God

Started by AlguienEstolamiPantalones, June 01, 2003, 04:30:22 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AlguienEstolamiPantalones

ive been thinking about this a lot

people are always talking about god and hollywood and how the film industry mocks the concept of god


But Magnolia is a very pro god movie

what i mean is , in that world God exists

im not into religen in anyway , but i always want to think that a god exsists

a lot of film snobs pride themselves on the fact that they are too cool to think that god exsists

but here is fucking paul thomas anderson and he makes this masterpiece and well he puts this whole god thing in the ending the 82


and in such way, he didnt hit us over the head with some phoney bullshit preachy mesage , we dont even know what his view on god is but the film leads us to to think whatever it is , im sure its interesting

at least he didnt pick a trendy god , like buddah

pulp fiction too, thats a very pro god movie

but if you ask some hard core relgiouce fanatic , they would turn there noses up at both films

and the flip side to that is , snobby atheists

who never really bring much of a debate to the table

anyways im all over the place here, but we should talk about the signifigance of god in this movie and how some of us feel about it

i dig it, because it gives the film a cool layer that is missing in other movies, since most films never deal with god in this way

Pubrick

i'm busy doin sumthin else but i will for now just say that i agree with everything u've said.

bbl
under the paving stones.

AlguienEstolamiPantalones

im high, you can tell so i am in deep thinkin mode

but i love how he deals with the issue of a god

it gives him so much more depth then just saying

" I dont beilve in god, thats just so lame"

me i dunno i want there to be a god, but since im a member of modren day society what with science and all

i lose faith

but this film brings something new to the table that a lot of other people couldnt bring

Cecil

**spoilers for magnolia** (just in case)

i dont believe in god, but ill sometimes use similar symbolism in a story or script of mine just because of what it represents (in the case of magnolia, the apocalypse).  but of course not in the way where it would happen literally because of a god and as depicted in the bible, because if you dont believe in god then you consider the bible a work of fiction, therefore you can use its symbols just like you would quote or reference anything else.

for example, i can make some kind of reference to a scientist working on something hes calling CRM- 114, and that would just be a reference to clockwork orange and what it represents.

and in the case of magnolia, it might of just been clever foreshadowing. using the bible to hint at what will happen in the end, which is not necessarily the work of a god, but i think weve all read the scientific "tornado" explanation thing for the frog rain.

SHAFTR

Quote
but i think weve all read the scientific "tornado" explanation thing for the frog rain.

I haven't, could someone fill me in?
"Talking shit about a pretty sunset
Blanketing opinions that i'll probably regret soon"

Cecil


AlguienEstolamiPantalones

uhh i dont think that was what he was getting at

it was a clear cut case of a higher pure soul passing judgement

a tornado ??

I

godardian

Quote from: SantaClauseWasA BlackMan

it was a clear cut case of a higher pure soul passing judgement

Yeesh, I cannot stand that interpretation of Anderson's films. If there is a god, whatever it is has neglected to judge the people in this world who really need it. As you probably know, Santa, Freud via Norman O. Brown has plenty to say about our chronic human need for "purity."

I'm an agnostic. Might be nice if there were a god, but I'm too busy dealing with things at hand to waste too much energy pondering it.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

Pubrick

Quote from: cecil b. dementedbecause if you dont believe in god then you consider the bible a work of fiction,.
for the record, i know what ur meaning to say, but the way u've said it implies that u dont' know what ur talking about.

OBviously jesus lived, that's a historical fact like the existance of mohammed. the matter of faith, or religious dellusion as u would like to think it, lies in the belief that these ppl were prophets/messengers of God.

it's just plain scientific ignorance to say that at least sum of the "characters" and events in many religions weren't real. and the main problem when dealing with the issue of God is the inconsistency of education and extent of thought ppl hav put into the subject, usually stemming from their upbringing.

that's where the discussion about God or a supreme being always falls flat. ideally, a scientifically inclined person with knowledge of the history and nature of the world's religions arguing with a scientifically knowledgable person with strong faith would be the most stimulating model for theological discussion. a basic mulder and scully.

what would then transpire is a progressively refined definition of what it means to believe in a higher power. inevitably delving into the topics of an afterlife, the soul, good and evil, what makes us human, evolution, the beginnings of the universe. what they would discover, assuming they are not egocentric, is that the reverence a quantum physicist holds for the eternal beauty in the atomic/theoretical (inasmuch as it is reactionary and invisible) structure of the universe is much the same as the core faith a true "believer" holds in the power within us and more importantly beyond us, throughout time.

but alas, there must be a winner. the internet is a divisive mirror, afterall.
under the paving stones.

Sleuth

Quote from: SantaClauseWasA BlackMan

at least he didnt pick a trendy god , like buddah


And what if that's what he believed and decided to use it?
I like to hug dogs

Cecil

Letteri, the film's visual effects supervisor had this to say: "Paul wanted something uncommon-not just an earthquake or tornado-because this wasn't meant to be a disaster per se. He could have done a hailstorm and hit all the
beats, but he wanted something both real and unreal."

and yeah, p, youre right. i just assumed people would understand what i meant without saying everything youve just said. im terribly lazy.

children with angels

I don't like to think of the frogs as a clear-cut God intervening thing. It's just something that is out of everyone's control: whether it's divine or scientific makes little difference... It's completely surreal, and yet "it did happen". The bible references - which Paul only became aware of after writing the script, as we all know - go some way towards explaining the meaning of the event in relation to the characters (the punishment for the sins of man), but they are certainly not the be-all and end-all in my opinion.

However, Santa I do agree with you that it's a great  thing that someone with this philosophy (that there are things that are completely out of our control - call them spiritual if you like - are sometimes at work in the world, affecting our lives), has made a film in a culture in which many artists do purport a - potentially - arrogant atheism, of a faith only in the self - in mankind. Or a faith in the inhumanity of man. Not that these are necessarily bad points of view, just that they are more prevalent. I side with the philosophy of the film more, which is I think - rather than being religious - more humanistic.
"Should I bring my own chains?"
"We always do..."

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

AlguienEstolamiPantalones

read pubricks post then read cecils and you tell me

which person is saying something

cecil is a nice guy, but come the fuck on

just a cliche of a angry young disturbed artist

fucking magnolia is much deeper then that, and more is going on then what you think

i know troubles some that they want to tell people they love a film, that so goes against what they think, they think

thats why that fucking movie so great, it dares to be so not what people want it to be

a fucking huricane ??

children with angels

Hey, you started the thread by saying "We should talk about how some of us feel about this"... You can't just dismiss someone's point of view flat out if we're supposed to be having a discussion - where's the point in that? If you're not going to consider other points of view you might as well have just made the thread, made your statement and then just had it locked to forever stand as fact.

I think you have an interesting take on it. Others have interesting takes on it - let's discuss them.
"Should I bring my own chains?"
"We always do..."

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

Cecil

i hope you dont think i hate magnolia. anyway, what does my lack of faith in a god(s) have anything to do with being angry or disturbed?

maybe i just didnt explain myself very well. or are you still high?  :lol: