that European films are all about telling you the issue and letting you decide and figure out part of the plot. I used the example of Midrash in the Decalogue series. She has never seen the films, but quickly understood what I was trying to explain with the questioning aspect I feel like a lot of these films convey. She quickly got exasperated with the intense questions that these films bring up. For instance questioning the aspect of the 10 commandments, what does thou shalt not murder mean. How do we interpret that in our everyday lives’, what does that mean for soldiers, for the death penalty, for accidental deaths? It’s hard to make these decisions, but sometimes like my friend was telling me you just need someone to take a stance, make an answer, and decide what it really means. It’s tiring after a while to constantly answer these unanswerable questions, and movies, books, and music should help us to answer these questions not add millions more to the list. Sometimes it just becomes over whelming with all of these questions and we need a movie that makes us forget (good ole’ American slapstick humor) or a movie that helps us to answer some of these questions (movies from a utopian society). Sometimes its nice to have a movie to take you away from these questions.
Lauren Brooks
I was discussing this class with a friend the other day and talking about the really weird movies that we had the privilege of watching in our movies class. I told her about the difficulty I had understanding some of the movies and their plots and what they were trying to express to the viewers. I was telling her that I have basically learned that European films are all about telling you the issue and letting you decide and figure out part of the plot. I used the example of Midrash in the Decalogue series. She has never seen the films, but quickly understood what I was trying to explain with the questioning aspect I feel like a lot of these films convey. She quickly got exasperated with the intense questions that these films bring up. For instance questioning the aspect of the 10 commandments, what does thou shalt not murder mean. How do we interpret that in our everyday lives’, what does that mean for soldiers, for the death penalty, for accidental deaths? It’s hard to make these decisions, but sometimes like my friend was telling me you just need someone to take a stance, make an answer, and decide what it really means. It’s tiring after a while to constantly answer these unanswerable questions, and movies, books, and music should help us to answer these questions not add millions more to the list. Sometimes it just becomes over whelming with all of these questions and we need a movie that makes us forget (good ole’ American slapstick humor) or a movie that helps us to answer some of these questions (movies from a utopian society). Sometimes its nice to have a movie to take you away from these questions.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
amy- Finale or Finally?
I think the course Sacred Communication is an interesting concept. Typically, I enjoy European film. However, watching Kierslowski week after week takes a tole on one's psyche. It really took me a while to get used to the constant barrage of depressing images. Like most, I am very affected by what I see. I tend to think about things much later and allow it to hit me at the core of my being. This can be a good thing, but can also be detrimental after watching traitors, suicidal lovers, murderers and all types of sins. For me, it is never just "analytical." To allow my thoughts to dwell in such darkness can be a dangerous process, since I do indeed tend to feel most strongly. Towards the end of the class, I started to be able to disconnect myself from the harsh nature of the films, so that I could fully understand what Kierslowski is trying to say.
This is mainly for Kieslowski's films though. The other types of European films I really enjoyed. Wings of Desire is quite possibly one of the best displays of cinematic genius I have seen in a long time. I also loved tapping into a small part of the European thought-processes through their films. I think that American film should take a hint from European film instead of putting out shoddily done scripts that could have been taken from the other replicas.
Learning how to extract the meanings from films is a valuable tool that I am glad to have improved upon. We are fed so many images by the media that it is important to really understand what they are trying to tell us.
This is mainly for Kieslowski's films though. The other types of European films I really enjoyed. Wings of Desire is quite possibly one of the best displays of cinematic genius I have seen in a long time. I also loved tapping into a small part of the European thought-processes through their films. I think that American film should take a hint from European film instead of putting out shoddily done scripts that could have been taken from the other replicas.
Learning how to extract the meanings from films is a valuable tool that I am glad to have improved upon. We are fed so many images by the media that it is important to really understand what they are trying to tell us.
amy- We All Play Chess
Death follows us wherever we go. I believe this is because it is the greatest adventure and mystery we have on earth. Everyone skirts around the issue. Celebrities do not want to contemplate getting older, so they spend absurd amounts of money to try and stay young. Thoughtful singers try and reconcile the mystery with bravado. Soldiers brave wars living in death’s shadow every day. Ingmar Bergman, as director of the Seventh Seal, attempts to work out his own struggles with death through his art. His musings on death were probably the most thought-provoking of all movies we watched. I was fascinated and yet horrified at the inevitable fate of all the characters. Even from the start of the film, the idea of the protagonist dying is evident. The viewer sees his game of chess with death and sees that it can only end badly. Still the protagonist struggles on through life. The most horrifying image in the film is the girl that is burnt at the stake. She is thought to be evil and everyone is afraid of her. Through excellent acting, the girl is able to convey the ways that people believe the role society gives them. This is what saddened me. She believed she was irredeemable. It is a horrifying picture Bergman presents us with. Bergman also fascinated me with the ways that he conveyed the different approaches of humanity to death. The ending of the film was grand. Each person faces death in completely different ways. I can see many people I know in each of the characters. Ultimately, Bergman clings to the one thing that he knows for certain: love. Through the family escaping at the end of the film, Bergman shows his belief in love though it is as much of a mystery as death. For me, I appreciated this remnant of a solution in his piece of art.
amy- Decalogue #1
I have already written extensively analytically on the First Commandment, so now I wish to give my own opinions on it. First of all, I love the man in white who plays an omniscient, god-like figure in The Decalogue. Especially in this first episode, I love the screenplay around him. I love how he seems to convey something to each of the characters. In this first episode, he sits eerily by a fire near the pond. In his eyes he expresses extreme sorrow in spite of the stoic face. I think what stands out most to me is the concept of rationality versus romanticism. The father in this episode seems to be, paradoxically, a romantic rationalist. The viewer sees how the father worships the thought that technology could possibly create a human. He bows to the power of man. I cannot be harsh on his character, because I know many people who rely upon their brain as the chief in their lives. I think humans typically prefer to rely on their own thought processes to get them through life. Life tends to break us down. Here is where Kieslowski comes in. Kieslowski wants to show, by the First Commandment, the uncontrollable and unquantifiable nature of life. I once heard a quote stating that the people who enjoy life the most are the ones who are able to enjoy change. As I grow older, I find this fact to be all too true. I know I cannot rely on my mind to help me cope with all that life brings to the table. Kieslowski wants to show what can happen if humanity starts to try and quantify life as a mathematical problem or science project.
amy- Decalogue #8
Out of all of the episodes, I liked the perspective and message of the eighth episode. The viewer sees this survivor of the Holocaust who obviously still holds the pain of the past in her mind. She confronts a woman, now an ethics professor, who refused to take her in. I like the justification of the Holocaust survivor. Of course she has a reason to be upset. Of course she wants to face her fears with that unwanted and scared child still lingering within herself. The viewer buys into her justification. Then Kieslowski pulls out the twist which relates to the Eighth Commandment: the woman was a frightened underground leader. The ethics professor is by no means absolved, but this fact definitely brings into question the lines of ethical thinking like utilitarian, Kant’s categorical imperative and so on. Kieslowski’s perspective and message then comes into play. I love how the professor said that she should not have lied. She should not have sentenced a little girl to death, despite the consequences. The ethics professor sees how she should have followed her conscience as well as the Eighth Commandment. Another line of thinking this brought me to the concept of never being able to save oneself. The professor had clearly saved the lives of many during World War II, but was still haunted by the thought of that little girl. She had made a mistake which could have caused the death of another. I am shown the perspective of this multi-dimensional life which we make go wrong everyday. For me, this episode shows my own fallibility and inability to be anywhere near perfection.
amy- Decalogue #7
Two unscrupulous people meeting can never be a good thing. This is how I view the “Thou shalt not steal” episode of The Decalogue. Every time I watch a Kieslowski film, I am amazed at the different ways that the characters are able to completely muck up their lives. This is not surprising, because we all manage to make our lives complex and difficult by our faults. I am struck by how Kieslowski foreshadows from the beginning which of the characters ends up being hurt. The little girl in the film is plagued by nightmares of wolves. In the end, the viewer uses her face as a reflection of her heart breaking as her mother is taken away on the train. The fact of the matter is, despite the adults’ best efforts, none were willing to sacrifice for the little girl’s fate. The grandmother was selfish and wanted the little girl for herself, the mother had a confused conflict between desiring revenge and motherhood, the grandfather was apathetically weak and the father was trying to avoid any responsibility. I thought of the concept of agape love during this film. Agape love can show the viewer how this family is so, so far from perfect love. I am also reminded of how Jesus summed up the law in two commandments: Loving the Lord God with all heart, soul and mind, and loving neighbors as oneself. It is sad to see a family, like in this film, act so from loving anyone other than themselves.
amy- Decalogue #5
I think the idea of the death penalty creates extreme reactions in everyone’s minds. It is the same concept as war. There are extremists on both ends and it creates the same situation as two rams going head to head. Kieslowski approaches the question from the perspective of a young man going out and murdering a taxi driver. The storyline presents the young man as a disturbed individual dealing with the fact of his friend killing his younger sister. It also presents those in government as cold, unyielding individuals ready for a fight.
I understand the question Kieslowski attempts to extract. Why must we destroy two lives, when one may be reformed and changed? Kieslowski seems like he wishes to adhere completely to the Seventh Commandment, despite his other ethical dilemmas in the other commandments. The death penalty is a hard topic, which I think care needs to be taking when enacting such a serious punishment. I cannot say that I am completely against the death penalty though. When a man goes out and kills dozens of random strangers and society gives him the “punishment” of three or four life sentences, I think it is absurdity. A man cannot serve three life sentences and most of the time, in the law system, this is a mere attempt to keep such evil in the prison for life.
This topic could be argued forever to no conclusion, but Kieslowski’s film contrasts the different thoughts on such a punishment. Thinking on such topics is important. Even more important for humanity is knowing what it believes in and why.
I understand the question Kieslowski attempts to extract. Why must we destroy two lives, when one may be reformed and changed? Kieslowski seems like he wishes to adhere completely to the Seventh Commandment, despite his other ethical dilemmas in the other commandments. The death penalty is a hard topic, which I think care needs to be taking when enacting such a serious punishment. I cannot say that I am completely against the death penalty though. When a man goes out and kills dozens of random strangers and society gives him the “punishment” of three or four life sentences, I think it is absurdity. A man cannot serve three life sentences and most of the time, in the law system, this is a mere attempt to keep such evil in the prison for life.
This topic could be argued forever to no conclusion, but Kieslowski’s film contrasts the different thoughts on such a punishment. Thinking on such topics is important. Even more important for humanity is knowing what it believes in and why.
amy- Decalogue #2
Our film writers seem to be obsessed with the destruction and mess that affairs have on marriage. Strangely enough, when Kieslowski approaches the topic of infidelity, he does not use the commandment “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” This shows something of Kieslowski’s character. He is unwilling to give the viewers a carbon-copied viewpoint of the Ten Commandments. Instead, he uses the insane complexity and ruin that goes along with adultery to further the concept of not taking the Lord’s name in vain. The meaning behind the plot-line of Decalogue Two, for me, is one of the most difficult to wrap my head around. I can understand how the ethicality of the doctor swearing an oath applies to the second commandment, but I have a hard time understanding what exactly Kieslowski is trying to say. Most of the time, it seems he is trying to question how such clear-cut rules can apply to the complex situations of the modern-day man. I wonder at the effectiveness of such ponderings. As a whole, the Ten Commandments are the way to show what is right and what is wrong. There is no doubt in my mind that the God of the Bible, if He is who He says He is, is a just God. This means that He will judge each moral decision according to the circumstance. If God knows the heart, then He will know what the true intentions behind each man.
I enjoy really do enjoy seeing the struggle within Kieslowski’s own mind through his films, because it allows me to draw out what I believe concerning his topics. The Second Commandment was one of the most impacting in the films concerning the question of “doing the right thing” while also obeying the Ten Commandments.
I enjoy really do enjoy seeing the struggle within Kieslowski’s own mind through his films, because it allows me to draw out what I believe concerning his topics. The Second Commandment was one of the most impacting in the films concerning the question of “doing the right thing” while also obeying the Ten Commandments.
amy- Luther, The Movie
We did not watch the movie Luther for class, but IBTS showed it one night during the semester. I love this movie’s message and, though I have watched it before, still wanted to watch it again. Tricia and Jenna’s presentation gave more information on the “hairy-er” side of Luther’s life, i.e. his Anti Semitism, but it also showed me how well the movie is made. Much of the information that was given within the presentation was shown in the film. Even as I was reading Here I Stand I was surprised at how much of the film was taken exactly from the book. I do not want to exaggerate by saying it was nearly word-for-word, but in some scenes it came very close. The scene where Luther is tried in front of the German emperor adds the perfect image along with great writing. I believe Doctor Redick read aloud that section of the book, and the whole time I could only imagine the movie scene. The tension was heavy in the air during the movie and the acting superb. It’s interesting to see how such movies can be such an integral part of learning; one is able to use a visual aid to help keep key components of history in his mind. I think both Garrett and the team of Tricia-Jenna used quotes which were put in the movie. Every time one of these was used I had a flashback of sorts. I could picture Luther’s wife meeting him as a nun in a shaved head. I could picture Luther struggling to find the right word to put into his translation of the Bible. All the information came together into a coherent idea of his life. This is the beauty of finding different mediums in learning.
amy- More Than Just, Pan's Labyrinth (Part II)
Ophelia’s fascination with magic is not the only spiritual theme within the storyline. In fact, the entire film is riddled with thoughts towards the afterlife. I cannot accept that the story “logically” ended sadly. The point is that Ophelia was a more than just a tragic figure murdered by her father. Her life was worth more than mere appearance. Ultimately, each person’s life means much more than it seems. We as a society tend to rank people according to what we believe they have or have not done.
Putting the social implications, I think Ophelia’s sacrifice within the “fairy-tale” aspect is just another example of the greatest love on earth. The Bible says “Greater love than this hath no man, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”Ophelia was able to risk everything for the sake of her brother. I think in the fairy-tale setting it is hard to immerse ourselves into Ophelia’s position. As young adults, we have lost the nobility of youth. It is not that youths are perfect, but they have their own innocent convictions which can be most unmoving. Some adults do not have even a gram of the strength some of these children possess. This is what del Toro is teasing out in Pan’s Labyrinth. In our psychology courses with Doctor Kabat, he spoke of the intuition of children being a strong force in development. Though they cannot put into words why they feel the way they do, some children just get a sense from certain elders. I love how Ophelia kept this intuition and trusted it completely without passively depending on those whom she trusted. Watching Ophelia’s face during her death reveals much about her character. She does not scream or hysterically move about. She seems to almost have a peaceful calm cover her falling body. Her death signifies the rejection of a magical life. The logical world was chaotic, while over it all in Ophelia’s mind, there was perfect order even in death. I love this movie.
Putting the social implications, I think Ophelia’s sacrifice within the “fairy-tale” aspect is just another example of the greatest love on earth. The Bible says “Greater love than this hath no man, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”Ophelia was able to risk everything for the sake of her brother. I think in the fairy-tale setting it is hard to immerse ourselves into Ophelia’s position. As young adults, we have lost the nobility of youth. It is not that youths are perfect, but they have their own innocent convictions which can be most unmoving. Some adults do not have even a gram of the strength some of these children possess. This is what del Toro is teasing out in Pan’s Labyrinth. In our psychology courses with Doctor Kabat, he spoke of the intuition of children being a strong force in development. Though they cannot put into words why they feel the way they do, some children just get a sense from certain elders. I love how Ophelia kept this intuition and trusted it completely without passively depending on those whom she trusted. Watching Ophelia’s face during her death reveals much about her character. She does not scream or hysterically move about. She seems to almost have a peaceful calm cover her falling body. Her death signifies the rejection of a magical life. The logical world was chaotic, while over it all in Ophelia’s mind, there was perfect order even in death. I love this movie.
amy- More Than Just, Pan's Labyrinth (Part I)
Every time I have watched Pan’s Labyrinth, I have had a different reaction. I first watched it on my own and I think the violence of it all was hard for me to swallow. I have watched violent movies before, but the unexpected magnitude shocked me. The second time just left an aching inside of me which I could not objectively examine. These first viewings must be under the category of “experiential knowledge.” Intellectually, this third viewing was a gem. I found myself picking out ideas and concepts which were hidden behind the physically horrible acts. For me, the metaphor of “believing in fairy-tales” is made explicitly clear. Overall, the movie is dark, but the ending of the movie shows the director’s true opinion on life and the storyline. A skeptic would examine Ophelia’s death as the silly death of a child’s imagination gone rampant. Is that not what most of us wish to do: write this off as a dark fairy tale? Sure, we bought into it during the movie, but in reality it’s all hype and computer animation. And yet that viewpoint completely destroys the integrity of the film. This film shows the beautiful faith and belief in childhood. It shows the aromatic innocence of youth who do not hesitate at believing what is told to them. This world is so foreign to a child that all is magic, which is why we must never betray their trust. The film sets up the adults in the film as having lost all sense of magic in their “grown-up world.” Even the adults who have the most integrity get their hands dirty in compromise and violence. The mother marries a man for security in times of unrest and all those participating in the war end up with blood on their hands. I think the director purposefully shows those adults whom Ophelia trusts rejecting the idea of magic. Her mother and her caretaker both reject the idea of any truth behind the fairy tales. One could argue in defense of these older men and women, but ultimately I think it would go stale. Ophelia’s faith and belief are supposed to be rewarded as golden. What a marvelous theme.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Amanda: American film vs. European film
This semester has revealed a whole new understanding of watching and interpreting film. Throughout the semester we have gone in very much depth discussing the films we watched and this process has allowed me to better understand the techniques of creating film and the symbols through which films communicate. My critique and internal processing and reflection of film has greatly improved and further sparked my interest in the artistic expression of film as a whole.
In response to our main course objective of comparing American and European film, the difference essentially comes down to the varying purpose for creating these movies. Generally speaking, I would say that American film is created more so for entertainment, whereas European film is created to actually make a statement. Of course, this is a broad statement and does not take into consideration independent films or those of special interest, but I feel it does accurately represent the state of most movies today.
Stemming off of this large difference, the audience’s role is then changed drastically. In American films the audience is meant to sit back and enjoy the glitz and glamour on the big screen. Hollywood big shots exhibit their masculinity, beauty, and sometimes tears to work for their huge paychecks. Because we are so obsessed with celebrities in America it is hard to separate their personal lives from the characters they portray in films. European films seem much more focused on creating stories about common, relatable characters. In European films the audience is meant to work through the symbols, and thick dialogue to create meaning from the story.
The subject of love is also portrayed radically different. American film is much more cut and dry, and often results in the obvious, ‘happily ever after’ scenario whereas European film seems more realistic. European film also seems to take on the subject of transcendental love much more frequently and accurately. In general, European film seems to understand it’s limitation in expressing the ineffable concept of love whereas American film tries again and again to put cheesy dialogue and story lines around it.
In response to our main course objective of comparing American and European film, the difference essentially comes down to the varying purpose for creating these movies. Generally speaking, I would say that American film is created more so for entertainment, whereas European film is created to actually make a statement. Of course, this is a broad statement and does not take into consideration independent films or those of special interest, but I feel it does accurately represent the state of most movies today.
Stemming off of this large difference, the audience’s role is then changed drastically. In American films the audience is meant to sit back and enjoy the glitz and glamour on the big screen. Hollywood big shots exhibit their masculinity, beauty, and sometimes tears to work for their huge paychecks. Because we are so obsessed with celebrities in America it is hard to separate their personal lives from the characters they portray in films. European films seem much more focused on creating stories about common, relatable characters. In European films the audience is meant to work through the symbols, and thick dialogue to create meaning from the story.
The subject of love is also portrayed radically different. American film is much more cut and dry, and often results in the obvious, ‘happily ever after’ scenario whereas European film seems more realistic. European film also seems to take on the subject of transcendental love much more frequently and accurately. In general, European film seems to understand it’s limitation in expressing the ineffable concept of love whereas American film tries again and again to put cheesy dialogue and story lines around it.
Amanda: Imaginary Heroes
This is probably my all time favorite film. This is one of the movies I can watch over and over again and get something new out of it each time. The story line as well as the film techniques reveal the film in delicate layers which slowly move through the viewers. From the flawless acting to the beautifully constructed dialogue and visual images, this film comes really close to perfect and does so in a seemingly effortless manner.
First, two of the main characters of the film are played by Emile Hirsch and Sigourney Weaver. I could just stop there, but I guess I will expand a bit further on the great talent in the movie. All of the actors commit so strongly to their characters that they give some of the most honest, convincing performances I have ever seen. Dan Harris, writer and director of the film also displays his incredible genius with this film. Loosely based on his own personal life, he clearly connects to the story he is telling in a way most directors do not come close to.
The story straddles the genres of dark comedy and drama starting out with a huge family tragedy and covering the way in which each member of the family deals with it. The subject matter of a dysfunctional family is a popular topic in film, but this version taps into the development of the characters in such a way that sets it far apart from any other film I’ve seen. This is one of the first times I have seen a writer attempt to fully explain the back story of each character, portraying none of them as a bad person or to blame for their family falling apart in front of them.
This film displays confusion, anger, reconciliation, unconditional love and vulnerability in a manner than I have never seen before. The most appealing thing about it is the brutally honest way it delivers the reality of life. Nothing is sugar coated, and nothing is changed to appeal to the comfort of the viewers, it is purely authentic. It focuses on throwing out the disillusion of everything being ok, and accepts that many things and people are flawed.
The title of the film sets the tone for the goal of the film, and lays out the vision of the writer. Emile Hirsch’s character, Tim, although the youngest, seems the first in his family to come to the realization of what his family needs to do to fix their failing relationships. One of the most climactic moments in the film is a conversation Tim has with a man who just tried to commit suicide. The man and him talk about the value of life and the need to be personally accountable for finding meaning in it, rather than looking for a hero.
“You know, one of two things happens when you meet your heroes, either they're assholes, or they're just like you are. Either way you always lose.”
The family in the film is broken because of a lack of communication and a failure of them all to acknowledge what each individual is personally dealing with, and the story forces them to deal with their own problems by accepting this truth. Once they stop blaming each other or thinking someone else will fix their lives, they can actually start their healing process.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
In Review...
The primary goal of our Sacred Communications course was to find the differences between European and American film, and to explore “sacred film.” The last part, exploring sacred film, is still quite fuzzy in my mind, but I do think I learned a good deal about European verse American film.
After this course, I would say that the biggest difference between these American and European film is the level of ambiguity. To put the answer simply, European film is much more ambiguous than American film. American film tends to “spell everything out” and leave very few questions as to the plot or the relationship between characters. (Of course this is a generalization and as with all, there are exceptions.) European film tends to use more symbolism and artistic elements to tell the story, which leaves a lot of interpretation to the viewers, enabling them to co-create the story, in a way. We saw this most clearly when comparing Wings of Desire and City of Angels, but I noticed a lot of ambiguity in the Decalogue series as well, particularly in the endings.
I personally found this heightened obscurity a little difficult to get used to. I missed a lot of semi-important plot lines in multiple movies because I wasn’t accustomed to the European style, and don’t naturally think so symbolically. In particular, I laugh when I remember us watching Wings of Desire and how I didn’t realize until we were walking back from the screening that Peter Falk’s character was a former angel.
I’m really glad for this exposure to European film, although not being a film buff I don’t know how much more I’ll watch. Looking back now, I feel more favorably disposed towards the movies we watched then when we were watching them, which is a little funny. In retrospect, I think my favorite films from the semester are Pan’s Labyrinth and The Seventh Seal, along with the Decalogue series.
eks
After this course, I would say that the biggest difference between these American and European film is the level of ambiguity. To put the answer simply, European film is much more ambiguous than American film. American film tends to “spell everything out” and leave very few questions as to the plot or the relationship between characters. (Of course this is a generalization and as with all, there are exceptions.) European film tends to use more symbolism and artistic elements to tell the story, which leaves a lot of interpretation to the viewers, enabling them to co-create the story, in a way. We saw this most clearly when comparing Wings of Desire and City of Angels, but I noticed a lot of ambiguity in the Decalogue series as well, particularly in the endings.
I personally found this heightened obscurity a little difficult to get used to. I missed a lot of semi-important plot lines in multiple movies because I wasn’t accustomed to the European style, and don’t naturally think so symbolically. In particular, I laugh when I remember us watching Wings of Desire and how I didn’t realize until we were walking back from the screening that Peter Falk’s character was a former angel.
I’m really glad for this exposure to European film, although not being a film buff I don’t know how much more I’ll watch. Looking back now, I feel more favorably disposed towards the movies we watched then when we were watching them, which is a little funny. In retrospect, I think my favorite films from the semester are Pan’s Labyrinth and The Seventh Seal, along with the Decalogue series.
eks
Episode Six Decalogue
Episode Six
Lauren Brooks
Let me start out by saying that peeping is wrong and so weird. I can not imagine secretly watching someone and going so far out of your daily routine to by chance come in contact with someone that you are “in love” with. It also seems weird that in the end the girl used the peeping for her use and really took advantage of the young boy
This commandment for me was a little tricky to figure out. Adultery is a word that has many different definitions in many different contexts so it was hard to figure out what context this story was told in. The way that I took the story was that the word adultery pertained to her sleeping around with men and at the same time trying to engage the young boy peeper in some kind of relationship. I felt sorry for both the boy and the lady. I think they were both lonely and looking for love, and in the end the experience the shared with each other dramatically changed their views on the issue of love in their lives’. In the end the woman wanted what the boy wanted and the boy found out that love doesn’t really exist because of his experience with the woman.
I didn’t really get much out of this story nor did I really think this was one of the better films in the series, but I am curious to know more about the story and maybe watch the extended version of this saga and see if I can become clearer on what adultery really is.
Lauren Brooks
Let me start out by saying that peeping is wrong and so weird. I can not imagine secretly watching someone and going so far out of your daily routine to by chance come in contact with someone that you are “in love” with. It also seems weird that in the end the girl used the peeping for her use and really took advantage of the young boy
This commandment for me was a little tricky to figure out. Adultery is a word that has many different definitions in many different contexts so it was hard to figure out what context this story was told in. The way that I took the story was that the word adultery pertained to her sleeping around with men and at the same time trying to engage the young boy peeper in some kind of relationship. I felt sorry for both the boy and the lady. I think they were both lonely and looking for love, and in the end the experience the shared with each other dramatically changed their views on the issue of love in their lives’. In the end the woman wanted what the boy wanted and the boy found out that love doesn’t really exist because of his experience with the woman.
I didn’t really get much out of this story nor did I really think this was one of the better films in the series, but I am curious to know more about the story and maybe watch the extended version of this saga and see if I can become clearer on what adultery really is.
Episode Five Decalogue
Episode Five
Lauren Brooks
This episode was by far the most outright one related to the commandment and also a very emotional one. The commandment thou shall not kill seems as straightforward as some of the other commandments, but at the same time is killing someone for murdering someone else right? I have to say that I personally really struggle with this idea everyday. On one hand I have my beliefs and on the other hand I have strong emotions. This was also one of the movies that really showed the strength of the director in telling a story through film and really giving the viewer interesting perspectives.
