RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jan 17, 2009 19:44:05 GMT
I still liked the film, I just thought it ought to be pointed out.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jan 17, 2009 19:44:25 GMT
I still liked the film, I just thought it ought to be pointed out. Fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Jan 17, 2009 20:26:50 GMT
No, it's not a vague christian parable, it's a very christian parable.
Of course today, to be christian is to believe in revenge above all things, to easily condemn (without any support from the scriptures whatsoever) anybody to hell if they don't belong to their particular priva country club, to support uncontrolled and greedy capitalism and big souless corporations, and kill any motherfucker who's of the wrong religion, specially muslins, buddhists, whatever, they are all alike anyway.
Therefore, there's no place for a true christian parable like Bad Lieutenant in this day and age.
And i laugh when people claim that Hollywood is liberal and whatnot, when in fact 99% of their movies kisses the ass of mid-west conservative republicans. And no, having enviromentalism ideas is not left-wing either.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jan 17, 2009 21:18:51 GMT
No, it's not a vague christian parable, it's a very christian parable. The 'forgive your trespassers' and 'turn the other cheek' messages are "very Christian". But what utter banalities without material context. Insofar as the film is social commentary, which it must be if it's to be a character study as you claim it is, the parable is vague and nebulous. In order for it to be "very Christian" beyond the level of superficial sloganeering (which is all it achieves), it would need to make an analysis of all of these issues that you're bringing up about the Christian status quo. It would need to work through the Bad Lieutenant's psychology in such a way as his relationship with his faith illuminates in turn those broader issues from which it arises. Or maybe my materialism is getting the better of me. Maybe this shallow, ambiguously polemical mysticism is deeply affecting for other lapsed Catholics. I don't know for whose benefit these tangential tirades against contemporary Christianity are intended, but you're really only adding evidence to my argument: Ferrara ignores these realities. It's not enough to simply allude to a degenerated state of Christianity and then say "This is what a real Christian would do." It's vacuous. It remains apsychological, asocial and ahistorical. You're equating liberalism with Leftism. You're wrong. Right-libertarianism is the dominant political ideology among the Hollywood elite. That's the epitome, the very definition, of bourgeois liberalism. It has nothing to do with Leftism. It's right-wing. Frankly, I'm surprised someone who lays claim to such precise and comprehensive knowledge on the subject could mistake the term " bourgeois liberalism" as having anything to do with the political Left. Go figure.
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Jan 18, 2009 0:02:52 GMT
I don't even think it's about Catholic guilt or a dissection of Christianity personally, i think it's about a lack of guided morality and a lack of faith in the modern world, as religion hasn't been replaced with a new "way of living" which involves some kind of new morality, Keitel's world is quite void and alone as he has no way of dealing with the internal and external conflicts he's faced with, he has no way of being supported and gaining "salvation" in an increasingly individualised modern world. So he just loathes himself and everything around him, there's no inner peace because people need a code to live by and there is no modern religion outside of commercialism in the west to guide anyone. I think the film's quite impressionistic and isn't trying to dissect a certain subject matter or tell us what to think, i believe it's just showing us a story about a policeman (new code for living?) and some things which are missing from the human condition in the west these days....a "where do we go from here" kind of film. I don't understand why you guys are so interested in getting bogged down in all those semantical labels and crap with politics or with anything, that just kills communication rather than breeding it if you ask me....It's actually quite interesting that those comments are being made on the thread of a film that's about the lack of meaning on the modern western life, he have become so over-analytical and so obssessed with catergorising everything and placing everything in very specific boxes due to this lack of inner meaning i feel and i also believe it ruins understanding being that way, rather than gains it as understanding comes from being able to see all sides, the bigger picture, not from boxing the world up and being exclusive about which terms should be used where........
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Jan 18, 2009 14:16:36 GMT
Man, i haven't read the word "bourgeois" for a long time. I kinda missed it.
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Jan 18, 2009 14:20:56 GMT
Anasazie, if you ask me, the problem with this world is that there is too faith going around. A very very lot less of that would make this world a world of good... and then some.
anmd let me tell you thisa bout the "semantics" you talk about. You know why there is so much religious fanaticism and misguided views and opinions on how to pracite religion? Becasue many people are n't really interested in all that "semantics" business and all they car is to follow their own "personal view" or whatever they call that lazy ass bullshit. And as such, they fall prey to quick fix morality crap offered by fanatics and new ager bullshiters. So, yeah, "semantics" are kinda important... as in, a lot.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jan 18, 2009 17:05:33 GMT
I don't even think it's about Catholic guilt or a dissection of Christianity personally, i think it's about a lack of guided morality and a lack of faith in the modern world, as religion hasn't been replaced with a new "way of living" which involves some kind of new morality, Keitel's world is quite void and alone as he has no way of dealing with the internal and external conflicts he's faced with, he has no way of being supported and gaining "salvation" in an increasingly individualised modern world. So he just loathes himself and everything around him, there's no inner peace because people need a code to live by and there is no modern religion outside of commercialism in the west to guide anyone. I think the film's quite impressionistic and isn't trying to dissect a certain subject matter or tell us what to think, i believe it's just showing us a story about a policeman (new code for living?) and some things which are missing from the human condition in the west these days....a "where do we go from here" kind of film. In this case it's still about Catholic angst, and an exclusively Catholic angst. That's precisely what I meant by the phrase, this disorientation you're talking about. Speaking as an atheist: I don't believe morality originates with religion, and I don't feel the need for moral guidance or for something to take the place of the superstitions and mysticisms I rejected as a child. I'm perfectly content in my atheism. Everything you just said there presumes an exclusively Catholic angst. And all this talk about the "internal and external conflicts" that a lapsed Catholic is faced with; I'm sure they exist, and it's an interesting subject, but it can't be explored in any enlightening way without material social context. The "increasingly individualised modern world", "commercialism" and the "human condition in the West". There's nothing mystical about these things. Making an analysis of the root causes of these things isn't equivalent to "telling us what to think". It's telling the truth about something, showing something as it actually is, illuminating the material relationship between one aspect of reality and another, explicating the material origins of this "human condition", which isn't a spectral, mystical thing, but is a property of the real world itself and has its origins in objective conditions. Do you realise that what you just said implies that stating a truth is equivalent to some form of intellectual coercion? That's very, very close to the position adopted by anti-intellectual populists, of the religious fundamentalist persuasion particularly. What is "over-analytical"? You're dead on when you say understanding comes from "being able to see all sides, the bigger picture", but then to identify precision of meaning as an impediment to this understanding is crazy. Imprecision of meaning is imprecision of reasoning is imprecison of argument is imprecison of understanding of any side of any picture. I agree 100% with Arkady. Semantics are important. Semantics is a branch of metaphysics. It's not nitpicking pedantry. Think of the semantic distinction between the meanings of the words 'foetus' and 'baby', between 'interrogation' and 'torture', between 'warfare' and 'genocide or 'warfare' and 'state-terrorism', between 'terrorist' and 'paramilitary', between 'murder' and 'euthanasia', between 'child discipline' and 'child abuse', between 'willful consent' and 'forced consent', between 'slavery' and 'indentured labour', between 'Trotskyism' and 'Stalinism' if they're both demonised as the common boogeyman 'Communism'. It's not important to be clear on these terms? It's not important to arrive at a consensus on what these terms denote? You think this semantic precision constitutes a "boxing up of the world" and a denial of "inner meaning" (a romantic mysical term if I've ever heard one)? Sorry if that came across as a rant, but the difference between Left and Right politics is not incidental or unimportant; the entire world turns on the basis of the content of these terms.
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Jan 18, 2009 20:13:43 GMT
RNL, you are an atheist? My kinda guy!
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jan 18, 2009 20:18:52 GMT
Oh dear, Richard Dawkins must be proud right now.
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Jan 18, 2009 22:40:19 GMT
Richard Dawkins rules! The God Virus indeed.
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Jan 27, 2009 19:28:32 GMT
By the way, did you guys know there's a remake of BAD LIEUTENANT in the works? It's directed by Werner Herzog.
When Abel Ferrara knew of the existance of the remake, he wished upon the cast and crew of the movie the same fate that Bin Laden wishes for American, total fucking destruction, mayhem and death (yeah, that's Abel Ferrara alright!).
When Herzog knew of Ferrara's reaction, his responded that he didn't knew who Ferrara was nor what movies he made. Man, what a reply! As the Joker would say "Even for me, that's cold!!"
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Jan 27, 2009 20:34:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Jan 27, 2009 20:42:16 GMT
Well, with Werner Herzog, we never know for sure, do we? Ence his appeal, in my view.
The only sore note on Herzog's remake is that the main character is played by Nicholas Cage, an actor i terminated all my interest with thanks to THE WICKER MAN. I was already fed up with him, but WICKER MAN completly killed any interest i still had.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jan 27, 2009 23:16:42 GMT
"How'd it get burned!? How'd it get burned how'd it get burned?"
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jan 28, 2009 2:17:15 GMT
"How'd it get burned!? How'd it get burned how'd it get burned?" The bees!!! Seriously, Cage should have gotten his Oscar revoked for that remake.
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Jan 28, 2009 18:00:57 GMT
Not only revoked, but he should pay for the gold it was spent building the oscar statuette.
And really, Nicholas Cage as a Edward Woodward replacement? Cage as equal as The Equalizer? As if!!
|
|