|
General Dog posted:But the movie doesn't successfully establish why God is bad, it only establishes why a man who reminds us of God is bad. In our conception of God, He doesn't have a neglected wife who's coming to harm. Whether he does what he does out of fundamental goodness or a need to be loved is debatable, but when he lets people trash His house, it's at no one's cost but his own. It's the difference between adopting three children and neglecting one you already had, and just adopting three children when you previously had none. The Bloop posted:Loved it, challenging as it was. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaSJ4uShtR4 hth
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 03:35 |
|
|
The yellow powder is manna. It was created on the sixth day, and used I preserve purity. If I remember right she took it at moments where she was about to lose it, and basically lose her purity and go apeshit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
Jake Armitage posted:The yellow powder is manna. It was created on the sixth day, and used I preserve purity. If I remember right she took it at moments where she was about to lose it, and basically lose her purity and go apeshit. Manna didn't happen until the Exodus, and didn't bestow any sort of magical or healing properties.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
Martman posted:I think the Mother is not meant to fit perfectly into the Biblical allegory. To me, the idea is that she, the Mother with a capital M, has been left out of our culture's big stories about the Father with a capital F. This is where I'm thinking as well. The movie positions mother nature/the universe/creation as though she were a previously unspoken part of religious history. In that sense the house is the earth which, if I'm thinking of it right, is created naturally by the universe after god creates the universe/nature. She's busy and content building the earth but in its unfinished state god gets bored and restless and creates people to fascinate and inspire him like nature can no longer do. The earth is in an unfinished state (like she often warns people against sitting on the unsupported sink) and I'm thinking it's possible that the yellow liquid is a suggestion that the universe itself is unstable without some tonic god has provided to hold it all together. I really get a total sense of powerlessness and victimization of nature as humans overtake everything. I think when Cain and Abel fight, the violence reveals a hidden power in nature. She opens the door and unleashes a plague (which I'm thinking is the frog) and I think the sink breaking is in effect the flood since it washes out all the people and she kind of goes back to being alone with god for awhile. She even buries the evidence of violence but it comes back when people do. When god is convinced to make a baby, I think that represents a move away from passivity from him to direct creation again. I think that may be why mother nature is so directly connected with the baby (and making it confusing as to whether she's Mary or something) because the baby is not created from clay but rather partially natural (he really is "born") and partially supernatural ("dad" is god). And since it's the first time he's been really creating since he made Eve, she's super protective of it and lashes out violently when humanity destroys it. You get a visceral interpretation of Ian Malcolm's "rape of the natural world" where people go from changing the earth to their needs (painting it grey, which I guess are cities) to just plain tearing it down and beating/defiling mother nature near the end. I think it's around that point that she recognizes the power she really has an unleashes a natural calamity (I'm thinking a volcano) to wipe it all away. Very interesting that they suggest such a cyclical nature to the universe. I'm wondering if the looser elements, like the yellow powder, are distractions to keep the viewer looking for a horror movie far into the running time of the movie. I went in like a lot of others keeping an eye out for horror mythology for a Rosemary's Baby/ghost story and so I absolutely missed the allegorical stuff for a long time. Maybe it's just a magician's distraction while he lays the foundation for the real story.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:One thing stood out to me was it had by far the best use of surround sound I have seen in a movie theater. Serf posted:One thing I loved about this was the use of close-ups for almost the entire movie. You get probably two scenes that aren't from mother's perspective, and for a lot of the movie the camera is tight on her face or over her shoulder or she is taking up a good portion of the shot. It feels very claustrophobic. You could count the number of wide shots on one hand and medium shots are used mostly in the beginning and placid middle portion of the movie. The house itself is a fantastic space, and the weird construction leads to more confusion and tension. Like when Pfeiffer's woman is circling mother, she is obscured multiple times by walls and doorways but never disappears for more than a moment, which sets up this weird geometry that really comes into play in the third act. My post is related to both of these posts, so I thought I would use them as a launching pad for my own thoughts. I should also preface this by saying that I am still unsure, even after three days, about my overall thoughts on mother!. The use of close-ups was great. Without them, I don't think either scene, the wake and the final apocalyptic scene, work. Keeping the camera trained tightly on Lawrence's face gives the audience a feeling, like Serf states, of claustrophobia. But also, you really do feel her irritation towards the guests, and the continued mayhem slowly building to a crescendo. I think the sound, paired with the close-ups, really helps this film. I am thinking of scenes where two characters are speaking in a room a distance away from Lawrence, where all you can hear is a soft murmur. Or the creaks when she takes a step. I felt like the sound was all around me. I wonder if this film will lose something when people watch it in their homes without surround sound? As I write this, I realize that I enjoy the technical aspects of the film, but the biblical allegories and creator myth that dominates the second half felt like a fist to my face.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Also I don't think "accuracy" was the point in terms of Biblical allegory here. There's possibly some Gnostic influence in the sense that Bardem's character is a demiurge, except that even that is reversed in that he's a writer, creating this abstract thing, while Lawrence's character is constantly creating real, physical things, fixing the house, cooking, and giving birth, obviously. Even the crystal that re-creates the entire house and births a new cycle is something that explicitly comes from Her -- it's not really His creation, he's just overseeing it, insisting on it, perhaps even trapped in it. You've put into words what I've been trying to wrestle with. If not for the graphic sexual violence I'd almost say this was supposed to be something in the shape of female empowerment. The critics saying this portrays god/artists/men in a positive light have me scratching my head.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
I just watched this and it was a wildly uncomfortable experience. That poor baby 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
warez posted:You've put into words what I've been trying to wrestle with. If not for the graphic sexual violence I'd almost say this was supposed to be something in the shape of female empowerment. The critics saying this portrays god/artists/men in a positive light have me scratching my head. Totally. Oh hey, didn't know there was a thread for this. Absolutely loved the film; not a huge fan of the director's other work so that was a surprise. I posted this in the reviews thread, it's mostly dumb rambling but maybe some part will ring true: BeanpolePeckerwood posted:I feel confident saying that Mother! has some of the most atheistic (and frankly audacious) religious allegory I've come across in film. I Before E posted:I wouldn't call it atheistic, more Deistic or anti-theistic. Bardem, the I Am, is alternately indifferent to Lawrence's pain and unable/unwilling to act or actively hostile to her while excusing his cruelty with platitudes about pain being necessary for creation. In this theology, it's not that God doesn't exist, it's that his values are abhorrent. BeanpolePeckerwood posted:I interpreted I Am I more as a pattern of natural behavior or inclination that is rationalizing/paternalistic in the extreme (perhaps nature's male instinct, or a patriarchal manifestation within the cogs of creation) but also self-acknowledged in it's inability to properly assess morality, therefore somewhat indifferent to the more abstract pain, passivity, subtlety of feeling, and slow labor of Gaea/Home. Also, I jotted down a list of films that I was either reminded of through visual allusion, or seem like direct inspirations to Mother! - The Devils - Rosemary's Baby - Tree of Life - Passion of Joan of Arc - Antichrist - Children of Men - Martyrs - Days of Heaven - Carrie - Melancholia - Repulsion - Battle of Algiers - Les Diaboliques - Notorious - The Amityville Horror - Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? - The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover - Irreversible - Apocalypse Now - Dune - The Blair Witch Project - The Congress - The Last Temptation of Christ - Respiro - TP: Fire Walk With Me BeanpolePeckerwood fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Sep 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
I don't even know what to think about this movie other than "it's better than noah" and "man aronofsky must've been bothered james bond stole his girl" like...I laughed for 60% of it because it was an absurd horror-comedy farce (plus I was half-drunk and half-envious & angry bout a 50 something year old rear end unable to protect or knock up j-law) and then the last 40% I was just staring in horror
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
I keep seeing reviews stating the10 plagues are depicted in film and I cannot figure out all 10. I know we have a frog, someone mentioned ice representing hail but for life of me I cannot figure it out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:I keep seeing reviews stating the10 plagues are depicted in film and I cannot figure out all 10. I know we have a frog, someone mentioned ice representing hail but for life of me I cannot figure it out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
now that I think about it this movie is a lot more successfully biblical than Noah ever was. we had cain and abel and the whole shebang. I just spent most of the movie wishing javier bardem would die in agony I think everyone should see this movie but I also never want to talk about it or think about it again. I'm going to pretend this thread doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
Punkin Spunkin posted:well I count blood and the death of the firstborn I guess you could say that the light bulb breaking represents the plague of darkness and that one fly represents the swarm of locusts. There definitely aren't all ten plagues even if you are really forcing it, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:I keep seeing reviews stating the10 plagues are depicted in film and I cannot figure out all 10. I know we have a frog, someone mentioned ice representing hail but for life of me I cannot figure it out. Yeah, people are really stretching things (my "ice = hail?" mention was a reach too, to be fair). Some have proposed that the blood in the toilet was "turning water to blood." I think when a good chunk of them show up very explicitly it makes people look for any possible thing to fit the others.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
this is a movie that I bet Guillermo del Toro wishes he could've made so bad
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
Punkin Spunkin posted:this is a movie that I bet Guillermo del Toro wishes he could've made so bad I'm not sure I agree with that. I've seen GDT speak at retrospectives of his work and at curated film series hers done, and what stands out the most to me is that he really just loves monster movies. He's making the movies he wishes to be making right now, I think. I feel strongly, though, that this is the film Aronofsky has always wanted to make. It'll be interesting to see what he makes after this, because Mother feels very much like a culmination of his career so far.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
Punkin Spunkin posted:this is a movie that I bet Guillermo del Toro wishes he could've made so bad my mother asked that u plz leave
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
flashy_mcflash posted:
I totally agree. I don't know how the gently caress this movie got such a wide release, but I think Noah was at least partially responsible, because people are acting like it's a dirty trick 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
Punkin Spunkin posted:now that I think about it this movie is a lot more successfully biblical than Noah ever was. we had cain and abel and the whole shebang. I just spent most of the movie wishing javier bardem would die in agony How do you figure that Noah was "[un]successfully biblical"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:How do you figure that Noah was "[un]successfully biblical"? BeanpolePeckerwood posted:my mother asked that u plz leave anyway I really need to stop talking or thinking about this movie because I hate it
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
flashy_mcflash posted:I feel strongly, though, that this is the film Aronofsky has always wanted to make. It'll be interesting to see what he makes after this, because Mother feels very much like a culmination of his career so far. Yeah. This feels almost like Noe making "Enter The Void" for me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
Punkin Spunkin posted:I don't mean that in the sense I think Noah was unsuccessful, I just think this was more successfully Biblical (and just a better film overall). There's a reason he was going to call it Day 6. I just don't think Noah was unsuccessful at being a different movie than it was. I think it had a pretty clear vision and biblical accuracy wasn't on the agenda. I ain't seen Mother! yet
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
I somehow watched this, really enjoyed it, and only after discussing it with my girlfriend realized that there was a religious allegory at all 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
So I definitely caught some of the religious allegory, but I was so caught up in it being an allegory for the creative process that I missed a lot. It seemed so blatantly about the creative process and so on the nose that I managed to miss the blatant and on the nose religious allegory. I'm not sure if the fact that it's manages to have 2 sets of subtext that are so strong that I felt basically beat over the head by them is amazing or terrible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
I know it was necessary for the allegory, but I preferred the first act to the third. I loved all the slight, isolating touches, the conflicting emotions rolling about Bardem's face, the accusatory use of second person, the imbalance, suspicion, disquiet... The third act was so bombastic that all those neat, emotionally-resonant touches got lost in the chaos. It was made a bit worse because I'm not really a Lawrence fan and I found way more going on in Bardem's face than hers. Like I said, necessary, but I prefer the first act. I also spent waaaaay too long trying to figure out how the parents got formal funeral attire within hours of the murder and what that choice meant. I don't know why that bothered me when there's a blood squid in the toilet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
