(Spielberg) in person

Started by mutinyco, June 12, 2003, 08:54:44 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Gold Trumpet

I don't mind how you found your belief nor was it my intention to say you found it through your parents or anything forced upon you, but even if you wanna say differently, age 6 is a very young age to even start thinking of things or even be able to adequately think of things to make any decision.

Me, myself, I just followed what my parents told me on what to believe and then quietly dropped out of my catholic faith around 18 years of age. I was even questioning my age for 18 then as maybe too young to be able to determine such a move, but since my belief is now agnostic, the idea of being questionable is a fitting way to think for me in making such a move.

~rougerum

mutinyco

You'd be surprised how clearly you can see if you don't have filters foisted upon you. 6 isn't a particularly young age for somebody of relative intelligence. But to understand my point of view, you're dealing with somebody who has since that age, for 22 years, understood that to be what was going on. I'm as hardened in my observations as others are in their faith.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

mutinyco

Well, if you're not religious, then why are you using symbolism of something you don't believe in? If you don't believe and you're using it, then at least use it in a way to show how silly it is. You shouldn't use it to make things larger, but to contrast how small things really are...
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

children with angels

Mutinyco: what do you think about the really rather blatant Christ imagery in ET? The sacred heart, the white robe, the outstretched arms, ascending into Heaven, toward the end?
"Should I bring my own chains?"
"We always do..."

http://www.alternatetakes.co.uk/
http://thelesserfeat.blogspot.com/

SoNowThen

The great majority of North American storytelling draws some imagery/symbolism/what-have-you from the Bible, just because it was (and hopefully still is...) the major religion that both Canada and USA as we know it were founded on. Plus, whether you believe or not, these allusions still resonate because they are well-known references. Like Greek mythology or Shakespearian themes...

Some common ones: prodigal son, sins of the father, redemption through love, tower of Babel (lack of communication), Moses (leadership through blind faith)... etc
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

mutinyco

I don't think it's Christ imagery. He's a space alien. It's just like in 2001 -- the space aliens are so far evolved in relation to humanity that they might as well be gods. It also wouldn't make sense in the case of E.T., because Spielberg is Jewish.

I think he's simply a symbol for world peace, as I said. There was a rather large movement in the early to mid-'80s to ban nukes. That was kind of the liberal cause du jour.

As for general religious symbolism, yeah, it's so much a part of society that it's kind of hard to avoid. However, many of the examples used are elements of life that exist free from religious implications -- they're just facts of life. If you can only see them through the rose tint of religion, then you need to take off your sunglasses.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

children with angels

Quote from: mutinycoI don't think it's Christ imagery. He's a space alien. It's just like in 2001 -- the space aliens are so far evolved in relation to humanity that they might as well be gods. It also wouldn't make sense in the case of E.T., because Spielberg is Jewish.

Ohhh, come oooonnn: it's so Christ imagery! And the fact that he's Jewish just backs up the point that you don't necessarily need to believe in the religious imagery you show: it just makes the whole thing seem grander...
"Should I bring my own chains?"
"We always do..."

http://www.alternatetakes.co.uk/
http://thelesserfeat.blogspot.com/

mutinyco

It's generic religious symbolism. Your Christian mindset is telling you it's Christ. It's totally generic. Most myths worldwide have a great deal in common. And it was done in relation to the peace movement at the time -- Michael's wearing a NO NUKES shirt, etc...
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

SoNowThen

Yeah, the ET post got snuck in on me. I have no idea if ET specifically was, I was just saying there's a lot of it around, generally...
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

children with angels

Sorry, SoNowThen - I'll butt out after this one...

Mutynico - even if it is just generic symbolism (which I don't necessarily agree with you about: it always seemed far too specific to me), it's still certainly religious imagery - as you said. You're saying Speilberg wanted to him to be a symbol of peace, backing up the banning of nukes, I'm saying that in order to do that he has employed religious imagery to make his point grander, whether he believes it or not - which is what you were saying people shouldn't do. I think it's perfectly acceptable.
"Should I bring my own chains?"
"We always do..."

http://www.alternatetakes.co.uk/
http://thelesserfeat.blogspot.com/

SoNowThen

Children, no need to butt-out. I'd prefer you to take the reins. I was just making that one point before, but I didn't know there had been another post, and mine came off as commenting on that one. That's all I meant by "snuck in a post".

Please, continue the discussion. I will observe now, as I said all I had to say last page.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

mutinyco

Actually, I think that moment when E.T. comes out of the van amidst white smoke, etc., is generally embarrassing. I cringe whenever I see it. It's the one false note in the film, because I don't believe it was necessary.

But considering that we actually have people who are gullible enough to believe a virgin gave birth, that the person was the son of some god, and grants life eternal -- perhaps it was necessary for the masses. After all, in a 1996 USA Today poll 60% of this country believed that in the year 2000 Jesus Christ would come back to battle Satan.

Do your history checks. Throughout history virtually every civilization has had a myth of some similarity. It was even promoted during Ghengis Khan's life that he'd been born of divine conception and that he wasn't truly human.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

mutinyco

And even more so, I'd like to say that the mere continuation of religious symbols for any purpose other than to show their fraudulent nature, is wrongheaded. It's time for humanity to grow up. There's no point in reinforcing nonsense.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

children with angels

But it is religious imagery. That's all I'm saying.

But, this really doesn't matter - it's such a tiny moment in the film to argue over. I too always cringe at that moment: that's why I was bringing it up, to see what you'd make of it with your stance on using religious symbolism.

I see that you feel strongly about the subject of religion, man: but I think you're being a little arrogant in the way you're talking to those who believe (I am not one of them, I'm just saying...). If I was an atheist I'd probably have the same viewpoint, but I'd like to think I wouldn't be quite so openly dismissive to the face of someone to whom religion is a huge, massive point in their life - just out of, I don't know, being friendly...

But, please please, let's not make this into a religious debate now. I'm an agnostic, that's the end of it for the moment. I think we've reached another point on which no amount of argument will solve anything. Scocese vs Spielberg, God vs nothingness...!
"Should I bring my own chains?"
"We always do..."

http://www.alternatetakes.co.uk/
http://thelesserfeat.blogspot.com/

Alethia

fuck, i think the most religious spielberg film is close encounters