MovieChat Forums > Branais > Replies
Branais's Replies
Depends on where in the world you live, or at least where you got taught to believe whatever it is you do. American Christianity is more mediaeval than most other breeds, and often seems to place more stock in the Devil than in God.
For myself, I don't believe in any of the gods, but I'm not so sure what to think about demons. (As distinct from "the Devil".)
I've just been rewatching this series, and yeah, the Milam episode is eyebrow-raising. But it wasn't just that woman who was shocking in her beliefs -- several other people in the episode made it clear they believe in demonic possession as well, though it was in the context of making clear they didn't believe the baby who was murdered was actually possessed. And since some of them were cops or lawyers, you couldn't really say they were illiterate.
It doesn't excuse or justify anything, but the mindset this took place in -- the beliefs and ethics and level of understanding -- doesn't seem to have advanced much beyond the 15th Century or so. Maybe that's why the level of incarceration in the States is so shockingly high; the law expects people to behave like intelligent and educated adults, and so many people are simply not that.
The Martian did the same, with China suddenly coming out of nowhere to save the day.
Hi Jill-McBain,
The trek to base camp was shot on the actual feet of Everest; most of the wide shots on the mountain were shot in the Italian Alps, so the maountains, snow and rock were real but augmented with computer graphics; and the close-up shots such as at base camp itself, at the summit and climbing the ladders across the crevasses were shot in a studio with green-screens and computer graphics.
I think visually it's an amazing film.
@palisade-1,
I'd respectfully disagree with your choice of words about Krakauer's depiction of Hill-Pittman. He didn't demonize her, and avoids personal assessment of her (and others); he talks about people's actions, in the context of their impact on events of the day, and if Hill-Pittman bears some responsibility in that respect for things like the impact of her demands (such as wanting a cappuccino machine hauled to the summit for her, or wearing some of the Sherpa out running tasks for her to the extent that they were then too exhausted to reach Rob Hall through the storm the next day and perhaps bring him back to safety), then she should just shoulder it and accept the consequences of her actions.
Krakauer was there specifically to write about the risks and advisability of the whole concept of having tourist climbers, so mentioning how ludicrous it was for people to be expecting to be towed up the mountain, or have multimedia equipment lugged up there for them, is pertinent to what he was there to write. But interestingly, he doesn't pass his own judgement, so the "scorn" you allege is not his; he quotes from other people's published comments, including Beck Weathers'.
@So_In_Love, if you do read Boukreev's book, I would recommend bearing in mind that it was actually mostly written by a hack journo called G. Weston deWalt, who was determined to shape it into a tit-for-tat attack on Jon Krakauer for his perceived slights of Boukreev, rather than it being an honest account of Boukreev's perspective on events of that day. When I read it I was immensely disappointed, partly because it's hard to tell where Boukreev the man really exists within deWalt's indignant snarkery, and partly because it doesn't seem to be a fitting statement for Boukreev himself, who was lost only a few months after it was written.
There are other accounts worth reading, such as Beck Weathers' book, but they understandably represent things from a limited viewpoint. Then again, so does the Boukreev/deWalt book; deWalt never even spoke to most of the people whose points of view he claims to represent. Krakauer was the only one who did extensive interviews, including being the only one to speak to the Sherpa involved, some of whom have themselves since died in other climbing accidents.
[cont.]
He was one of the first of either party to summit, but his refusal to use supplemental oxygen meant he couldn't endure at the summit waiting for his clients. And rather than do whatever it took, he simply headed back down the mountain, ignoring all the climbers still trying to get there or those trying to get back down (which is when most people actually die), went back to his tent and went to sleep. And with Scott Fischer and Rob Hall both collapsed and dying at the summit, it meant the client climbers were left to struggle on their own to reach camp through the storm and dark.
So kudos to Boukreev for going back out to rescue people, but he'd also had the benefit of several hours' sleep. And unlike Krakauer, he had a professional guide's mountaineering skills, not to mention a professional guide's responsibility.
I think it's a weakness of this film that it omits all mention of negative events that reflect on either Boukreev or Sandi Hill-Pittman, both of whom negatively impacted the outcome of the events. But people with a vested interest in how both of them were portrayed advised on the film, so it's not a surprise. It hurts the narrative, though, and makes it harder to understand what's happening in the second half of the film; why, for instance, does Boukreev just disappear as a character in the final cut after stringing the fixed ropes below the Hillary Step, and then suddenly re-appear a third of the movie later after the storm has hit?
There were reports that around half an hour was cut from the film just before its release, so maybe that previous version would have told the story more clearly. I was hoping we might get the pre-release longer cut when it came out on BD and DVD, but it was obviously not to be. And I doubt interest is strong enough for a new release now.
Great post, annlevtex. And I agree with all your points.
Krakauer comes in for a lot of criticism for his book, especially on the internet, where people tend to have such black/white views and most attempts at explanation are treated as if they're talking about blame. In my reading of Into Thin Air, it seems clear that Krakauer wasn't blaming anyone, at all; he was, as a journalist, trying to identify the events of the day that turned a severe storm into such a disaster. But that doesn't stop people on the 'net, many of whom have never read his book, from painting him as a bad guy determined to be unfair to the hero Anatoli Bookreev.
And there's no doubt that Boukreev was a hero later in the evening when it came to rescuing people trapped in the storm. But it's also true that Boukreev's actions earlier in the day contributed significantly to those people being at the mercy of the storm without professional support in the first place. He was the guide for most of them and had a job to do, yet in addition to Krakauer many climbers who were on the mountain that day have written about how he treated the clients with disregard and left them to fend for themselves. (A comment given in the script to Scott Fischer, Jake Gyllenhaal's character, was actually said by Boukreev in real life: that anyone who couldn't make it to the summit under their own steam had no business being on the mountain. I'm not a climber, either, but I suspect he had the truth of it.) But the comment aside, the point is that he was there to do a job, and that was to look after his boss's clients. He didn't do that.
Great post, hachmom. Eloquently put. :-)
I can't think of a single actor who I believe could have done as good a job with Heston's more noted roles as Heston himself did -- especially when it comes to Ben-Hur and The Ten Commandments. Max von Sydow came close on occasion, I think, to Heston's grand declamatory style, but even at the height of his powers he couldn't match Heston's powerful physical presence. (He is my preferred screen Jesus, though.)
I don't think their historical existence was much doubted.
But that doesn't in any way validate their use as characters in the Jesus mythos.
Oh razor, I can't agree. You're entitled to personal opinion, of course, but while it might have bored you, it isn't boring for everyone.
Maybe you meant the religious bits, and to be honest I find them pretty tedious as well -- mostly because they feel tacked onto the story and not a part of its core. They add nothing to Judah's search for vengeance on Messala, and don't help resolve it at all; the only place for Jesus in the story really is as a literal deus ex machina to resolve the question of Judah's mother and sister being lepers. But the subtitle of the original novel is "A Tale of the Christ", something which Wallace did, no doubt, to make his story socially acceptable at a time when Christianity and the Christian God were seen as the sole source of morality and principle. I always ignore those bits, because Judah's anger and vengeance seem totally justified without them and nothing of substance comes from his being pressured to forgive the man who's already destroyed himself anyway.
Even so, I don't find the film a bore. ;-)
> "By the way, I hope to find the 1925 version one day."
My Blu-ray set of the '59 version came with the full '25 version on a third disc, though only in DVD resolution. It's the "Ultimate Collector's Edition" from Amazon UK (currently only £8), and it's completely region-free.
I don't think there's any point to shoe-horning God into this. There's no suggestion he had any presence or influence at any point of the movie, so why assume the ending is his doing just out of nowhere?
The whole movie was a "what if" by Kevin, from the moment he looked at himself in the men's room mirror considering where his current path of action -- defending a pervert who was clearly guilty -- would lead him. A fantasy to expiate his own guilt -- "not my fault I'm on the side of the scumbags; I'm the son of Satan, after all!" -- and then waking up to himself. Milton's presence at the end in the persistent journalist said that your propensity for evil is always going to be present, even if you convince yourself you're doing the right thing.
God wasn't present at any point, so thinking he manipulated the ending is like an Oklahoman thanking God for making a tornado miss her house, even though it wiped out her next four neighbours.
More than being simply a bad actor, I think the problem is he keeps getting cast in roles his screen persona can't support. He's not bright, and he doesn't come across as bright, so for me he fails as a wily attorney who discovers to his horror where his cunning and duplicity really come from. He's charming-smarmy, as he always is, but he can't deliver the core theme of the story because it's not in his nature. His screen persona is too limited.
My favourite performance of his, I think, is Speed, because he's so well cast in that one. He's perfect as a dumb bullhead, who's too determined to be cowed. But as a super-smart attorney? Or as the English-accented hero of a Gothic horror story? Nahh.
I think what you say is really on-point, ilykyu, with one amendment: I think it's actually a *three*-act story, with the first act being Ruby Ridge. That's the event that heralded the rise of armed militia and segregationalists, and profoundly influenced both Koresh and McVeigh, as well as shaping the attitudes of the FBI. Many of the FBI agents at Waco had themselves been at Ruby Ridge. It's really quite integral to the overall story that came to its horrible end in Oklahoma City.
But I suspect one reason it hasn't been given major network treatment is that all three events are still awash in controversy and contradiction in their stories; it would be almost impossible to do without being accused of taking sides, probably by both sides at the same time. ;-)
Go a bit easy, pj. ;-) I did say I thought myself her apology was because she got disapproval, not because she believed what she did was wrong. And I never suggested she had actually had death threats -- how would I know? Or you, for that matter? -- but that my issue was with someone thinking it was fair enough if she had because she was a "Libtard". My own opinion with Kathy Griffin as an entertainer isn't great, but it's foolish to fling ad homs at her just because of her politics. That's a disease that most of the US seems to suffer from.
As for Madonna ... her comment about blowing up the White House seemed truly pathetic, and a desperate attempt to sound relevant on a day filled with histrionics and gross illogic. And that's even before the question of it being a felony, as you rightly say.
I think what both of them share is trying too hard to be noticed, and doing/saying something that showed a lack of judgement. Madonna's comment made me groan and feel embarrassed for her; Griffin's photo mostly made me go "huh?" I didn't approve of it, but mostly I didn't understand the why of it.
> "She said she's receiving death threats. Too bad."
If you think that's OK, then you have no right to condemn Griffin.
You Americans seem to think that someone having the opposite politics from you makes any behaviour okay. You're in no position to accuse others of being "out of touch with reality".
Seems to me that Griffin's photo lampooned the people you dully call "Libtards" as much as anyone. I saw it as saying, "Here ya go, you're calling for this guy's head, here it is ... pretty shocking, huh? Maybe you should think about what you're calling for, to be sure you really wanted it." (I personally think the same about the people who say Clinton should have been elected; she would have been a disastrous President, with no clear qualities for the role except, you know, vagina.)
But she hasn't played "the victim" at all. She apologised -- I'm guessing because she was condemned, not because she actually thought it was wrong -- and said she went too far. But she's completely in the right to object to death threats; if her mock-killing someone in public office for satirical effect is wrong, how can someone wanting to kill her for it in real life be okay?
> "The country is going to Hell....."
It certainly is, Ollie. Though far more due to sulky idiot children like Trump and his lackbrain supporters than someone insignificant like Kathy Griffin.
TexasJack, I think that the situation needs to be kept in historical perspective, at least for the US (which seems to be all you're referring to). As a non-American who's nonetheless sudied 20th Century US history and politics in school, it seems to me that the public conversation in the US has become so toxic and polarised, increasingly since the time of Reagan or thereabouts, that people have forgotten about any concept of civic duty in favour of partisan political point-scoring, and that's what largely explains the leaks.
It used to be that American people saw a point of principle in trusting the government. Project Manhattan, as an example, largely stayed a complete secret until the first bombs were dropped. But with the coming of the Cold War, the American government seems to have decided its own people couldn't be trusted any more than the country's political adversaries, and that's when the problem started, when it adopted a concerted program of misinformation (the existence of which is undisputed, and which in itself demonstrates that the government genuinely had secrets it was at least *trying* to keep). And it seems that's what got people's backs up; not telling is one thing, but deliberate ridicule and obfuscation is not what a government should be doing. The US government had proven it could no longer be trusted to be honest to its own people, and the resentment and paranoia grew on both sides.
For myself, I have no doubt UFOs exist in some form, and that various governments perceive a need to keep them secret and lie about them. Why, I don't know. And what the things actually are, I have no idea. I don't assume they're spaceships.
Between the bad taste left on the franchise by the previous film, and the bad taste left on Depp himself by his own snotty behaviour, it's hard for me to be interested in watching any more of Depp's schtick. (I'm in Australia, and my disgust for Depp's diva tantrums wasn't helped by the lies he told on American talk shows, trashing my country and completely misrepresenting what he'd done.)
So I haven't seen the film, and can't say whether Empire's opinion is justified or not. But past the first film the series has been getting increasingly light on inventiveness and solid storytelling, and increasingly dependent on Depp's increasingly stale screen persona, it makes sense that some would think that the series is now getting by on barrel scrapings and fading carbon paper.
Oops, my bad, I got mixed up on which version I was posting that on!! ;-)
Still, I'd have to re-watch the remake to be sure. Who wouldn't want to be semi-Undead *and* give sexual services to Colin Farrell?!