MovieChat Forums > O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2001) Discussion > Not Mainly about Homer's Odyssey?

Not Mainly about Homer's Odyssey?

posted 11 years ago by nystulc
49 replies | jump to latest

3 sinners (Everett, Delmar & Pete) on a quest for salvation, pursued by the devil. Opens with a chant in which "Po Lazarus" (biblical, referring either to a man condemned to hell, or a man resurrected by Jesus, or both) is being pursued by the sheriff; thereby equating the lawmen with the powers of Hell. Then, as the three sinners flee the chain gang, the sound-track plays "The Big Rock Candy Mountain", representing a sinner's, warped and humorous vision of paradise. They try to escape on the train but Everett's pride, and failure to help his fellows, holds them back.

They then meet a blind seer, who tells them that they will find a treasure, but it will not be the treasure they seek; that they will see marvels, such as a cow on the roof of a cotton house; that they are not to mind the twists and turns; nor the obstacles in their path, for their ultimate goal will be their "salvation". They debate what he means, and Everett dismisses him as an "ignorant old man".

The sheriff catches up with them at Pete's cousin's barn and we see hellfire burning in his eyes. After escaping, they meet a Christian congregation, singing the baptismal hymn "Down in the River to Pray". Pete & Delmar get baptised, but Everett mocks them as "ignorant fools" believing in an "ridiculous superstition". In an ironic foreshadowing, he says "even if it did put you square with the Lord, the state of Mississippi is a little more hard nosed". Pete retorts that baptism, at the very least would wash away "the stink of that pomade"; which turns out to be a good point, because it is by the pomade and hairnets (representing Everett's pride and vanity) that the devil/sheriff is tracking them.

They pick up Tommy, who has just sold his soul to the devil (at a crossroads -- the traditional meeting-place). Everett treats it as a joke, but Delmar is shocked. Pete asks what the devil looks like, and Tommy says "white as you folks...with empty eyes and a big hollow voice ... travel around with a mean old hound dog" (matching the sheriff). At Tommy's suggestion, they stop and play a song for the Blind Radioman. Everett introduces himself as "Jordan Rivers" (after the Jordan River, traditional baptismal site, & symbolically, border river of God's promised land); and his fellows as "The Soggy Bottom Boys" (a reference to their baptism), and that they sing "songs of salvation". They sing "Man of Constant Sorrow" ("... There is one promise that is given; I'll meet you on God's golden shore").

That night Tommy sings a song about hard times, with "people drifting" who "can't find heaven". The devil/sheriff shows up, and Tommy (terrified, evidently, that the devil has come for his due) flees without waiting for his fellows. Everett, obsessed with his pomade and hairnets, almost gets himself caught, but Delmar and Pete dissuade him. Eerie music plays while a man with a hound dog is silhouetted against the hellfire of the burning barn. We next get a travel montage while the soundtrack plays "…from these prison walls I'll fly ... Hallellujia ... to a land where joys will never end"; and as this plays, our escaped heroes hide from a prison-truck rolling by.

They next meet the Sirens, who are agents of the devil ("you and me and the devil makes three"). The Sirens drug Everett & Delmar, truss up Pete, and deliver him to the sheriff/devil. Everett & Delmar, however, wake before they can return. They then meet the robber Dan Teague (Cyclops) who reminds us that not all who claim to serve the Lord are what they appear. Next comes a horrific scene of poor Pete being tortured by the powers of Hell; the Lawman with the Hound shows up, and Pete is in awe and horror as flames again burn in his eyes. Pete is about to be hanged. Thunder rolls and the devil remarks "sweet summer rain, like God's own mercy". A noose gets thrown up and the devil remarks "stairway to heaven; we shall all meet by and by". Pete calls on God's forgiveness, and the devil says "Hold!" (his power has limits).

Next, at the Homer Stokes campaign, we see three adorable little "Wharvey Gals" singing "In the Highways" in harmony ("... I'll be somewhere, working for my Lord..."). Later as Everett bemoans the inconstancy of his wife to Pete & Delmar, they see Tommy about to be lynched by the KKK. During the rescue, Tommy objects "I don't think nothings going to save me; the devil has come to collect his due"). Everett's hair gel once more betrays him to the Powers of Hell, and Dan Teague/Cyclops sniffs him out.

The quartet make their getaway (temporarily) and get pardoned by the governor of Mississippi. Thinking the pardon makes them safe, the 4 head for the valley to retrieve Penny's wedding ring, only to once again get caught by the sheriff/devil (who says, depending on how you choose to hear it, either "You have eluded fate an' you have eluded me..." or "you have eluded Satan -- you have eluded me..."). They object that they have been pardoned by the governor, but the devil tells them "the law is a HUMAN institution" (he, the devil, is not bound). Thus is Everett's mockery of the power of baptism (the state of Mississippi is NOT more hard-nosed after all) turned on its head. Everett prays for forgiveness ("Oh Lord, please look down and recognize this poor sinner ... I know that I have been guilty of pride and sharp dealing ... I'm sorry that I turned my back on you...") and the 4 get saved by a giant baptism, which not only miraculously unties the devil's bonds, but washes away (among other things) an entire supply of Dapper Dan pomade.

Once he surfaces, Everett immediately turns his back on God again, and argues for a "rational explanation" (they knew the valley was going to be flooded); but is immediately silenced when he sees a cow floating on the roof of a cotton house, reminding him of the words of the blind seer. In the final scene, the "Wharvey Gals" sing another hymn ("my strongest trials now are past; my triumph has begun ... O bear my heart to him who bled and died for me, whose blood now cleanses from all sin, and gives me victory ..."), but in which Everett (having again turned his back on God) learns that his trials are not quite past, and he must again return to the river. As Everett objects that what Penny asks of him is "one hell of a heroic task", the blind seer rolls by on his railcart, finishing the hymn (..."oh bear me away on your snow-white wings, to my immortal home"). Perhaps we are reminded of his prior words: ("do not mind the obstacles in your path, for fate has vouchsafed your reward"). The same hymn ("angel band") is reprised as the credits start rolling.

[–] Ken1260 10 years ago

Paragraphs are your friend.

[–] nystulc 10 years ago

> Paragraphs are your friend.

Would you like to correct my spelling too? I'm sure there's a mistake there somewhere.

[–] brandmanager 10 years ago

Maybe he can give you...an advanced tutorial.

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

nystulc wrote:

Would you like to correct my spelling too? I'm sure there's a mistake there somewhere.

If you want people to read what you of written, you stand a much better chance of having that happen if you make it easy for them and paragraphs are one thing that helps.If there had been paragraphs, I might well have read it. As it is, I just glanced through it, and I don't think there's any possibility that you've actually ever read the Odyssey. At least, not all of it.And, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Are you claiming it that it is not mainly about a book that you have not read, or are you claiming that it is mainly about a book that you have not read.Skimming through what you wrote, I do not see any references to Homer's Odyssey.

[–] nystulc 10 years ago

> If there had been paragraphs, I might well have read it.

You are not required to read it. You also are not required to make comments about a post you have not read. I cannot stop you from doing so, but such behavior seems rude and profoundly petty.

To prevent further nagging, and irrelevant petty snarking, I shall edit it to provide paragraphs. I don't think it will make any difference. You are still not required to read it. And I don't think you will.

> And, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

I can't help you there, since you choose not to read it. Sorry.

> I do not see any references to Homer's Odyssey.

There were some. But it's not mainly about that. You can't say the title of the post did not warn you.

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

nystulc wrote:

You also are not required to make comments about a post you have not read. I cannot stop you from doing so, but such behavior seems rude and profoundly petty.

I am certainly not required to give you good advice. What I wrote was

If you want people to read what you of written, you stand a much better chance of having that happen if you make it easy for them and paragraphs are one thing that helps.

I was explaining to you why I have not read it.

There were some. But it's not mainly about that. You can't say the title of the post did not warn you.

Oh, the title of your post means that it is not primarily about Homer's Odyssey, as opposed to the movie is not primarily about Homer's Odyssey.And I have no idea what your question mark means.I see that you are all about clarity and communicating your ideas. Your attitude does not give me any confidence that it would be worth my time to read your post.

[–] nystulc 10 years ago

pplikk wrote:
> Oh, the title of your post means that it is not primarily about
> Homer's Odyssey, as opposed to the movie is not primarily about
> Homer's Odyssey.

The title refers to the film, suggesting it is not primarily about Homer's Odyssey. The post describes the film, and what it may be primarily about. Hence the post is not primarily about Homer's Odyssey either, since it is about the film, which is (I suggest) not PRIMARILY about HOmer's oddyssey. The first words describe what I think is the main theme. Everything that follows -taken directly from the film - supports this idea. This is not hard.

> And I have no idea what your question mark means.

It allows for the possibility that there might be room for disagreement about whether the film is primarily about Homer's oddyssey or not.

> Your attitude does not give me any confidence that it would be worth my
> time to read your post.

You don't have to read my post, and I make no promise that you will find it "worth your time". But thank you for bumping it. I am less thankful for for all the pointless condescension, and I am still mystified as to why you feel the need to abuse a post you have not read as "not worth your time", when it would save time, and make more sense, and be less rude, to express no opinion about a post you claim not to have read, and have no obligation to read.

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

nystulc wrote:

The title refers to the film, suggesting it is not primarily about Homer's Odyssey.

That is what I took your title to mean before you said that it referred to the content of your post.I do not believe that you actually ever argue that the film is not primarily about Homer's Odyssey. You simply recount the events in the film. You do not show how they do not reflect Homer's Odyssey or how Homer's Odyssey as a very different work.The title implies that you are going to make an argument. You don't. Then what are you doing? What's the point? Well, you finally told me, but I had no idea before that.Yes, I feel title misled me.

I am still mystified as to why you feel the need to abuse a post you have not read as "not worth your time", when it would save time, and make more sense, and be less rude, to express no opinion about a post you claim not to have read, and have no obligation to read.

I am not expressing an opinion about the content of your post. I am expressing an opinion about the form of it and about your misleading title. I do not know how you got out of high school without learning about paragraphs, and normally I just avoid such posts. But another poster complained about the lack of paragraphs, and you did not seem to get the point.I regard posting a block of text like that as an insult to any potential reader in the same way that I regard a post that is so full of spelling and grammatical errors that it has to be deciphered as an insult. Some people cannot be bothered to proofread, and you cannot be bothered to use paragraphs or to make clear what you are trying to say.But the real point, which you have not responded to, is if you want people to read your posts, that is more likely to happen if you make them easier to read. Part of that is paragraphs and part of that is being able to figure out what you are trying to say.

