- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: TulaneLSU's official 2011 movie reviews thread
Posted on 8/25/11 at 10:48 pm to bddwolfpack
Posted on 8/25/11 at 10:48 pm to bddwolfpack
quote:
He doesn't flame.
So dropping in a Tarantino thread to say that Tarantino has never made a single quality/good film in his entire life isn't a flame? Yeah, ok.
3
Posted on 8/25/11 at 11:36 pm to iwyLSUiwy
That's his opinion on the topic at hand
Posted on 8/25/11 at 11:47 pm to bddwolfpack
No actually it wasn't. The topic at hand and what everyone else was discussing was his current film Django. You don't drop in out of no where having nothing to do with what anybody else is talking about with that crap if you're not a troll. You think he talks like that in real life? There isn't a person in the world that could stand to hang out with him for 5 minutes if he talked like that. That's a fact. He calls the m/tv board the "arts board" solely because he knows it pisses people off. It's a show. He puts on a lil troll costume every morning sits at the computer and gets a boner off of people reacting to his crap.
Posted on 8/26/11 at 1:37 pm to iwyLSUiwy
Redemption Road What happens when you throw those holy of holies ingredients white Alba truffles, Almas Beluga caviar, Wagyu steak, Matsutake mushrooms and saffron into a gumbo pot and let it cook for on medium for a couple of hours? A nasty, smelly, yucky mess, that's what. And so it is with the overtly evangelical Redemption Road. Thrown haphazardly into this plot are the profound, holy themes of sin, forgiveness, love, freedom, and redemption.
In a not so novel approach to the modern journey genre, we hit the road, not the interstate, for what can be learned on an interstate other than which exit has the next Subway or Exxon?, but on a series of local, backwoods highways. The assumption being that we have to slow down and get lost before we can find where we're going. Along this journey we're spoon fed in excruciatingly boring and predictable detail the regrets of a life not so well lived. All the while, with preachy platitudes sprinkled here and there, the storyteller is giving away the end of the story.
This movie will likely appeal to hipster Christians who think they've discovered some great secrets and thoughts earlier Christians have not. It will also be applauded by those abecedarian Christians who make their testimony into a tale of grave sin, trying to outdo others on the depth of their sin. If one person says, "I smoked 10 pounds of crack and then Jesus saved me," the next guy in line will say, "I smoked twenty pounds of crack! and then Jesus saved me." It will appeal to them because that's what it's about: sinners who, at times, seem to be bragging about how bad they used to be.
This movie offers little new to the genre of the journey from sin to redemption. The producers were clearly thrilled when the black guy from Green Mile and Dillon from 90210 agreed to do the film. But seldom has typecasting had such little effect. The main character, whose name I'm not going to bother looking up, is flat and modern caricature of Johnny Cash. Even in the climatic scene of Pyrrhic victory, I didn't care. The harder he and the director tried to pull the chords of my emotions, the more I was put off and the less I cared because it was so very predictable, so very, very inauthentic.
Are there any positives? There is one good scene at sunset. It truly is a beautiful scene. For large stretches the cinematography is less than inspiring, but there are a few diamonds, if you look for them. Tom Skerritt does an admirable job with the limited potential given to him. And the main message of the movie, that the inability to forgive weighs us down and that only love can free us, is a good message, which is a lot more than can be said for many movies today. The takeaway from this movie is that just because you are dealing with great themes does not mean that you will come up with a great movie. 3/10
In a not so novel approach to the modern journey genre, we hit the road, not the interstate, for what can be learned on an interstate other than which exit has the next Subway or Exxon?, but on a series of local, backwoods highways. The assumption being that we have to slow down and get lost before we can find where we're going. Along this journey we're spoon fed in excruciatingly boring and predictable detail the regrets of a life not so well lived. All the while, with preachy platitudes sprinkled here and there, the storyteller is giving away the end of the story.