This film was not told in chronological order which was very important in how the viewer saw the events played out on screen. We got to experience part of the life of the victim, the murderer and the justice system, but all mixed in together. It seems like as soon as you felt bad for the victim, you changed your mind and felt bad for the murderer. I think that is what the director was trying to portray about Midrash, it was him showing the internal conflict we have but through film.
I still really don’t know where I stand on this issue and I think with the director’s portrayal of the 10 commandments that that’s ok to feel. He encourages questioning and learning, so if you are always trying to know more it’s ok to change your mind or your stance on important issues.
Lauren Brooks
This episode was by far the most outright one related to the commandment and also a very emotional one. The commandment thou shall not kill seems as straightforward as some of the other commandments, but at the same time is killing someone for murdering someone else right? I have to say that I personally really struggle with this idea everyday. On one hand I have my beliefs and on the other hand I have strong emotions. This was also one of the movies that really showed the strength of the director in telling a story through film and really giving the viewer interesting perspectives.
This film was not told in chronological order which was very important in how the viewer saw the events played out on screen. We got to experience part of the life of the victim, the murderer and the justice system, but all mixed in together. It seems like as soon as you felt bad for the victim, you changed your mind and felt bad for the murderer. I think that is what the director was trying to portray about Midrash, it was him showing the internal conflict we have but through film.
I still really don’t know where I stand on this issue and I think with the director’s portrayal of the 10 commandments that that’s ok to feel. He encourages questioning and learning, so if you are always trying to know more it’s ok to change your mind or your stance on important issues.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Babette's Feast
One image from Babette’s Feast remains in my mind for its symbolism. When the Swedish officer exits the little Danish town the first time, he leaves after one of the pious meetings and is escorted out by Martina. Up till this point, I wasn’t sure if she returned his affection but when he rose to leave the table and she followed him outside, my questions were answered.
She helps him put on his coat, and then walks outside to see him off. As he leaves, the screen focuses on her standing alone with a candle in her hand. If I remember correctly, the camera zooms in slowly on her holding the candle, and immediately I had a thought: If the candle goes out in the slight wind, their love will fade. If it stays lit, their love will remain.
Sure enough, in the seconds the shot remains on Martina standing alone with her candle it remains strong and bright, and I mentally predicted that they wouldn’t forget one another.
In the course of the film the Swedish general comes back to the village and the viewer finds out that he has never forgotten about Martina but still loves her. She has not forgotten about him either, one learns. Even though he had not returned but rather married another and lived the majority of his life far away from her, he insists, “I have been with you every day of my life. Tell me you know that.” “Yes, I know it,” she replies.
And I am left happy that my attempt at noticing symbolism proved successful.
eks
She helps him put on his coat, and then walks outside to see him off. As he leaves, the screen focuses on her standing alone with a candle in her hand. If I remember correctly, the camera zooms in slowly on her holding the candle, and immediately I had a thought: If the candle goes out in the slight wind, their love will fade. If it stays lit, their love will remain.
Sure enough, in the seconds the shot remains on Martina standing alone with her candle it remains strong and bright, and I mentally predicted that they wouldn’t forget one another.
In the course of the film the Swedish general comes back to the village and the viewer finds out that he has never forgotten about Martina but still loves her. She has not forgotten about him either, one learns. Even though he had not returned but rather married another and lived the majority of his life far away from her, he insists, “I have been with you every day of my life. Tell me you know that.” “Yes, I know it,” she replies.
And I am left happy that my attempt at noticing symbolism proved successful.
eks
Luther
After hearing Lauren’s presentation on Martin Luther, I realized how well the 2003 film “Luther” was done. Almost every major point she highlighted was present in the film, and as she mentioned them I was able to visualize the film and remember the major events in his life. I find history so much easier to remember when it “comes to life” through historical novels or films, and I was really pleased that “Luther” was very accurate (according to Lauren’s presentation, at least ☺).
I think the film does an especially good job of showing Luther’s “inner turmoil.” The scenes were he is battling himself and his demons by pacing around the room and talking aloud are powerful. It shows quite clearly his humanity and desperation. He has his struggles like everyone. It is also moving when his spiritual father comes in to guide him, and tells him to offer himself before the mercy of the cross. Luther then stretches himself out on the ground with his arms spread apart and offers his humble plea, “I am yours. Save me.”
As Dr. Redick pointed out, Luther’s biggest legacy was the idea of our conscience and that we cannot be faulted for following our conscience. This is evident in his speech before the German princes (shown in the film) when he said, “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason and not by Popes and councils who have so often contradicted themselves, my conscience is captive to the word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I cannot and I will not recant. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.”
I think that following your conscience is a really important theme in Christianity. We are called to follow God first and foremost, and not an established church. How do we know how to follow God except through our conscience? Jesus obviously left a lot unsaid, and I think that he wanted us to search out the truth for ourselves through inspiration by the Holy Spirit. This was not just for the Apostles or church leaders, however. I think it is everyone’s place to continue to seek the truth for themselves. This becomes really “sticky” really fast, however, because consciences can contradict one another, and someone can claim to be following their conscience when they’re really just after selfish gain.
For all the challenges it brings, I think it is a gift that followers of Christ are called to listen and adhere to our consciences (when they are captive to God). I am so glad that Luther stood strong in his beliefs and led the way for a revival of conscience, and am pleased with how well this is presented in the 2003 film.
eks
I think the film does an especially good job of showing Luther’s “inner turmoil.” The scenes were he is battling himself and his demons by pacing around the room and talking aloud are powerful. It shows quite clearly his humanity and desperation. He has his struggles like everyone. It is also moving when his spiritual father comes in to guide him, and tells him to offer himself before the mercy of the cross. Luther then stretches himself out on the ground with his arms spread apart and offers his humble plea, “I am yours. Save me.”
As Dr. Redick pointed out, Luther’s biggest legacy was the idea of our conscience and that we cannot be faulted for following our conscience. This is evident in his speech before the German princes (shown in the film) when he said, “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason and not by Popes and councils who have so often contradicted themselves, my conscience is captive to the word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I cannot and I will not recant. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.”
I think that following your conscience is a really important theme in Christianity. We are called to follow God first and foremost, and not an established church. How do we know how to follow God except through our conscience? Jesus obviously left a lot unsaid, and I think that he wanted us to search out the truth for ourselves through inspiration by the Holy Spirit. This was not just for the Apostles or church leaders, however. I think it is everyone’s place to continue to seek the truth for themselves. This becomes really “sticky” really fast, however, because consciences can contradict one another, and someone can claim to be following their conscience when they’re really just after selfish gain.
For all the challenges it brings, I think it is a gift that followers of Christ are called to listen and adhere to our consciences (when they are captive to God). I am so glad that Luther stood strong in his beliefs and led the way for a revival of conscience, and am pleased with how well this is presented in the 2003 film.
eks
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Freedoms
Garrett Lambur
One of the best films that has recently come out is the new batman movie The Dark Knight. The characters are developed incredibly well in the movie, the special effects are great, and the actors were excellent. Heath Ledger gave perhaps one of the best performances in a film that I have ever seen. What I think ties this film to what our class has been discussing is that it is controversial, the best discussions we have had have come over controversial topics, example the death penalty. Batman introduces some great controversial ideas in the film. Look at his giant cell phone radar map generator. This can be seen as simply a very cool gadget or as a comparison to the US government under the Patriot Act. How much of our personal freedoms do we dare give up in order to protect ourselves? The further that we ignore the Constitution to protect ourselves the further we travel from actually being the United States of America. Encompassed within that piece of paper are the ideas that fabricate our country. Once you begin to ignore those ideas then what is left to separate us from anyone else, our money, our things? Some would cynically make a response our lives but there comes a point where living without such ideas is not living at all. Look at Dr. Kabat, he put everything on the line to help to bring the end of Communism in the Czech Republic, then Czechoslovakia. Though it is a slippery slope to draw such a parallel that our progression as a state is somewhat towards Communism, there are parallels between both. In the communist state you could be watched for no reason at all, you could be arrested with no charges being pressed, and just disappear. To some degree this is happening within the United States today, though it is not as drastic, you can no be arrested and held without any charges being pressed, a right that is established within the Constitution. I realize that many will die for religion and would not put the freedoms guaranteed to us in the Constitution on the same level but you have to recognize that without the Constitution you would not be able to practice your own religion peacefully. There is a line that must be drawn in protecting the lives of the citizens of this country where more may not be possible because it crosses a line that no longer allows us to separate ourselves from anybody else, especially the attacker. I realize that this is far from the topic of a movie but I feel it is a good example of how a movie can spur good discussion and it is something that I feel strongly about.
One of the best films that has recently come out is the new batman movie The Dark Knight. The characters are developed incredibly well in the movie, the special effects are great, and the actors were excellent. Heath Ledger gave perhaps one of the best performances in a film that I have ever seen. What I think ties this film to what our class has been discussing is that it is controversial, the best discussions we have had have come over controversial topics, example the death penalty. Batman introduces some great controversial ideas in the film. Look at his giant cell phone radar map generator. This can be seen as simply a very cool gadget or as a comparison to the US government under the Patriot Act. How much of our personal freedoms do we dare give up in order to protect ourselves? The further that we ignore the Constitution to protect ourselves the further we travel from actually being the United States of America. Encompassed within that piece of paper are the ideas that fabricate our country. Once you begin to ignore those ideas then what is left to separate us from anyone else, our money, our things? Some would cynically make a response our lives but there comes a point where living without such ideas is not living at all. Look at Dr. Kabat, he put everything on the line to help to bring the end of Communism in the Czech Republic, then Czechoslovakia. Though it is a slippery slope to draw such a parallel that our progression as a state is somewhat towards Communism, there are parallels between both. In the communist state you could be watched for no reason at all, you could be arrested with no charges being pressed, and just disappear. To some degree this is happening within the United States today, though it is not as drastic, you can no be arrested and held without any charges being pressed, a right that is established within the Constitution. I realize that many will die for religion and would not put the freedoms guaranteed to us in the Constitution on the same level but you have to recognize that without the Constitution you would not be able to practice your own religion peacefully. There is a line that must be drawn in protecting the lives of the citizens of this country where more may not be possible because it crosses a line that no longer allows us to separate ourselves from anybody else, especially the attacker. I realize that this is far from the topic of a movie but I feel it is a good example of how a movie can spur good discussion and it is something that I feel strongly about.
American v European
Garrett Lambur
I want to explore the difference between European and American film for each has its own way of doing things. American film seems to be simpler and more straightforward, the viewer goes to a movie expecting in most cases to not have to think but to just watch. Does this speak anything about us as a country? We spend millions, no billions, of dollars a year around movies and we don’t want to think? Scary thought though it may just represent a desire to escape from the real world and concerns linked with it but I say there is no better medium to do so than a book. While the European film market may not be as big as the American one it does not include so straightforward a production. The movie may include less direct dialogue or direction and more may be said through the film itself. More importance seems to be placed upon development of characters along with how the viewer may see the character. American films today are relying less and less upon good acting and character development and more upon special effects in films. The market may be easier to satisfy when not challenged or faced with something that requires contemplation. This is not saying that all American films are simple and made for idiots, though some are made by idiots, as there are still quality films being made in America. Europe itself still has its share of bad films being made but due to the nature of subtitles and translating, some of these may not be seen by the American film goer. I wan to clarify that what has been said above is personal opinion and includes my beliefs based upon knowledge garnered up until now. As I see more films from each market I am positive that my opinion will change in some manner or form, though in what direction I am not sure. As it stands now, I enjoy both types of films, the European’s tend to be more provocative and engaging than American films, but the use of special effects is always appreciated and there are times where all you want to do is sit down and watch a movie without thinking.
I want to explore the difference between European and American film for each has its own way of doing things. American film seems to be simpler and more straightforward, the viewer goes to a movie expecting in most cases to not have to think but to just watch. Does this speak anything about us as a country? We spend millions, no billions, of dollars a year around movies and we don’t want to think? Scary thought though it may just represent a desire to escape from the real world and concerns linked with it but I say there is no better medium to do so than a book. While the European film market may not be as big as the American one it does not include so straightforward a production. The movie may include less direct dialogue or direction and more may be said through the film itself. More importance seems to be placed upon development of characters along with how the viewer may see the character. American films today are relying less and less upon good acting and character development and more upon special effects in films. The market may be easier to satisfy when not challenged or faced with something that requires contemplation. This is not saying that all American films are simple and made for idiots, though some are made by idiots, as there are still quality films being made in America. Europe itself still has its share of bad films being made but due to the nature of subtitles and translating, some of these may not be seen by the American film goer. I wan to clarify that what has been said above is personal opinion and includes my beliefs based upon knowledge garnered up until now. As I see more films from each market I am positive that my opinion will change in some manner or form, though in what direction I am not sure. As it stands now, I enjoy both types of films, the European’s tend to be more provocative and engaging than American films, but the use of special effects is always appreciated and there are times where all you want to do is sit down and watch a movie without thinking.
Star Wars: Good v. Evil?
Garrett Lambur
So while we were over here I re-watched the entire Star Wars Saga. I wish that we could have watched it for class because there is so much to discuss within it and no not in a nerdy way. One of the most interesting things is the underlying connection to good versus evil and the different archetypes connected with this throughout history. It may seem obvious that it includes a battle of good versus evil when you have the dark side and the light side of the force but dark is an archetype of evil and vice versa for light. See, dark itself is not necessarily evil but we connect it with evil because at night we are at our weakest in a sense. At night we do not have the best vision, especially compared to daylight, and there are things that go bump in the night that we cannot explain. In myth, a lot of evil creatures get stronger at night and weaker in the day, example vampires. To explore color even more, you can look at the different color light sabers of the Sith (dark side) and the Jedi (light side). The majority of the Jedi use blue colored light sabers with green thrown in to the mix, or for a special example purple for Samuel L. Jackson’s character (he requested it). All of these colors are associated with good, the color seemingly most associated with good being white but having a white light saber would be weird. The Sith almost all use red light sabers, a color associated with evil, second only to black, or the color of night. But I want to look closer into this discussion at Luke Skywalker in the final episode of the saga. He has to rebuild a light saber having lost his in a fight against Darth Vader. His last light saber was blue but his next one is green. What is key to the green light saber is that in the movie he wears only black outfits while in the first three of the saga all the Jedi wear white with brown. It almost signifies his flirting with the dark side and adds to the color selection for the light saber. Green starts to become an almost in between color of good and evil, it is not clearly associated with either side. Thus the color of Luke’s light saber becomes important because it plays into his flirting with the dark side of the force, the evil side. Then again looking back, the idea of good versus evil is all within the perception of the mind, we create our own definitions of good and evil with experience but due to the influence of culture and society these ideas can become similar through out both. Well thus ends my discussion of the beauty that is Star Wars.
So while we were over here I re-watched the entire Star Wars Saga. I wish that we could have watched it for class because there is so much to discuss within it and no not in a nerdy way. One of the most interesting things is the underlying connection to good versus evil and the different archetypes connected with this throughout history. It may seem obvious that it includes a battle of good versus evil when you have the dark side and the light side of the force but dark is an archetype of evil and vice versa for light. See, dark itself is not necessarily evil but we connect it with evil because at night we are at our weakest in a sense. At night we do not have the best vision, especially compared to daylight, and there are things that go bump in the night that we cannot explain. In myth, a lot of evil creatures get stronger at night and weaker in the day, example vampires. To explore color even more, you can look at the different color light sabers of the Sith (dark side) and the Jedi (light side). The majority of the Jedi use blue colored light sabers with green thrown in to the mix, or for a special example purple for Samuel L. Jackson’s character (he requested it). All of these colors are associated with good, the color seemingly most associated with good being white but having a white light saber would be weird. The Sith almost all use red light sabers, a color associated with evil, second only to black, or the color of night. But I want to look closer into this discussion at Luke Skywalker in the final episode of the saga. He has to rebuild a light saber having lost his in a fight against Darth Vader. His last light saber was blue but his next one is green. What is key to the green light saber is that in the movie he wears only black outfits while in the first three of the saga all the Jedi wear white with brown. It almost signifies his flirting with the dark side and adds to the color selection for the light saber. Green starts to become an almost in between color of good and evil, it is not clearly associated with either side. Thus the color of Luke’s light saber becomes important because it plays into his flirting with the dark side of the force, the evil side. Then again looking back, the idea of good versus evil is all within the perception of the mind, we create our own definitions of good and evil with experience but due to the influence of culture and society these ideas can become similar through out both. Well thus ends my discussion of the beauty that is Star Wars.
Babette's Feast
Garrett Lambur
The movie Babette’s Feast was one that I really enjoyed along with the discussion at the end of the film. I only feel I should let others be aware of the fact that everything I say in those discussions is not necessarily my own belief. When it came to the General and the daughter, I said that they had love that did not need for them to be in any sort of physical contact with one another. I believe that they did have this love themselves but I do not want that love for myself. I thought the film communicated the idea very well and I had to agree with its existence between the two of them though it in way means I advocate it. I myself need companionship, I need a relationship with physical contact (insert some joke here), I could not have a relationship with one person for my whole life with just the idea of love of them. I think that this plays into real relationships however, there needs to exist the connection of love on a level above just physical love, without this the relationship seems bound to fail in my eyes. I could be completely wrong here but I just have a feeling. The other part that I loved in the film was the overlying of the different stories and plots to get to the end that happened within the film. There was the story of the General and his love of one daughter, the Opera singer and his love of one daughter, then the story of the Babette and how her feast and story becomes intertwined with the sisters through past experience. Without the Opera singer then Babette may never have come to know the sisters then through the General’s lifetime the guests at the feast may never have truly enjoyed it and thus never had their transcendent experience. The inter-tangling of these stories combined to truly make the script notable and then the movie good and interesting through out.
The movie Babette’s Feast was one that I really enjoyed along with the discussion at the end of the film. I only feel I should let others be aware of the fact that everything I say in those discussions is not necessarily my own belief. When it came to the General and the daughter, I said that they had love that did not need for them to be in any sort of physical contact with one another. I believe that they did have this love themselves but I do not want that love for myself. I thought the film communicated the idea very well and I had to agree with its existence between the two of them though it in way means I advocate it. I myself need companionship, I need a relationship with physical contact (insert some joke here), I could not have a relationship with one person for my whole life with just the idea of love of them. I think that this plays into real relationships however, there needs to exist the connection of love on a level above just physical love, without this the relationship seems bound to fail in my eyes. I could be completely wrong here but I just have a feeling. The other part that I loved in the film was the overlying of the different stories and plots to get to the end that happened within the film. There was the story of the General and his love of one daughter, the Opera singer and his love of one daughter, then the story of the Babette and how her feast and story becomes intertwined with the sisters through past experience. Without the Opera singer then Babette may never have come to know the sisters then through the General’s lifetime the guests at the feast may never have truly enjoyed it and thus never had their transcendent experience. The inter-tangling of these stories combined to truly make the script notable and then the movie good and interesting through out.
Decalogue 5
Kieslowski continues his trend of making incredibly challenging and well done films with the fifth Decalogue film based on the command “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” For this blog I too want to continue the class discussion about the death penalty, which was very lively and interesting.
I basically want to respond to Caroline’s remarks and challenge the notion that it is the “Christian” view to be in favor of the death penalty. I really am not sure why this popular view came about. Yes, in the Old Testament it was clear that if a man took the life of another he would forfeit his life in return. But Jesus turned that upside down!
I’ve read that many of the early Christians refused to serve in the military or even hold public offices. They had a radical view of the life they were called to live as followers of Christ, and it included turning the other cheek towards their enemies and allowing God to take vengeance.
I must admit, however, that I used to be one of the followers of Christ who thought the death penalty was in accordance with God’s will. What changed my mind was a book I read by Shane Claiborne that takes a pretty “liberal” view on a lot of social issues. I’m not sure I would ever consider myself a pacifist like this author, but he presents a compelling argument against the death penalty: the death penalty, he says, teaches that some are beyond redemption. Christ came to proclaim mercy and grace, and when our government decides to kill someone, they are in essence saying that that person can never and will never change. Jesus taught his followers to repay evil with good, and to forgive our enemies. He taught that grace was limitless, and that while alive we are never past the point of redemption. The death penalty teaches the opposite of this.
Something to think about.
eks
I basically want to respond to Caroline’s remarks and challenge the notion that it is the “Christian” view to be in favor of the death penalty. I really am not sure why this popular view came about. Yes, in the Old Testament it was clear that if a man took the life of another he would forfeit his life in return. But Jesus turned that upside down!
I’ve read that many of the early Christians refused to serve in the military or even hold public offices. They had a radical view of the life they were called to live as followers of Christ, and it included turning the other cheek towards their enemies and allowing God to take vengeance.
I must admit, however, that I used to be one of the followers of Christ who thought the death penalty was in accordance with God’s will. What changed my mind was a book I read by Shane Claiborne that takes a pretty “liberal” view on a lot of social issues. I’m not sure I would ever consider myself a pacifist like this author, but he presents a compelling argument against the death penalty: the death penalty, he says, teaches that some are beyond redemption. Christ came to proclaim mercy and grace, and when our government decides to kill someone, they are in essence saying that that person can never and will never change. Jesus taught his followers to repay evil with good, and to forgive our enemies. He taught that grace was limitless, and that while alive we are never past the point of redemption. The death penalty teaches the opposite of this.
Something to think about.
eks
Pan's Labyrinth
Pan’s Labyrinth was a unique film that combined the realistic with the mythical in an unusual way, kind of like Mucha ☺. The scene I found most interesting was at the very end, when the captain is finally surrounded by the rebels and surrenders his only son. I honestly wasn’t sure what he was going to do with his son when he was surrounded, but he handed him over safely to Mercedes. He then breaks his pocket watch and the dialogue goes:
Capitán Vidal: Tell my son the time that his father died. Tell him...
Mercedes: No. He won't even know your name.
Within seconds the captain is shot by the rebels and dies.
(A little background conversation during one of the captain’s dinners sheds some light on the scene and it’s importance:
Mayor: Have I told you that I was acquainted with your father, Captain?
Capitán Vidal: No. I had no idea.
Mayor: In Morocco. I knew him only briefly, but he left a great impression.
Capitán Vidal: An excellent soldier.
Mayor: The men in his battalion said that when General Vidal died on the battlefield, he smashed his watch on a rock so that his son would know the exact hour and minute of his death. So he would know how a brave man dies.
Capitán Vidal: Nonsense. He didn't own a watch.)
The Captain obviously didn’t have the best relationship with his father (I suppose he died when the Captain was young) and he spent the rest of his life trying to live up to the standards he believed his father would have desired. The Captain wanted more than anything to have a son to carry his name, and honestly I was a little surprised that the writers chose to give him that son (the baby could have just as easily been a girl).
I think I found this scene most interesting because it really moved me, and in that moment I felt sorry for the Captain. Strange, I know. Earlier in the film, when he had inflected so much senseless pain and merciless torture and had acted so selfishly, I honestly wanted him to die. I was happy when Mercedes stabbed him. But in that last moment of his life, I felt like his vulnerability was exposed. For all his brutality and display of strength, he was actually insecure about living up to his father’s standards. His greatest wish was to have his father’s name carry on by his son, and for his son to regard him in the same way he respected his own father. In that last moment, all of his hopes of living up to his father’s reputation and instilling that respect in his son were vanquished. He was a horrible, brutal man, and yet in those last moments I felt sorry for him.
eks
Capitán Vidal: Tell my son the time that his father died. Tell him...
Mercedes: No. He won't even know your name.
Within seconds the captain is shot by the rebels and dies.
(A little background conversation during one of the captain’s dinners sheds some light on the scene and it’s importance:
Mayor: Have I told you that I was acquainted with your father, Captain?
Capitán Vidal: No. I had no idea.
Mayor: In Morocco. I knew him only briefly, but he left a great impression.
Capitán Vidal: An excellent soldier.
Mayor: The men in his battalion said that when General Vidal died on the battlefield, he smashed his watch on a rock so that his son would know the exact hour and minute of his death. So he would know how a brave man dies.
Capitán Vidal: Nonsense. He didn't own a watch.)
The Captain obviously didn’t have the best relationship with his father (I suppose he died when the Captain was young) and he spent the rest of his life trying to live up to the standards he believed his father would have desired. The Captain wanted more than anything to have a son to carry his name, and honestly I was a little surprised that the writers chose to give him that son (the baby could have just as easily been a girl).
I think I found this scene most interesting because it really moved me, and in that moment I felt sorry for the Captain. Strange, I know. Earlier in the film, when he had inflected so much senseless pain and merciless torture and had acted so selfishly, I honestly wanted him to die. I was happy when Mercedes stabbed him. But in that last moment of his life, I felt like his vulnerability was exposed. For all his brutality and display of strength, he was actually insecure about living up to his father’s standards. His greatest wish was to have his father’s name carry on by his son, and for his son to regard him in the same way he respected his own father. In that last moment, all of his hopes of living up to his father’s reputation and instilling that respect in his son were vanquished. He was a horrible, brutal man, and yet in those last moments I felt sorry for him.
eks
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Kite Runner
Kite Runner is incredible. Seriously, it’s an absolutely amazing story about redemption and love and fear and pain. There is some pretty heavy content in it, but I highly highly recommend it.
Both the book and the movie are excellent. It’s rare that a movie “lives up” to the book, but I think the creators of the film Kite Runner did a great job. It’s a really well made movie, and the actors perform really well. Each of them is exactly like what I pictured their character to look like from the book. And although a few scenes had to be left out, the theme of the story is still powerfully expressed.
The main theme in Kite Runner is redemption. “You have a way to be good again.” Rahim Khan tells his nephew Amir on the phone from Pakistan. Amir grew up in Afghanistan, but fled with his father to America when the Taliban took over. During his childhood, he kept a secret that ended up hurting his best friend Hassan very deeply, and himself in the process. He continues to live with that secret, but when he received the phone call from Pakistan he is given a chance to redeem himself from the lies he told and the pain he caused in his childhood by rescuing the son of Hassan.
Although Amir is never able to go back and erase what he did in the past, he is able to do good in the future. He is never able to make up to Hassan the deep hurt he caused him, but by saving his son and giving him a new life, he is able to redeem himself. I love redemption stories; they’re beautiful. Because we live in this strange world of ever-moving time, we’re never able to go back and re-do our actions. No matter how sorry we are for we did or didn’t do, what’s done is done. With the idea of redemption, however, we can make amends for the wrong we did in the past through our actions in the future. Nothing is ever final. There is always hope. And Kite Runner offers an incredible story of that possibility.
eks
P.S. This blog does no justice to the film. The story is much richer and more redeeming than I have presented, but it's hard to explain without giving out key points to the plot of the film. Just go. Watch it yourself.
Both the book and the movie are excellent. It’s rare that a movie “lives up” to the book, but I think the creators of the film Kite Runner did a great job. It’s a really well made movie, and the actors perform really well. Each of them is exactly like what I pictured their character to look like from the book. And although a few scenes had to be left out, the theme of the story is still powerfully expressed.
