The Book of Eli: Another Idiotic religious Movie

agreed, no t.hanks:

Dr. Oleander Fern, the noted biologist, was stumped. He had spent months studying the little green frogs in the swamp. Despite all efforts at predator control, the population was declining at an alarming rate. Fern finally went to the chemistry department at his college to see if anyone there might be able to help.

Dr. Myra Cantha looked into the problem and came up with a solution. The little frogs had succumbed to a chemical change in the swamp’s water and simply couldn’t stay coupled long enough to reproduce. Myra brewed up a new adhesive, made up of some basic compounds
but most importantly —one part sodium. “You mean?” said Fern. Yes, said Myra. “They need a mono-sodium glue to mate!”

Looking carefully at the whole point of the “Auteurist Theory”, it’s really nothing more than a bunch of pathetic French movie-geeks lifting Kierkegaard’s own theorem, (which he used to support the notion of a divine creator) and applying it to cinema, to deify the role of director.

Point.

This has been fun. Are we done here? What, as they say, is the takeaway?

Looking carefully at the whole point of the “Auteurist Theory”, it’s really nothing more than a bunch of pathetic French movie-geeks lifting Kierkegaard’s own theorem, (which he used to support the notion of a divine creator) and applying it to cinema, to deify the role of director.

Robert Benayoun, is that you?

I remain baffled by those who are so averse to autuerist theory coming to a site called The AUteurs…

Averse? I don’t know about averse. Yet you can’t deny a sacramental connection, can you? Possibly, its what seems to be the tone of prostration surrounding that theory, and the manner of its adherents, that some might take issue with. Speaking only for myself, I’ve never been any good at prostration. Which, funnily enough, brings us back to the Big Topic Under Discussion here.

I don’ prostrate myself to the theory but it’s a simple fact that there’s only one person on the set every day making final decisions.

I’m neither averse, adverse nor inverse regarding the Auteurist Theory; I’m an adherent, (although I scratch my head when the likes of Pathar Panchali and the Godfather are dismissed by movie nerds like Truffaut, in favor of intellectual masterworks like Johnny Guitar and the Nutty Professor).

But the whole principle of the theory is a dummied-down appropriation of Kierkegaard. And when the ultimate question of “Authorship” comes into play on this site, it’s funny to me how casually dismissive people who are “Auteurists” can often be.

Personally, I’m on the fence about the whole issue; as Musycks himself has said previously, (and maybe elsewhere) there are plenty of good people on either side of the “Faith divide”.

But it sounds just a little funny to me to hear people say, in effect, “North By Northwest is a cohesive work of art due only to the unifying brilliance of the director…but the universe just happened this way”.

Ever notice what a crappy, disorganized plot the Universe has?

“Ever notice what a crappy, disorganized plot the Universe has?”

No. The universe fills me with awe.

But then again, it’s nowhere near as complex or fascinating as a movie.

I don’t prostrate myself to the theory but it’s a simple fact that there’s only one person on the set every day making final decisions.

True. But need this decision maker be deified?

The universe fills me with awe. But then again, it’s nowhere near as complex or fascinating as a movie.

Well played. Next time I find myself in the company of monkish cinephiles, I’m going to use that.

Well, man’s idea of god is the only thing that can be argued for or against. Otherwise, it becomes entirely a matter of semantics, and therefore a moot debate.

True, Blue K, but aspects of the final vocabulary of science break down the same way (I think this is what Dr. L was getting at). As the philosopher Richard Rorty has argued, (to quote a portion of his wikipedia entry):

“there is no worthwhile theory of truth, aside from a boring, non-epistemic semantic one.”

-I’m living in a feedback loop, then. That’s rather depressing but it quite nicely sums up my existence. In the end it still provides no answers. My options remain open.-

I’m not convinced that it is necessarily depressing, Soybean. Rorty takes this up in his book Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. He coins the term “ironist” for the condition you’re describing:

1. She has radical and continuing doubts about the final vocabulary she currently uses, because she has been impressed by other vocabularies, vocabularies taken as final by people or books she has encountered;

2. She realizes that argument phrased in her present vocabulary can neither underwrite nor dissolve these doubts;

3. Insofar as she philosophizes about her situation, she does not think that her vocabulary is closer to reality than others, that it is in touch with a power not herself.