Das Boo posted:I know it was necessary for the allegory, but I preferred the first act to the third. I loved all the slight, isolating touches, the conflicting emotions rolling about Bardem's face, the accusatory use of second person, the imbalance, suspicion, disquiet... The third act was so bombastic that all those neat, emotionally-resonant touches got lost in the chaos. It was made a bit worse because I'm not really a Lawrence fan and I found way more going on in Bardem's face than hers. Like I said, necessary, but I prefer the first act. Yeah. The first act was so well-executed that the total derailment was honestly a little disappointing in a way. What we got is so bombastic and original that I appreciate/respect the end product, but I would have loved to see a conclusion to that with a consistent tone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
This is the absolute craziest thing I've ever seen a major studio fund and run a fairly big advertising campaign for. I can't believe this movie got made, let alone promoted to the extent that it did. I loved everything about it. Also, I hope I never have to watch it again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
trip9 posted:So I definitely caught some of the religious allegory, but I was so caught up in it being an allegory for the creative process that I missed a lot. It seemed so blatantly about the creative process and so on the nose that I managed to miss the blatant and on the nose religious allegory. I'm not sure if the fact that it's manages to have 2 sets of subtext that are so strong that I felt basically beat over the head by them is amazing or terrible. Not to mention the blatant, apocalyptic environmental undertones with cameos from police state, pestilence, nuclear war, industrial collapse, and cannibal death cult Pirate Jet posted:I loved everything about it. Also, I hope I never have to watch it again. I work at an art cinema and have to listen to it through the walls 3-4 times a day 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 06:51
|
|
|
I felt like the sound design was particularly well done with certain bits of dialogue. I don't mean like Bardem's character screaming "quiet!", just little phrases or words that seemed to have been made more harsh and jarring with acoustics, so you could feel them in your teeth. One early part that had me scratching my head was JLaw putting streaks of spackle on the wall and then just standing back and staring at it. Am I just focusing on something insignificant? She could've been trying to gauge if the color was right, but I think she'd already done part of that wall. Maybe to illustrate her meticulousness at the restoration?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 07:15
|
|
|
davidspackage posted:I felt like the sound design was particularly well done with certain bits of dialogue. I don't mean like Bardem's character screaming "quiet!", just little phrases or words that seemed to have been made more harsh and jarring with acoustics, so you could feel them in your teeth. Yeah, she's judging the color by it's feeling, after touching the wall in a bit of Amityville Horror pulsating. Also, YES to the sound design. loving ace. At one point Mother walks off the screen to the left and you hear her footsteps continue all the way around the back of the theater, she reenters the frame from the right now pregnant! What a loving transition!
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
Long rambly post ho! (thanks beer!) For context, I like Aronofsky generally. The Fountain is probably in my top five. That said, in terms of the narrative, this is in the middle of his catalog. I'm going to pass over the technical elements for now (the sound design is really good, and the cinematography is ambitious as hell). To me, the biblical allusions (which are clearly what Aronofsky thought he was making a film about. They were heavy handed in the first place and when I got home and googled it, sure enough, there he was in interviews explaining that's what he was going for) are not a particularly interesting read of the film. Yeah, religion is bullshit, and the Abrahamic god is a piece of poo poo even in his own book. Old news. Fortunately, we live in a post-Death of the Author world so we can look beyond his intentions and hone in on what I find to be far more interesting: how men (which you could argue towards being specifically about "artists" or generalize more widely to Western culture) treat women like poo poo. In this formulation, Bardem is the outwardly charismatic man that everyone loves, but who is in a single-direction relationship with his wife where he takes and takes, but never really gives anything of substance back -though he is entirely oblivious to the fact that he's doing it. He is a narcissistic prick, which is perfect because we live in the age of the narcissistic prick. gently caress, America just made one the president. Bardem is constantly seeking validation and praise - see how excited he is to discover that Ed Harris is "a fan." It becomes immediately clear that Lawrence's love is taken as baseline and not worthy of note. He expects it and feels entitled to it. We get this over and over: "I love you work" she protests when he talks about how exciting it is to talk to Harris about his writing. Then we get the moment where her pregnancy inspires him, and after a frenzy of writing he presents her with the completed poem. She, like the audience, assumes that she is the first person to read it, but we (and she) immediately discover that he's already shot it off to his publisher. Sharing it with her was an afterthought, not something particularly special. She keeps the house, but he doesn't care about domestic tasks. It's assumed that she'll take care of it and clean up after his spontaneous choices. gently caress, I can't think of a better illustration of this toxic patriarchy than when Lawrence is about to give birth and he shoves the medic (also a woman) aside so that he can be involved even though he has no idea what he's doing an nothing to contribute. There's a lot in there to play with throughout. The ending reads like domestic abuse. He takes everything, rips her heart out, but then he wants to try again. Things are going to be different this time, and then we start the cycle again. Or if you want to fix in on her being a different woman at the end, he's used and abused her and then moved on without any real introspection to consider why the last relationship burnt out. It doesn't matter to him. The yellow-liquid she keeps drinking? That seemed like a really obvious laudanum reference to me (especially because she tells Pfeiffer that she doesn't have any painkillers, which Pfeiffer calls bullshit on). Historically, laudanum was used in the Victorian era to treat "women's issues" which at that time ranged from cramps to whatever the gently caress you can think of because women and their problems weren't taken seriously. Lawrence spends the whole film being gas-lighted. And the film gives the audience the sense of what that feels like. As a viewer, you're clearly supposed to associate with Lawrence, and the whole film is an escalation of to greater and greater degrees of questioning your/her sanity. Everyone is acting loving crazy but no one will pay attention to her when she brings it up. When she can corner Bardem and get a response from him he acts like she's the one being unreasonable ("this is about them, not us"). I also have a hangup with the Lawrence=Mother Earth thing because it doesn't map as well as the film/Aronofsky thinks it does. The problem with slamming Mother Earth into the Abrahamic god is that "she" doesn't exist in that text remotely in the way she does in the film. The critique Aronofsky is going for involves humanity's mistreatment of the earth, but Lawrence is mistreated by no one so much as Bardem, himself. In this case God. But from the Judaeo-Christian God, he MADE the earth (that's pretty much the first thing in Genesis). So she's just another one of his creations, and thus it's curious why she'd get so much more weight than the rest of the creations (why should we be more outraged by her degradation than the murder of Abel, for instance). The best biblical bit is the baby cannibalism because the who Eucharist bit is profoundly hosed up if you weren't indoctrinated into Christianity at a young age. In any case, the movie was a worthwhile viewing even if it wasn't his best film. It's probably the most ambitious film to get a wide-release in awhile. I'm a little worried about it's potential to flop and what that will mean for big studios making interesting films. For comparison, Black Swan was made for about 1/3 the budget and opened in wide-release for about a million more in 2010 dollars. Though it started as a limited release so it isn't quite apples to apples. Unrelated re: Crimson Peak: That was a massive waste of beautiful costume and set design for a really poo poo film. I don't think del Toro has a real interest in doing a film like mother!, though I suppose you could trace Pan's Labyrinth towards if depending on how you want to squint. I don't think he's particularly interested in Aronofsky's brand of surreal. Really, his biggest problem at the moment is that he seems to think that Charlie Hunnam can act.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 08:17
|
|
|
davidspackage posted:
I took this to mean that J-Law DIDN'T paint the room blue, the previous incarnation did. If we take the ending to show that this is a cycle the always happens, or at least has happened several times before, then J-Law's Mother is a different person. So, she's choosing new colors to paint over the previous Mother's work. So yeah, I just took the streaks to be her comparing color swatches. It is interesting that she's painting over blue with an earthy yellow. I feel like yellow carries a lot of weight in the film. Karnegal posted:
Well, one interesting aspect to Judaism/Christianity is all the remnants of old Canaanite mythology that weren't fully scrubbed out of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. Every Canaanite god had a consort and Yahweh's was Asherah or Anat. Once Judaism smashed into Hellenism and Greek mystery traditions, you end up with the feminine goddess repackaged as Wisdom, the creative Word. So, for me, Mother's place as a co-equal with Him tracks perfectly well, as Wisdom was sort of co-equal with God, especially the gnostic Demiurge. I think Aronofsky's dive into Gnostic and mystery cult traditions for Noah incepted him with some hardcore Gnostic imagery that bore fruit in Mother! (and I fuckin' love it) That Dang Dad fucked around with this message at 12:33 on Sep 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 12:25