[–] nystulc 10 years ago

pplkk wrote:
> I do not believe that you actually ever argue that the film is not
> primarily about Homer's Odyssey.

I state what the main theme is. And then I recite the evidence supporting that main theme. It seems to me that, in comparison, any Odyssey connections are secondary. That is why I say it is NOT primarily about Homer's odyssey. I've already explained this to you, but nothing satisfies you.

If you think you can make a stronger case for the Odyssey connections being the primary focus, be my guest. But to me, that cases seems relatively weak. For the record, a (one-paragraph) summary of the odyssey parallels can be found at the top of the IMDB trivia section. Feel free to compare.

> I am not expressing an opinion about the content of your post.

I understand that perfectly. You are only here to condescend, insult and abuse, and otherwise attack me on a personal level.

> I do not know how you got out of high school without learning about
> paragraphs

Insult noted.

> But the real point, which you have not responded to, is if you want people
> to read your posts, that is more likely to happen if you make them easier
> to read.

Sorry, I just don't agree that a long paragraph is that huge of an issue. It certainly has made no difference to you. I chopped up the paragraphing, in accordance with your suggestion, several posts ago, and yet you accuse me of not having responded to your suggestion, while you continue to condescend, insult, abuse, and lecture me about paragraphs.

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

nystulc wrote:

I state what the main theme is. And then I recite the evidence supporting that main theme.

You state your idea of what the main theme is and you interpret other things that happen in the film to support that idea.I do not have an opinion about your interpretation. You may well be right, but I would have to watch the film again to comment. If you could show that other films by the Coen brothers have a similar theme — as I think quickly over them, that may be the case — you may have a very strong case.My problem with that interpretation is a personal one. I simply do not think in terms of sinners, the devil, and salvation. To me, they're just meaningless terms, and I do not have any emotional or intellectual connection to them. As I said, that is just me.

It seems to me that, in comparison, any Odyssey connections are secondary.

I do not understand how you can possibly say that unless you deal with the Odyssey and understand what the relationship is. You certainly cannot make the case unless you deal with the Odyssey.As I think about it, it is certainly easy to argue that Odysseus's decision to leave Calypso — and the eternal life that she promises — and go back to Ithaca preserves his family's line from extinction and that is all the "salvation" that he's going to get in a pre-Christian society.What I think right now is that Ulysses is an epigon of Odysseus reflecting our modern, degenerate age. The film ignores roughly three quarters of the Odyssey, but I think you can argue that it is an "Odyssey" suitable for our time if you are pessimistic about our time.

That is why I say it is NOT primarily about Homer's odyssey.

The problem, as I have been trying to point out, is that the body of your post does not talk about the film's relationship to the Odyssey. The title that says that you are going to discuss whether or not the film is primarily about the Odyssey. And then it never happens, leaving me to wonder just what the hell point you are trying to make.

I've already explained this to you, but nothing satisfies you.

No, you had not previously explained this to me. I now understand what you were doing, but I don't believe that I would have understood it without your explanation. It would have worked a lot better if you had explained what you are doing at the beginning of your post and had a title that was relevant to the body of your post.

You are only here to condescend, insult and abuse, and otherwise attack me on a personal level.

When your high school teachers tried to explain to you about paragraphs — they are not an arbitrary convention, they serve a very real function — did you think that they were condescending, insulting, and abusing you on a personal level?I have not said anything about you personally. I suspect that you did not always pay a lot of attention in high school, but that is true of many people and hardly a personal attack.

Sorry, I just don't agree that a long paragraph is that huge of an issue.

Well, at least two people brought up the issue. Your whole, long post was one paragraph. 1,173 words; over four pages in a typical book. You're asking people to read something that they know nothing about. They have no idea if it will be worth reading or not. For God's sake, make it as easy for them as you can. That is the core of what I am saying.

I chopped up the paragraphing, in accordance with your suggestion, several posts ago, and yet you accuse me of not having responded to your suggestion

I am aware that you put in paragraphs, but it is clear to me that you do not understand why paragraphs are important, at least if you want people to read what you have written.

[–] nystulc 10 years ago

ppllkk wrote:
> I do not have an opinion about your interpretation.

That's fine.

> I simply do not think in terms of sinners, the devil, and salvation.

Okay, but would you not rather discuss the film? These concepts are directly presented in the film. Repeatedly. They are present regardless of what terms you choose to think in . The blind seer explicitly tells them that the ultimate goal of their quest is their "salvation". The script explicitly identifies the lawman with the hound as "the Devil". Etc. etc. etc. etc. There is really very little "interpretation" in my "interpretation". For the most part, I merely describe things that actually happen in the film and the script.

> You certainly cannot make the case unless you deal with the Odyssey.

I left the title question open. Hence the question mark. However, the relationship to the Odyssey is already well-documented, and I already told you where it is documented. Several times now.

I merely meant to start a thread. That's all. The initial post was not necessarily meant to cover all bases.

Please feel free to contribute anything about the Odyssey that you feel is relevant.

> As I think about it, it is certainly easy to argue that Odysseus's
> decision to leave Calypso — and the eternal life that she promises —
> and go back to Ithaca preserves his family's line from extinction
> and that is all the "salvation" that he's going to get in a
> pre-Christian society.

Does this have anything to do with this film? It does not appear to, as far as I can see. What character, in the film is the counterpart to Calypso? Its a horrible stretch in any event. You might as well argue that "The Lord of the Rings" is an anti-Christian manifesto, because Bilbo throws away "eternal life" by rejecting the Ring of Power.

> I now understand what you were doing, but I don't believe that I would
> have understood it without your explanation.

Great! Now you understand.

> The film ignores roughly three quarters of the Odyssey,

Okay. This comment tends to support the idea that "No" might be the answer to the title question. As I suggested. To which I might add that the Coens have claimed they never actually read Homer's Odyssey.

> but I think you can argue that it is an "Odyssey" suitable for our time
> if you are pessimistic about our time.

The film is definitely about "an odyssey", as per accepted definitions (a long event-filled journey). That's not even an issue. I expressed no opinion, even tentatively, about whether the film is "suitable for our time". I don't feel the film is pessimistic.

> it is clear to me that you do not understand why paragraphs are important

I guess you don't want to discuss the film. You would rather discuss whether Nystulc, an anonymous person on the internet, understands why paragraphs are important. I doubt anyone else on this board shares this pre-occupation, especially since the question no longer has any relevance to the film, or even to this thread.

> I suspect that you did not always pay a lot of attention in high school,
> but that is true of many people and hardly a personal attack.

Call it what you want. I still don't think anyone on this board is interested in discussing whether Nystulc, an anonymous person on the internet, paid a lot of attention in high school. Discussing the film might be more appropriate, as well as more respectful to Nystulc. It might also be more respectful to other posters, who might not appreciate your insinuation that one needs a particular level of education to discuss movies on IMDB. Of course, this matters only you care about showing respect to fellow posters.

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

nystulc wrote:

These concepts are directly presented in the film. Repeatedly.

Certainly, but you do not argue for an interpretation of the film from them.I do not doubt that you have a valid interpretation there; I just prefer interpretations based on things that have more meaning to me than sin, salvation, and the devil. Very different, and equally valid, interpretations are going to be possible.

For the most part, I merely describe things that actually happen in the film and the script.

Yes, selectively. You describe the things that you think are important and leave out the things that you think are not important.

However, the relationship to the Odyssey is already well-documented, and I already told you where it is documented.

The incidents that were borrowed from the Odyssey are obvious to anyone who has read the Odyssey.

I expressed no opinion, even tentatively, about whether the film is "suitable for our time". I don't feel the film is pessimistic.

I did not claim that you had. I said that Ulysses can be seen as an epigon of Odysseus, one that is suitable for our time. That is one way to look at the relationship between the book and the film whether you agree with it or not. You may well dislike that interpretation in the same way that I have very little interest in your interpretation.

I guess you don't want to discuss the film.

Discuss what about the film? Your title says that you want to talk about its relation to Homer's Odyssey, but you do not do that in the body of the text.You do not give any interpretation that could be discussed. You just list what happens around a certain theme.I suggested a relationship between the two books around your theme of "salvation," but you completely missed the point and were not interested. Calypso has nothing to do with the point, and you would know that if you had read the Odyssey.

Discussing the film might be more appropriate, as well as more respectful to Nystulc.

You are not going to get much discussion if no one reads your post because they see this dense block of text and have no idea what your point is.

It might also be more respectful to other posters, who might not appreciate your insinuation that one needs a particular level of education to discuss movies on IMDB.

If you are going to talk about the relationship between two books, you have to have read both books.

Of course, this matters only you care about showing respect to fellow posters.

From my point of view, you showed profound lack of respect for anyone who might look at your post by posting a solid block of text under a misleading title.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nystulc 10 years ago

ppllkk wrote
> Certainly, but you do not argue for an interpretation of the film from them.

I state the thesis and I present the evidence. It speaks for itself; as does the film itself, to be honest. But it is true that I do not try too hard to interpret the significance of the themes. I merely show what is present on the surface.

I have shown strong themes dealing with religion. You want to interpret these as conveying an anti-religious message. Okay, give that one your best shot, if you think you can make a case for it. But all I have shown so far is that the film does indeed focus on religion and religious themes, for WHATEVER purpose.

> I just prefer interpretations based on things that have more meaning to me
> than sin, salvation, and the devil.

You don't have to be interested in my post OR in the film. You to claim that my post is hard to understand, when the real problem is that you are just not interested in what I say, or in what the film says.

> Yes, selectively. You describe the things that you think are important
> and leave out the things that you think are not important.

I state the thesis (that the film's main theme is 3 sinners in search of salvation, pursued by the devil). Then I describe the evidence supporting the thesis.

You don't seem to disagree with me at all. Your criticisms are only designed to show the faults and flaws of Nystulc, an anonymous person on the internet. But nobody cares about that except you. And why you care so deeply about that is a mystery known only to you.

> Your title says that you want to talk about its relation to Homer's Odyssey

Not really. The title is framed as a question, and invites others to discuss its relationship to Homer's Odyssey. I have invited you to do so several times, and you have ignored me, except to the extent that you seem to agree with my suggestion that the film might not be primarily about Homer's Odyssey.

> Calypso has nothing to do with the point, and you would know that if
> you had read the Odyssey.

Sounds like you agree with me that Calypso has nothing to do with the film (except, perhaps, to the extent that it shows that this film is NOT closely based on Homer's Odyssey). However you are framing this as an accusation that Nystulc, an anonymous person on the internet, has not read Homer's Odyssey (even though you concede Nystulc is right about Calypso). But nobody cares about that non-issue. You are doing this instead of using your (supposedly) superior knowledge, to actually contribute to a discussion about the film "O Brother, Where Art Thou".

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

nystulc wrote:

I have shown strong themes dealing with religion.

No you have not. You have not shown that they are "themes" of any importance to the film as opposed to, well, local color.

You want to interpret these as conveying an anti-religious message.

Where did I suggest that?

You to claim that my post is hard to understand

That is a deliberate distortion. I said that a post that long with no paragraph breaks is difficult to read, and I am not going to make the effort unless I have some reason to believe that it contains something worth reading. I believe that most people won't bother either. I was actually giving you good advice if you want your post read.Since your title has nothing to do with your post, it did leave me wondering just what the hell you were trying to say.

I state the thesis (that the film's main theme is 3 sinners in search of salvation, pursued by the devil). Then I describe the evidence supporting the thesis.

It was not at all obvious that that is what you were doing. But the real point is that you never argue that that is the film's main theme or even an important theme at all.

The title is framed as a question, and invites others to discuss its relationship to Homer's Odyssey.

But that is not what you are discussing.

Sounds like you agree with me that Calypso has nothing to do with the film

I have already said that, and it should have been obvious when I first talked about it that Calypso was not the point. The point is that Odysseus endures many dangers in trying to return home — he could've just stayed where he was — and in doing so he achieved a kind of "salvation" in that he saved his family's line and property. If you are going to argue that Ulysses is on a quest for salvation, you can certainly argue the same thing about Odysseus.Ulysses could also have stayed where he was. Admittedly not as comfortably as Odysseus was. I do not remember how long his sentence was, but probably it was not that long. But he takes great and unnecessary risks to get home before his wife marries.Both of their quests are to get their families back. I am happy to call that a kind of salvation, but not a religious one.Both Homer and the Coens are telling stories in which religious beliefs are part of the stories, but neither of them are trying to talk about religion or make some sort of point about religion.

[–] nystulc 10 years ago

ppllkk wrote:
> No you have not. You have not shown that they are "themes" of any
> importance to the film as opposed to, well, local color.

Okay. I don't know what your definition of "theme" is. Would you prefer I said "I have shown PERVASIVE ELEMENTS (instead of strong themes) dealing with religion"?

I cannot prove that anything in the movie means anything at all. But with that attitude we might as well not watch the film. If the religious themes (oops, sorry, I mean "religious elements" - I forgot about your right to dictate my choice of words) are JUST local color, does that mean that the blind seer really is "just an ignorant old man" as Everett alleges? Are the flames burning in the devil's eyes "just local color" too? I thought you conceded he WAS in fact the Devil? Are sheriffs just like that in the South - avatars of Satan? What about the soundtrack? Are people just like that in the South - constantly breaking into song?

> Where did I suggest that?
> [ie. that the film had an anti-religious message]

I thought you did when you drew a connection to the Lotus Eaters. Or that this was what you were aiming for when you mentioned Calypso. Etcetera. And while i am unconvinced by this and similar arguments, it makes more sense than arguing that the film has nothing to do with religion at all.

> I have already said that, and it should have been obvious when I first
> talked about it that Calypso was not the point.

Okay. We seem to agree that Calypso is irrelevant.

> The point is that Odysseus endures many dangers in trying to return
> home — he could've just stayed where he was — and in doing so he
> achieved a kind of "salvation" in that he saved his family's line
> and property. If you are going to argue that Ulysses is on a quest
> for salvation, you can certainly argue the same thing about Odysseus.

If I were to say the "same thing" about the Odyssey, and present the evidence supporting that theme, it would be a very different argument supported by very different evidence, because they are very different stories. Also, you are talking as though I invented the idea of their ultimate destiny being their "salvation" when it is right there in the script, straight from the mouth of the blind seer (the one in the movie, not the one in the epic poem).

This is the same blind seer who has the last words of the film, as he rolls by on his rail-cart, singing "oh come, angel band, come and around me stand, oh bear me away on your snow white wings, to my immortal home." A mere return to mortal family does not seem to be what he has in mind.

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

nystulc wrote:

Okay. I don't know what your definition of "theme" is.

The standard one. What I believe most people are taught in high school.

Definition: A theme is the central idea or ideas explored by a literary work. John Gardner puts it this way: "By theme here we mean not a message — a word no good writer likes applied to his work — but the general subject, as the theme of an evening of debates may be World Wide Inflation."A work of literature may have more than one theme. Hamlet, for instance, deals with the themes of death, revenge, and action, to name a few. King Lear's themes include justice, reconciliation, madness, and betrayal.[Emphasis added.]http://fictionwriting.about.com/od/glossary/g/theme.htm

A theme is something that prominently happens in and is explored in a work of fiction.Nowhere in this film is the idea of salvation explored. Nowhere in this film is the action driven, except momentarily, by the desire for salvation. And as far as I can tell, nowhere in this film does it happen.

Would you prefer I said "I have shown PERVASIVE ELEMENTS (instead of strong themes) dealing with religion"?

There are references to religion, but you have yet to even attempt to show how they function in this story beyond being the mythology of the time.

If I were to say the "same thing" about the Odyssey, and present the evidence supporting that theme, it would be a very different argument supported by very different evidence, because they are very different stories.

There is a fundamental parallel between the two stories in their most fundamental theme. Both of the stories are driven by — set in motion by, propelled forward by, motivated by — the protagonist's desire to get home and save their families. At no point is Ulysses striving for salvation and only very briefly for rescue.

Also, you are talking as though I invented the idea of their ultimate destiny being their "salvation" when it is right there in the script, straight from the mouth of the blind seer (the one in the movie, not the one in the epic poem).

Yeah, the blind seer says it, but you have to show that it actually functions in the movie, and you don't even try to do that. I do not believe that you can assume that in the world of the Coens a blind seer is necessarily a genuine prophet. Probably rather the opposite.Show me the evidence that they are on a quest for salvation other than the fact that the blind seer says it in this fantasy. It is a quest for money by two of them that temporarily turns into a desire for salvation, and it is always a quest to retrieve his wife and family that drives Ulysses. Not salvation.

A mere return to mortal family does not seem to be what he has in mind.

Well, if I were a blind seer, I imagine that I might well be concerned about salvation because I would not have much to look forward to in this life. But Ulysses is not a blind seer, for God's sake. He has a wife and seven children and much more immediate concerns.

[–] nystulc 10 years ago

ppllkk wrote
> The standard one. What I believe most people are taught in high school.

Well then, by that definition, the story certainly has religious themes.

> A work of literature may have more than one theme. Hamlet, for instance,
> deals with the themes of death, revenge, and action, to name a few. King
> Lear's themes include justice, reconciliation, madness, and betrayal.

Okay, but I see nothing here that would deny that the film has religious themes.

> Nowhere in this film is the idea of salvation explored. Nowhere in this
> film is the action driven, except momentarily, by the desire for salvation.
> And as far as I can tell, nowhere in this film does it happen.

The characters fall into the power of the Devil and his minions, and get saved from the Devil and his minions. I note that you have already conceded that the sheriff is indeed the Devil. What do you think "salvation" means, anyway? It means getting saved or rescued. In a religious context, it usually means getting saved from the Devil.

> At no point is Ulysses striving for salvation and only very briefly for
> rescue.

"Salvation" and "rescue" mean the same thing.

> I do not believe that you can assume that in the world of the Coens a blind
> seer is necessarily a genuine prophet.

All of his prophesies come true. None of the characters find the treasure they seek -- Everett does not even find the right ring -- and they do indeed see a cow on the roof of a cotton house. And they do indeed get saved from the Devil.

[–] FoolishCarriage 10 years ago

nystuic,

Sent you a PM

[–] alexcregan1998 10 years ago

Wow. You're an absolute *beep* a$$hole buddy.

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

nystulc wrote:

3 sinners (Everett, Delmar & Pete) on a quest for salvation, pursued by the devil.

I gather that what you have written is a detailed description of what happens in the movie with some interpretation of your own but without a main argument.I am sure that there are people who would find it very useful if they had any way to find it.Your title is very misleading and I still do not have any idea what you mean by particularly with the question mark.If you do not have any interest in having anyone read what you wrote — and that is fine — just leave everything the way that it is.If you do hope that other people will read it, I suggest that you change the title so that it reflects what you've written and include a sentence at the beginning saying what your post is about.I could be mistaken, but I think that rather few people are going to plow into the solid block of text that you originally posted. And if they do, when you do not seem to be making any point, they are likely to give up.

[–] nystulc 10 years ago

pplikk wrote:
> I think that rather few people are going to plow into the solid block of
> text that you originally posted

Dude. I already added paragraph breaks, as per your "constructive" criticism. And yet, here you are still heckling me about it. For what purpose? I guess it's not really about paragraph breaks after all, as I suspected.

> I suggest that you change the title so that it reflects what you've written

More suggestions? From one who says he has not read my post and tells me he has no idea what my post is about? What title should I add, pray tell. And if I change the title in accordance with your suggestion, will you have another suggestion?

It sounds to me like you have no interest in what I wrote and are angry because my title did not warn you not to read it. I suggest you go find another thread that interests you, rather than trying to bully me.

On the other hand, if you'd rather continue bumping my post, feel free to keep doing so. I know how concerned you are about making sure as many people as possible read it.

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

nystulc wrote:

3 sinners (Everett, Delmar & Pete) on a quest for salvation, pursued by the devil.

This is at least the third time that you have posted your "long paragraph." You posted it twice in this thread.http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001053/board/flat/226267087The comments by Zbriden are as intelligent and articulate as one is likely to find, and I recommend them to anyone interested in whether or not O Brother is in any real sense a Christian film.I do not think that I have anything substantive to add to his observations, but I will make a couple of points.The Baptism event is parallel to the Lotus Eaters in the Odyssey. Their conception of salvation is staying high as a kite all the time. This reminds of "Religion is the opium of the masses." Literally opium, or something like it, in Homer.I agree that the Devil — or a reasonable equivalent — is a character in this movie and, I believe, in other movies by the Coen brothers. The existence of the Devil does not imply the existence of God. I do not see the existence of God in any of their movies.If you want to establish a religious theme for this movie, you really have to show that there is something like that in other movies that they have made.Otherwise, I think that the "religious" aspects are simply the culture and the mythology of the time. The movie is neither pro-Christian nor anti-Christian; it is simply representing the deep South in the 30s in a mostly comic way. It was — and may well still be — a religion-saturated community. Chain gangs, the Ku Klux Klan, not particularly scrupulous Bible salesman, and corrupt politicians were part of the landscape as were the religious beliefs, practices, and hymns. O Brother is a comic fantasy based on that, not a sociological or theological exploration of religion.The bottom line is that if you really want to see O Brother as a Christian film, then you are going to do that.In the same way that if you are in a desperate situation and pray to God and a miracle happens, you may think that the miracle happened because of God's intervention. Actually, the "miracle" was a coincidence, and you supplied the causality.You are seeing what you want to see, and that is your right. If you want to say the same thing about me, that is fine.As far as discussing the film as a Christian film, you've already had as intelligent a discussion as you are ever likely to get with Zbriden in the link above.

[–] nystulc 10 years ago

ppllkk wrote:
> This is at least the third time that you have posted your "long paragraph."

I posted it only once on this board.

> You posted it twice in this thread.
> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001053/board/flat/226267087

Yes, I posted an earlier version in on another board, buried in a long thread. I later revised it and have now reposted it here, in the board actually devoted to this film.

You seem to imagine you have succeeded in digging up dirt on me. I am scratching my head in mystification.

> The Baptism event is parallel to the Lotus Eaters in the Odyssey. Their
> conception of salvation is staying high as a kite all the time. This
> reminds of "Religion is the opium of the masses." Literally opium,
> or something like it, in Homer.

I find this a weak point. Was Penny a faithful wife in the movie, because Penelope was a faithful wife in the Odyssey? Must the KKK members be regarded as harmless because they are analogous to the Cyclops' sheep? One must judge the film on its face to determine if the portrait of these "Lotus eaters" is unfavorable.

> I agree that the Devil — or a reasonable equivalent — is a character in
> this movie and, I believe, in other movies by the Coen brothers. The
> existence of the Devil does not imply the existence of God. I do not
> see the existence of God in any of their movies.

Nowhere does my summary describe the film take a position on the existence of God. It merely describes what happens in the film.

> If you want to establish a religious theme for this movie, you really
> have to show that there is something like that in other movies that
> they have made.

No. I don't have to do that at all. Feel free, however, to say anything about their other films that you think is relevant.

> Otherwise, I think that the "religious" aspects are simply the the
> culture and the mythology of the time. The movie is neither
> pro-Christian nor anti-Christian; it is simply representing the
> deep South in the 30s in a mostly comic way.

If so, then the Coens cannot be saying that Religion is the opiate of the people. Sounds to me like you cannot make up your mind.

In any event, you could say the same thing about the Odyssey themes. Perhaps the reason the characters refer to the 3 young women as Sirens is because the characters are "steeped in the mythology of the time", including some familiarity with Homer's Odyssey.

> The bottom line is that if you really want to see O Brother as a
> Christian film, then you are going to do that.

I merely describes what occurs in the film, as focused on its religious themes. It is you who have concluded that the message of the film is positive toward relgion, based on the description. Don't blame the messenger.

> In the same way that if you are in a desperate situation and pray to
> God and a miracle happens, you may think that the miracle happened
> because of God's intervention. Actually, the "miracle" was a
> coincidence, and you supplied the causality.

As to that, you have no cause for complaint. My summary itself makes no claim that this is an authentic miracle. I merely described what happened in the film, including the disagreement among the characters as to whether it is a miracle or not.

> You are seeing what you want to see, and that is your right.

You have made no meaningful claim that anything I have described is inaccurate. If you suspect I have distorted anything, I suggest you rewatch the film, and then get back to us. Until then, you are blowing hot air.

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

nystulc wrote:

You seem to imagine you have succeeded in digging up dirt on me.

Not at all. My point was that you have already discussed your view of the film elsewhere. I guess you wanted a second opinion even though the first opinion was, in my view, definitive.I believe that anyone interested in your point of view would find that discussion more enlightening than this one.I was quite amused that you posted a version of your "long paragraph," without paragraph breaks, twice in that thread. I did not look to see if the second one had been revised.

One must judge the film on its face to determine if the portrait of these "Lotus eaters" is unfavorable.

The film parallels a Christian baptism to staying stoned all the time. The Coens did not have to make that particular parallel.

Nowhere does my summary describe the film take a position on the existence of God.

Okay. Then why are they sinners, and what does salvation mean?

3 sinners (Everett, Delmar & Pete) on a quest for salvation, pursued by the devil.

No. I don't have to do that at all.

I think that you do if you want to claim that the Coens are saying something about religion and not just describing the existing religion. At least, you have to do it if you want to make a convincing case.

If so, then the Coens cannot be saying that Religion is the opiate of the people.

The Coens make the parallel and it reminds me of a famous quote about religion. I do not think that the Coens are taking a position on religion one way or the other; they are simply applying the mythology of the time of the film to the mythology of the Odyssey. They are finding parallels between the two mythologies, some more convincing than others.The Greek gods are major players in both the Iliad and the Odyssey. People who have read either of those works over the last thousand years have suspended their disbelief and temporarily accepted the existence of the gods that the original audience believed in.I believe that is what is happening here. The audience is expected to suspend its disbelief and accept possible supernatural elements as part of the story because those elements would have been commonly believed at the time of the story.

I merely describes what occurs in the film, as focused on its religious themes.

You need to argue that they are themes and not just elements of the story which is what I take them to be.The Coens clearly deliberately included the mythology of the time in their film, and you have documented that. But you seem to think that they are saying something by doing that, and I do not see any reason to believe that.

It is you who have concluded that the message of the film is positive toward relgion, based on the description.

I have done no such thing. I have no idea what the message of the film is, but I'm quite sure it has nothing to do with religion.

My summary itself makes no claim that this is an authentic miracle.

So, that isn't what you were implying when you wrote

and the 4 get saved by a giant baptism, which not only miraculously unties the devil's bonds, but washes away (among other things) an entire supply of Dapper Dan pomade.

You have made no meaningful claim that anything I have described is inaccurate.

I have not made any claim at all that your description is inaccurate. You do not, however, argue for the proposition that three sinners are on a quest for salvation, and I do not see that at all. No, it is not self evident from your description.

[–] nystulc 10 years ago

> I was quite amused that you posted a version of your "long paragraph,"
> without paragraph breaks, twice in that thread.

He asked for a paragraph. So I gave him a paragraph. He asked for it twice so I gave it to him twice. But thank you for reminding me why I original posted it without paragraph breaks.

> The film parallels a Christian baptism to staying stoned all the time.
> The Coens did not have to make that particular parallel.

The Coens did not make that parallel at all, and it is nowhere to be found in the film. That parallel comes from OUTSIDE the film, and has been made by others, such as yourself.

You would be hard-pressed to prove to a doubter that any such connection ever existed in the minds of the film-makers. One can speculate such a connection, but the film does not express it clearly.

> Okay. Then why are they sinners, and what does salvation mean?

How is this my problem? These words are used in the film itself. The protagonists are prisoners on a chain gang, imprisoned for specific acts, which anyone who is not immoral would consider immoral (in other words, "sins"). You don't have to call those acts "sins" if the word offends your secular sensibilities, but the film does not share your sensibilities. Delmar, for instance, specifically refers to the robbery, for which he was incarcerated, as a "sin". By the way, you have already conceded that the sheriff who his holding them prisoner for their bad acts (which you don't want to call sins) is indeed the Devil himself.

The blind seer specifically tells them that the destiny of their quest is their "salvation"; and if you want a clue as to what he means by this, perhaps you should consider the words of the song he is singing just before the credits start rolling.

> I think that you do if you want to claim that the Coens are saying something
> about religion and not just describing the existing religion.

I am making no claims about what the Coens privately believe. Similarly, I have no idea whether Seth Rogan believes in the rapture or the Apocalypse; or any other item of Christian doctrine. In Seth Rogan's case ... probably not; in the Coens' case, I don't know. Still, Seth Rogan's film "This is the End" is definitely about the Apocalypse and the Rapture, and takes these ideas at face value, for its own fictional purposes, and it would be silly to say that these ideas are only present to accurately reflect the religious and cultural beliefs of Hollywood at the time the film takes place. The same goes, I think, for "O Brother Where Art Thou".

> The Greek gods are major players in both the Iliad and the Odyssey.
> People who have read either of those works over the last thousand
> years have suspended their disbelief and temporarily accepted the
> existence of the gods that the original audience believed in.

Then why are you unwilling to do something similar with "O Brother, Where Art Thou"? I am making no claims as to what the Coens privately believe. I am merely showing that the film seems to take certain Christian and/or religious concepts at face value and incorporates them into the story.

> I have no idea what the message of the film is, but I'm quite sure it
> has nothing to do with religion.

If you have no idea what the film is about, and have no interest in discussing it, I can only wonder what the basis of your absolute certainty can possibly be.

> So, that isn't what you were implying when you wrote: "and the 4 get
> saved by a giant baptism, which not only miraculously unties the devil's
> bonds, but washes away (among other things) an entire supply of Dapper
> Dan pomade."

Not unless that is what the film is implying. I am merely describing what happens in the film. The "baptism" analogy is clearly intentional ... foreshadowed by Pete's comment that baptism would at least wash away the stink of the pomade. You have already conceded that the sheriff, who gets washed away, is indeed the Devil. The idea that it is a miracle is directly discussed by the characters themselves. It is certainly "miraculous" in the sense of seeming "like a miracle". Certainly, no "rational explanation" is readily provided for why all 4 condemned prisoners all happen to surface with their hands untied, while the 5 men (or devils?) and their hound (all of whom had free hands when the water hit them) seem to get washed away completely.

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

nystulc wrote:

He asked for a paragraph.

And being a pain in the ass, you proceeded to fulfill the letter of what he asked for, but not the spirit.

The Coens did not make that parallel at all, and it is nowhere to be found in the film.

It is obvious if you have read the Odyssey

How is this my problem? These words are used in the film itself.

Sure, but when you say:

3 sinners (Everett, Delmar & Pete) on a quest for salvation, pursued by the devil.

it is reasonable to ask you where in the film you find that. Briefly at the baptism for two of them, where else?

The blind seer specifically tells them that the destiny of their quest is their "salvation"; and if you want a clue as to what he means by this, perhaps you should consider the words of the song he is singing just before the credits start rolling.

As pointed out above, there is no reason to take the blind seer as any thing other than a stock character from ancient Greek literature. (There is a blind bard. There is a seer but he isn't blind. There is a dead blind bard who gives Odysseus advice.) Given that there is nothing in the film to support what he says, why do you think he is speaking for the authors and announcing what the work is about?