The main theme in Kite Runner is redemption. “You have a way to be good again.” Rahim Khan tells his nephew Amir on the phone from Pakistan. Amir grew up in Afghanistan, but fled with his father to America when the Taliban took over. During his childhood, he kept a secret that ended up hurting his best friend Hassan very deeply, and himself in the process. He continues to live with that secret, but when he received the phone call from Pakistan he is given a chance to redeem himself from the lies he told and the pain he caused in his childhood by rescuing the son of Hassan.
Although Amir is never able to go back and erase what he did in the past, he is able to do good in the future. He is never able to make up to Hassan the deep hurt he caused him, but by saving his son and giving him a new life, he is able to redeem himself. I love redemption stories; they’re beautiful. Because we live in this strange world of ever-moving time, we’re never able to go back and re-do our actions. No matter how sorry we are for we did or didn’t do, what’s done is done. With the idea of redemption, however, we can make amends for the wrong we did in the past through our actions in the future. Nothing is ever final. There is always hope. And Kite Runner offers an incredible story of that possibility.
eks
P.S. This blog does no justice to the film. The story is much richer and more redeeming than I have presented, but it's hard to explain without giving out key points to the plot of the film. Just go. Watch it yourself.
Garden State
Garden State is an absolutely fantastic movie about a boy who returns home after nine years to deal with his past and find himself. The story takes place during his short visit home after his mom’s death, and focuses especially on a new relationship he forms.
During his visit, Largeman meets up with old friends and makes a few new ones, particularly a girl named Sam, who he falls in love with. Her character is really incredible. She is free-spirited and enjoys life, something he hasn’t been doing. She is energetic, outgoing, and full of life… basically everything his opposite. For the past nine years, he’s been on anti-depressant drugs and said he felt so numb for all of it. He leaves his drugs in L.A. when he returns home, however, and Sam is able to make him feel again. She changes his life. She helps him feel love, hope, pain, and originality, and from that he is able to work through his past and gain the courage to let go and forgive.
I absolutely adore their relationship. They’re so different, but have an amazing connection. Sam helps him discover so much that it would seen the relationship is more one way, but she falls completely in love with him too, which is a gift to her. He brought joy into her life as well.
The ending is great. The movie concludes with Sam and Largeman at the airport, where he is about to catch a flight back to L.A. As he gets ready to leave for his gate, he says their relationship is not over, but that he just needs to return to L.A. to get things sorted out and that he’ll find her when he’s done. The next scene is Sam crying in one of the payphone booths, and you’re sad because the movie is ending with such uncertainty. They’re not together and who knows what will happen. Then the true ending comes, when Largeman finds her in the payphone booth and says, “You remember that idea I had about working stuff out on my own and then finding you once I figured stuff out? It's dumb. It's dumb. It's an awful idea. I'm not gonna do it, okay? 'Cause like you said, this is it. This is life. And I'm in love with you, Samantha. I think that's the only thing I've ever been really sure of in my entire life.”
And then the movie can end happily, because although so much uncertainty still remains, at least they’re going to face life together. And that’s the only way he had changed as much as he had been, being together with her. With Sam, he had found security, and the home he was missing. He feels again. It’s a beautiful reminder that we were not meant to be alone. Life is difficult, and often we can’t face it alone, but that’s why we were created for relationship.
eks
During his visit, Largeman meets up with old friends and makes a few new ones, particularly a girl named Sam, who he falls in love with. Her character is really incredible. She is free-spirited and enjoys life, something he hasn’t been doing. She is energetic, outgoing, and full of life… basically everything his opposite. For the past nine years, he’s been on anti-depressant drugs and said he felt so numb for all of it. He leaves his drugs in L.A. when he returns home, however, and Sam is able to make him feel again. She changes his life. She helps him feel love, hope, pain, and originality, and from that he is able to work through his past and gain the courage to let go and forgive.
I absolutely adore their relationship. They’re so different, but have an amazing connection. Sam helps him discover so much that it would seen the relationship is more one way, but she falls completely in love with him too, which is a gift to her. He brought joy into her life as well.
The ending is great. The movie concludes with Sam and Largeman at the airport, where he is about to catch a flight back to L.A. As he gets ready to leave for his gate, he says their relationship is not over, but that he just needs to return to L.A. to get things sorted out and that he’ll find her when he’s done. The next scene is Sam crying in one of the payphone booths, and you’re sad because the movie is ending with such uncertainty. They’re not together and who knows what will happen. Then the true ending comes, when Largeman finds her in the payphone booth and says, “You remember that idea I had about working stuff out on my own and then finding you once I figured stuff out? It's dumb. It's dumb. It's an awful idea. I'm not gonna do it, okay? 'Cause like you said, this is it. This is life. And I'm in love with you, Samantha. I think that's the only thing I've ever been really sure of in my entire life.”
And then the movie can end happily, because although so much uncertainty still remains, at least they’re going to face life together. And that’s the only way he had changed as much as he had been, being together with her. With Sam, he had found security, and the home he was missing. He feels again. It’s a beautiful reminder that we were not meant to be alone. Life is difficult, and often we can’t face it alone, but that’s why we were created for relationship.
eks
Monday, December 8, 2008
Sunken Treasure Live - AHB
"Is that the thanks I get for loving you?"
This is one of my favorite films, which may not exactly be fair because about half of it is just footage of Jeff Tweedy doing solo shows across the United States. If you know anything about my musical preferences, you have probably learned that my aural world begins and ends with Wilco. I'll admit that I may be ignorant in this regard, but I really couldn't care less. I've seen Wilco 3 times and I was lucky enough to hear their incredible drummer Glen Kotche do an insane show in NYC. Each of these experiences has been amazing, and I hope I have the opportunity to see them live many more times.
Sunken Treasure was shot in '06 while Jeff was traveling, strumming, and singing all over the West Coast. I just missed seeing him in Iowa, and I'll never forgive myself for that. I could really talk about Jeff and Wilco forever, but there is a legitimate reason that I wanted to discuss this film.
It really is a unique experience to see a concert live, but there are a lot of things that a video recording can only reveal. Throughout Sunken Treasure there are scenes of random people, landscapes, cities, etc either with Jeff playing or speaking over the top. This gives a kind of intimate look into the world that surrounds the music - and I personally thing that you can learn a lot from a musician about their own songs, and I love listening to someone talk about how music moves them.
This particular dvd is great because it is a solo show. When a whole band is playing you just aren't able to get the same sense of the music and the personalities. In a solo show there is just the single personality interacting with the audience.
Film is a great way for exploring music, and if you haven't at least seen "The Last Waltz" you are really missing out.
My favorite part of the show is when Jeff tears apart a couple people for talking during the show.
"I'm here too, and I want us to be here all together ... it's really really cool to feel yourself in a room of people with all their hearts beating and all of their thoughts and feelings and you're a part of it, you are not just you ... but you have to pay attention"
Love Actually
Love Actually
Lauren Brooks
So in our discussion of Babett’s Feast we learned about different types of love and there is no other movie full of different kinds of love than Love Actually. It is by far one of my favorite movies about love and one of the most realistic portrayals of the subject. I love each and every couple and there is no possible way in which I could ever pick a favorite. But even the stories that don’t have a happy ending are still amazing stories.
There is a particular story of a father dealing with the death of his wife and then raising his 11 year old step son. And to top it all off his son is in love???? He just lost the love of his life and his 10 year old son finds the love of his life with ironically the same name as his Mom. Now I love the way the father handled the situation. He was so cute the way he pushed his son to go after what he wanted and to believe in love. He supported his stepson unconditionally and refused to not take his stepsons problem seriously.
Despite the cheesiness of the movies old pop star song “Love Is All Around”, it really is all around. You see it everywhere, but especially at this one place which is best explained from this awesome quote from the movie.
Prime Minister: Whenever I get gloomy with the state of the world, I think about the arrivals gate at Heathrow Airport. General opinions starting to make out that we live in a world of hatred and greed, but I don't see that. It seems to me that love is everywhere. Often it's not particularly dignified or newsworthy, but it's always there - fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, husbands and wives, boyfriends, girlfriends, old friends. When the planes hit the Twin Towers, as far as I know none of the phone calls from the people on board were messages of hate or revenge - they were all messages of love. If you look for it, I've got a sneaking suspicion love actually is all around.
Lauren Brooks
So in our discussion of Babett’s Feast we learned about different types of love and there is no other movie full of different kinds of love than Love Actually. It is by far one of my favorite movies about love and one of the most realistic portrayals of the subject. I love each and every couple and there is no possible way in which I could ever pick a favorite. But even the stories that don’t have a happy ending are still amazing stories.
There is a particular story of a father dealing with the death of his wife and then raising his 11 year old step son. And to top it all off his son is in love???? He just lost the love of his life and his 10 year old son finds the love of his life with ironically the same name as his Mom. Now I love the way the father handled the situation. He was so cute the way he pushed his son to go after what he wanted and to believe in love. He supported his stepson unconditionally and refused to not take his stepsons problem seriously.
Despite the cheesiness of the movies old pop star song “Love Is All Around”, it really is all around. You see it everywhere, but especially at this one place which is best explained from this awesome quote from the movie.
Prime Minister: Whenever I get gloomy with the state of the world, I think about the arrivals gate at Heathrow Airport. General opinions starting to make out that we live in a world of hatred and greed, but I don't see that. It seems to me that love is everywhere. Often it's not particularly dignified or newsworthy, but it's always there - fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, husbands and wives, boyfriends, girlfriends, old friends. When the planes hit the Twin Towers, as far as I know none of the phone calls from the people on board were messages of hate or revenge - they were all messages of love. If you look for it, I've got a sneaking suspicion love actually is all around.
John Q
John Q
Lauren Brooks
We have been talking a lot about Midrash with the Decalogue movies and I was trying really hard to think of another example where this concept can be seen, immediately I thought of the movie John Q with Denzel Washington. What a great example of Midrash in a film! The main story consist of a father with a son who needs a heart transplant or he will die, unfortunately the family is middle class and doesn’t have enough money to pay for the surgery, so he won’t be able to get a heart. Fed up with the hospital, the father (Denzel) decides to take the whole hospital hostage until his son receives a heart.
In my opinion this is exactly the kind of reason that we need the concept of Midrash to help us to determine what is right and wrong. We all know it’s wrong to take people hostage, but we also know it’s wrong to not help someone who is sick just because they can’t pay for it? Putting those two questions together we are then faced with the problem of what to do? We talked about this in class and people went from one extreme to the other, it’s kind of along the lines of if you are starving is it ok to steal food. Maybe the better question to ask is why people are not having their basic needs met, why are people starving and why are people in need of medical care. The concept of Midrash really helps to get to the root of the issue and I think that’s what matters most in this situation. This movie might not be the greatest movie but it is one with an important message.
Lauren Brooks
We have been talking a lot about Midrash with the Decalogue movies and I was trying really hard to think of another example where this concept can be seen, immediately I thought of the movie John Q with Denzel Washington. What a great example of Midrash in a film! The main story consist of a father with a son who needs a heart transplant or he will die, unfortunately the family is middle class and doesn’t have enough money to pay for the surgery, so he won’t be able to get a heart. Fed up with the hospital, the father (Denzel) decides to take the whole hospital hostage until his son receives a heart.
In my opinion this is exactly the kind of reason that we need the concept of Midrash to help us to determine what is right and wrong. We all know it’s wrong to take people hostage, but we also know it’s wrong to not help someone who is sick just because they can’t pay for it? Putting those two questions together we are then faced with the problem of what to do? We talked about this in class and people went from one extreme to the other, it’s kind of along the lines of if you are starving is it ok to steal food. Maybe the better question to ask is why people are not having their basic needs met, why are people starving and why are people in need of medical care. The concept of Midrash really helps to get to the root of the issue and I think that’s what matters most in this situation. This movie might not be the greatest movie but it is one with an important message.
Batman Begins
I love Batman. (For probably quite different reasons than you, Andrew, but still.) I too used to get a kick out of the classic Batman cartoons whenever we watched them, and after seeing Nolan’s Batman Begins I instantly began a huge fan.
What I found most intriguing this time was Batman’s concept of justice, which differed from that of Ra’s Al Ghul. Batman was committed to fighting in justice, but didn’t want to go to the extremes that Al Ghul used. As a young adult, angered by the murder of his parents, Bruce Wayne had decided to kill Joe Chill and considered it an act towards justice. He didn’t get a chance to kill him, however, because one of Falconi’s men did it first. When he reveals his plan to Rachel, however, she slaps him in disgust and said that was not justice. “Justice is about harmony, revenge is about making yourself feel better.” That conversation was a meaningful point in his life, as was Bruce’s subsequent travels around the world in order to understand the criminal lifestyle.
At the very end of his training with the League of Shadows under Ra’s al Ghul, Bruce is given the chance to prove his sense of justice by executing a local farmer who had become a murderer when he tried to steal his neighbor’s land. In a system of truly “an eye for an eye,” this execution seems like perfect justice. The farmer killed someone, and now he will be killed.
Bruce Wayne looked at it differently, however. He refused to execute the man. Now at this point, I always wonder what his concept of justice was. He was obviously committed to fighting injustice, and this seems like a perfect time to carry out the justice he sought. He wasn’t wiling to become an executioner, however, so what was his sense of justice?
Ra’s Al Ghul says that his compassion is a weakness his enemies would not share, and Bruce replies that “compassion is what separates us from them.” Throughout the film Batman exhibits this compassion when he refuses to kill any of the enemies he confronts. Granted, he does bang them up pretty badly, but in comparison to some of the other “good guys” in action films who don’t hesitate to shoot at any and every “bad guy” they encounter, I find it a compelling characteristic.
I think that Batman’s sense of justice is very similar to the ideal set by Christ who calls us to compassion and mercy, while at the same time seeking to end injustice. Ra’s Al Ghul exhibited no mercy at all when he executed his justice, which is a far cry from the kind God desires. If we truly took “an eye for an eye,” we’d all be guilty in some way and as Ghandi said, the world would be blind. I’ve never been able to fully reconcile Christ's call for mercy and justice, but was excited to see Batman show one way to try and live it out in real life. ☺
eks
What I found most intriguing this time was Batman’s concept of justice, which differed from that of Ra’s Al Ghul. Batman was committed to fighting in justice, but didn’t want to go to the extremes that Al Ghul used. As a young adult, angered by the murder of his parents, Bruce Wayne had decided to kill Joe Chill and considered it an act towards justice. He didn’t get a chance to kill him, however, because one of Falconi’s men did it first. When he reveals his plan to Rachel, however, she slaps him in disgust and said that was not justice. “Justice is about harmony, revenge is about making yourself feel better.” That conversation was a meaningful point in his life, as was Bruce’s subsequent travels around the world in order to understand the criminal lifestyle.
At the very end of his training with the League of Shadows under Ra’s al Ghul, Bruce is given the chance to prove his sense of justice by executing a local farmer who had become a murderer when he tried to steal his neighbor’s land. In a system of truly “an eye for an eye,” this execution seems like perfect justice. The farmer killed someone, and now he will be killed.
Bruce Wayne looked at it differently, however. He refused to execute the man. Now at this point, I always wonder what his concept of justice was. He was obviously committed to fighting injustice, and this seems like a perfect time to carry out the justice he sought. He wasn’t wiling to become an executioner, however, so what was his sense of justice?
Ra’s Al Ghul says that his compassion is a weakness his enemies would not share, and Bruce replies that “compassion is what separates us from them.” Throughout the film Batman exhibits this compassion when he refuses to kill any of the enemies he confronts. Granted, he does bang them up pretty badly, but in comparison to some of the other “good guys” in action films who don’t hesitate to shoot at any and every “bad guy” they encounter, I find it a compelling characteristic.
I think that Batman’s sense of justice is very similar to the ideal set by Christ who calls us to compassion and mercy, while at the same time seeking to end injustice. Ra’s Al Ghul exhibited no mercy at all when he executed his justice, which is a far cry from the kind God desires. If we truly took “an eye for an eye,” we’d all be guilty in some way and as Ghandi said, the world would be blind. I’ve never been able to fully reconcile Christ's call for mercy and justice, but was excited to see Batman show one way to try and live it out in real life. ☺
eks
Decalogue 8 - AHB
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor"
There are a couple really cool things that Kieslowski is doing in this episode. This show is right.
The image of the painting is really interesting, no matter how many times they straighten the frame the whole thing goes crooked. I see this as an analogy for the whole field of ethics and its relation to human life. Despite our efforts there will always be gray areas and things that exist outside our controlled world. What I like is that neither of the characters really got frustrated with the painting, they just set it straight and moved on. The image could also be seen as the writing of wrongs. Both the main characters are trying to exorcise these demons that they've been carrying around for decades, and in the end we see this really beautiful reconciliation.
The fact that the woman became an ethics professor is intriguing. I feel like this career choice is a way doing penance for the mistakes in her past. It was also suggested that she did a lot for the underground movement, but no matter what her actions could not absolve her from "February, 1943". Wounds like that can't go away unless some kind of forgiveness is exchanged. Both of these women found freedom in each other.
Finally, the way that Kieslowski uses the commandment is fantastic. The woman used "bearing false witness" as a way of escaping the right action that she needed to do. I think it is human nature to try and justify actions that we don't necessarily feel good about by appealing to some kind of other standard. Even the commandments become a crutch.
There are a couple really cool things that Kieslowski is doing in this episode. This show is right.
The image of the painting is really interesting, no matter how many times they straighten the frame the whole thing goes crooked. I see this as an analogy for the whole field of ethics and its relation to human life. Despite our efforts there will always be gray areas and things that exist outside our controlled world. What I like is that neither of the characters really got frustrated with the painting, they just set it straight and moved on. The image could also be seen as the writing of wrongs. Both the main characters are trying to exorcise these demons that they've been carrying around for decades, and in the end we see this really beautiful reconciliation.
The fact that the woman became an ethics professor is intriguing. I feel like this career choice is a way doing penance for the mistakes in her past. It was also suggested that she did a lot for the underground movement, but no matter what her actions could not absolve her from "February, 1943". Wounds like that can't go away unless some kind of forgiveness is exchanged. Both of these women found freedom in each other.
Finally, the way that Kieslowski uses the commandment is fantastic. The woman used "bearing false witness" as a way of escaping the right action that she needed to do. I think it is human nature to try and justify actions that we don't necessarily feel good about by appealing to some kind of other standard. Even the commandments become a crutch.
Decalogue 7
One of the most famous court cases settled by King Solomon involved two women fighting over one child. I immediately thought of this Old Testament story as we watched the seventh Decalogue film, as the basic similarities are obvious.
In the Biblical court case, two prostitutes living in the same house give birth within days of each other, but during the night one of the women lays on her son and he dies. In the middle of the night she switches the two children and the other woman awakens to a dead son at her breast, although at a closer look she realizes it’s not her son. They take the case to the court, and King Solomon decrees that the child be cut in two, with each woman receiving a half. The mother of the dead child agrees with the decision, but the real mother cries out that the baby could be given to the other woman, just let him live! With that, Solomon knew she was the real mother and gave her the child.
In the seventh Decalogue film, there are obvious similarities to this tale of King Solomon, but it twists the story around. The film also involves two women fighting over one child, but the circumstances are very different. In the Decalogue film, Majka became pregnant in high school and rather than keep the child as her daughter, allowed her mother to in essence adopt the baby and raise her as her own child. Majka is treated as the child’s sister, and the deception is deep, as only a handful of people know the truth of their family.
There are many differences in the stories, but I think the biggest difference lies in the hearts of the real mothers. In the Biblical tale, the true mother loved her child selflessly, and only wanted the best for the baby. She was willing to give up her right to raise and love the child if it meant he would live.
In the film, Majka is originally portrayed as only wanting a chance to love her child and be her mother. She is grieved by her decision to give Ania up, and wants to experience motherhood. This is a valid feeling, and I originally felt sorry for her. I could only imagine how hard it would be to watch your own daughter being raised by another, unaware that is was you who gave her life. As more of the plot unfolds, however, one realizes Majka’s terrible relationship with her own mother and another thought occurs. Did she really want the child, or did she just want to get back at her mother? I wasn’t really sure what was the answer, but I think it became more clear as we continued to watch the film, and then through the discussions afterwards.
I realized, however, that it was irrelevant which motive was correct, because every possible motive Majka had for “stealing” Ania was selfish, which couldn’t be true love since love is not self-seeking. What Majka really wanted was not to love the child, but to be loved by her. She never felt loved by her own mother, and in some way I think she wanted to use the child to fill her need for love. She didn’t want to have a daughter as much as she wanted her daughter to call her mother. She didn’t have Ania’s best interest in her mind, which is a true sign of love. Ania had a good life with Majka’s parents and a stable and happy home. Fleeing with her to Canada and tearing apart the life she knew wasn’t a loving action. The child obviously loved the woman she believed to be her mother and didn’t have the same feelings for Majka.
Majka even treated Ania as an object by repeating calling her “the child” and using her as a leverage to hurt her mother! I didn’t realize how pervasive this I-It relationship was until I began to write this blog and originally wrote “the child” every time I mentioned Ania. Only when I realized this did I go back and fill in her name. Like the mother of the dead son in Solomon’s story, Majka didn’t treat the child as a human being but rather as an object.
I suppose it’s hard to fault Majka for not really loving Ania when you realize she never felt love from her own mother. I would think it’s difficult to learn how to love your daughter if your own mother didn’t love you well. Jesus and the Beatles were right. Love is all we need, and when we don’t receive and give it, the consequences are terrible.
eks
In the Biblical court case, two prostitutes living in the same house give birth within days of each other, but during the night one of the women lays on her son and he dies. In the middle of the night she switches the two children and the other woman awakens to a dead son at her breast, although at a closer look she realizes it’s not her son. They take the case to the court, and King Solomon decrees that the child be cut in two, with each woman receiving a half. The mother of the dead child agrees with the decision, but the real mother cries out that the baby could be given to the other woman, just let him live! With that, Solomon knew she was the real mother and gave her the child.
In the seventh Decalogue film, there are obvious similarities to this tale of King Solomon, but it twists the story around. The film also involves two women fighting over one child, but the circumstances are very different. In the Decalogue film, Majka became pregnant in high school and rather than keep the child as her daughter, allowed her mother to in essence adopt the baby and raise her as her own child. Majka is treated as the child’s sister, and the deception is deep, as only a handful of people know the truth of their family.
There are many differences in the stories, but I think the biggest difference lies in the hearts of the real mothers. In the Biblical tale, the true mother loved her child selflessly, and only wanted the best for the baby. She was willing to give up her right to raise and love the child if it meant he would live.
In the film, Majka is originally portrayed as only wanting a chance to love her child and be her mother. She is grieved by her decision to give Ania up, and wants to experience motherhood. This is a valid feeling, and I originally felt sorry for her. I could only imagine how hard it would be to watch your own daughter being raised by another, unaware that is was you who gave her life. As more of the plot unfolds, however, one realizes Majka’s terrible relationship with her own mother and another thought occurs. Did she really want the child, or did she just want to get back at her mother? I wasn’t really sure what was the answer, but I think it became more clear as we continued to watch the film, and then through the discussions afterwards.
I realized, however, that it was irrelevant which motive was correct, because every possible motive Majka had for “stealing” Ania was selfish, which couldn’t be true love since love is not self-seeking. What Majka really wanted was not to love the child, but to be loved by her. She never felt loved by her own mother, and in some way I think she wanted to use the child to fill her need for love. She didn’t want to have a daughter as much as she wanted her daughter to call her mother. She didn’t have Ania’s best interest in her mind, which is a true sign of love. Ania had a good life with Majka’s parents and a stable and happy home. Fleeing with her to Canada and tearing apart the life she knew wasn’t a loving action. The child obviously loved the woman she believed to be her mother and didn’t have the same feelings for Majka.
Majka even treated Ania as an object by repeating calling her “the child” and using her as a leverage to hurt her mother! I didn’t realize how pervasive this I-It relationship was until I began to write this blog and originally wrote “the child” every time I mentioned Ania. Only when I realized this did I go back and fill in her name. Like the mother of the dead son in Solomon’s story, Majka didn’t treat the child as a human being but rather as an object.
I suppose it’s hard to fault Majka for not really loving Ania when you realize she never felt love from her own mother. I would think it’s difficult to learn how to love your daughter if your own mother didn’t love you well. Jesus and the Beatles were right. Love is all we need, and when we don’t receive and give it, the consequences are terrible.
eks
Amanda: Requiem For a Dream
I think this movie greatly succeeded in portraying substance abuse in a different light, and although done in a harsh, hard to swallow way, it forced viewers to seperate the individuals from the drugs. I by no means think the director takes all the responsibility off of people who use drugs, but I view his intense interpretation as a compassionate attempt at opening a naïve audience’s eyes to what it would be like to be in Harry, Sara, Marion or Tyrone’s place. If for example, we only saw Marion selling her body for drugs prior to any background or development of her charcter, we may think to ourselves, “look what she’s doing to herself,” but instead, we see her and think, “look what the drugs are doing to her.”
The movie’s strongest point is this heavy focus on the background story of each character, allowing the audience to be introduced to their lives before the drugs have taken complete control of their actions. In doing this, the circumstance surrounding substance abuse is highlighted, and viewers are forced to attach themselves to each of the characters while watching tragedy unfold.
One of the main ways this film is able to provoke emotion and as well as depict the highs and lows of drug use is through it’s unique and experimental cinemotographic techniques. The visuals in this film give viewers a better understanding of what it is like quickly fall into addiction, and have the drugs change who you are. The quick scene changes, loud noises, and use of repetitive shots all add to the mood set by the film, and draw the viewers closer into the characters lives. Many shots are strange and atypical often placing the viewers in the same confused and desperate state as the characters in the film.
Substance abuse is a very common topic for films and generally in movies the evil characters are seen as the ones with problems of addiction. This portrayal in popular culture, whether we are conscious of it or not, forces viewers to link drug use with this idea of ‘bad people.’ Requiem For a Dream boldly choses to stray from this pattern, and instead it attempts to show the awful destruction of valuable, meaningful human lives.
The movie’s strongest point is this heavy focus on the background story of each character, allowing the audience to be introduced to their lives before the drugs have taken complete control of their actions. In doing this, the circumstance surrounding substance abuse is highlighted, and viewers are forced to attach themselves to each of the characters while watching tragedy unfold.
One of the main ways this film is able to provoke emotion and as well as depict the highs and lows of drug use is through it’s unique and experimental cinemotographic techniques. The visuals in this film give viewers a better understanding of what it is like quickly fall into addiction, and have the drugs change who you are. The quick scene changes, loud noises, and use of repetitive shots all add to the mood set by the film, and draw the viewers closer into the characters lives. Many shots are strange and atypical often placing the viewers in the same confused and desperate state as the characters in the film.
Substance abuse is a very common topic for films and generally in movies the evil characters are seen as the ones with problems of addiction. This portrayal in popular culture, whether we are conscious of it or not, forces viewers to link drug use with this idea of ‘bad people.’ Requiem For a Dream boldly choses to stray from this pattern, and instead it attempts to show the awful destruction of valuable, meaningful human lives.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Episode Seven Decalogue
Episode Seven
Lauren Brooks
So this movie was by far one of my favorites out of the Decalogue so far. I loved the story line of the mother and daughter relationships and I even loved the parallel between the commandment and the situation the family was placed in. All of the people in the movie treated the child as an object and put there best interests before hers and in the end they all got hurt. The mother and father lost one daughter, the daughter lost her daughter, the real father lost his daughter, and the daughter lost her biological father and mother. Wow! These are the devastating consequences of stealing.
The only real confusing part I picked up on was the relationship between the girl and the teacher. It seems to me that the teacher really felt something for this girl and would have been willing to come to some sort of arrangement with the family, but at the same time social constraints seem to get in the way and govern most of the decisions made in the movie. So regardless of the feelings I guess they never could really have had a “happily ever after” sort of relationship.
It seems to me that the more we move along in the Decalogue the more it turns into a Soap Opera straight off of daytime television. These stories are only things that we imagine happening not things that actually happen in real life. But turn on the television or open up a newspaper and these things do happen. Think about it, where do the ideas for Grey’s Anatomy come from or Law & Order, there us a reason for the disclaimer at the beginning of these shows. Maybe these fictional shows are based off more reality than we think; it makes you wonder what story from your life could illustrate one of the 10 commandments……
Lauren Brooks
So this movie was by far one of my favorites out of the Decalogue so far. I loved the story line of the mother and daughter relationships and I even loved the parallel between the commandment and the situation the family was placed in. All of the people in the movie treated the child as an object and put there best interests before hers and in the end they all got hurt. The mother and father lost one daughter, the daughter lost her daughter, the real father lost his daughter, and the daughter lost her biological father and mother. Wow! These are the devastating consequences of stealing.
The only real confusing part I picked up on was the relationship between the girl and the teacher. It seems to me that the teacher really felt something for this girl and would have been willing to come to some sort of arrangement with the family, but at the same time social constraints seem to get in the way and govern most of the decisions made in the movie. So regardless of the feelings I guess they never could really have had a “happily ever after” sort of relationship.
It seems to me that the more we move along in the Decalogue the more it turns into a Soap Opera straight off of daytime television. These stories are only things that we imagine happening not things that actually happen in real life. But turn on the television or open up a newspaper and these things do happen. Think about it, where do the ideas for Grey’s Anatomy come from or Law & Order, there us a reason for the disclaimer at the beginning of these shows. Maybe these fictional shows are based off more reality than we think; it makes you wonder what story from your life could illustrate one of the 10 commandments……
Episode Four Decalogue
Episode Four
Lauren Brooks
Very creepy. This movie gives new rise to the meaning opening Pandora’s Box. The commandment honor thy father and mother was one that I always have had trouble understanding and I think the one that people see the most gray area in; Especially today with the different sort of family dynamics that we have in our society. The daughter in this film also plays a very strange role and seems to change dramatically at one point in the film. There is the daughter before glasses and then the daughter after glasses.
The daughter before the glasses is innocent and questioning. She is also going through the typical transition from teenage girl to adulthood. The daughter after the glasses is one who has seen the letter (supposedly) and changes the relationship between her and who she thought was her father. She couldn’t just wait till it was time to open the letter and in doing so she faced the consequences of opening it. But after the fall out of the letter we find out that she really hasn’t opened the letter; yet things between her and her so called father have dramatically changed. It really doesn’t matter what’s in the letter, the fact is should she honor her mother and wait or does she have the right to open it now? And if this man isn’t really her father is she obligated to honor him? Where is the line drawn?
As a matter of fact I can think of a very common situation that happens in families that involves this choice, when your parents think you should be one thing and you want to choose a different path. Is it wrong to go against what they think is right?
Lauren Brooks
Very creepy. This movie gives new rise to the meaning opening Pandora’s Box. The commandment honor thy father and mother was one that I always have had trouble understanding and I think the one that people see the most gray area in; Especially today with the different sort of family dynamics that we have in our society. The daughter in this film also plays a very strange role and seems to change dramatically at one point in the film. There is the daughter before glasses and then the daughter after glasses.
The daughter before the glasses is innocent and questioning. She is also going through the typical transition from teenage girl to adulthood. The daughter after the glasses is one who has seen the letter (supposedly) and changes the relationship between her and who she thought was her father. She couldn’t just wait till it was time to open the letter and in doing so she faced the consequences of opening it. But after the fall out of the letter we find out that she really hasn’t opened the letter; yet things between her and her so called father have dramatically changed. It really doesn’t matter what’s in the letter, the fact is should she honor her mother and wait or does she have the right to open it now? And if this man isn’t really her father is she obligated to honor him? Where is the line drawn?
As a matter of fact I can think of a very common situation that happens in families that involves this choice, when your parents think you should be one thing and you want to choose a different path. Is it wrong to go against what they think is right?
Episode Three Decalogue
Episode Three
Lauren Brooks
This movie dealt with the keeping the Sabbath Day Holy. It was also really hard to watch this man leave his wife and children on Christmas Eve to go and look around town for the husband of his past mistress. Not only did he abandon his family but he also told extensive lies to keep his going out a secret and all for nothing. The husband wasn’t even missing and they had been searching for him in vain the whole night. The mistress also told her fair share of lie’s to keep the man with her until the end of the night. But at the very end of the movie she states that if she couldn’t have made it to the end of the night with him she would have killed herself. So was it worth it for the man to betray his family, but more importantly he betrayed space and time. It was Christmas Eve’s!! One of the most sacred and holy days of the year and he was disgracing it by leaving his family.
It reminds me of the many time’s in films when the setting is in a church, known as a sacred space, and someone curses or shouts to God; they are immediately punished and scolded for there wrongdoing and reminded that they are on sacred ground. This man was not necessarily on sacred ground but he was in sacred time, no matter what he was doing he should have been honest with his family and figured out some sort of solution. Honesty always has to be the best policy.
Lauren Brooks
This movie dealt with the keeping the Sabbath Day Holy. It was also really hard to watch this man leave his wife and children on Christmas Eve to go and look around town for the husband of his past mistress. Not only did he abandon his family but he also told extensive lies to keep his going out a secret and all for nothing. The husband wasn’t even missing and they had been searching for him in vain the whole night. The mistress also told her fair share of lie’s to keep the man with her until the end of the night. But at the very end of the movie she states that if she couldn’t have made it to the end of the night with him she would have killed herself. So was it worth it for the man to betray his family, but more importantly he betrayed space and time. It was Christmas Eve’s!! One of the most sacred and holy days of the year and he was disgracing it by leaving his family.
It reminds me of the many time’s in films when the setting is in a church, known as a sacred space, and someone curses or shouts to God; they are immediately punished and scolded for there wrongdoing and reminded that they are on sacred ground. This man was not necessarily on sacred ground but he was in sacred time, no matter what he was doing he should have been honest with his family and figured out some sort of solution. Honesty always has to be the best policy.
Blow Up!
Lauren Brooks
Blow up!
This can be categorized as one of the most interesting movies I have ever seen. I think I have finally found my problem with European films, I have to think to figure out the story and part of the story is mine to figure out! In America there is a plethora of films to experience and the majority of those films spell out exactly what you are suppose to take from them and exactly what story line you are suppose to understand. In Europe the case it’s not so easy. There are complex characters, random settings, and strange lines that confuse the hell out of you.
The weird thing about this film is the way the director plays with reality and the main character. The audience is fairly certain throughout half of the film that a murder took place and the photographer documented it, but towards the end of the film you start to question the validity of the photo and the close ups.
Another difference between American and European films is they keep you guessing, even about the ending. The ending of this film involves the photographer playing along with the mimes, playing along into their reality. So it brings up the question what is real? And then like most European movies it ends without any conclusion or any resolution of conflict. So you the viewer are then forced to think about the movie ponder the intricacies of cinema…
Blow up!
This can be categorized as one of the most interesting movies I have ever seen. I think I have finally found my problem with European films, I have to think to figure out the story and part of the story is mine to figure out! In America there is a plethora of films to experience and the majority of those films spell out exactly what you are suppose to take from them and exactly what story line you are suppose to understand. In Europe the case it’s not so easy. There are complex characters, random settings, and strange lines that confuse the hell out of you.
The weird thing about this film is the way the director plays with reality and the main character. The audience is fairly certain throughout half of the film that a murder took place and the photographer documented it, but towards the end of the film you start to question the validity of the photo and the close ups.
Another difference between American and European films is they keep you guessing, even about the ending. The ending of this film involves the photographer playing along with the mimes, playing along into their reality. So it brings up the question what is real? And then like most European movies it ends without any conclusion or any resolution of conflict. So you the viewer are then forced to think about the movie ponder the intricacies of cinema…
Decalogue 7 - AHB
"Thou Shalt Not Steal"
Decalogue 7 dealt with some interesting topics that definitely leave you in a kind of moral gray area. Again, I think that Kieslowski succeeded in working through an interpretation of the commandment without explicitly stating a particular position.
A lot is going on in this episode beyond the basic storyline. I think a key facet is education. Who is responsible for raising a child, and should that responsibility be shifted. It's naive to say that a woman simply has a natural right to raise her child. Too many mother's are tragic examples of bad parenting, and should never have such a responsibility. However, it seems like there should also be a pretty powerful motivator in order to remove a child from its mother. Plato ruffles some feathers when he suggests in the Republic that all children should be taken from their parents because everyone is fundamentally unfit to raise a child. Once you start going down that road it is hard to know where to draw the line, and since the child cannot decide for herself someone will always be making that choice for her.
Another interesting part of the movie is the way it deals with perception. Majka(?) would never have been satisfied living with her daughter at home because the girl's perception of her mother would always be fixed on her grandmother. Even after the old bird died she would still be mother to both the girls. Watching this part of the film was really interesting. Even if the two had successfully run away to Kanada, this problem of perception would have always existed. This also ties back into the first point. Does it matter who is the mother of a child and whether or not the child knows who her mother is?
The mother in this episode is really offensive. It seems like her love of the little girl is partially a way of covering up her mistakes with her older daughter.
I like the end of this episode. I think Majka did the only thing that she could do, and maybe she realized that the child's needs were more important than her own.
Decalogue 7 dealt with some interesting topics that definitely leave you in a kind of moral gray area. Again, I think that Kieslowski succeeded in working through an interpretation of the commandment without explicitly stating a particular position.
A lot is going on in this episode beyond the basic storyline. I think a key facet is education. Who is responsible for raising a child, and should that responsibility be shifted. It's naive to say that a woman simply has a natural right to raise her child. Too many mother's are tragic examples of bad parenting, and should never have such a responsibility. However, it seems like there should also be a pretty powerful motivator in order to remove a child from its mother. Plato ruffles some feathers when he suggests in the Republic that all children should be taken from their parents because everyone is fundamentally unfit to raise a child. Once you start going down that road it is hard to know where to draw the line, and since the child cannot decide for herself someone will always be making that choice for her.
Another interesting part of the movie is the way it deals with perception. Majka(?) would never have been satisfied living with her daughter at home because the girl's perception of her mother would always be fixed on her grandmother. Even after the old bird died she would still be mother to both the girls. Watching this part of the film was really interesting. Even if the two had successfully run away to Kanada, this problem of perception would have always existed. This also ties back into the first point. Does it matter who is the mother of a child and whether or not the child knows who her mother is?
The mother in this episode is really offensive. It seems like her love of the little girl is partially a way of covering up her mistakes with her older daughter.
I like the end of this episode. I think Majka did the only thing that she could do, and maybe she realized that the child's needs were more important than her own.
Decalogue 7
Garrett Lambur
So as I sit here about to write this response to Decalogue number 7 I am experiencing a bit of internal controversy. After watching the movie I cannot fully decide which party I was pulling for more. There was a big part of me that wished the daughter would escape with her daughter but there was the part of me that recognized how much trouble this might represent for daughter in the future. Kieslowski out did himself in this film, presenting an easily understood commandment in a very controversial manner. There were arguments in the film that supported both sides. The ex-boyfriend sought an argument that it would be the best for the child if she was returned to her grandmother while the grandmother revealed her one sided love of the child and not her own daughter. If the daughter had managed to make it to Canada with her child I am pretty sure I would not have considered it stealing, it was her own child. Perhaps the child would have been young enough that with time she would have come to accept her new mother. With the ending as it was though, there was a big part of me that just could not support the grandmother. She cared for and loved the child but only at the expense of her own daughter, who was not an unloving person of the child. Though it was never established that the grandmother truly sought out having the child as her own not to save her own daughter but for her own benefit, her actions in the film strongly supported this idea. When she finally finds the child at the train station she quickly brings her into a close embrace but when she sees her own daughter, who was running away from her, she does not know what to say. Her love of the granddaughter was stronger than that of the daughter and the father had recognized this and mentioned it earlier in the film. Thus I begin to lean more in favor against the grandmother. What makes it very hard to pick a side in this matter is that each side was looking out for the best interest of the child, neither was attempting to wrong her in anyway but only provide what they thought was the best love. The commandment though shalt not steal seems to be simple enough but rarely are we faced with enforcing such a simple sentiment on so convoluted of a situation. This is perhaps one of the best examples of what may be called an ethical dilemma. There is neither a right answer nor a wrong answer but only two possible sides with each having its own merit. We studied these somewhat in Leadership but nothing that we studied portrayed the issue that can be presented in such a situation as well as this film did. At the end though, I have to follow my gut and wish that the daughter had gone to Canada with her child.
So as I sit here about to write this response to Decalogue number 7 I am experiencing a bit of internal controversy. After watching the movie I cannot fully decide which party I was pulling for more. There was a big part of me that wished the daughter would escape with her daughter but there was the part of me that recognized how much trouble this might represent for daughter in the future. Kieslowski out did himself in this film, presenting an easily understood commandment in a very controversial manner. There were arguments in the film that supported both sides. The ex-boyfriend sought an argument that it would be the best for the child if she was returned to her grandmother while the grandmother revealed her one sided love of the child and not her own daughter. If the daughter had managed to make it to Canada with her child I am pretty sure I would not have considered it stealing, it was her own child. Perhaps the child would have been young enough that with time she would have come to accept her new mother. With the ending as it was though, there was a big part of me that just could not support the grandmother. She cared for and loved the child but only at the expense of her own daughter, who was not an unloving person of the child. Though it was never established that the grandmother truly sought out having the child as her own not to save her own daughter but for her own benefit, her actions in the film strongly supported this idea. When she finally finds the child at the train station she quickly brings her into a close embrace but when she sees her own daughter, who was running away from her, she does not know what to say. Her love of the granddaughter was stronger than that of the daughter and the father had recognized this and mentioned it earlier in the film. Thus I begin to lean more in favor against the grandmother. What makes it very hard to pick a side in this matter is that each side was looking out for the best interest of the child, neither was attempting to wrong her in anyway but only provide what they thought was the best love. The commandment though shalt not steal seems to be simple enough but rarely are we faced with enforcing such a simple sentiment on so convoluted of a situation. This is perhaps one of the best examples of what may be called an ethical dilemma. There is neither a right answer nor a wrong answer but only two possible sides with each having its own merit. We studied these somewhat in Leadership but nothing that we studied portrayed the issue that can be presented in such a situation as well as this film did. At the end though, I have to follow my gut and wish that the daughter had gone to Canada with her child.
Love Actually
I just watched Love Actually. OH MY GOSH THERE WAS SO MUCH LOVE IN THAT FILM! (Said in my best excited-Amanda impression ☺.) The more I think about the movie, the more loving relationships and different types of love portrayed come to my mind, beyond just the romantic ones. Dang. They thought of so much.
I think my favorite story line ended up being Juliet and Mark. It was of course awful for him that he fell in love with his best friend’s girl, but at least he had the self-control to not act upon his emotions negatively. Love is hard that way. We can’t control who we “fall in love” with, but we can control our actions. I thought his love was so sincere and loved the way he expressed it to her:
With any luck, by next year - I'll be going out with one of these girls.
[shows pictures of beautiful supermodels] But for now, let me say - Without hope or agenda - Just because it's Christmas - And at Christmas you tell the truth - To me, you are perfect - And my wasted heart will love you - Until you look like this
[picture of a mummy]- Merry Christmas
It was so sweet, and I liked the scene even though it’s sad he won’t get to be with her. It was one of the romantic love stories that didn’t work out, but I liked it more than some of the ones that did (maybe because it was more realistic?). I especially loved his line “without hope or agenda.” In some ways, that’s actually the truest form of love… it loves without expecting anything in return. And it’s beautiful.
eks
I think my favorite story line ended up being Juliet and Mark. It was of course awful for him that he fell in love with his best friend’s girl, but at least he had the self-control to not act upon his emotions negatively. Love is hard that way. We can’t control who we “fall in love” with, but we can control our actions. I thought his love was so sincere and loved the way he expressed it to her:
With any luck, by next year - I'll be going out with one of these girls.
[shows pictures of beautiful supermodels] But for now, let me say - Without hope or agenda - Just because it's Christmas - And at Christmas you tell the truth - To me, you are perfect - And my wasted heart will love you - Until you look like this
[picture of a mummy]- Merry Christmas
It was so sweet, and I liked the scene even though it’s sad he won’t get to be with her. It was one of the romantic love stories that didn’t work out, but I liked it more than some of the ones that did (maybe because it was more realistic?). I especially loved his line “without hope or agenda.” In some ways, that’s actually the truest form of love… it loves without expecting anything in return. And it’s beautiful.
eks
Pans Labyrinth: Ophelia=Mini-Adult
Pans Labyrinth: Ophelia=Mini-Adult
Lauren Brooks
What an intense movie? It’s hard to believe that it was based off of a children’s fairy tale. And the backdrop for the movie was even more intense with the portrayal of the violence in the revolution in Spain. The young girl Ophelia was going through some difficult things as a young child, yet through all the bad she still believed in magic and fairy tales. I can’t imagine all the pain she felt and yet her mom wondered why she needed to believe in these things, especially being a young child.
Her Mom was like many today, they want their children to grow up too fast and make adult decisions. And I got a sense from her Mom in the movie that she wasn’t being taken seriously by her mother, yet when Ophelia was faced with many adult like decisions she made the right choice. Her first adult choice was standing up for her real father and not addressing the Captain as father. A second choice could be when she. The third choice is when she refused to sacrifice her brother, even one droop of blood, in order to become a princess.
If this story, I choose to believe that Ophelia was that princess and that in the end she came back to her kingdom to rule and live happily after. Her pain from being shot and dying was only temporary and can not compare to the joy she fault reigning over her kingdom.
Lauren Brooks
What an intense movie? It’s hard to believe that it was based off of a children’s fairy tale. And the backdrop for the movie was even more intense with the portrayal of the violence in the revolution in Spain. The young girl Ophelia was going through some difficult things as a young child, yet through all the bad she still believed in magic and fairy tales. I can’t imagine all the pain she felt and yet her mom wondered why she needed to believe in these things, especially being a young child.
Her Mom was like many today, they want their children to grow up too fast and make adult decisions. And I got a sense from her Mom in the movie that she wasn’t being taken seriously by her mother, yet when Ophelia was faced with many adult like decisions she made the right choice. Her first adult choice was standing up for her real father and not addressing the Captain as father. A second choice could be when she. The third choice is when she refused to sacrifice her brother, even one droop of blood, in order to become a princess.
If this story, I choose to believe that Ophelia was that princess and that in the end she came back to her kingdom to rule and live happily after. Her pain from being shot and dying was only temporary and can not compare to the joy she fault reigning over her kingdom.
Amanda: Marie Antoinette
Written and directed by the great Sofia Coppola (winner of two Oscars for the brilliant, Lost in Transalation), Marie Antoinette spans the life of Maria Teresa’s youngest daughter from her betrothal to Louis XVI through her reign as queen of France. Assigning Coppola to this movie and allowing her to adapt the script from the historical book written a few years prior meant that there would be many twists and modifications to a typical film about history.
Throughout the film Coppola exhibits her great talent of allowing her audience to feel time moving without actually detaching them from the film. Her film technique is not to simply entertain but to connect the viewers and the characters in the film, and never rush through it. Each moment is deliberate and meant to be felt, but not to drag on or distract viewers. This method paired with the cinematography overall was amazing, and each and every shot in the film could have been a beautiful photograph on its own.
Another large aspect of this movie was the great soundtrack. Modern indie-rock music is combined with a film about the royalty in the 1800’s. This allows modern viewers to have a more personal, relatable relationship with the life of Marie Antoinette and provides the perfect clash between the world of the viewer and the subject. These factors set the overall tone of Coppola’s vision for the film, making it possible for the story of the individual woman, Marie Antoinette to be told, not the story of the queen of France.
Initially when I watched the film for the first time I was a bit let down by the ending, but after re-watching it and letting it process I’ve come to realize that it was the perfect way to conclude the story. The ending of the film did exactly what Coppola intended it to; it left me feeling let down, misguided and sympathetic to the looming fate that was to come of young Marie. The film’s focus on her careless lifestyle at the court in Versailles does not excuse or praise her actions, it boldly displays her lavish lifestyle as treason to her people, all the while humanizing her. In the same instant she is portrayed as an irresponsible, foolish ruler and a young girl who rejects the plans her parents have set out for her life. We receive an insider’s view on what her life was really like up until the immortal words “Let them eat cake” provoked the actions of the French revolution.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
The Seventh Seal
I enjoyed The Seventh Seal more than most of the movies we’ve watched in class, but I’m not entirely sure that’s not just because it was Swedish… ☺. It had an unusual plot, and I found the characters interesting. I especially liked the family of actors. They had such a sweet relationship with one another and their child, and were a small bit of light in a very dark country. I was really saddened by the terror going on in the country because of the plague, and horrified by the parade of Christians who walked around with crosses and incense, flagellating themselves.
All of the characters were very different from each other, but I think the knight and the actors offer particularly good comparisons. We described the actors as people with true or simple faith. Normally, I think the term “simple faith” comes with negative connotations, but I don’t think that’s right. The knight, on the other hand, was really struggling with his belief in God. He had become disillusioned during his years in the crusade and wasn’t satisfied.
I found two of his lines really interesting:
“It is so hard to believe God with your senses. I want knowledge, not belief. I want to see His face.”
“To believe is to suffer… it’s like loving someone in the dark who never answers.”
He wanted to experience God and struggled with his belief. His pain is obvious and it too saddened me. He wanted to believe, but did feel he could. The actor, on the other hand, seemed to have the experience and faith the knight wanted. He believed he actually “saw” Mary and Jesus and held firmly to his faith.
I don’t think the knight’s desire for knowledge instead of belief is inherently wrong… it’s important to think logically about your faith… however I was reminded of Jesus’ words about the necessity of “faith like a child” to enter the kingdom of heaven and I wondered which was to be valued more, the simple faith of the actor or the deep contemplation of the knight.
eks
All of the characters were very different from each other, but I think the knight and the actors offer particularly good comparisons. We described the actors as people with true or simple faith. Normally, I think the term “simple faith” comes with negative connotations, but I don’t think that’s right. The knight, on the other hand, was really struggling with his belief in God. He had become disillusioned during his years in the crusade and wasn’t satisfied.
I found two of his lines really interesting:
“It is so hard to believe God with your senses. I want knowledge, not belief. I want to see His face.”
“To believe is to suffer… it’s like loving someone in the dark who never answers.”
He wanted to experience God and struggled with his belief. His pain is obvious and it too saddened me. He wanted to believe, but did feel he could. The actor, on the other hand, seemed to have the experience and faith the knight wanted. He believed he actually “saw” Mary and Jesus and held firmly to his faith.
I don’t think the knight’s desire for knowledge instead of belief is inherently wrong… it’s important to think logically about your faith… however I was reminded of Jesus’ words about the necessity of “faith like a child” to enter the kingdom of heaven and I wondered which was to be valued more, the simple faith of the actor or the deep contemplation of the knight.
eks
Amanda: Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Vicky Cristina Barcelona follows the story of two friends on their summer vacation to Spain. The two characters, although best friends, couldn’t be more different than each other and for this reason their romantic relationships are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Vicky is traditional and rational and is engaged to marry a man when she returns from her trip, and is in Barcelona to work on her masters on Catalan identity. Cristina is a very spontaneous, free spirited woman who goes where the wind takes her, which often seems to be into the hands of another lover. She is in Barcelona to get over another failed relationship and find direction and inspiration in her life.
So, what is the best way to cause an interesting story line between these two characters? You guessed it, very early on in the film the two women meet a man that they are both attracted to. Vicky denies this attraction but as Cristina pursues this man, Juan Antonio, she becomes extremely jealous. Vicky begins questioning her commitment to her fiancé as well as her view on love and marriage. Cristina quickly moves in with Juan Antonio, primarily attracted to his artistic vision as an abstract painter which he carries over to every other aspect of his life.
The story then gets much more complicated, with a third woman entering Cristina and Juan Antonio’s relationship forming a strange, ‘committed’ threesome between them, but I’ll spare you the details there. Cristina realizes that this relationship isn’t working out and goes to France for the rest of the summer, and Vicky sees this as her opportunity to act on her initial feelings for Juan Antonio.
The most interesting aspect of this film for me was that although the characters go through a lot of bizarre situations and learn a lot about themselves in the process, it appears that their lives continue just where they left off when they return from their trip. It would appear to anyone else that wasn’t on the trip with them that they simply enjoyed the culture and wine of Spain for three months and are now ready to continue with their future plans. The end of film intentionally mirrors the way in which we were introduced to the characters in the beginning, further stressing this point.
Even though their lives appear to be the same, after their very exciting summer, both women return greatly changed and even more committed to their views of love. Vicky realizes that the idea of a romantic artist greatly appeals to her but that she could never really commit to that lifestyle. She had her moment to escape the plans and rules she set out for herself but she could not take it because it was going against every part that makes her who she is. She realized that she let ideas and attraction get in the way of seeing her fiancé’s commitment to her and the love they have together.
Cristina on the other hand, still appears to be a mess and completely lacking direction in her life, but this is something throughout the film that we have expected and learned to love about her character. She is innately adventurous and because of this, she primarily learns from experience. Cristina concludes towards the end of the film, “I don’t know what I want, but I know what I don’t want.” She tried to be with Juan Antonio and she tried to be with him and the other woman, and she realized that it wasn’t for her and that it’s time to move on to somewhere new with new opportunities and challenges.
Towards the end of the film the two women have a conversation that culminates all that they have learned both together and apart. Vicky took Cristina’s view on life for a brief moment when she almost tried to get with Juan Antonio, and Cristina realized she was trying to be like Vicky when she agreed to settle down with Juan Antonio and the other woman. The two women shared a great summer of adventure and growth together, and are ready to continue with their lives.
Overall, I really liked this movie and I think it straddles the line between 'totally crazy' and 'unique' very well. It is one of my favorite Woddy Allen movies that I've seen, mostly because all of the typical characteristics of a Woody Allen film are toned down. The plot line is still a bit bizarre, but that's what makes it interesting. This film is also extremely well acted, and I especially enjoyed the moments in the film when Penelope Cruz turned on her crazy switch and became a little spanish tornado. I liked that Woody Allen kept this in spanish instead of making her speak english because allowing her to speak in her native tongue really escalated her amazing acting ability in these scenes. I would highly recommend this film and think it stands out against many movies that struggle to portray the same concept.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