This movie will likely appeal to hipster Christians who think they've discovered some great secrets and thoughts earlier Christians have not. It will also be applauded by those abecedarian Christians who make their testimony into a tale of grave sin, trying to outdo others on the depth of their sin. If one person says, "I smoked 10 pounds of crack and then Jesus saved me," the next guy in line will say, "I smoked twenty pounds of crack! and then Jesus saved me." It will appeal to them because that's what it's about: sinners who, at times, seem to be bragging about how bad they used to be.
This movie offers little new to the genre of the journey from sin to redemption. The producers were clearly thrilled when the black guy from Green Mile and Dillon from 90210 agreed to do the film. But seldom has typecasting had such little effect. The main character, whose name I'm not going to bother looking up, is flat and modern caricature of Johnny Cash. Even in the climatic scene of Pyrrhic victory, I didn't care. The harder he and the director tried to pull the chords of my emotions, the more I was put off and the less I cared because it was so very predictable, so very, very inauthentic.
Are there any positives? There is one good scene at sunset. It truly is a beautiful scene. For large stretches the cinematography is less than inspiring, but there are a few diamonds, if you look for them. Tom Skerritt does an admirable job with the limited potential given to him. And the main message of the movie, that the inability to forgive weighs us down and that only love can free us, is a good message, which is a lot more than can be said for many movies today. The takeaway from this movie is that just because you are dealing with great themes does not mean that you will come up with a great movie. 3/10
Posted on 8/26/11 at 2:11 pm to TulaneLSU
quote:
Redemption Road What happens when you throw those holy of holies ingredients white Alba truffles, Almas Beluga caviar, Wagyu steak, Matsutake mushrooms and saffron into a gumbo pot and let it cook for on medium for a couple of hours? A nasty, smelly, yucky mess, that's what. And so it is with the overtly evangelical Redemption Road. Thrown haphazardly into this plot are the profound, holy themes of sin, forgiveness, love, freedom, and redemption.
In a not so novel approach to the modern journey genre, we hit the road, not the interstate, for what can be learned on an interstate other than which exit has the next Subway or Exxon?, but on a series of local, backwoods highways. The assumption being that we have to slow down and get lost before we can find where we're going. Along this journey we're spoon fed in excruciatingly boring and predictable detail the regrets of a life not so well lived. All the while, with preachy platitudes sprinkled here and there, the storyteller is giving away the end of the story.
This movie will likely appeal to hipster Christians who think they've discovered some great secrets and thoughts earlier Christians have not. It will also be applauded by those abecedarian Christians who make their testimony into a tale of grave sin, trying to outdo others on the depth of their sin. If one person says, "I smoked 10 pounds of crack and then Jesus saved me," the next guy in line will say, "I smoked twenty pounds of crack! and then Jesus saved me." It will appeal to them because that's what it's about: sinners who, at times, seem to be bragging about how bad they used to be.
This movie offers little new to the genre of the journey from sin to redemption. The producers were clearly thrilled when the black guy from Green Mile and Dillon from 90210 agreed to do the film. But seldom has typecasting had such little effect. The main character, whose name I'm not going to bother looking up, is flat and modern caricature of Johnny Cash. Even in the climatic scene of Pyrrhic victory, I didn't care. The harder he and the director tried to pull the chords of my emotions, the more I was put off and the less I cared because it was so very predictable, so very, very inauthentic.
Are there any positives? There is one good scene at sunset. It truly is a beautiful scene. For large stretches the cinematography is less than inspiring, but there are a few diamonds, if you look for them. Tom Skerritt does an admirable job with the limited potential given to him. And the main message of the movie, that the inability to forgive weighs us down and that only love can free us, is a good message, which is a lot more than can be said for many movies today. The takeaway from this movie is that just because you are dealing with great themes does not mean that you will come up with a great movie. 3/10
quote:
I told myself I wasn't going to post in this thread anymore because all it has become is just you bumping it every other day and you're pretentiousness is extremely frustrating.
But. The number of *excrement movies you see is #stupefying. If I could ^emancipate the +medium of exchange you ~evote on `slipshod $art... I'd be a -opulent "swain.
*shite
#crazy
^save
+money
~spend
`bad
$movies
-rich
"man
Posted on 8/26/11 at 2:17 pm to iwyLSUiwy
bitch just workshopped.
but seriously, it sounds like he's just needlessly masturbating a thesaurus over his cute little reviews. if the intended effect is embarrassment, he's a gold medalist. if he's serious, then this is the type of stuff that would get savaged in an english/writing class.
Posted on 8/26/11 at 2:25 pm to TulaneLSU
You might not have the highest # of posts on TD, but I don't see how anyone could have used more characters than you, even with 90k posts I think you win.
Congrats on that
Congrats on that
Posted on 8/26/11 at 3:57 pm to TulaneLSU
quote:
hipster Christians
What? I've never heard of such a category of people.
quote:
The producers were clearly thrilled when the black guy from Green Mile and Dillon from 90210 agreed to do the film. But seldom has typecasting had such little effect.
What typecasting is that?
quote:
Even in the climatic scene of Pyrrhic victory, I didn't care.
If it were so, why would anyone? Maybe that's the point.
quote:
it was so very predictable, so very, very inauthentic.
Filming you brushing your teeth before bedtime would be very authentic - it was also be very predictable. They're not synonyms.
If you're going to do so many reviews - maybe add some detail. The first paragraph is a waste and the only thing the reader knows about this film is that it involves typecast characters for the "hipster Christians" crowd looking for redemption through forgiveness on a road about to suffer a Pyrrhic victory in the end and you could care less because you thought it was inauthentic or predictable or maybe both.
That's not that helpful; if that's what you're trying to be?
This post was edited on 8/26/11 at 3:58 pm
Posted on 8/26/11 at 4:03 pm to Leauxgan
We'd be doing ourselves a favor if we all clicked on the REQUEST ADMIN button. Then proceed to click the ANCHOR THREAD button. Then hit the good ol SUBMIT button every time he bumps this thread.
Posted on 8/26/11 at 4:23 pm to TulaneLSU
I feel your review of "Never Say Never" is spot on...except the experience is a 12/10 obvz.
Posted on 8/26/11 at 4:27 pm to Zamoro10
I think you missed my memo on the purpose of movie reviews. See page eight. I am not in the business of giving away the entire plot of the movie, but instead, giving my reaction to the movie. Sometimes the reaction will include details of the plot, but my reviews are not movie summaries.
Never Say Never, highly underrated!
Never Say Never, highly underrated!
Posted on 8/26/11 at 4:45 pm to TulaneLSU
A few facts, general idea, some form of informative review? Good reviews don't summarize the entire movie but they don't ignore the point of a review. If you're just writing to please yourself (like masturbation) I am sure personal journals were invented for such a purpose...the internet is to dialogue.
This post was edited on 8/26/11 at 4:46 pm
Posted on 8/30/11 at 1:48 pm to iwyLSUiwy
Our Idiot Brother Most of you fellow members of The Arts Board are quite familiar with the Diogenes who lived in Sinop three centuries before the birth of Christ. Diogenes was, of course, a wild man, one who cared nothing of social graces and truly a bete noire par excellence. In one antidote, a host invites Diogenes to a dinner party. There, Diogenes acts rudely by telling the truth. According to the host, he behaves like a dog, so the host throws him a bone to chew. Diogenes instead gets up, lifts his leg, and urinates on the host.
It is hard to watch Our Idiot Brother without thinking of old Diogenes. But this modern Diogenes lacks the teeth and the cynicism of the original. In their place are love and concern. In the idiot brother, played by the incompetent Paul Rudd, we find a man whose honesty is so honest, that his brand of honesty is gaucherie in a world of dishonesty. When a world is built on what is not true, where we clamor to put masks on everything, even ourselves, the one who sees clearly, with honesty and integrity, is the villain, at least at first. When those who need catharsis are in denial, the one who tries to bring what they need is a pariah. But truth eventually wins, and the pariah becomes the hero.