I am making no claims about what the Coens privately believe.

You are making a questionable claim that they made a movie with a theme which would seem to be sharply at variance with the rest of their work.

I am merely showing that the film seems to take certain Christian and/or religious concepts at face value and incorporates them into the story.

That is exactly what I am saying. You are saying that the theme of the film is a quest for salvation, not just that the film takes "certain Christian and/or religious concepts at face value and incorporates them into the story."

Not unless that is what the film is implying. I am merely describing what happens in the film.

Sure. The incident may remind us of baptism. The incident may remind us of Odysseus's struggle with Poseidon's storm. And it is one of a number of incidents in a fanciful story.But, how do you get "salvation" out of it? Rescue yes, but salvation, the salvation that you say that they have been on a quest for. Just where does anyone get "salvation" in this film?

[–] nystulc 10 years ago

ppllkk wrote
> Nowhere in this film is the idea of salvation explored. Nowhere in this
> film is the action driven, except momentarily, by the desire for salvation.
> And as far as I can tell, nowhere in this film does it happen.

The characters fall into the power of the Devil and his minions, and get saved from the Devil and his minions. I note that you have already conceded that the sheriff is indeed the Devil. What do you think "salvation" means, anyway? It means getting saved or rescued. In a religious context, it usually means getting saved or rescued from the Devil.

> At no point is Ulysses striving for salvation and only very briefly for
> rescue.

"Salvation" and "rescue" mean the exact same thing. Everett spends pretty much the entire film trying to escape the Devil. In the end, he fails, and has be be rescued by a giant flood, immediately after he prays to God for aid and forgiveness

> I do not believe that you can assume that in the world of the Coens a blind
> seer is necessarily a genuine prophet.

All of his prophesies come true. None of the characters find the treasure they seek -- Everett does not even find the right ring -- and they do indeed see a cow on the roof of a cotton house. And they do indeed get saved from the Devil.

> Given that there is nothing in the film to support what he says, why do
> you think he is speaking for the authors and announcing what the work is
> about?

Again, all his prophesies come true, and the idea of salvation is worked extensively into the script and the soundtrack. But I never claimed he was "speaking for the authors". I merely described what was in the film.

> And being a pain in the ass, you proceeded to fulfill the letter of what
> he asked for, but not the spirit.

You are importing disputes from another forum in order to abuse and insult me. This is troll behavior. Would it really hurt you to make an attempt at civility?

> It is obvious if you have read the Odyssey

I'm aware there are Lotus Eaters (opiate abusers) in the Odyssey. However, there are none in this film. It is not "obvious", except to ideological extremists, that religious folk and drug abusers should be equated.

> You are making a questionable claim that they made a movie with a theme
> which would seem to be sharply at variance with the rest of their work.

I already invited you to show how this film is at variance with the rest of their work. You ignored me. Not that it matters much. Nobody denies (for instance) that "The Ladykillers" and "Blood Simple" are very different films.

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

nystulc wrote:

What do you think "salvation" means, anyway? It means getting saved or rescued. In a religious context, it usually means getting saved or rescued from the Devil.

In this context,

3 sinners (Everett, Delmar & Pete) on a quest for salvation, pursued by the devil.

it would mean to almost everyone except you a quest to have your immortal soul saved from the devil, not your body.

"Salvation" and "rescue" mean the exact same thing.

Having your body "rescued" is not the same thing as having your soul "saved."You seem to have elementary misunderstandings about fundamental theology.At no point in this film does Ulysses seek to have his soul saved. He seeks to have his body saved when he is about to be hanged. He does not say, "Dear God, I know that I am a sinner and I'm about to die, but please save my soul." If he had been given the choice between having his body saved or his soul saved, I am pretty sure which one he would've chosen.It seems that you define that as a quest for salvation. That is nonsense.I think I understand now. If instead of what you wrote, you had written

three men escape from a chain gang for different reasons and they are pursued by a law man who represents evil and they are saved from being lynched by him by the fortunate timing of an expected event

I would not have disagreed with you.What it comes down to is that you do not have any arguments and so you simply change what you saying by redefining what words mean from their normal meaning. That is intellectually dishonest, and there's simply no way to have a rational discussion with you.

And they do indeed get saved from the Devil.

Their bodies get saved, temporarily, but that says nothing about their souls.

All of his prophesies come true.

Okay, but the salvation that he refers to is not the salvation of anyone's soul. It is having their lives saved. Seers frequently speak in ways that are misunderstood until after the fact.The three men are not on a quest to have their life saved. They could've just stayed where they were. They endanger their lives for different reasons none of them having to do with a "quest for salvation."

You are importing disputes from another forum in order to abuse and insult me.

I am abusing and insulting you by pointing out that your arguments were shredded in a previous discussion? Yes.

It is not "obvious", except to ideological extremists, that religious folk and drug abusers should be equated.

In this particular case, the two incidents are clearly parallel. In the more general case, the idea that religion is the opium of the masses is quite common. It is not just "ideological extremists" who agree.The bottom line is that you are really not saying anything. You present a thesis and then you present what you believe is evidence for it, but you never actually explain what it is that you're trying to say. To continue the analogy with the Odyssey, you are an intellectual Proteus and maybe Odysseus could've nailed you down, but I certainly can't, and it is not worth the effort to continue to try. You will just slip away again by manipulating concepts and words but without actually saying anything.

[–] nystulc 10 years ago

ppllkk wrote:
> it would mean to almost everyone except you a quest to have your immortal
> soul saved from the devil, not your body.

Ho ho! I see the game you are playing. According to you, I cannot possibly demonstrate that the film contains religious themes, unless I can somehow prove that the film has accurately presented, in concrete physical form, phenomena that are invisible, intangible and inaudible and indeed (in your opinion) completely non-existent, which you will inevitably insist I cannot do. So did you realize your challenge was a complete joke when you made it?

> Having your body "rescued" is not the same thing as having your soul "saved."

The blind seer does not say that only their souls will be saved. He speaks, without distinction, of the whole person: "even unto your salvation". Nor does Christian doctrine teach that only the soul - and not the body - will be saved. In any event, since you concede the sheriff is the Devil, the threat can certainly be understood as spiritual. He is presumably there not only to slay their bodies, but to claim their souls as well; assuming it is even necessary to make the distinction in the context of an allegorical film.

> You seem to have elementary misunderstandings about fundamental theology.

Christianity preaches the salvation of the whole person: body AND soul. I would not expect you to know this, since I would not expect you to have any interest in or understanding of Christian theology. But one so ignorant should be a little more humble when discussing subjects outside his knowledge, and not bray so loudly like an arrogant donkey.

> He does not say, "Dear God, I know that I am a sinner and I'm about
> to die, but please save my soul." If he had been given the choice
> between having his body saved or his soul saved, I am pretty sure
> which one he would've chosen.

A better assumption is that, like any Christian, he wanted to save his body AND his soul. Your idea, that he would be perfectly happy to just save his body, and have a soul-less automaton see his daughters again, while his soul is screaming in the fires of hell, is just plain goofy.

> They could've just stayed where they were.

Sure. They could have chosen to stay in the Devil's prison. But it seems that, on some level, they wanted to escape the Devil.

[Re: the lotus eaters in the Odyssey; and the congregation in the film]
> In this particular case, the two incidents are clearly parallel.

Then how come you cannot elaborate? What is so parallel about them? How are they similar? Were Odysseus's men eating gopher when they met the Lotus Eaters? Support the argument with something more than your own ideological bigotry.

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

nystulc wrote:

Ho ho! I see the game you are playing.

No, you don't. We have been through all of this before and if you didn't understand it then, you are not going to understand it now.

Christianity preaches the salvation of the whole person: body AND soul.

I understand that there are some Christian sects the teach that. I believe that mainstream Christians believe that the body will be resurrected at the end of time, but I think you have to have had your soul saved to get your body back.Perhaps you belong to a Christian sect which believes that the people who martyred themselves for Christ, who sacrificed their bodies to save their immortal souls, got it wrong.They thought that their bodies were unimportant compared to their souls. I don't think that is Ulysses's attitude.

Sure. They could have chosen to stay in the Devil's prison.

Actually, they would've been automatically released — one of them in a couple of weeks — and then they would've been free of the power of the devil unless they committed some other crime. By escaping, they put themselves in the power of an evil law man, certainly something like a devil, for the foreseeable future. Their quest was for wealth in two cases and family in one. That was what put them at risk.

Support the argument with something more than your own ideological bigotry.

Delmar: Well I was lyin' - and I'm proud to say that that sin's been warshed away too! Neither God nor man's got nothin' on me now! Come on in, boys, the water's fine!

If you had read the Odyssey, you would recognize that as the drug induced euphoria of the Lotus Eaters.From their sullen behavior in the car afterwards, I believe that Ulysses dragged them away against their will, which is exactly what Odysseus had to do.I am coming to a theory that one of the few times that you did pay attention in high school, the teacher was telling you that things that happen at the beginning or at the end of the work may well be important, and you are stuck on that. But you have to show that they are also important in the rest of the work of fiction, and you have not done that.You are very tempting to reply to because you say so many things that have such obvious, convincing answers, and I have given in to that temptation. But I don't believe that you're actually saying anything. I don't believe you're actually arguing for an interpretation that you won't just weasel out of, and so, as an aid to avoiding that temptation, I'm going to put you on ignore, at least temporarily, now.

[–] nystulc 10 years ago

ppllkk wrote:
> I understand that there are some Christian sects the teach that.

Pretty much all of them do.

> I believe that mainstream Christians believe that the body will be
> resurrected at the end of time,

In that case, they preach the salvation of the whole person, body and soul, like I said. The scriptures (eg. Paul) refer to the interim period (between death and resurrection) as a period of "sleep". "Salvation" or "being saved" is not something that is typically equated with dying and going to heaven and waiting around for resurrection at the end of time when one can be restored to one's body. Even in the film, "being saved" is spoken of as something that happens in the here and now.

> but I think you have to have had your
> soul saved to get your body back.

True, but beside the point. You don't have do lose your body to be "saved". Regardless of whether death is regarded as inevitable, dying and "being saved" are rarely equated; and are certainly not equated in this film.

> Perhaps you belong to a Christian sect which believes that the people
> who martyred themselves for Christ, who sacrificed their bodies to save
> their immortal souls, got it wrong.

That's not how Jesus puts it. He does not say that he who sacrifices his body will save his immortal soul. He says "He who would save his life shall lose it, and he who would lose his life shall save it." In short, those Martyrs have not only saved their souls, but saved their bodies as well.

> > Delmar: "Well I was lyin' - and I'm proud to say that that sin's been
> > warshed away too! Neither God nor man's got nothin' on me now! Come
> > on in, boys, the water's fine!"
> If you had read the Odyssey, you would recognize that as the drug induced
> euphoria of the Lotus Eaters.

Why are you so full of nonsense? The passage of the Lotus Eaters in the Odyssey is one paragraph long, and contains nothing even remotely resembling Delmar's quote. Stop trying to deceive the ignorant, and pretending that those who have read it would find parallels which you yourself are apparently unable to find.

> From their sullen behavior in the car afterwards, I believe that Ulysses
> dragged them away against their will, which is exactly what Odysseus had
> to do.

HAHAHA! As Pete might say, "That don't make no kine o' sense!" Are we to believe the rest of the congregation is still in the water, because Everett did not "drag them away"? So in short, the only parallel you can find is not in the film, but is purely one of your own invention.

[–] Lokisgodhi 9 years ago

Why does this surprise you? Christians seem to think that the world revolves their anti-Semitic hate cult with delusions of grandeur. They think they have the right to constantly be forcing down the throats of everyone else.

ppllkk wrote:

The bottom line is that if you really want to see O Brother as a Christian film, then you are going to do that.

[–] pclassic 10 years ago

Interesting conversation.

And while I have to confess that like ppllkk I find discussions of Homeric wisdom and virtue infinitely more enlightening than ones which hammer home the biblical view … still, there may be something to the points that nystulc, (in his seemingly belligerent and turgid way) is making.

The Coen Brothers do introduce biblical themes into their work. Certainly, that is the case in A Serious Man, and one could argue, more subtly in Fargo.

As for O Brother Where Art Thou?, there is no alternative but to acknowledge that the characters are steeped in biblical culture, and more to nystulc’s point, that the filmmakers have underlain the story with further indicators of that culture. Whether the thread title referencing the Odyssey is helpful, I think we can each judge for ourselves.

The thing I would caution, in a film so clearly dedicated to parody, is whether the whole salvation narrative is not merely a way of enhancing and reinforcing the parody, of getting us “in the mood,” so to speak.

To me, there is no evidence, none, to indicate that the salvation device is anything more than that – a device employed to give narrative cohesion to a satirical script featuring several characters who believe themselves to be subject to divine intervention.

As a result, I would not recommend O Brother Where Art Thou? to someone searching for biblical themes in a film, quite the contrary. Not when it is too close to obvious that the Coens are actually satirizing the very iconography that such a filmgoer might revere.

Instead, I would encourage someone looking for sincerely presented biblical themes to seek out a movie more like Terrence Malick’s Tree of Life, a film amazingly layered with theological themes and biblical references, which does not seek to guide the viewer to a predetermined conclusion, but rather, wrestles with the notions of love, loss, life, divinity and eternity in a way that would be both challenging and satisfying for many.

O Brother Where Art Thou? I would recommend to someone who was looking to find a clever, funny, entertaining tale, with great acting, music, direction, and cinematography.

But to try to construct theological heft out of what are in fact literary conceits -- conceits I imagine the Coens would be the first to say they added for kicks -- well, I think that is a bridge too far for most people. Or to head in another direction, quoting Corinthians:

When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

pclassic wrote:

Interesting conversation.

This is one of those occasions on which I wish that a sarcasm font had been available so that I would know.

The Coen Brothers do introduce biblical themes into their work.

Sure. I think that "evil" is a theme in much of their work. Whether that is biblical or not, it is certainly a Christian theme.I've been asking for an example of religious salvation as a theme in their work. Perhaps there is one, and to me, it would make it more likely that it is a theme here.There is, by the way, a certain ambiguity in the word "theme" which nystulc plays on. In a literary work, its primary meaning is one of the main concerns of the work, one of the driving forces of the work. Revenge in Hamlet. Love in Romeo and Juliet. Salvation in any Quest for the Holy Grail.But it is also used to mean elements that come up in the story, in the same way that you might say that a restaurant has a certain theme. Oh Brother is full of religious themes in that sense.The mythology of the Odyssey has been changed into the mythology of the deep South in the 30s.

As for O Brother Where Art Thou?, there is no alternative but to acknowledge that the characters are steeped in biblical culture, and more to nystulc’s point, that the filmmakers have underlain the story with further indicators of that culture.

I thought that was my point. Although upon occasion nystulc has said that, I believe that more often he has said that it is not just background, that it is of literal importance in the story and should be taken seriously in trying to understand the movie.

Whether the thread title referencing the Odyssey is helpful, I think we can each judge for ourselves.

I found it extremely unhelpful, because I learned in high school that the title of the work gives you some clue what the work is about.

To me, there is no evidence, none, to indicate that the salvation device is anything more than that – a device employed to give narrative cohesion to a satirical script featuring several characters who believe themselves to be subject to divine intervention.

Yes.Divine intervention occurs all the time in the Odyssey, but it is just the way things work, at least in their stories. I don't believe that anyone would say that the Iliad or the Odyssey are "about" divine intervention. Whatever the original audience thought, for over 1000 years readers have suspended their disbelief and accepted that that was the way that world works for the sake of the story. Same here. Magic is an omnipresent "theme" in Harry Potter, but I would not say that it is "A Theme" of the work. The themes in a literary sense are entirely human. They are just worked out in a world in which magic exists.It is the same thing in science fiction. Of course space travel is a "theme" of the Star Trek series. But really the themes have to do with exploring in general, with exploring different possibilities and imagining different situations, and warp drive allows the writers to do that in a particular context.O Brother is a fantasy designed to be funny. It is a satire. It is a translation of the most mythological parts of a classic work — it has rather little to do with the main subject of Odyssey, the slaughter of the suitors which enables Odysseus to regain his wife and his treasure and his position — set in a heroic age into the mythology of a very un-heroic age. (That is the Coen's conceit, not necessarily their belief.)To put it briefly, Ulysses is an epigon of Odysseus. A "hero" suitable for our age.And thank you for your comments.

[–] nystulc 10 years ago

pclassic wrote:

The Coen Brothers do introduce biblical themes into their work. Certainly,
that is the case in A Serious Man, and one could argue, more subtly in Fargo.

Their films that I would list as having prominent religious themes and imagery are: "The Ladykillers", "True Grit", "O Brother, Where Art Thou?", "A Serious Man" and "Barton Fink". Note that this is not to say that I am certain what the message of these films is ... merely that they have religious themes and imagery.

Other films have moral themes, but their religious themes and imagery, if any, are quite subdued. I would place in this category "Fargo", "Raising Arizona", "Blood Simple", and "Miller's Crossing".

The thing I would caution, in a film so clearly dedicated to parody, is whether the whole salvation narrative is not merely a way of enhancing and reinforcing the parody, of getting us “in the mood,” so to speak.

I would be interested in reading any coherent defense of the idea that the religious themes in this film are meant as ironic or parodic or satiric (all of which implies a less-than positive attitude to whatever is being mocked). But so far, we have been unable to reach that point, because of my adversary's refusal to admit that the film contains religious themes at all.

Until then, all I can say is that the person the film seems most focused on poking fun at is Ulysses Everett McGill, the film's resident non-believer. But anyone who wants to make a case for mockery or parody of religion is free to do so.

To me, there is no evidence, none, to indicate that the salvation device
is anything more than that – a device employed to give narrative cohesion
to a satirical script featuring several characters who believe themselves
to be subject to divine intervention.

I don't even know what this means. A "device", by definition, must serve a purpose. But you are not telling me what purpose this "device" serves. Everything in a story should serve a purpose, of course, if the story is well-written. Hence, every element in a story is a device. But, as the Golux (called the "Golux ex machina" by his enemies) once said, "I am the Golux, the only Golux in the world, and not a mere device".

We have gone off the deep end once we start arguing that anything that serves a purpose in the story can be dismissed as meaningless.

As a result, I would not recommend O Brother Where Art Thou? to someone
searching for biblical themes in a film, quite the contrary. Not when
it is too close to obvious that the Coens are actually satirizing
the very iconography that such a filmgoer might revere.

Okay. But you know what the next step is. I am going to challenge you to make a case for the religious satire (by which I presume you mean something distinct from religious comedy) that you claim it so-obviously is. I never got to this point with ppllkk, since his position is that it is NOT religious satire.

Why would you NOT recommend the film to a religious person? What in the film would you expect them to find offensive? Or prevent them from taking the religious themes at face value?

O Brother Where Art Thou? I would recommend to someone who was looking to
find a clever, funny, entertaining tale, with great acting, music,
direction, and cinematography.

That's fine. But why, in your mind, does this exclude religious people and/or people looking for religious themes.

[–] pclassic 10 years ago

The film is a parody, in the global sense. Institutions, people, manners of behavior and thought are all subjected to satirical treatment. Beyond that, many scenes devolve into farce, and out-and-out buffoonery.

While not singled out, religion is in no way exempted. I’m not saying that the filmmakers oppose religion, any more than they oppose the democratic form of government, Southerners, Woolworths employees, or the use of logic, just because they are also parodied.

My point is that if you are looking for a serious examination of biblical teachings or wisdom, O Brother Where Art Thou? is not the best or even a good place to look. Not to say that religious people couldn’t engage it the way you have. But any close reading from a religious perspective is bound to end in frustration (for most) or exceptionally esoteric readings (for the persistent few.)

If you are looking for examples of religious symbols, characters, or ideas receiving satirical or comedic treatment, I would point to the credulity of Pete and Delmar, the character of Big Dan Teague, the cartoon villain devil/sheriff, the burning cross reimagined as a cosmic hammer, and of course, the salvation references. The fact that the three adventurers would be saved by a miracle baptism in the form of a man-made, oracle-predicted flood is a grand parody that deserves some praise.

Of course, Everett’s secular ideas are also parodied – a parody of a parody, if you will - because he tries to explain things rationally, but his explanations are shown to be as dubious as the mindset that he is trying to critique.

Since the Coen’s goals are artistic - to entertain and provoke laughter, rather than to proselytize - it follows that their use of religious associations and symbols would be in the spirit of fun, ingenuity, and theatricality. They are the heirs of Homer, Shakespeare, and Cervantes, rather than Abraham, Jesus, or the Apostle Paul.

So what would some religious viewers find offensive in a movie like O Brother Where Art Thou? Well, mainly, religious symbols have no more importance than secular ones. They are all merely joined together as constituent parts, used to tell a story – the goal of which is simple – to hold the attention of an intended audience.

So yes, the religious elements are devices, and in this case, only devices. They are bricks and mortar used to build the story - but not the design pointing the way, or the structure holding everything in place. Under no circumstance should the film be viewed as attempting to privilege the religious experience, advocate for it, or to convert viewers to its tenets.

You are right of course, not all religious people would be offended. But certainly those who ascribe sacred significance to their convictions could be. That is why I recommend Malick’s movie to these folks. Because it offers biblical material, which could genuinely and uncontroversially be considered thematic, not satirical, and it happens to be a great movie, not just for the questions it asks, but from a purely cinematic perspective as well.

Ultimately what it all comes back to for me is that art and religion are fundamentally distinct enterprises. Whereas the bible extolls one truth, art celebrates the clamor of voices that make up society. In that spirit, I wouldn’t completely reject what you are saying. But there is nothing in art that asserts that all viewpoints are equally sensible. And it is proceeding from that line of thinking that I conclude that Homeric angle in the film has more resonance than the biblical one. Ppllkk has gone so far as to say that Everett is an epigon of Odysseus. I tend to agree that is a more useful reading.

If you are trying to argue that the story is being used as a vehicle to introduce a message about religion, that is what I and others (presumably ppllkk,) find wanting. If that is not what you are saying, then perhaps I am misreading your intent.

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

pclassic wrote:

The film is a parody, in the global sense.

In so far as your post was provoked by the quite dumb discussion above, it was all worth it.Since nystulc is big on Devils, I could say that he reminds me of Goethe's Mephistopheles: The spirit who always seeks to do evil and ends up doing good.

that is what I and others (presumably ppllkk,)

Absolutely ppllkk.

If that is not what you are saying, then perhaps I am misreading your intent.

It is quite difficult to tell what he is actually saying, isn't it, because it seems to weasel around.

[–] nystulc 10 years ago

pclassic wrote:
> The film is a parody, in the global sense.

The film is a comedy. There is plenty of evidence of this. But that's just avoiding the question. You could also say it satyrizes and parodies specific things like ... politicians, kansmen, and ... atheists. But that's still avoiding the question.

> While not singled out, religion is in no way exempted.

Then why is it that, in this long long, post, you could not provide a single example of the film attacking the Christian religion via satire or parody?

> My point is that if you are looking for a serious examination of
> biblical teachings or wisdom, O Brother Where Art Thou? is not the
> best or even a good place to look.

A "serious" examination ??? Well, if you are looking for something that is NOT a comedy, then you should not look here. This is a comedy.

I take it you are a non-Christian. I cannot help wondering why you are taking it upon yourself to tell Christians what films they are or are not likely to enjoy. And telling them that they will not enjoy comedies.

> If you are looking for examples of religious symbols, characters, or
> ideas receiving satirical or comedic treatment, I would point to the
> credulity of Pete and Delmar,

You mean Delmar's belief that Pete got turned into a horny toad? I'm not sure what that has or has not to do with Christianity. It is funny, though.

> the character of Big Dan Teague

Dan Teague/Cyclops is a robber who claims to be a bible salesman so he can gain the trust of his victims. He and his fellow klansman are also explicitly identified in the script as agents of the Devil (Tommy: "the devil has come to collect his due"). Why on earth do you imagine Christians would be offended by this? Do you imagine all of us are klansman?

> the cartoon villain devil/sheriff

The fact that the devil appears as a character in the film merely underscores its religious themes. I'm not seeing the parody, and I don't know what you mean by "cartoon". What is it about the portrait of the devil that you imagine a Christian would find offensive?

> the burning cross reimagined as a cosmic hammer

The burning cross is historically a symbol of the klan, and appears in the film in that context. Except that it gets "re-imagined" as something that falls on, and crushes, an agent of Hell (Dan Teague/Cyclops). Why would a Christian be offended by this ... by the cross being reclaimed as a symbol of Good, crushing the very folks who misused it?

> and of course, the salvation references.

What about them? Yes, the film has alot of salvation references. And I understand that you find the idea of salvation to be ridiculous, but I am not seeing an argument that the film shares your view.

> The fact that the three adventurers would be saved by a miracle baptism
> in the form of a man-made, oracle-predicted flood is a grand parody that
> deserves some praise.

I thought it was pretty clever myself. Why would a Christian find it offensive?

> So what would some religious viewers find offensive in a movie like O
> Brother Where Art Thou? Well, mainly, religious symbols have no more
> importance than secular ones.

Huh? What? That is completely unintelligible. What "secular" elements of the film do you imagine Christians would find offensive? And how do you claim the film has portrayed them as having more importance than the religious elements. The only place in the film that I can remember, where such a comparison was made, was where secular pardon was contrasted with religious pardon. And secular pardon did not end up winning that argument.

> You are right of course, not all religious people would be offended.

You have not even explained why some might be. If you were to say something like "Some Christians might think the Sirens were too sexy", or something like that, it would at least be intelligible. It might even be true ... of some Christians.

> You are right of course, not all religious people would be offended. But
> certainly those who ascribe sacred significance to their convictions
> could be.

Why would they be offended? By what?

> That is why I recommend Malick’s movie to these folks.

Haven't seen it. But if you are not Christian, I cannot help wondering why you are presuming to tell Christians what they would or would not enjoy. You don't even say if you enjoyed Malick's movie yourself. I cannot help suspecting you didn't ... or you would not be recommending it to those other alien beings who are incapable of enjoying anything you consider "art".

> Ultimately what it all comes back to for me is that art and religion
> are fundamentally distinct enterprises.

Hahaha! Right. Because if you make that assumption, then all you need do is prove that this is art. Then it cannot be contain religious elements. And if you assume that Christians are completely alien beings, it would follow that they would be unable to enjoy a comedy.

> Whereas the bible extolls one truth, art celebrates the clamor of voices
> that make up society.

False dichotomy. All art has a message, if it is not meaningless. Whether you approve of that message is another question. Whether it celebrates a "clamor of voices" or not, is still another question.

> Since the Coen’s goals are artistic - to entertain and provoke laughter,
> rather than to proselytize ...

Well ... if you assume what you seek to prove (that the Coens purpose is non-religious) and if you declare that art and religion are mutually exclusive (as you have done), and that comedy and religion are exclusive (I guess Christians are not allowed to laugh) then you win the argument on the basis of your own assumptions.

But I never made any assumptions about the Coens private convictions, just as I make no assumptions about the private beliefs of Cecil B. DeMille or Seth Rogan. And I am not saying a non-Christian cannot enjoy (or create) a film with Christian content, any more than I am saying that a non-pagan cannot enjoy (or create) "Clash of the Titans". I am merely trying to discuss the content of the film in question.

[–] pclassic 10 years ago

Hmm…

Three escaped prisoners travel through the countryside. They encounter a mass baptism in the middle of the woods. One of the prisoners joins in, shouting:

Preacher said my sins are warshed away, including that Piggly Wiggly I knocked over in Yazoo!

Neither God nor man's got nothin' on me now!

They meet a man who says he sold his soul to the devil, who taught him to play the guitar “real good” in exchange. This is quickly turned into a punch-line by one of the escapees, who is going by the alias: Jordan Rivers.

Hot damn, boy, I almost believe you did sell your soul to the devil!

Asked at one point if they are “bad” one of the three responds merrily:

Well, funny you should ask-I was bad, till yesterday, but me'n Pete here been saved.

They continue along their fugitive way, cursing and taking the Lord’s name in vain, joyfully participating in an armed bank robbery, stealing a car, stealing a pie! … and getting drunk and hooking up with strange women.

After one of them (Pete) gets turned over to the police (a cartoon villain character sheriff, who always seems to have flames reflecting on his glasses,) the two remaining escapees meet a self-described bible salesman:

(I sell) The Truth! Ever' blessed word of it, from Genesee on down to Revelations! That's right, the word of God, which let me add there is damn good money in during these days of woe and want.

… who unfortunately robs them and beats them to a pulp.

Meanwhile the sheriff interrogates Pete, whipping him for answers, dangling a noose.

Stairway to heaven, Pete…We shall all meet, by and by.

Eventually the fugitives sort things out and continue on their way. But soon they find themselves in more trouble, interrupting a Klan rally:

Brothers! We are foregathered here to preserve our hallowed culture'n heritage! … our ol'-time religion! … We aim to pull evil up by the root! Before it chokes out the flower of our culture'n heritage! … from all those smart-ass folk say we come descended from the monkeys! That's not my culture'n heritage!

… where they save Tommy (the fellow would had sold his soul to the devil) from a lynching, creatively using the Klan symbol (a burning cross) as a hammer to bludgeon down the bible salesman/thug.

Thankfully, things work out for our lovable escaped cons, the decisive moment occurring at a wedding reception where they are hailed as rock stars during their rendition of “I’m a Man of Constant Sorrow.”

In an attempt to ride the coattails of their popularity, the Governor pardons them their crimes:

I'm a f'give and f'get Christian. And I say, well, if their rambunctiousness and misdemeanorin' is behind 'em… Why then I say, by the par vested in me, these boys is hereby pardoned!

But there is one last encounter waiting with the evil sheriff. Not acknowledging the pardon, he is determined to lynch the intrepid heroes of the story, saying:

Perhaps you should take a moment for your prayers.

The normally skeptical Everett takes up his advice.

I'm sorry that I turned my back on you, Lord. Please forgive me, and help us, Lord, and I swear I'll mend my ways.

At which point the government’s pre-planned flooding of the valley serendipitously intervenes to wash the entire setting away, and the threesome finds themselves saved from doom once again. They come to surface shouting:

A miracle! It was a miracle! … We prayed to God and he pitied us!

To me this all comes together a standard approximation of parody: the mimicking of a person, style, or cultural practice for comic effect.

The parody effect is not malicious, but at the same time, it does not privilege religion above secular matters, and in doing so, could offend someone if they maintain that religious matters are to be held above and apart from the secular realm … and not parodied.

For you, it is a religious message, built around the theme of salvation. I cannot say that you are wrong, just that, in my opinion, your reading is not useful to people searching for religiously themed movies. Your conclusions, while not inaccurate per se, are also not in proportion to what is being seen and heard on screen.

But we both agree that it is funny, and is therefore a movie that could appeal to a wide spectrum of viewers, of various religious identifications.

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

pclassic wrote:

in my opinion, your reading is not useful to people searching for religiously themed movies.

Nor, I believe, is it going to be useful for people who are not intent on finding a religious interpretation.

[–] nystulc 10 years ago

pclassic wrote:
> To me this all comes together a standard approximation of parody: the
> mimicking of a person, style, or cultural practice for comic effect.