So if God’s the director who’s the DP and did he use the same one on other universes? And another thing, enough with the long takes already!!!

And his gaffer sure knows how to string himself some lights.

I think it’s likely that God’s gotten a horrible rap because of religion. Holidays are probably real awkward.

Anthropomorphising god is all we can do? how can we do other? the ancient mystics knew defining the ‘Uber super hero’ monolithic, paradoxical God was pointless and the best they could do was to argue ‘God was slience’. I only wish their religious adherants had taken up that clue and run with it.

isn’t it enough to appreciate the garden is beautiful than to have to believe there are fairies at the bottom of it?

-isn’t it enough to appreciate the garden is beautiful than to have to believe there are fairies at the bottom of it?-

Perhaps. But the better story usually wins.

yep… we’re suckers for fables…. the trick is to know what is and what isn’t.

So, to redirect this thread a bit:

You find yourself post-apocalypse, which story do you take with you as you begin walking to the West. What’s essential reading for the relaunch? Not necessarily your favorite, but what’s going to help future peoples live?

Dr. Seuss

Arthur C Clarke’s ’Childhood’s End’ …….existentialist-apocalyse brilliance :)

pro-western, pro-christian, pro-religious… one of worst movies ever…

“I didn’t think that was the message of the film.”

It wasn’t. After all, in the end,

SPOILER ALERT

the book becomes just another important text on the shelf alongside the Koran, a nearly complete collection of Shakespeare, and many other. Presumably these all arrived by people who were “believers” in these texts in much the same way Eli believed in his bible. So . . . if there’s a “message” in the film, it’s not strictly a religious message. It’s more of a cultural survivalism message."

Yes, given that the text was stated to be the cause of the apocalypse, and that it’s place at the end appears relegated to a museum piece with other texts,attempting to discern a “message” from its presence is dubious. It served as something of a MacGuffin in that sense, driving the plot but with no real substance attached to its presence (there seems something of a “jokes on you” that Denzel strives in the way he does only for this to be the result). The lasting impact at the end of the film is not the book, but the bitchin’ clothes and weapons that Denzel’s sidekick inherits.

The best sequence in the film was the long shot, silhouetted fight sequence under the bridge. Very nice.

As for a book that will help people relaunch Asterix in Switzerland could only help.

Funny thing about me and my brother; I like apples he doesn’t. When i eat it, i try to do it not in front of him cause it bothers him, so i respect it.
Funny think about movies, they have all this different ideas and histories that one might hate and others might love.

Funny thing about DVD players and Theater rooms; you can press stop, or leave in the middle of a film you don´t like.

An open mind and free spirit is also a funny thing. So is one thing people this days seems to have forgotten: Respect.

Has a movie, i liked this “Idiotic Religious”.

Oh here we go again…

but religion is not necessarily something that should be respected, especially in the age of nuclear weapons where it can cause proliferation.

And of course there’s something that hasn’t been touched on here. Something that’s been proven analytically. Religion and Intelligence are inversely related. =

Natan, im speaking about movies! What about a movie about rape, or revenge, or serial killing…? See what i mean? We cant compare real life to movies…

And religion is not a problem this days; people are ;)

The problem with theism is its association with religion and the holy texts. For example, if someone says that God wants women should be treated in a particular way based on the book he believes to be the word of God, you cannot argue against it since reasoning cannot be used to overcome such a belief…

One thing i believe is free will, and the problem is the way some people would read that example. You can see it in a different way then me. I´m catholic, but i follow my rules, or the rules i think its fit for a better society, and not what a book says to me. BUT i do respect the bible…

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too then… :-)

Also I said: “If someone says that God wants…based on the book that believes to the the word of God…” Your relationship with The Bible is not the same.

I just think that people need to believe in something… =)

But I´m not a fool , I watch the news, i know that “religion” is doing to the world.
But well, this is a movie.. and i liked the action sequences… “clean and simple” without over doing it .