Unexpectedly, this movie was not a dumb sex-drugs comedy. It was a movie, with funny moments, about a wayward family whose only member who sees the world as it really exists is considered an idiot. That is until their worlds, built on deceit, treachery, and lies, are flipped upside down. And in the end, we see, in the words of Shakespeare, the affable character played by Rudd as "wise enough to be the fool." This movie, however, suffered from a script that waddled like a duck at times and it was too short to adequately develop the many relationships. After a slow, but comical beginning, the movie builds but never reaches a climax of enlightenment or emotion. 5/10
It is hard to watch Our Idiot Brother without thinking of old Diogenes. But this modern Diogenes lacks the teeth and the cynicism of the original. In their place are love and concern. In the idiot brother, played by the incompetent Paul Rudd, we find a man whose honesty is so honest, that his brand of honesty is gaucherie in a world of dishonesty. When a world is built on what is not true, where we clamor to put masks on everything, even ourselves, the one who sees clearly, with honesty and integrity, is the villain, at least at first. When those who need catharsis are in denial, the one who tries to bring what they need is a pariah. But truth eventually wins, and the pariah becomes the hero.
Unexpectedly, this movie was not a dumb sex-drugs comedy. It was a movie, with funny moments, about a wayward family whose only member who sees the world as it really exists is considered an idiot. That is until their worlds, built on deceit, treachery, and lies, are flipped upside down. And in the end, we see, in the words of Shakespeare, the affable character played by Rudd as "wise enough to be the fool." This movie, however, suffered from a script that waddled like a duck at times and it was too short to adequately develop the many relationships. After a slow, but comical beginning, the movie builds but never reaches a climax of enlightenment or emotion. 5/10
This post was edited on 8/30/11 at 1:52 pm
Posted on 8/30/11 at 2:22 pm to TulaneLSU
quote:anecdote?
In one antidote
I'll probably Netflix this movie. I find Paul Rudd to be funny.
I don't mind this thread at all. In fact I revel in its humor.
I'm definitely doing one of these next year. In fact, I'm not only doing movies, I'm going to review TV shows too. Every night I'm going to come on this board and talk about everyhting I saw during the day for 365 muthafricking days. Prepare to get my reviews of everything from summer blockbusters to the inter-racial gay couple on House Hunters.
This post was edited on 8/30/11 at 2:26 pm
Posted on 8/30/11 at 2:32 pm to TulaneLSU
quote:
The Arts Board
Posted on 9/1/11 at 4:40 pm to TreyAnastasio
Debt A person who once called himself more than the personification of Truth but Truth herself, in Truth's very being, also said, "Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you...and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." The movie Debt is a psychological twister which explores the weight of our debt to Truth. What should we do? What do we owe? While the movie spends most of its time superficially bouncing between political espionage, the history of abuses in Nazi medicine, and a triangular love affair that is thrown on tangent by a prisoner, the real issue Debt brings to fore is the fundamental need for humans to honor what is true.
But we have a hard time giving what is owed to Truth. Why? There is a long list of reasons why we lie. Sometimes we lie to hurt others. Other times we lie to gain an advantage. Still others, we lie to please others. Augustine, in his On Lying and Against Lying wrote extensively on what a lie is and why we lie. Is it ever right to lie? Even when it is a matter of justifying an entire people? That is the dilemma the three main characters face. The dilemma in this movie is a difficult one even for the viewer, removed from the story. And it's hard for anyone, IMO, to say what they did was wrong in the moment. Because we all too well know that sometimes what appears to be the right thing at the time is the wrong thing on reflection.
But Truth has a way of catching up and getting her due. We can try our best to put behind us our transgressions against Truth. We can travel the world and seek to circumvent our wrong. We can even build our lies and create a reality based on that lie, our nose growing ever longer, giving forth sprouts, but Truth will catch up and have her final say. That was Plato's belief. That is the Christian belief. In the end, by God's providence, there will be truth, and what was hidden will be made known.
I was impressed by this movie's use of sequencing. Less impressive was the length of time dedicated to the capture. It really played no role in the movie, except in a few scenes to show the sort of monster that was being developed and revealed in one character, which had the impact of making the dilemma more real. Jessica Chastain is the shining star in this film; look for her star to rise. The last scenes with the beautiful aged wonder, Mirren, in which she jumps into her previous life are out there, a bit unbelievable. But they are somehow necessary to the movie's theme, so I don't know how you would escape them, and I think the director faced this problem. The writer clearly built a movie on a theme first, and then wrote a plot based on that theme. It is a bumpy form of writing that yields a bumpy script with potholes. Still, it is an above average flick that should please a wide audience of viewers. And hopefully the message will hit home: that it's not always easy to tell the truth, there is indeed a burden attached to it, but telling a lie creates a far heavier yoke. 7/10
But we have a hard time giving what is owed to Truth. Why? There is a long list of reasons why we lie. Sometimes we lie to hurt others. Other times we lie to gain an advantage. Still others, we lie to please others. Augustine, in his On Lying and Against Lying wrote extensively on what a lie is and why we lie. Is it ever right to lie? Even when it is a matter of justifying an entire people? That is the dilemma the three main characters face. The dilemma in this movie is a difficult one even for the viewer, removed from the story. And it's hard for anyone, IMO, to say what they did was wrong in the moment. Because we all too well know that sometimes what appears to be the right thing at the time is the wrong thing on reflection.
But Truth has a way of catching up and getting her due. We can try our best to put behind us our transgressions against Truth. We can travel the world and seek to circumvent our wrong. We can even build our lies and create a reality based on that lie, our nose growing ever longer, giving forth sprouts, but Truth will catch up and have her final say. That was Plato's belief. That is the Christian belief. In the end, by God's providence, there will be truth, and what was hidden will be made known.
I was impressed by this movie's use of sequencing. Less impressive was the length of time dedicated to the capture. It really played no role in the movie, except in a few scenes to show the sort of monster that was being developed and revealed in one character, which had the impact of making the dilemma more real. Jessica Chastain is the shining star in this film; look for her star to rise. The last scenes with the beautiful aged wonder, Mirren, in which she jumps into her previous life are out there, a bit unbelievable. But they are somehow necessary to the movie's theme, so I don't know how you would escape them, and I think the director faced this problem. The writer clearly built a movie on a theme first, and then wrote a plot based on that theme. It is a bumpy form of writing that yields a bumpy script with potholes. Still, it is an above average flick that should please a wide audience of viewers. And hopefully the message will hit home: that it's not always easy to tell the truth, there is indeed a burden attached to it, but telling a lie creates a far heavier yoke. 7/10
This post was edited on 9/12/11 at 11:35 pm
Posted on 9/1/11 at 4:46 pm to alajones
quote:Can't wait!
I'm definitely doing one of these next year. In fact, I'm not only doing movies, I'm going to review TV shows too. Every night I'm going to come on this board and talk about everyhting I saw during the day for 365 muthafricking days. Prepare to get my reviews of everything from summer blockbusters to the inter-racial gay couple on House Hunters.
Posted on 9/1/11 at 5:05 pm to Flair Chops
Whoever likes TulaneLSU's posts, kys
Posted on 9/7/11 at 3:36 pm to iwyLSUiwy
Seven Days in Utopia Before watching it, I did something I usually don't: I had a peak at the numerical grades the critics gave this movie. I was not that surprised when I saw the grades were low. It's not unusual for critics to pan an overtly religious movie. Some people, either for personal or intellectual reasons, hate religion. Anything that discusses religion in a positive light is bad to some of these people. I hoped that this was the reason for the low scores because who has seen more bad movies in the theater this year than I have?
The movie is a series of parables in which a budding golf star learns lessons by having his focus unfocused. All his life, the golfer, whose acting rivals the quality of acting on MTV's Real World, has focused on direct lessons from a father who is exacting, goal-driven, vicarious, and relentless. But when that world is torn, he is led to another father figure, played by the philtrum-stached Robert Duvall. Through a series of trials and parables, Duvall's character teaches the young man virtues of middle American religion: conviction, temperance, and detachment.
The messages are well and good for a nominally Christian and unrooted society that has a need for morality lessons, but the teachings of Seven Days are, like so many of the "Christian" movies coming out since Hollywood realized it could make bank after seeing the cash flow after Mel Gibson's The Passion, more suited for a society that is concerned with self first. The movie's theme is less about Christian virtues than it is about the virtues of modern American psychology cloaked in the language of Christianity. The movie's not about finding one's place in the world as a servant; it's about finding oneself. It's not about reconciling after real fractures; it's about superficial hugs and submission: case in point: the golfer's dad in the ridiculous golf scenes that close the movie. There was nothing real in their ostensible reconciliation. The dad's character is merely destroyed, his soul simply disappears after the two supposedly reconcile. And as a result of this phantom redivivus, the character and the relationship he has with the son are incredulous. And as bad as that relationship portrayal is, it's only half as bad as the young man's love interest and her family. Did the director really feel it necessary to include a shadow family?
Apart from giving a nominally Christian self-help message, the movie fails as a work of cinematic art because it has bad acting and no drama. There are no elements of suspense; every bit of this movie is predicated on folk family religion in the most predictable of ways. Whereas the profound lessons of a good work of art come to us in a susurrus, as do the lessons in a movie like A River Runs Through It, this movie is for an uncritical, unthinking audience who needs lessons pasted on billboards and blared on bullhorns. Even with all the bad, the movie moves quickly, and is over before you know it. But the next time I see Melissa Leo in Whole Foods, I will confront her. "Melissa," I will say, "Why did someone of your pedigree agree to do a bad movie? I've seen enough of them this year." 3/10.
The movie is a series of parables in which a budding golf star learns lessons by having his focus unfocused. All his life, the golfer, whose acting rivals the quality of acting on MTV's Real World, has focused on direct lessons from a father who is exacting, goal-driven, vicarious, and relentless. But when that world is torn, he is led to another father figure, played by the philtrum-stached Robert Duvall. Through a series of trials and parables, Duvall's character teaches the young man virtues of middle American religion: conviction, temperance, and detachment.
The messages are well and good for a nominally Christian and unrooted society that has a need for morality lessons, but the teachings of Seven Days are, like so many of the "Christian" movies coming out since Hollywood realized it could make bank after seeing the cash flow after Mel Gibson's The Passion, more suited for a society that is concerned with self first. The movie's theme is less about Christian virtues than it is about the virtues of modern American psychology cloaked in the language of Christianity. The movie's not about finding one's place in the world as a servant; it's about finding oneself. It's not about reconciling after real fractures; it's about superficial hugs and submission: case in point: the golfer's dad in the ridiculous golf scenes that close the movie. There was nothing real in their ostensible reconciliation. The dad's character is merely destroyed, his soul simply disappears after the two supposedly reconcile. And as a result of this phantom redivivus, the character and the relationship he has with the son are incredulous. And as bad as that relationship portrayal is, it's only half as bad as the young man's love interest and her family. Did the director really feel it necessary to include a shadow family?
Apart from giving a nominally Christian self-help message, the movie fails as a work of cinematic art because it has bad acting and no drama. There are no elements of suspense; every bit of this movie is predicated on folk family religion in the most predictable of ways. Whereas the profound lessons of a good work of art come to us in a susurrus, as do the lessons in a movie like A River Runs Through It, this movie is for an uncritical, unthinking audience who needs lessons pasted on billboards and blared on bullhorns. Even with all the bad, the movie moves quickly, and is over before you know it. But the next time I see Melissa Leo in Whole Foods, I will confront her. "Melissa," I will say, "Why did someone of your pedigree agree to do a bad movie? I've seen enough of them this year." 3/10.
This post was edited on 9/7/11 at 3:52 pm
Posted on 9/8/11 at 3:50 pm to TulaneLSU
Sarah's Key There is a growing corpus of Holocaust movies. Some of the movies are forgettable and are made with platitudinal frivolity, knowing that critics are slow to trash Holocaust movies, even bad ones. Sarah's Key was neither lauded nor dumped, but it did receive a relatively lukewarm reception from both critics and audiences alike. After watching it, I think I understand why many critics were slow to say positive things about this movie.
Similar to the flip-flop juxtaposition of two lives in different time periods in Julie and Julia, we find in Sarah's Key two stories: one of a distrait girl running to release what she had locked away and the other of a woman in search of truth, also locked away. But truth is a powerful thing, something that can evoke angst, guilt, even if undeserved, and the pain of memory. Truth is the reason we are all called to be just, compassionate, kind, and humble. When we are not those things, we create a world in which truth harms the innocent and the innocent are decreated. The innocent become afflicted and suffer an unrighteous, unjustified penalty.
So much of the Judeo-Christian tradition is one of story telling. Whether the authors of this story made into a movie are explicitly aware of this characteristic is unknown. But the theme of remembering is strong, so strong in fact the movie opens and closes with a voiceover on the import of a story: "When a story is told, it is not forgotten." Those who have been following the LNBST may be thinking about YHWH's repeated command to remember. Remember your past. Remember where you were. Remember your bondage. Remember who you are because this story is who we are; this narrative of life is a grand drama from which we draw our understanding. The Christian Gospel, likewise, is a continued proclamation of this grand narrative: of what has happened and what is to come. Stories must be told. If they are not, they are forgotten.
I suppose that is the task of all arts: to tell a story, to prevent the story from becoming annihilated into a Heideggerian Vergessenheit. Without the story, the world has lost something vital to it. And that is probably why preservationists do what they do. They are trying to preserve a story because they understand that we are products of a story, of history, and that we are mere fragments of reality, truly illusions, if we have no roots in the narrative of history. The earth cries out with a story. All land is holy because all land has been witness to the story.
There is so much more to unpack from this gem about the little known story of the Holocaust in Vichy France. While the movie's focus is on retelling that story and the story of a woman wrestling with the idea of abortion, and does an adequate job of both, where the movie really succeeds is reminding us of the need for roots. Is a self-uprooted class of movie critics the reason for its critical blackballing? 9/10
Similar to the flip-flop juxtaposition of two lives in different time periods in Julie and Julia, we find in Sarah's Key two stories: one of a distrait girl running to release what she had locked away and the other of a woman in search of truth, also locked away. But truth is a powerful thing, something that can evoke angst, guilt, even if undeserved, and the pain of memory. Truth is the reason we are all called to be just, compassionate, kind, and humble. When we are not those things, we create a world in which truth harms the innocent and the innocent are decreated. The innocent become afflicted and suffer an unrighteous, unjustified penalty.
So much of the Judeo-Christian tradition is one of story telling. Whether the authors of this story made into a movie are explicitly aware of this characteristic is unknown. But the theme of remembering is strong, so strong in fact the movie opens and closes with a voiceover on the import of a story: "When a story is told, it is not forgotten." Those who have been following the LNBST may be thinking about YHWH's repeated command to remember. Remember your past. Remember where you were. Remember your bondage. Remember who you are because this story is who we are; this narrative of life is a grand drama from which we draw our understanding. The Christian Gospel, likewise, is a continued proclamation of this grand narrative: of what has happened and what is to come. Stories must be told. If they are not, they are forgotten.
I suppose that is the task of all arts: to tell a story, to prevent the story from becoming annihilated into a Heideggerian Vergessenheit. Without the story, the world has lost something vital to it. And that is probably why preservationists do what they do. They are trying to preserve a story because they understand that we are products of a story, of history, and that we are mere fragments of reality, truly illusions, if we have no roots in the narrative of history. The earth cries out with a story. All land is holy because all land has been witness to the story.
There is so much more to unpack from this gem about the little known story of the Holocaust in Vichy France. While the movie's focus is on retelling that story and the story of a woman wrestling with the idea of abortion, and does an adequate job of both, where the movie really succeeds is reminding us of the need for roots. Is a self-uprooted class of movie critics the reason for its critical blackballing? 9/10
Page 9 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News