|
|
|
I meant to post this before but this is the card that they were giving out at our TIFF screening.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
mary had a little clam posted:Well, one interesting aspect to Judaism/Christianity is all the remnants of old Canaanite mythology that weren't fully scrubbed out of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. Every Canaanite god had a consort and Yahweh's was Asherah or Anat. Once Judaism smashed into Hellenism and Greek mystery traditions, you end up with the feminine goddess repackaged as Wisdom, the creative Word. So, for me, Mother's place as a co-equal with Him tracks perfectly well, as Wisdom was sort of co-equal with God, especially the gnostic Demiurge. I think Aronofsky's dive into Gnostic and mystery cult traditions for Noah incepted him with some hardcore Gnostic imagery that bore fruit in Mother! (and I fuckin' love it) I guess I'm saying that if the critique is aimed at Christianity, and you want Christians to get the critique, this muddies the water. If you're just aiming for the crowd that isn't Christian and wants to look at the religion from a historic perspective where you take into account it's integrating of the beliefs it katamari'ed, then you're not really talking to Christians in America anymore. It's about who you're trying to talk to I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
I'm not sure that Aronofsky has ever really considered his audience, and I think that's always been for the better. That's why I was so disappointed that he never got a crack at Batman. Him doing a big movie like that without considering commercial implications would have been fascinating, though that's probably why it never happened.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
My current thought is that it was a mistake to conflate Mother Earth with the Virgin Mary when you're looking at a character passed over. It works in the sense if sacrifice, but gets a little hazier when you consider Mary is one of the most important figures of Christianity, Catholics regard her as a goddess and pray for her blessings and, if I remember correctly, she's one if the people God actually listens to when judging your sins. Is that right? My Catholic school career was short-lived. Anyway, Lawrence's character is robbed if clout, Virgin Mary has a poo poo ton.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
As I understand it, Mary isn't a goddess, she's just an extraordinarily sinless human being. She's accorded a special type of veneration greater than that accorded to saints, but totally distinct from the worship due to God. Similarly like a saint you're not really praying for her blessing so much as praying for her to intercede with God, because presumably he'll listen to his mom.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:As I understand it, Mary isn't a goddess, she's just an extraordinarily sinless human being. She's accorded a special type of veneration greater than that accorded to saints, but totally distinct from the worship due to God. Similarly like a saint you're not really praying for her blessing so much as praying for her to intercede with God, because presumably he'll listen to his mom. Point taken, but this also strengthens my doubt to the choice if conflation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
i dunno if i'd say she's got much in the way of agency. in the text, she has faith and she consents to what's being done to/through her (and so she's to be seen favorably by the reader), but she has no voice outside of what's been given to her by the apostles, she largely fades from the narrative once the kid pops out, and jay-z is pretty quick to distance himself from her and dad (think here of luke 2:41-52, or mark 3:31-35) the popular narrative expands on this, but even there i think she remains as window dressing, only present to give the nod to the moral of whichever story she's inserted into. are there any popular accounts out there that really articulate her as a character? does she ever doubt, betray, or convert in the way that the apostles do?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 03:35 |
|
|
I'm not sure that all ten plagues were in the movie, but certainly the stretch where Blood drips into the lightbulb, which explodes, bringing Darkness, followed by a Frog hopping out of the hidden basement room was fairly evocative Also I appreciate that this movie was basically the same movie as Noah, just told from the perspective of Nature as a lynchian nightmare flick, whereas Noah was from the perspective of Man as a lord of the rings-esque fantasy tale. As far as I'm concerned these two movies form a trilogy with the never to be released film from the unknowable perspective of god himself. broken sm57 fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Sep 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 16:55
|
|
