What movies are you watching?

IsmiLiora

Archon
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
3,419
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Fair enough, not that it's always necessary. I don't know the movie in question so I will leave it up to you guys.

I don't like comics who are very sexually vulgar, myself. I don't think it's necessary. But I think that the use of language and showing certain scenes, if done with a purpose and not just needlessly (horror porn anyone?), is fine. For me, anyway.
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
IsmiLiora said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
So it must be offensive to be artistic? Not gonna buy into that my friend. I always say that any message or story can be creatively portrayed in a manner that is suitable for children. If an artist has to use profanity, nudity, vulgarity, and gore to convey his point, then he is a poor artist indeed. And sadly, or society is rife with very poor artists. But that doesn't mean we have to settle for the garbage they produce. T

I guess the Lives of the Saints is beneath your artistic level. (Or is it perhaps above it?)


Selam
I don't mean to pick on you, my friend, but I've always thought about this.

The Bible itself, as well as the history of the Church, has stories that I wouldn't consider "Child-friendly" at all.

Yes, companies do abridge the Bible and put it in terms that younger children can understand and appreciate, but I think is fine for them. I

But I've wondered whether we, as adults, should ourselves seek the "child-friendly" route. We can read the Bible. We read literature that isn't always "appropriate." Of course it isn't kosher to love vulgarity, but watching sugar-coated stories about real-life events that were much more raw, tragic, etc., comes off as so false. I'd rather not watch any movies than have to watch the stuff that is put out by today's evangelical Christian market (I don't know of the movie you're talking about, so I am not being specific here).

I used to be surrounded by adults who would ooh and ahh over movies like Fireproof and One Night With the King (awful, really). I really don't understand it myself. I think that we could use to inject some more reality in movies, not just what Focus on the Family happens to find appropriate at any given time.

But I also understand the critique that we shouldn't necessarily be wanting more sex, vulgar language, etc. in movies. I happen to stand on the other side of that, though.

The Bible will offend everyone, as the Truth always does. But there is righteous way to convey the Truth, and I doubt if any Orhtodox Christian will accuse the prophets and apostles of conveying their message in an unrighteous manner.

There is a huge difference between the way Dostoevsky conveys dark and disturbing realities and the way Hollywood typically does. Dostoevsky was an artist, and he didn't need to graphically describe sexual acts and body parts in a salacious manner. He didn't need to have his characters curse profusely in order to make us realize they were reprobate. True artists don't have to sugar coat anything, but neither do they have to be gratuitous in order to convey their message. It's called creativity, of which there is a dearth in our current society.


Selam
You are good at framing debate where no one was talking.

Not fair enough.

You have your emotional and idiosyncratic axes to grind.

That is fine. Just don't go looking for them in hands where they ain't.

And really given your recent list of thinkers you hold in esteem and taste in film, I'll pass on your aesthetic judgement.

Yeah, the Bible: incestual, homosexual rape? But hey it is the truth. And I knew what I was reading when I was kid when I read it.

The Bible would be rated NC-17 if it were filmed true to form.
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
orthonorm said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
IsmiLiora said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
So it must be offensive to be artistic? Not gonna buy into that my friend. I always say that any message or story can be creatively portrayed in a manner that is suitable for children. If an artist has to use profanity, nudity, vulgarity, and gore to convey his point, then he is a poor artist indeed. And sadly, or society is rife with very poor artists. But that doesn't mean we have to settle for the garbage they produce. T

I guess the Lives of the Saints is beneath your artistic level. (Or is it perhaps above it?)


Selam
I don't mean to pick on you, my friend, but I've always thought about this.

The Bible itself, as well as the history of the Church, has stories that I wouldn't consider "Child-friendly" at all.

Yes, companies do abridge the Bible and put it in terms that younger children can understand and appreciate, but I think is fine for them. I

But I've wondered whether we, as adults, should ourselves seek the "child-friendly" route. We can read the Bible. We read literature that isn't always "appropriate." Of course it isn't kosher to love vulgarity, but watching sugar-coated stories about real-life events that were much more raw, tragic, etc., comes off as so false. I'd rather not watch any movies than have to watch the stuff that is put out by today's evangelical Christian market (I don't know of the movie you're talking about, so I am not being specific here).

I used to be surrounded by adults who would ooh and ahh over movies like Fireproof and One Night With the King (awful, really). I really don't understand it myself. I think that we could use to inject some more reality in movies, not just what Focus on the Family happens to find appropriate at any given time.

But I also understand the critique that we shouldn't necessarily be wanting more sex, vulgar language, etc. in movies. I happen to stand on the other side of that, though.

The Bible will offend everyone, as the Truth always does. But there is righteous way to convey the Truth, and I doubt if any Orhtodox Christian will accuse the prophets and apostles of conveying their message in an unrighteous manner.

There is a huge difference between the way Dostoevsky conveys dark and disturbing realities and the way Hollywood typically does. Dostoevsky was an artist, and he didn't need to graphically describe sexual acts and body parts in a salacious manner. He didn't need to have his characters curse profusely in order to make us realize they were reprobate. True artists don't have to sugar coat anything, but neither do they have to be gratuitous in order to convey their message. It's called creativity, of which there is a dearth in our current society.


Selam
You are good at framing debate where no one was talking.

Not fair enough.

You have your emotional and idiosyncratic axes to grind.

That is fine. Just don't go looking for them in hands where they ain't.

And really given your recent list of thinkers you hold in esteem and taste in film, I'll pass on your aesthetic judgement.

Yeah, the Bible: incestual, homosexual rape? But hey it is the truth. And I knew what I was reading when I was kid when I read it.

The Bible would be rated NC-17 if it were filmed true to form.

Gosh my friend, whose got the axe to grind here? Why all the venom in your comments to me? We can have an amicable discussion even in disagreement can't we?  ???


Selam
 

IsmiLiora

Archon
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
3,419
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Where are we going to draw the line, though?

And Dostoevsky isn't the only respected artist. There are others who wrote and painted taboo subjects, used the occasional cuss word (or used it in every sentence), graphically described incidents. Point is, if we're reading about things that happened, I want to read about things that happened, not just coy hints and winks from an author or director. Not chiefly to gratify some carnal desire*, but because it feel completely fake to me the way some people portray certain situations.


*I don't want to say completely, because I don't know. I'm not one for sex scenes in movies at ALL, but sometimes I think a well placed one can really convey the message, see Nowhere in Africa.
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
orthonorm said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
IsmiLiora said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
So it must be offensive to be artistic? Not gonna buy into that my friend. I always say that any message or story can be creatively portrayed in a manner that is suitable for children. If an artist has to use profanity, nudity, vulgarity, and gore to convey his point, then he is a poor artist indeed. And sadly, or society is rife with very poor artists. But that doesn't mean we have to settle for the garbage they produce. T

I guess the Lives of the Saints is beneath your artistic level. (Or is it perhaps above it?)


Selam
I don't mean to pick on you, my friend, but I've always thought about this.

The Bible itself, as well as the history of the Church, has stories that I wouldn't consider "Child-friendly" at all.

Yes, companies do abridge the Bible and put it in terms that younger children can understand and appreciate, but I think is fine for them. I

But I've wondered whether we, as adults, should ourselves seek the "child-friendly" route. We can read the Bible. We read literature that isn't always "appropriate." Of course it isn't kosher to love vulgarity, but watching sugar-coated stories about real-life events that were much more raw, tragic, etc., comes off as so false. I'd rather not watch any movies than have to watch the stuff that is put out by today's evangelical Christian market (I don't know of the movie you're talking about, so I am not being specific here).

I used to be surrounded by adults who would ooh and ahh over movies like Fireproof and One Night With the King (awful, really). I really don't understand it myself. I think that we could use to inject some more reality in movies, not just what Focus on the Family happens to find appropriate at any given time.

But I also understand the critique that we shouldn't necessarily be wanting more sex, vulgar language, etc. in movies. I happen to stand on the other side of that, though.

The Bible will offend everyone, as the Truth always does. But there is righteous way to convey the Truth, and I doubt if any Orhtodox Christian will accuse the prophets and apostles of conveying their message in an unrighteous manner.

There is a huge difference between the way Dostoevsky conveys dark and disturbing realities and the way Hollywood typically does. Dostoevsky was an artist, and he didn't need to graphically describe sexual acts and body parts in a salacious manner. He didn't need to have his characters curse profusely in order to make us realize they were reprobate. True artists don't have to sugar coat anything, but neither do they have to be gratuitous in order to convey their message. It's called creativity, of which there is a dearth in our current society.


Selam
You are good at framing debate where no one was talking.

Not fair enough.

You have your emotional and idiosyncratic axes to grind.

That is fine. Just don't go looking for them in hands where they ain't.

And really given your recent list of thinkers you hold in esteem and taste in film, I'll pass on your aesthetic judgement.

Yeah, the Bible: incestual, homosexual rape? But hey it is the truth. And I knew what I was reading when I was kid when I read it.

The Bible would be rated NC-17 if it were filmed true to form.

Gosh my friend, whose got the axe to grind here? Why all the venom in your comments to me? We can have an amicable discussion even in disagreement can't we?  ???


Selam
You should hear how I talk to my friends. It is much worse. And I ain't the one throwing insults. That would you telling me about my ivory tower.

This is called internetz polemics.

This ain't venom, this is lightweight.

You aren't used to being called out on your poor use of rhetoric. Put "Selam" after you misconstrue what someone says and toss in a personal jab and all is OK? Fine by me. But show me where I am wrong.

You are a moving target. You argue with someone about something they have said.

And for some reason OC.net hasn't saved any of my drafts this morning. I had some real zingers about MLK.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
34
IsmiLiora said:
Point is, if we're reading about things that happened, I want to read about things that happened, not just coy hints and winks from an author or director.
What's a coy hint? The Bible says Lot's daughters got him drunk and raped him, it doesn't need to describe every pelvic thrust.
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Volnutt said:
IsmiLiora said:
Point is, if we're reading about things that happened, I want to read about things that happened, not just coy hints and winks from an author or director.
What's a coy hint? The Bible says Lot's daughters got him drunk and raped him, it doesn't need to describe every pelvic thrust.
That story is rich. Gotta know your genres to make sense of that one.

I got drunk and my daughters raped me . . .
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Volnutt said:
IsmiLiora said:
Point is, if we're reading about things that happened, I want to read about things that happened, not just coy hints and winks from an author or director.
What's a coy hint? The Bible says Lot's daughters got him drunk and raped him, it doesn't need to describe every pelvic thrust.
Times change, genres change, even within the OT and NT. The language of time and culture alters. And Orthodoxy claims to have done the same, or should since it has. Dressing up as Turkish judges and the like.
 

IsmiLiora

Archon
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
3,419
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
LOL, YMMV. I don't think that they need to describe every pelvic thrust either (eliminating all dirty jokes from this post right now).

I think we're differing here in what is appropriate. GMK said "Child-friendly." I would go so far as to say that telling your child the story itself is not "child-friendly." We're not talking about what Lot's daughter said during the said ordeal. We're talking about mentioning that it happened.

Where you can go with that is a different story. There are different ways of portraying it.

I am just citing these popular Christian movies that barely let the husband and wife kiss yet are OK with showing more violence. Talk about the mixed signals you are sending. Healthy sexual tension in marriage, no. Violence, why not.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
34
orthonorm said:
Volnutt said:
IsmiLiora said:
Point is, if we're reading about things that happened, I want to read about things that happened, not just coy hints and winks from an author or director.
What's a coy hint? The Bible says Lot's daughters got him drunk and raped him, it doesn't need to describe every pelvic thrust.
That story is rich. Gotta know your genres to make sense of that one.

I got drunk and my daughters raped me . . .
I don't know which genre it would be intended as, other than as an attempted explanation of the iniquity of Ammon and Moab. I have a hard time believing Peter would actually call Lot a righteous man if he really did rape his own daughters, that far dwarfs any other Patriarchal wrong-doing.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
34
IsmiLiora said:
LOL, YMMV. I don't think that they need to describe every pelvic thrust either (eliminating all dirty jokes from this post right now).

I think we're differing here in what is appropriate. GMK said "Child-friendly." I would go so far as to say that telling your child the story itself is not "child-friendly." We're not talking about what Lot's daughter said during the said ordeal. We're talking about mentioning that it happened.

Where you can go with that is a different story. There are different ways of portraying it.

I am just citing these popular Christian movies that barely let the husband and wife kiss yet are OK with showing more violence. Talk about the mixed signals you are sending. Healthy sexual tension in marriage, no. Violence, why not.
Oh, ok. I see what you mean.
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
IsmiLiora said:
Where are we going to draw the line, though?

And Dostoevsky isn't the only respected artist. There are others who wrote and painted taboo subjects, used the occasional cuss word (or used it in every sentence), graphically described incidents. Point is, if we're reading about things that happened, I want to read about things that happened, not just coy hints and winks from an author or director. Not chiefly to gratify some carnal desire*, but because it feel completely fake to me the way some people portray certain situations.


*I don't want to say completely, because I don't know. I'm not one for sex scenes in movies at ALL, but sometimes I think a well placed one can really convey the message, see Nowhere in Africa.

I know what you're saying. I'm not a prude. I think there are some very good movies, books, and art that have profanity and nudity. But I still maintain that a truly creative person can convey the depths of human depravity or the pleasures of romance without being gratuitous. I don't buy into the whole "keeping it real" attitude that many people espouse today. When I use the bathroom, I close the door. My wife knows the unpleasant reality of what's going in there without me having to expose her to it.

The Bible contains accounts of lust, murder, idolatry, and all manner of sins. We read that David lusted after Bathsheba and committed adultery and murder by proxy. But we don't read a salacious, detailed account of David and Bathsheba's sexual acts. Are we less enlightened because of it? I doubt it.


Selam
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
Just to clarify, I said "suitable for children," not "child-friendly." There is no part of the Bible that is not suitable for children, IMHO. Much of the Bible is not necessarily "child-friendly," but it is suitable for them. After all, I don't think the Holy Spirit would inspire Scriptures that are not suitable for children.



Selam
 

IsmiLiora

Archon
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
3,419
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Hm, why not? How would you explain some of the more salacious aspects, so to speak?

I mean, I guess there is a basic way to explain it. I knew about the woman being stoned for adultery and I kind of knew what adultery was, but I didn't look too in-depth into the Bible at a young age.
 

Schultz

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2002
Messages
6,690
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
45
Location
BaltiCORE, MD
Website
www.theidlegossip.com
I must say, I find myself more and more in tune with Gebre's line of thinking.

From Psycho to Seven, the best and most horrific films just hint at what's going on (in varying degrees).  The latter is perfect example.  In the "Lust" scene, we see/hear about the weapon used.  Even that's almost too much.  In the hands of a lesser director, we probably would have seen the crime taking place.

 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Volnutt said:
orthonorm said:
Volnutt said:
IsmiLiora said:
Point is, if we're reading about things that happened, I want to read about things that happened, not just coy hints and winks from an author or director.
What's a coy hint? The Bible says Lot's daughters got him drunk and raped him, it doesn't need to describe every pelvic thrust.
That story is rich. Gotta know your genres to make sense of that one.

I got drunk and my daughters raped me . . .
I don't know which genre it would be intended as, other than as an attempted explanation of the iniquity of Ammon and Moab. I have a hard time believing Peter would actually call Lot a righteous man if he really did rape his own daughters, that far dwarfs any other Patriarchal wrong-doing.
Noah did have sex with his son.
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
IsmiLiora said:
Hm, why not? How would you explain some of the more salacious aspects, so to speak?

I mean, I guess there is a basic way to explain it. I knew about the woman being stoned for adultery and I kind of knew what adultery was, but I didn't look too in-depth into the Bible at a young age.
I knew as a kid that Noah had sex with his son, Lot had sex with his daughters. David killed a man to have his wife. David doubled up on the foreskins to present Saul as a prize for his daughter. Solomon . . .

Pretty graphic that scene.

Hey and God kills infants en masse for the decision, wait not really a decision, because God hardened the heart of one man.


Etc.  

Pretty much everything in the Bible was quite clear. But I didn't go to a "Sunday School" church. We read the Bible. And we weren't Puritans. Weird as crazy as it was, the one thing we weren't wasn't Puritanical nor prudish.

EDIT: But I think people were open about this because it wasn't far from most folks' home lives. //:=)
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
34
orthonorm said:
Volnutt said:
orthonorm said:
Volnutt said:
IsmiLiora said:
Point is, if we're reading about things that happened, I want to read about things that happened, not just coy hints and winks from an author or director.
What's a coy hint? The Bible says Lot's daughters got him drunk and raped him, it doesn't need to describe every pelvic thrust.
That story is rich. Gotta know your genres to make sense of that one.

I got drunk and my daughters raped me . . .
I don't know which genre it would be intended as, other than as an attempted explanation of the iniquity of Ammon and Moab. I have a hard time believing Peter would actually call Lot a righteous man if he really did rape his own daughters, that far dwarfs any other Patriarchal wrong-doing.
Noah did have sex with his son.
He was drunk and Ham started it. He was also pretty angry afterward.



Verboten vulgarity replaced with something more acceptable  - PtA
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Volnutt said:
orthonorm said:
Volnutt said:
orthonorm said:
Volnutt said:
IsmiLiora said:
Point is, if we're reading about things that happened, I want to read about things that happened, not just coy hints and winks from an author or director.
What's a coy hint? The Bible says Lot's daughters got him drunk and raped him, it doesn't need to describe every pelvic thrust.
That story is rich. Gotta know your genres to make sense of that one.

I got drunk and my daughters raped me . . .
I don't know which genre it would be intended as, other than as an attempted explanation of the iniquity of Ammon and Moab. I have a hard time believing Peter would actually call Lot a righteous man if he really did rape his own daughters, that far dwarfs any other Patriarchal wrong-doing.
Noah did have sex with his son.
He was drunk and Ham started it. He was also pretty angry afterward.



Verboten vulgarity replaced with something more acceptable  - PtA
That's the MOST awesome defense ever. literal LOL. spit and computer and all that.

Thank you. Better than coffee for a pick me up.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
34
You're welcome. The money for your new keyboard is in the mail.  :laugh:
 
Top