What movies are you watching?

[mark thomas]

Priest. (not a very Orthodox movie!)

Evil cowboy vampires being battled by futuristic RCC priests with unexplained supernatural powers in cliched matrix-like battle scenes. Pass the popcorn!

[scamandrius]

Just finished Captain Blood with Errol Flynn.  A classic.

[Volnutt]

Was he O positive or AB negative?

[PeterTheAleut]

I've recently been watching clips of the 1987 film Full Metal Jacket.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m_1hglRkPk

WARNING: Video replete with offensive language (GySgt Hartman is about as foul-mouthed a character as you'll ever find in a movie.) - Viewer discretion is advised.

[vamrat]

I've recently been watching clips of the 1987 film Full Metal Jacket.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m_1hglRkPk

WARNING: Video replete with offensive language (GySgt Hartman is about as foul-mouthed a character as you'll ever find in a movie.) - Viewer discretion is advised.

Don't stop with the Boot Camp part like most people do. It's a great film overall.  If you want more, check out 9th Company - The Russian FMJ in Afghanistan.

[PeterTheAleut]

I've recently been watching clips of the 1987 film Full Metal Jacket.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m_1hglRkPk

WARNING: Video replete with offensive language (GySgt Hartman is about as foul-mouthed a character as you'll ever find in a movie.) - Viewer discretion is advised.

Don't stop with the Boot Camp part like most people do. It's a great film overall.  If you want more, check out 9th Company - The Russian FMJ in Afghanistan.

I watched all of Full Metal Jacket once. Great Vietnam War movie.

[Achronos]

Just found out Citizen Kane on Blu Ray is coming out in a few weeks. Color me excited.

[turtlemom]

We just got The Greatest Story Ever Told from Blockbuster. I'm so tired of wimpy Christs. Our Lord was a carpenter, he walked all over Judea and some ares outside of Judea. Whatever happened to historical accuracy???

[Achronos]

We just got The Greatest Story Ever Told from Blockbuster. I'm so tired of wimpy Christs. Our Lord was a carpenter, he walked all over Judea and some ares outside of Judea. Whatever happened to historical accuracy???

You'd love The Gospel According to St. Matthew by Pasolini

[IsmiLiora]

I just wandered out of the living room, where my husband is watching The Walking Dead (tv show, not movie). I've sat through some zombie flicks, but this show just grosses me out. Bleagh.

[tuesdayschild]

I just wandered out of the living room, where my husband is watching The Walking Dead (tv show, not movie). I've sat through some zombie flicks, but this show just grosses me out. Bleagh.

I watched one or two episodes (part of a marathon). No thanks.

[orthonorm]

We just got The Greatest Story Ever Told from Blockbuster. I'm so tired of wimpy Christs. Our Lord was a carpenter, he walked all over Judea and some ares outside of Judea. Whatever happened to historical accuracy???

You'd love The Gospel According to St. Matthew by Pasolini

It is literally sitting in front me. My Priest or someone gave it to me tonight. I was in a bit of stupor. Maybe it was an angel.

But nevertheless, there it is.

[vamrat]

No love for Walking Dead!  I loved it.

[orthonorm]

Was he O positive or AB negative?

A- here.

Story of my life.

[Volnutt]

Was he O positive or AB negative?

A- here.

Story of my life.

Are you Asian at all?

[IsmiLiora]

No love for Walking Dead!  I loved it.

The storyline isn't actually too bad, but the zombies really gross me out.

I actually never watch any gory horror movies. I made some concessions after I met Mr. Ismi (SOME), which included all of the Resident Evil movies, which I tolerate because I played the video games.

(I do have to hide under the couch when they have the usual Milla-Jovovich-ripping-hospital-needles-out-of-her-body scenes, though.?)

But the zombies, with their entrails dragging around, was just too much for me. Ick.

[orthonorm]

Was he O positive or AB negative?

A- here.

Story of my life.

Are you Asian at all?

No, didn't know it correlated with being Asian, thought it was sorta uncommon all around.

[Papist]

I recently saw Sucker Punch and I actually thought that it was pretty good.

[biro]

I recently saw Sucker Punch and I actually thought that it was pretty good.

I thought I might rent that soon. I have some other stuff to watch first.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Now that I have Netflix, I finally watched OSTROV. I LOVED it!!!


Selam

[orthonorm]

Now that I have Netflix, I finally watched OSTROV. I LOVED it!!!


Selam

One by one. Does anyone else not see this film is schlock, besides me?

It is was cringe worthy at times. 

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

 

Now that I have Netflix, I finally watched OSTROV. I LOVED it!!!


Selam

One by one. Does anyone else not see this film is schlock, besides me?

It is was cringe worthy at times. 

Yes, I know some people love it and some hate it. So I went in to it prepared for the worst. But I found it to beautiful in its simplicity, and a very good and fair portrayal of Orthodoxy. I guess if I hadn't known about "fools for Christ," then I may not have appreciated it. It was also refreshing to see a well-made movie that deals with the human dramas of sin, evil, and redemption without being profane and pornographic.


Selam

[orthonorm]

Now that I have Netflix, I finally watched OSTROV. I LOVED it!!!


Selam

One by one. Does anyone else not see this film is schlock, besides me?

It is was cringe worthy at times. 

Yes, I know some people love it and some hate it. So I went in to it prepared for the worst. But I found it to beautiful in its simplicity, and a very good and fair portrayal of Orthodoxy. I guess if I hadn't known about "fools for Christ," then I may not have appreciated it. It was also refreshing to see a well-made movie that deals with the human dramas of sin, evil, and redemption without being profane and pornographic.


Selam

Some nice art school cinematography but that is it.

From the script to acting, it was terrible.

Oh well.

And I don't think you can really accomplish the bolded part of your statement. Sin and evil are not categories but real actions which are profane and pornographic at times.

Sides, you need some edge to sell a film.

Hard to sell a story is all that is "bad" happens off stage.

Some good films out there about redemption that don't take place in an Orthodox fable.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Now that I have Netflix, I finally watched OSTROV. I LOVED it!!!


Selam

One by one. Does anyone else not see this film is schlock, besides me?

It is was cringe worthy at times. 

Yes, I know some people love it and some hate it. So I went in to it prepared for the worst. But I found it to beautiful in its simplicity, and a very good and fair portrayal of Orthodoxy. I guess if I hadn't known about "fools for Christ," then I may not have appreciated it. It was also refreshing to see a well-made movie that deals with the human dramas of sin, evil, and redemption without being profane and pornographic.


Selam

Some nice art school cinematography but that is it.

From the script to acting, it was terrible.

Oh well.

And I don't think you can really accomplish the bolded part of your statement. Sin and evil are not categories but real actions which are profane and pornographic at times.

Sides, you need some edge to sell a film.

Hard to sell a story is all that is "bad" happens off stage.

Some good films out there about redemption that don't take place in an Orthodox fable.

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.

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


Selam

[Heorhij]

Recently re-watched David Lynch's "Mulholland Drive." Can't say that I understood it better, compared to my first exposure to it (about 4 years ago), but the aesthetic impact was the same. Amazing, mesmerizing, truly surreal. Lynch is a genius, a sorcerer if you will.

[IsmiLiora]

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.

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.

[akimori makoto]

Everyone here loves Dostoyevsky and his books are full of suicide, prostitution and drug abuse, right?

I don't think those things diminish the loftiness of that blessed author's prose.

[orthonorm]

See IsmiLiora and akimori.

Was going to explain to you why you were wrong again this morning Gebre, but I thought three times was enough.

All this is obviously.

And you assume a lot, especially today. When did I say something "had to be offensive"?

First you assume what I have read. And now you project or amplify what I say and put words into my mouth.

Read, then post.

[vamrat]

See IsmiLiora and akimori.

Was going to explain to you why you were wrong again this morning Gebre, but I thought three times was enough.

All this is obviously.

And you assume a lot, especially today. When did I say something "had to be offensive"?

First you assume what I have read. And now you project or amplify what I say and put words into my mouth.

Read, then post.

I did read all your posts on this, and I am not sure why you didn't like Ostrov.  I thought it was a good movie.  I am not very "artistic" in that if something is artsy but doesn't tell a story worth hearing I won't subject myself to watching it, but I will watch a good yarn even if it doesn't push the boundaries.  With Ostrov, you could probably guess the ending (though to be honest I guessed Shutter Island far earlier in than I did Ostrov) but I still like seeing how it gets to that point.  Like Gebre was pointing out, it is kind of like a modern, fictional, Live of the Saints in movie form.  That is the main reason I liked it.  There are plenty of movies about redemption that are not Orthodox fables, but sometimes I want to watch a story about redemption that is an Orthodox fable.  (Good use of the word fable, BTW, since it is a fictional story and does have a moral lesson.  Generally when someone refers to Christianity in general as a "fairy tale" I see red and think unChristian thoughts.)

For the record, I can stomach movies with blood, gore, sex, and violence.  But I can enjoy a movie that gets the point across without any of it.  Time and place, yo. 

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

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

[IsmiLiora]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > General Forums > Reviews > Topic: What movies are you watching?