|
|
Post by Isapop on Aug 3, 2022 3:38:07 GMT
Never heard of that one. What is it about, that you would say "definitely not "A Christian Film." " BTW, would you describe Fiddler on the Roof as "A Film about Judaism," but not "A Jewish Film?" How about Yentl?What about Beyond Rangoon? would you describe that one as a "A Film about Buddhism," but, not a Buddhist Film?" Set during the Thirty Years War, "The Last Valley" is a portrait of Christianity at probably its ugliest, most superstitious, and most warmongering. Since the viewer will not come away with a positive view of Christianity, I would not call it "A Christian movie" by my definition. I would certainly call "Fiddler" both a film about Judaism and a Jewish film. "Beyond Rangoon"? I don't remember it well enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Aug 3, 2022 5:48:40 GMT
Never heard of that one. What is it about, that you would say "definitely not "A Christian Film." " BTW, would you describe Fiddler on the Roof as "A Film about Judaism," but not "A Jewish Film?" How about Yentl?What about Beyond Rangoon? would you describe that one as a "A Film about Buddhism," but, not a Buddhist Film?" Set during the Thirty Years War, "The Last Valley" is a portrait of Christianity at probably its ugliest, most superstitious, and most warmongering. Since the viewer will not come away with a positive view of Christianity, I would not call it "A Christian movie" by my definition. I would certainly call "Fiddler" both a film about Judaism and a Jewish film. "Beyond Rangoon"? I don't remember it well enough. Oh okay. Guess I would have to check that movie out, myself, to make my own decision. How about Yentl? Have you seen that one? It starred Barbra Streisand. Beyond Rangoon came out during the mid-90s. It takes place during Aung San Suu Kyi's early years as a political activist, & when she was respected as freedom fighter. Buddhism plays a huge role in the movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Aug 3, 2022 13:33:39 GMT
Set during the Thirty Years War, "The Last Valley" is a portrait of Christianity at probably its ugliest, most superstitious, and most warmongering. Since the viewer will not come away with a positive view of Christianity, I would not call it "A Christian movie" by my definition. I would certainly call "Fiddler" both a film about Judaism and a Jewish film. "Beyond Rangoon"? I don't remember it well enough. Oh okay. Guess I would have to check that movie out, myself, to make my own decision. How about Yentl? Have you seen that one? It starred Barbra Streisand. Beyond Rangoon came out during the mid-90s. It takes place during Aung San Suu Kyi's early years as a political activist, & when she was respected as freedom fighter. Buddhism plays a huge role in the movie. Yentl, same as for Fiddler.
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Aug 3, 2022 14:25:47 GMT
Oh okay. Guess I would have to check that movie out, myself, to make my own decision. How about Yentl? Have you seen that one? It starred Barbra Streisand. Beyond Rangoon came out during the mid-90s. It takes place during Aung San Suu Kyi's early years as a political activist, & when she was respected as freedom fighter. Buddhism plays a huge role in the movie. Yentl, same as for Fiddler. So why do you feel that both Yentl & Fiddler are Jewish movies, but, A Man For All Seasons cannot be regarded as a Christian movie? Just because the writer himself was atheist? More died for his staunch Catholic beliefs that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, & no mere person - not even a king - has the right to override God's Decrees.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Aug 3, 2022 15:31:39 GMT
Yentl, same as for Fiddler. So why do you feel that both Yentl & Fiddler are Jewish movies, but, A Man For All Seasons cannot be regarded as a Christian movie? Just because the writer himself was atheist? I do feel I have answered why I don't regard AMFAS as a Christian movie, but I will reiterate: I believe author Robert Bolt accomplished his own stated intention to "appropriate" a Christian saint for HIS OWN PURPOSES. He used More as the vehicle for, as I said, a story all about the clash of powerful forces against an unbreakable individual. We agree that people will die for all kinds of principles. So, a story of an unbreakable individual is not readily identified as distinct or particular to Christianity.You are again stating how the Church sees More, so I'll can only say again: No question about how the Church sees More. But the question of whether "A Man For All Seasons" is a Christian movie (and play) hangs on how Bolt, its author, sees More, not on how the Church sees him. AND (this is important) Bolt does not see More as dying for his Catholic beliefs. Reread his statement. He sees More as dying for his unshakable regard for oath taking, no matter what a man believes.
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Aug 3, 2022 17:04:47 GMT
So why do you feel that both Yentl & Fiddler are Jewish movies, but, A Man For All Seasons cannot be regarded as a Christian movie? Just because the writer himself was atheist? I do feel I have answered why I don't regard AMFAS as a Christian movie, but I will reiterate: I believe author Robert Bolt accomplished his own stated intention to "appropriate" a Christian saint for HIS OWN PURPOSES. He used More as the vehicle for, as I said, a story all about the clash of powerful forces against an unbreakable individual. We agree that people will die for all kinds of principles. So, a story of an unbreakable individual is not readily identified as distinct or particular to Christianity.You are again stating how the Church sees More, so I'll can only say again: No question about how the Church sees More. But the question of whether "A Man For All Seasons" is a Christian movie (and play) hangs on how Bolt, its author, sees More, not on how the Church sees him. AND (this is important) Bolt does not see More as dying for his Catholic beliefs. Reread his statement. He sees More as dying for his unshakable regard for oath taking, no matter what a man believes. The fact that Bolt himself is an atheist is irrelevant. He retold the true story about a man in the clashing of Church & State, with the State trying to take control of the Church. It doesn't matter that " a story of an unbreakable individual is not readily identified as distinct or particular to Christianity." It matters that here, in this particular case, the unbreakable individual was unbreakable for what he knew or understood what Christianity was supposed to be and about, and chose to die for them. A Man For All Seasons
One can make the same arguments for Beyond Rangoon. The story of the unbreakable spirit or people is not identified as distinct to or particular to Buddhism either. Nonetheless, Buddhism played a very huge role in that movie, therefore, I would classify it as a Buddhist movie. Beyond Rangoon
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Aug 3, 2022 17:34:05 GMT
I do feel I have answered why I don't regard AMFAS as a Christian movie, but I will reiterate: I believe author Robert Bolt accomplished his own stated intention to "appropriate" a Christian saint for HIS OWN PURPOSES. He used More as the vehicle for, as I said, a story all about the clash of powerful forces against an unbreakable individual. We agree that people will die for all kinds of principles. So, a story of an unbreakable individual is not readily identified as distinct or particular to Christianity.You are again stating how the Church sees More, so I'll can only say again: No question about how the Church sees More. But the question of whether "A Man For All Seasons" is a Christian movie (and play) hangs on how Bolt, its author, sees More, not on how the Church sees him. AND (this is important) Bolt does not see More as dying for his Catholic beliefs. Reread his statement. He sees More as dying for his unshakable regard for oath taking, no matter what a man believes.The fact that Bolt himself is an atheist is irrelevant. You can see that I didn't mention Bolt's atheism here, so that response is irrelevant. You are just ignoring the author's own words about how HE saw More's conflict. And it is the author's work that is under discussion, not the larger historical picture nor the Church's view of More. (If, one day, I rewatch "Rangoon", which I saw once decades ago, maybe I'll form an opinion.)
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Aug 3, 2022 18:47:01 GMT
The fact that Bolt himself is an atheist is irrelevant. You can see that I didn't mention Bolt's atheism here, so that response is irrelevant.You are just ignoring the author's own words about how HE saw More's conflict. And it is the author's work that is under discussion, not the larger historical picture nor the Church's view of More. (If, one day, I rewatch "Rangoon", which I saw once decades ago, maybe I'll form an opinion.) The author knew exactly what More's conflict was all about: Him opposing Henry VIII's arrogance in declaring himself the head of the Church in England. Something he had no right to do. Catholics may say what we will about Martin Luther's decision to break from the Catholic Church, but, at least he did so for purely theological & religious reasons. Henry VIII's reasons were entirely personal: Because his wife could not give him the male heir that he so craved.
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Aug 4, 2022 16:47:25 GMT
A man takes an oath only when he wants to commit himself quite exceptionally to the statement, when he wants to make an identity between the truth of it and his own virtue; he offers himself as a guarantee." Obviously, Robert Bolt was unfamiliar with the likes of Donald Trump.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Aug 4, 2022 16:53:30 GMT
That trailer is comedy gold.
|
|
