Deviation
Posts: 26923
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
|
quote:
I don't claim to be wise or have expertise in any field of knowledge. I only criticise what I know. As such, my criticisms are specifically targeted at Aronofsky's decision for making the film, the writers, producers and studios behind this film.
You really don't know anything btw....you almost became "Squidward denying the existence of Gandhi" with that Beatles comment.
quote:
The Judeo-Christian myths and religions are prevalent in Hollywood cinema and American entertainment. Whether it be The Passion of the Christ, What Dreams May Come, Bruce Almighty or the final season of Lost. Each of these different examples either allude to religion or make outright religious and historical claims. In the process they validate these religions and myths and way of seeing the world which I describe as 'world-view'.
They also validate their importance in our shared popular culture. Regardless of whether you watch these films, you will hear all about them.
How do they do that? Also, you might be shocked to hear that *gasp* many people still have a strong connection to religion.
Also, are you really thinking that people took Bruce Almighty seriously?
quote:
When we look broadly at Hollywoods output and to a broader degree Western English speaking cinema, and then look at the cultural groups that comprise those societies, we find a disparity. In that the myths, cultures and religions of the majority are more often represented.
Is this important? I will argue that it is important.
There are clearly biases at play in Hollywood cinema. Many female actors discuss the lack of leading roles for women. From an industry and marketing perspective, put simply female leads too often do not reflect the types of profits studios are interested in. Not everyone can be the lead in Resident Evil. Most good actresses get by, but the point remains that there are biases. In this case a gender bias.
For the same reason Hollywood seldom makes films with female leads, they seldom make films that focus on cultural fringe groups or minority groups. It is well known that the Hollywood film industry has a large Jewish population. I have no qualms with Jewish people but it is clear that the interests in making this Noahs Ark film and the support for it come from this Jewish cultural group. Darren Aronofsky himself is Jewish.
You're right, it's just Hollywood. That's why cinema in other countries always has a balanced number of films about their minorities. oh no wait, aside from Iran, India and ironically the States, I can't think of a country that actually does that and tries to cover the broadest number of people in their country.... Also, how many times in these last few years have we seen a Hollywood film that is truly Jewish in its theme (coming from the States)? The only one I can think of in the last few years in A Serious Man.
I can't even think of films from Israel that had that insight in Jewish culture or religion.
quote:
I use two examples. 20 years ago, Kevin Costner made a film about indigenous Americans. Dances with Wolves. It presented their culture, their beliefs, their spirituality and world-view in mainstream American cinema, It was hugely successful. As such the film was a validating experience for the indigenous Americans.
How many films in the subsequent 20 years have had the same impact for that minority group?
Not a lot, as Dances with Wolves is one of those successful films that comes very rarely and Girv has this pretty much covered.
quote:
A few years ago, Danny Boyle made Slumdog Millionaire. This movie provided an insight into life in the slums of Mumbai. Though not a Hollywood film, this film was internationally successful. My friend grew up in the very same slums of Mumbai. He loved this film. Although, he said that as gritty as it was, it still wasn't as gritty as the real thing. He went to the cinema 4 times. For him it was a validating experience. Validating his culture, spirituality, plight, and world-view of people from this part of the world.
Really, there was some criticisms aimed towards it and the way it represented India from India itself. Also India needs no representation from the West to portray its citizens and variety of cultures, Bollywood and the regional cinemas do an excellent job themselves and probably a better one, since you might say that they have a first-hand experience of those cultures.
This reminds on how Zwick tried to tackle the fall of samurai culture in The Last Samurai and came up with only with iconographic nonsense that basically said very little on the state of the samurai in that age, especially when compared to those made in Japan itself.
quote:
A lot of criticisms towards me have been about: 'nobody knows what the film will even be like yet, only that it is about Noahs Ark'
Well two things here. If it is a watered down version, omitting the implausable claims such as the Biblical god angry at the wickedness of man, the sending of a set of instructions by the god to Noah, and the rounding up of the animals. If it omits these details, then it could be considered religious revisionism. In which case it's just as bad as presenting the original material verbatim.
If it includes those details then it does a disservice to the real story of animals location in the world and the reasons for their location. They simply did not wander down Mt. Ararat and choose a random direction.
Either way you look at it, it's a bad idea.
Or they might just consider it a fantasy and go along with it, which is how I and a few people I know consider the films on Moses (a fantasy).
Also, the great flood isn't just Judeo-Christian. You find it in Islam (Noah is mentioned in it as well) in throughout the world. It's something of a mytheme.
quote:
Yes, there have been films over the years that criticize the bible and religion such as the ones previously mentioned. I would like to argue their merit as subversive or persuasive arguments.
Few? Bunuel did an entire career out of it.
quote:
Dogma. It was great and funny but it was an indie film that few Christians would have even bothered with. Why? the same reason I don't listen to Christian rock music. It's corrosive to my wellbeing and doesn't fit in with my world-view.
And yet I know a good number of Christians (I live in a country with 98% of people being classified as Catholic) who thought it was hilarious. I did but then I discovered it was rather juvenile. Oh and it was made by a Christian himself.
quote:
The Kingdom of Heaven. More of a historical argument than an existential one and a lacklustre Ridley Scott film to boot. It hardly achieved much.
Explain more, I want to know how the three hour version didn't achieve much.
quote:
Meanwhile the fringe dwellers including non theists like myself, have their world-view further marginalized.. It's ideological elitism.
Whoah, and I thought the Christians had a tendency of self-victimizing.
< Message edited by Deviation -- 3/12/2011 2:42:03 PM >
_____________________________
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.
quote:
ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates
|
Printable Version
RE: Rebuttals - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread