[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Words, movies, and music
Well, the combination of meeting so many interesting listees and seeing that
fascinating discussions are going on tempted me back into subscribing to the
list. I'll try not to get in too many flamewars this time. :-)
Wow, where do I start? I signed up for the digest, and I used to be on the
'one-at-a-time' list, so trying to figure out how to respond to thirty-plus
messages at once is a bit daunting.
The discussion about "inappropriate words" has been fascinating. I think,
Peter, that "profanity" might be just the right word. If sex is sacred, then
one aspect of the question under debate is whether that word (and specifically,
Linford's use of it) profanes that sacred act. Personally, I don't think words
in and of themselves have any particular power or meaning, in the Platonic
sense. That's magical thinking, to my mind, like _Wizard of Earthsea_ (not
that Le Guin invented the idea, of course). I see words as tools to serve a
purpose: communication of ideas. If they communicate the right idea, then they
are the right words. The trick is that communication requires the
participation of a listener/reader, and the words the speaker/writer chooses
may mean different things to her. I totally agree with j. marie's point about
different languages. Me, I hardly ever use words like "the f-word", but I
swear a lot more casually in German, because words like "scheisse" are not on
my internal, instilled-at-a-young-age list of "uncomfortable words". However,
I have found that when I am over in Germany long enough to start thinking in
german again, those words get less and less comfortable to use. Interestingly
enough, I don't feel that this is because I think those words are intrinsically
bad, or that I (or others) *shouldn't* use them. It's because I feel those
words are *extreme*, so I only want to use them in extreme circumstances. If
someone who knows me hears me use the f-word, they *know* that I'm *really*
upset. If I used the f-word all the time, what would be left available to
me to use when I was *really* angry? I seriously think the rise in violence
is connected with the increasingly casual use of extreme words. If you can't
rise to more extreme words, the only other way to express extreme anger is to
lash out, physically. However, I've noticed that the fact that I hardly ever
swear is often *perceived* by others to be some kind of moral stance. Friends
will curse in my presence and then look embarrassed and apologize to me, which
always disturbs me. If they think it's something to apologize about, then they
shouldn't do it of their own volition; if they don't have a problem with it,
why should my presence or absence make a difference? I don't want to be
somebody's moral barometer. Especially because I have *never* asked someone
not to swear. Just the fact that I don't do it seems to have that effect,
anyway, which I find a little odd.
As far as Linford's poem goes, I felt very uncomfortable reading it, but not
because of the f-word. Just because Linford and Karin are friends of mine, and
I felt like that poem was really more than I wanted to know about my friends.
Kind of like another friend of mine wrote an autobiography (called Paper
Daughter, by Elaine Mar -- it's really good. I highly recommend it; it's about
moving to the US from Hong Kong at a very young age, and then dealing with the
culture shock of growing up American with Old World parents.) in which at one
point she describes her first sexual experience. Now, I seriously doubt that
this would have ever come up in our conversations, and it was just more than I
really wanted to know. About a stranger, it would have been an interesting
statement about human sexuality and emotion. About a lover, it would have been
a deepening of trust and intimacy. About a friend, it was oversharing. That's
how I felt about Linford's poem. Although I celebrate the emotions he was
trying to express, it was just more than I wanted to know. :-)
Next topic: Last Temptation of Christ. One of my least favorite movies that I
love to talk about. :-) I got the DVD last summer, and I had been working
through it, writing down comments and reactions as I went, and then posting
them to a "religion in the movies" discussion group that Peter and I are on.
If anyone else wants to read those essays, just send me an email. certainly
listening to Scorcese talk about what he was trying to say (on the commentary
track) has increased my appreciation of the film, and I also thought it was
interesting that both he and the screenwriter recognized that the central idea
of the film, which was to present Jesus as fully human, was blasphemous to
those who saw Jesus as God, but they wanted to counteract what they felt was a
glut of "Jesus as ueber-human" portrayals. I thought this admission on their
part was interesting, particularly in the light of all the critics who defended
this film as in no way blasphemous, and derided the protestors (the most
extreme ones, of course, ignoring or dismissing the rational protestors, of
whom I knew many).
I liked the idea of presenting Jesus as really digging his hands in the mud of
life, rather than floating above it, and I liked the texture of this film, but
in the end, I didn't think it *worked*. (I still haven't read the novel,
although it's on my bookshelf) The temptation went on *way* too long, and the
ending was theologically absurd. "It is accomplished", he says, but the film
doesn't really give us much of a sense of exactly *what* is accomplished. As a
metaphor for "everyman", trying to figure out what God's Will is, and how to
fulfill it, then it works, in that what is accomplished is Jesus's total
submission to that will. But as a story about *Jesus Christ*, the film doesn't
do well with the question of sacrifice or redemption. (Notably, there is no
resurrection in the story; that's not what it's about) If Jesus gets to live
out a whole life, and then at the end says "whoops, that was wrong, let me go
back", and does, then what has he sacrificed? He was dying anyway. If the
whole thing was an illusion, and he never actually got off the cross, what was
Satan's motivation in showing him the illusion? If he's still on the cross,
a hallucination isn't going to stop the crucifiction. However, from the
point of view of "this is not The Savior, but this is a man trying to serve
God", then it makes sense, in that this is Satan's last ditch attempt to
distract the man away from his submission to the divine will. Still, my
main objection is that Jesus is so passive. He's buffeted and bullied into
just about every major decision. This is not a leader. This is not someone
who can say "follow me" and have people leave their jobs and families on
the spot. (Unless, as the film portrays them, they're all desparate idiots.)
Scorcese and Shrader even talk about how they deliberately made Jesus weak
in this regard to represent how we are all buffeted about by life.
But the music is transcendent. :-)
And let me also say that I thought the Ark show last Saturday absolutely
rocked my world. Although through a bizarre series of events I have seen
OtR the last three saturdays in a row, and the set list was pretty much
the same each time, I thought this week was far and away the best I've
seen them play in years. I think it was the crowd being utterly focused
on the music that in turn got the band focussed on what they were doing.
They were tight, playful, responsive. A typical bit was during the encore,
Jack was getting his guitar put on him by the roadie guy (gee, tough life.
Some people have to put on their guitars themselves ;-)), and he handed
Karin his beer, saying "hold this for me for a minute, will ya". Karin
was rather nonplussed, and walked over center stage with it, saying "well,
it'll be over here when you want it". So, during the guitar solo, when Karin
sashayed back away from the mike, Jack moved over to center stage. Linford
thought he was coming over to jam, but I was pretty sure he was going for
the beer. Sure enough, at the end of the solo, he snaked out his hand and
snagged the Guinness. Everyone laughed. Great, great show.
And Ashley Peacock is phenomenal. He did an astoundingly sensitive cover
of "Etcetera, Whatever", as well as some bluesy stuff, and one piece that
had a lot of delicate guitar work that reminded me of Ric Hordinski.
Check out this guy, if you get the chance. He's got a voice a lot like
Marty Sexton, but less gravelly.
Okay, nice to chat with you folks again. I have to get to work now.
Fiat lux,
--
Don Smith Robotic Optical Transient Search Experiment
dasmith at rotse2_physics.lsa.umich.edu http://xte.mit.edu/~dasmith/
"The disgust and fear that physics stimulates in some people is rivaled
only by their feelings towards cockroaches." - Mario Livio
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/MediaNation/OtR/
Follow-Ups: