An excerpt from a conversation titled 'Jesus On Film'...
"Few things in cinema give me so severe a case of the eye-rolls as the use of the crucifixion pose to underline the importance and nobility of any sacrifice a character makes. I’m looking at you, Keanu Reeves at the end of The Matrix: Revolutions, Charlton Heston at the end of The Omega Man, and Sigourney Weaver at the end of Alien 3."
"I have no particular problem with films that equate a protagonist with the Messiah in relatively subtle ways, especially if they’re creative about it—that Marlon Brando Superman monologue, equating Jor-El with God sending his only son to Earth to save it, was a pretty brilliant way of drawing out the significance of two icons by combining them—but the crucifixion image itself always strikes me as laying it on too thick. Even in a sequence that otherwise works well, like Spider-Man’s dangerous self-sacrifice to save the lives of a train full of New Yorkers in Spider-Man 2, can easily overdo any parallels, at which point iconic misappropriation turns into pretension. Even people with no religious beliefs might admit that Spider-Man momentarily exhausting himself to stop a train isn’t exactly on a level with Jesus voluntarily dying to save the world from hell."
"Mostly, I just hate having the imagery thrown into my face. Fiction is full of characters who die for the greater good and then are resurrected, from Gandalf to E.T. to Spock to “American Jesus” Alex Murphy in RoboCop (as we discussed in the film’s Movie Of The Week Forum). But it’s always a more effective plot gambit if the writers don’t point out its religious DNA." read more
28 comments:
The use of blatant Christ imagery should be banned. Seriously. I consider it demeaning to Christians.
OTOH, the Clergy don't seem to care, so why should I?
For what it is worth, Tolkien vehemently denied that Gandalf's character arc was meant to parallel that of Jesus. I tend to agree with him, not just because he's the author but because the parallels don't particularly hold. Gandalf is the equivalent of an angel in Tolkien's mythos, and is sent back because he had died before his work was finished.
chicken, your first *sentence* is a spoiler to anyone who can read between the lines. :)
[amended for subtlety]
I didn't even notice such imagery in Clint Eastwood's "Gran Torino" until someone else pointed it out:
SPOILER ALERT
such imagery in Clint Eastwood's "Gran Torino"
I believe that I had discussed this before.
There were also many other Catholic religious subtle references. SPOILER below.
In the scene where Clint has locked up the young boy so that he (Clint) can proceed to the final scene without being stopped, there is a confessional moment. Clint's character relieves himself of his past sins before going to the END. Anyone who is Catholic is familiar with the confessional and speaking through the darkened screen or grid to the Priest on the other side.
Many other instances of subtle religious referencing. I haven't seen the film in a while and can't remember them all. Well worth watching again.
How about Man in the Glass Booth?
Or Walt at the end of Breaking Bad?
There are dozens of examples, but clearing up storm damage leaves me too tired to think much on this subject. I'll just lie down with my arms outstretched. Ahh, better...
I'm waiting for the day for one of them to get it right. But I'm not holding my breath.
Because that would be stupid, I'd quickly run out of air, I don't even know why I mentioned it.
The thing is, the wood for the cross is incredibly heavy. It is not your regular Home Depot 4X4 fence post. In fact, a whole cross is far too large and too heavy for a man to carry. The upright portion is already solidly dug into place, the ancient prisoner carried the wooden crosspiece from the prison to the site, and that is all that a grown man can drag or can carry, it is an incredibly heavy piece of wood, the likes of which you would see on a ship or high coffered ceiling, a construction beam, and carrying the beam is part of the humiliation, part of the punishment. In Jesus's case he was already tortured, beat up, kept awake, humiliated, taken from place to place, scourged, thorns shoved into the top of his head, made to drag the single heavy plank, the crosspiece to the prepositioned upright, the instrument of his own death, the death of his physical body, the most ignominious form of punishment known to the Roman world.
Sanguinary and cruel as they appear to us, it is not a Roman idea. Romans got the idea of crucifixion from Phoenicians, you may know, a particularly cruel group of people.
This concludes my unique insight into the ancient world, as I wonder why the word 'punishment' is underlined in green up there nagging, seems good to me, but now go, and remember use this new insight for good.
[Also, "thumbs down" means "stick your sword in the ground and call it a day" i'nuther words, "spare the fighter" and conversely, "thumbs up" means "stick the sword in his back" you see, the fist is the defeated fighter crunched up and the thumb sticking up is the sword, i'nuther words "kill 'im." And most all through history we have this wrong with little specks here and there of how it really was. I looked in wikipedia "thumb up" and it is right right right wrong wrong wrong all the way down but whatchagonna dew? See how easy it is to be completely wrong, thoroughly wrong and still comport with the finest of facts?]
Everyone thinks they're Jesus Christ
Everyone thinks they're a martyr
Everyone thinks they're on a hotline
Straight from the Farder.
No one wants to face the truth
No one wants to admit it
No one wants to see himself as
Just another Idjit.
Inspired by Haz's athletic prowess I did 20 deep knee bends and today my legs are destroyed.
Not a one of them was a proper deep knee bend, a coach would not accept a single one, but they were the best I could do the most I could do and now my legs are transforming into power legs. I can feel it. Every time I move. When I recover from this transformation I'm pretty sure I'll have different better legs improved by adapting to unexpected stress.
There is also the very upfront intended use of carrying the cross by Bert Lancaster as the mixed-race Mexican-American sheriff's deputy in the movie western Valdez is Coming and earlier "Cool Hand Luke" himself (Steve McQueen) in the movie of that name stretched out on his back with arms akimbo on the pine bench after eating the 50 boiled eggs to win the bet.
@Chip/
About the wood being incredibly heavy? The 1970 movie Valdez is Coming portrays that reality of that agony better than any other movie I can think of..
(Besides being a helluva flick)
The density of wood varies greatly from Guaiacum officinale
(Lignum Vitae) which has a specific gravity of 1.37, that is, it sinks in water, to Ochroma pyramidale Balsa wood, which has an SG of 0.17.
Since we know not which species of wood was used, it is silly to speculate whether or not one man could carry any particular piece of wood or two pieces of wood.
If anyone was up to the task, it would have to have been Jesus.
I thought Cool Hand Luke was Paul Newman.
This won't be popular, but I felt Gran Torino was an Eastwood vehicle. He confessed to the priest that his sin was not connecting with his boys, but he certainly didn't make much of an effort to connect with them when he knew he was going to die.
My dad was a Marine who served in Nam, and the least 'Clint' could have done was leave his car to one of his grandkids. This feel-good rubbing elbows with the Hmong was a bit too precious for my taste, though I appreciate the sacrifice.
@sydney/
Yes, senility must be creeping in via the fossilization process--had Newman pictured in my mind but my hand & fingers obviously had other ideas..
Well, if we're talking Christish imagery, all we need do is look at the nightly news...
(oh, yeah, that advances the agenda)
and the least 'Clint' could have done was leave his car to one of his grandkids.
Did you ACTUALLY watch this movie!!! His kids and grand kids were totally detached from what he (Clint's character) wanted, need, desired. He was an inconvenient thing to them.
The REAL confession wasn't with the well meaning but doofus priest. That was just eyewash to make the Priest go away. It was with the young man who would accept without judgement....this is what Priest are supposed to do....his confession of his killing of another person.
The grand kids, in particular, were a bunch of ungrateful, needy, greedy, inconsiderate, self centered, narcissistic brats who had NO respect for his life, for his deceased wife at the funeral.....or anything but themselves.
The Hmong kids respected him as an elder and appreciated his attempts to connect.
The CONFESSION was about his deeds in Vietnam. The killing that was pressing on his soul. Something that he never told to anyone in his family, yet confessed to the young Hmong boy. His family would never understand. He found a NEW family in the uncritical Hmongs. THIS is why he gave his nearest and dearest possession, the car that represented his soul, his life's work! to them instead of his venial skanky granddaughter.
I suggest you watch this film again. Maybe you could use a pause and hold button.
Yes, I DID watch the movie and saw a Clint Eastwood vehicle, and believe me no one loves Clint more than I. BECAUSE of his sins in Vietnam, he failed later to connect with his OWN children and grandchildren who may have turned out better without his GUILT over the killing. Yes, the confession scene in the basement was very effective.
It is not incumbent on HIM to connect with his own children. It is a two way street. The children didn't connect with him either. I will give his son and daughter-in-law props for trying.....BUT.....they never actually tried to consider his feelings and his needs. It was ALWAYS about them. Shoving ideas, plans down his throat. Ham handed.
Would a person like this character be difficult to deal with? Sure. Yes. Hell yes!! Was he a dick. You bet. BUT you have to try to deal with it from his point of view. Not your own. His family never did. It was always ....again....about themselves and what would be most convenient, efficient and profitable for themselves. Did they ASK what he wanted? No. They just went ahead and made plans and assumptions about him as if he were inconsequential or a impaired person. An inconvenient prop that they had to deal with. They assumed because he was 'old', he was used up and that they should make his decisions without his input. They never accepted him for what he was/is.
He decided how, when, where and why he would die. To get back to the Christ meme in movies. His character decided to sacrifice himself for the salvation of others. Christ on a cross....or on the pavement.
How his kids ended up (remember, he would have come back from Nam in the Sixties when they were young), was due to his personality and guilt and how well he attempted to connect with them as they grew up, which I'm assuming was not too well. It's a feel good movie if you don't look too closely.
It's a feel good movie if you don't look too closely.
It is in no way a "feel good movie". This movie was a feel DEEP movie. It is a feel sad movies. No one feels good about the ending of this movie.
You seem to be hung up on the feelings of his kids. The depth of emotions and feelings are centered on the main character and how he is isolated from being able to express his own feelings and ...yes...isolated from his children whether it is his fault or theirs (both).
It is also about how he comes to grips with dealing with the horrific acts he has done in the past. It is also about who is worthy of his legacy. The Grand Torino. Not his worthless grand daughter who only looks upon it as a monetary achievement. Instead he gives it to the young man of a different culture who appreciated what it...the car...means to him on a deeper level.
Your one dimensional focus on the children only, and whether they get the freaking car....and not on the entirety of the whole dynamic of his family, his life and the new family that he has begun to assemble, is a bit disappointing. You need to examine this in a context of dispassion; not in context of your own life as a military child.
Chip - Oh noes. Did I neglect to mention that I was holding a massive helium balloon? A helium ballon larger than two rhinocerouscees?
It eased greatly the upward portion of the squats; while making the downward portion more leisurely.
DBQ, You nailed it. So it is w/ regret I point out a historical inaccuracy. Bring a former history teacher compels me to point out Walt fought in Korea. Sorry, history is very important to me. Your analysis was perfect.
"Gran Torino" provokes emotion and misunderstanding. I remember getting into a dispute with Amba of all people one night at Althouse on the personal meaning of that movie: link. It's a good old thread with Trooper, Darcy, Synova, Haz, Christy, AllenS...
DBQ, he leaves his house to the Church. It's a Clint Eastwood vehicle that I can't suspend belief for. It's a good watch, and a feel-good movie if you don't look to closely at the logic.
he leaves his house to the Church
Yes? He did that for his wife, just as he continued to participatein the Church.(although rather half heartedly) He promised his wife.
I'm curious as to what part of the script you felt was not logical?
I know that my thinking isn't always the 'norm' but to me the film made much sense in the way the characters acted and interacted.
DBQ, when he made the confession to the priest, it was a confession he could bear to make. It was an admission he could have tried harder with his son(s?). But because of the horrific violence he did as a Korean War vet, he was unable to properly parent his son(S?). PSTD, guilt, etc.
Before the sacrifice he tried to reach his son by phone to talk, but he didn't try very hard. It is just too, too pat, and black and white. Apparently he had the time to write a codicil to the will about the car.
I can't remember if the son saw who it was on the caller ID, or just didn't make it to the phone in time and then didn't call back. But think of the guilt the son is subjected to for not returning the call. It's like a double stab, really.
It's about Walt doing the ultimate Christly sacrifice for his neighbors in atonement for Korea, but not taking the time to behave Christly toward his own flesh; charity begins at home.
Post a Comment