rdecredico wrote:
Interestingly enough, The Exorcist (the film) was actually a well veiled allegory for the sexual abuse of children by Priests.
So it wasn't about demonic possession???????????? What the hell!!!!!
Join an awesome new group!
Sort:
Nov 20, 2010
0
#23
LisaV wrote:
But if you must, I recommend grape Kool-aid.
You mean Lambrusco?
Nov 20, 2010
0
#24
tonydal wrote:
First you simply have to read this:
I already read the bible.
Nov 20, 2010
0
#25
LisaV wrote:
Dammit, trysts, I was about to write something serious
I'm always there for you if accidentally forget where you're at
Nov 20, 2010
0
#26
tonydal wrote:
trysts wrote:
I already read the bible.
Maybe you should've read it again (then you could've ridden the UP escalator).
Boring, violent anthology. Not worth the escalator ride. But I really loved "The Lady Eve" with Barbra Stanwyck! So I guess it inspired somebody
Nov 20, 2010
0
#27
rdecredico wrote:
Learn more here:
i tried to learn more, but the crapometer pegged and i gave up.
What? You don't need a process of stenography to extract meaning from a film, you just have to open your bloody eyes.
BTW this child abuse angle seems a classic case of inserting contemporary concerns into works from a different era. Not a horrible thing, for sure, but it does show that this whole 'hidden subtext' thing is just projected interpretation.
French the llama.
Nov 20, 2010
0
#31
theoreticalboy wrote:
but it does show that this whole 'hidden subtext' thing is just projected interpretation.
and when that doesn't work, you re-write the substitles to make your point. although, even with the re-write it seems like a stretch to me.
Nov 20, 2010
0
#32
theoreticalboy wrote:
What? You don't need a process of stenography to extract meaning from a film, you just have to open your bloody eyes.
BTW this child abuse angle seems a classic case of inserting contemporary concerns into works from a different era. Not a horrible thing, for sure, but it does show that this whole 'hidden subtext' thing is just projected interpretation.
So was "The Exorcist" about fake demonic possession, or real angelic abuse?
trysts wrote:
theoreticalboy wrote:
What? You don't need a process of stenography to extract meaning from a film, you just have to open your bloody eyes.
BTW this child abuse angle seems a classic case of inserting contemporary concerns into works from a different era. Not a horrible thing, for sure, but it does show that this whole 'hidden subtext' thing is just projected interpretation.
So was "The Exorcist" about fake demonic possession, or real angelic abuse?
Both, and more. After all; why not?
Nov 20, 2010
0
#34
i love arguments like this. "the movie was actually about this". "no it wasn't". "is so, you just aren't trained to see it".
which always makes me wonder tow things.
1. was the filmmaker trained?
2. if you want to tell a story, why would you make it so subtle that only "trained" people can see it?
Nov 20, 2010
0
#35
rdecredico wrote:
theoreticalboy wrote:
What? You don't need a process of stenography to extract meaning from a film, you just have to open your bloody eyes.
BTW this child abuse angle seems a classic case of inserting contemporary concerns into works from a different era. Not a horrible thing, for sure, but it does show that this whole 'hidden subtext' thing is just projected interpretation.
You have a lot of learning to do. There are a lot of things beyonf your presemt undertstanding in this field.
Everyone is ignorant about something until they learn.
Not every film is eye candy or popcirn fare and not everyone likes films that have hidden narratives and not everyone is able to decode them.
Just lke chess....different levels of play and vision are in effect and whether or not you get it, it is there and it exists.
I have worked with directors that have absolutely used their film as a cover for the real story they were telling because otherwise the film would not get made.
Uh oh! Looks like somebody is trapped in the hall of mirrors...and loving it!
Nov 20, 2010
0
#36
i'm ok being ignorant. i really don't want to study to enjoy, or not enjoy, a movie. i like bladerunner and don't feel the need to have a decoder ring to like it more.
I'm 3499! Just barely made it. WHEW!!!!!!!!
Nov 20, 2010
0
#38
rdecredico wrote:
Read some about Kubrick. There is a lot to learn. Like a 900 rated player trying to understand GM play in chess. The gulf of understanding is wide.
Looks like the gulf has an ego spill
Nov 20, 2010
0
#39
rdecredico wrote:
trysts wrote:
rdecredico wrote:
Read some about Kubrick. There is a lot to learn. Like a 900 rated player trying to understand GM play in chess. The gulf of understanding is wide.
Looks like the gulf has an ego spill
Whatever. I would offer you some links to learn more, but you and others have convinced me that you (plural) have already made up your mind and information and facts are now irrelevant.
Carry on with your usual banalities.
~ ciao~!
Whew! I'm glad that's over. I didn't want to know what "Porkys" was about
rdecredico wrote:
theoreticalboy wrote:
What? You don't need a process of stenography to extract meaning from a film, you just have to open your bloody eyes.
BTW this child abuse angle seems a classic case of inserting contemporary concerns into works from a different era. Not a horrible thing, for sure, but it does show that this whole 'hidden subtext' thing is just projected interpretation.
You have a lot of learning to do. There are a lot of things beyonf your presemt undertstanding in this field.
Everyone is ignorant about something until they learn.
Not every film is eye candy or popcirn fare and not everyone likes films that have hidden narratives and not everyone is able to decode them.
Just lke chess....different levels of play and vision are in effect and whether or not you get it, it is there and it exists.
I have worked with directors that have absolutely used their film as a cover for the real story they were telling because otherwise the film would not get made.
lolz, this is the most simplistic paragraph I've ever read from someone claiming vast knowledge on a subject.
Yes, of course films have subtexts. Sometimes (probably often) the creative team involved (I find your hacky emphasis on the director quite revealing, by the way) intends for a specific subtext to be preferred (Night of the Living Dead sprins to mind as a great example). Whoop-de-doo, you've hit upon a truth that has been obvious to everyone since art forms were created. Pat yourself on the back, why don't you? And then, stop being so boring, and claiming your higher interpretative powers.
This all makes me think of Le mepris, and the wrangling over the various meanings of Homer's Odyssey; the writer protagonist projects a meaning onto a text from thousands of years ago based on the current state of his relationship! A glimpse into how meaning is truly formed. Like Henri Langlois used to say, a film does not exist without a viewer.
Stop polluting my prisitine mind!