And this to me, is an avoidance of the actual question - whether Christianity is actually, in any meaningful way, the butt or target of any of the jokes. You are just mushing "parody" together with "comedy", and mushing parody of OTHER things (like the klan, or politicians), and avoiding any meaninful support of your claim that the comedy targets Christianity in any way that a Christian might find offensive or unfriendly (which was your claim).

> The parody effect is not malicious

We cannot even get that far.

I do not consider Non-Christians to be "malicious" merely because they express their views; and I do not expect Non-Christians to be ENTIRELY pro-Christian, because if they were, they would be Christians.

But that's all beside the point, because you cannot show that the film is made in such a way as to reflect an anti-Christian or non-Christian outlook (whether malicious or not).

The examples you cite are mostly a mystery to me. If Christianity is being mocked or criticized, what is the criticism?

Of course the film is anti-Klan. That you equate this with anti-Christianity is frankly quite offensive to all Christians. Why do keep citing this example? Even after I pointed out how offensive it was. Are you TRYING to be offensive? I don't get it! Really I don't.

There is all kinds of religion, and religious people, who actually believe things, have very distinct opinions from each other. Only a non-believer would ever consider lumping all religious people together, which is evidently YOUR outlook. But what evidence do you have that the film shares your view?

Why do you think Christianity is being mocked when Pappy says he is a "forgive and forget Christian" and cites scripture to justify pardoning our heroes? What aspect of Christianity is being mocked here? Are the Coens opposed to forgiveness, mercy, and being non-judgmental? Are you opposed to these things? Yes, I get that Pappy is a politician, and an opportunist, and mainly interested in winning the election. Hence, he might not be entirely sincere about the ideals he cites (though there is no real proof he is entirely insincere). But even to the extent Pappy may be insincere, the person being mocked is Pappy, not the ideals themselves. And as far as Pappy goes, whose side should we be on? Sincere or not, he is at least trying to appeal to the better nature of his electorate; as distinct from his hate-mongering demagogue of an opponent.

Many of your examples seem to emphasize that the characters making religious reference use a rustic or southern accent. Does this, to you, imply mockery by association. Perhaps you should start preparing an apology to southern folk and rural folk too.

You do not really explain your final example. But you seem to think that, since the flood is man-made, it is funny that Delmar thinks he is saved by a miracle. I understand this is the way non-believers think, but you have failed to consider that it may not be Delmar, but non-believers like yourself, that are the target of the humor here. Religious people believe that God is behind everything, man-made or not. A religious man sees no contradiction between the idea that God created him, and that he was generated by his mum and dad by certain commonplace methods. It is non-believers who are preoccupied with the idea that "rational explanations" render God irrelevant.

So lets take a look at the flood scene. Our 4 heroes have their hands tied behind their back, waiting to be hanged, while the 5 villains who want them dead stand guard over them. Everett prays to God aloud for mercy, while the others pray silently. As he finishes praying, a giant wall of water comes rushing down the valley, exploding a house that stands in its path. This giant wall of water hits our bound heroes ...

... and, of course, they all die. What else could possibly happen ... absent a miracle of some kind.

OH WAIT!! Somehow they DON'T die. Instead, all 4 heroes somehow pop up, entirely unharmed to the calm surface of a new lake, with their formerly bound hands somehow untied. The 5 villains who were trying to kill them, along with the dog that was tracking them, are all washed completely away, without a trace. "IT'S A MIRACLE", says Delmar.

At the very least, that is, under the circumstances, an understandable sentiment. But you think the film is laughing at Delmar.

Then Everett starts being the obnoxious know-it-all he has been the whole movie, belittling Pete and Delmar's intelligence, and going on about "we knew the valley was going to be flooded". And you assume the movie is on his side here? "We knew the valley was going to be flooded" does not even begin to explain why all 4 of them are still alive. It is merely another good reason why all 4 of them ought to be dead.

Pete and Delmar are understandably unimpressed by this explanation.

But Everett keeps blathering on, his monologue getting increasingly absurd as it progresses. Until he sees something that stops him in his tracks: A cow on the roof of a cotton house - seemingly in fulfilment of the blind man's prophesy.

I won't comment on your other examples. Perhaps you should explain the anti-Christian point that you think is being made by them. It is too hard for me to guess.

[–] pclassic 10 years ago

I see.

For you, the use of the word parody means de facto that something (in this case, religion) is being mocked, attacked, ridiculed, treated as alien, disapproved of, targeted, antagonized, critiqued, opposed, rendered irrelevant, laughed at …

Those are all your words and phrases. Not mine.

I would never use any of those words to describe the Coen’s treatment of religion. It wouldn’t occur to me, because I don’t feel that way.

No, as I indicated, I am going with a standard definition of parody:

the mimicking of a person, style, or cultural practice for comic effect.

Of course, within that definition, there is room for scorn. And in this, you are right about one thing: the Coens do hold institutions like the Klan in contempt. As they should. And you are also correct in saying that Christians should not be held responsible for the fact the Klansman have appropriated some of their symbols and their rhetoric. So the Christian parody here is indirect. And any targeting is rightly directly at the Klan.

On the other hand, treated with sensitivity, one could parody something they hold dear. Something they love or cherish. I think that is the direction that the Coens are going with their parody of religion.

On this, I have been consistent. I said that the Coens created the religious conceits “for kicks,” that it was “in the spirit of fun, ingenuity, and theatricality,” that “they are the heirs of Homer, Shakespeare, and Cervantes,” and that by implication their work “celebrates the clamor of voices that makes up society,” that the religious parodying is “not malicious,” and that their film could “appeal to a wide spectrum of viewers, of various religious identifications.”

So you have ignored all of my actual words and phrases, and replaced them with your own projected fears. Do you see how that is leading you to create a straw man?

Anyway, I think that is the source of our misunderstanding. (that, and my declining to endorse your interpretation of the film ... perhaps that is what has offended you.)

I have provided examples of parody (imitation for comic effect,) but you are excluding and contesting them, because in your mind, they do not add up to an attack on religion, (which I am not positing,) and if the examples are attacks, they exist only as perceived by a prejudiced viewer, a perception that would reveal the viewer to be your mortal enemy.

But I don’t see that way. If we accept that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and parody is imitation (the consensus definition, not your acrobatic redefinition to only include less than positive attitudes,) then it follows, naturally of course, that parody can also be the sincerest form of flattery.

Perhaps that is what is happening in O Brother Where Art Thou? Perhaps there is a bit more of an edge. But regardless, I reject the attitude that somehow being angry and accusatory makes one righteous.

You should too.

Reread the posts. I actually recommended a movie that I like, and that I think you would too. 99% of people on these boards would take that as a friendly gesture.

For you, it was an opportunity to begin a new round of suspicion and hostility.

Think about that.

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

pclassic wrote:

On the other hand, treated with sensitivity, one could parody something they hold dear.

My wife suggests Don Quixote as an affectionate parody of the sort of books that Don Quixote reads. She also reminded me of the expression, "to go to hell in a hand car." I'm not suggesting that the blind seer is going to hell, just that there is a resonance and that may be why he is put on a hand car.

[–] pclassic 10 years ago

My wife suggests Don Quixote as an affectionate parody of the sort of books that Don Quixote reads.

That sounds about right. There is a sense of playing with the boundaries of reality (as it relates to the story being told,) that occurs in Don Quixote, making it very relevant to the topic at hand.

The writing of sympathetic parodies has a long tradition spanning many centuries. Homer, Shakespeare and Cervantes are merely the best of the best.

Although they wouldn’t have used the term, they were all pioneers of positive parody – parody used to affirm and expand the human imagination, rather than limit or even maintain it in its current form.

The French writer Rabelais is another writer who I gather wrote in this style, and I’d like to better familiarize myself with his work.

In film we have personalities like Billy Wilder, Charlie Kaufman, Wes Anderson, and (Finnish Director) Aku Kaurismaki … and the Coens.

I should add that employing sensitive parody does not remove the possibility of social commentary. It does however move it to the background, and make it secondary, couched. And crucially, it renders most social commentary effectively ambiguous.

There seems to been a connection between sympathetic parodies (I think you alluded to O Brother Where Art Thou? being a "comic fantasy" earlier,) and ambiguity.

A modern author I enjoy reading who writes affectionate parodies is Milan Kundera. He has said that he aspires to ambiguity in all of his writing, and says “the greater the ambiguity, the greater the pleasure.”

The mastery of ambiguity is something that makes the Coens so successful as well.

Whether it is the connection between the blind seer and Tiresias, Everett Ulysses’ suitability as a protagonist, or the Coen’s personal feelings on salvation, they thrive on creating characters and situations that allow them to explore their perspective on the human condition, without ever fully arriving at what that perspective might be.

[–] nystulc 10 years ago

pclassic wrote:

For you, the use of the word parody means de facto that something (in this case, religion) is being mocked, attacked, ridiculed, treated as alien, disapproved of, targeted, antagonized, critiqued, opposed, rendered irrelevant, laughed at …

No, for me the word "parody" means whatever you mean by it, since you are the one using the word, and I am struggling to understand what you mean. And I kept getting mixed signals. I invited you to clarify that you merely mean something completely innocuous, like, for instance, "comedy about religious people and containing religious themes" (which I concede the film is).

I agree that this is a comedy with Christian themes and that (whatever the private convictions of the Coens may be, as to which I express no opinion) there is nothing in it that is hostile to Christianity, or shows, in any way, that it is not made by a believing, highly-religious Christian.

If that's all you mean by "parody of religion" then we have no disagreement.

No, as I indicated, I am going with a standard definition of parody:
the mimicking of a person, style, or cultural practice for comic effect.

I have no problem with the idea that some of the actors are pretending to be Christians, and that comedy is the general effect, overall.

However, you also used the word satire (or satirical), and the usual definition of that is:
the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

And I have no objection to the idea that some elements may (by that definition) be satire, as long as you don't claim that Christianity itself is the target of the satire, for which I see no evidence, and you have provided no examples.

Moreover, I think the standard definition of "parody" would be:
an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect.

Now I think that (usually) parody implies some form of criticism of the artist, art work, or genre being parodied. At a stretch, however, I can imagine that some works called parodies have no real critical intent except to make people laugh, by creating a comic version of a known work familiar to viewers.

I can imagine extending this idea of "parody" to the mimicry of a person for comic effect. And I can also imagine that, in some cases, there might (in some cases) be no unfriendly or critical purpose to such mimicry.

But under this definition it seems (as far as I can see) meaningless to talk of parodying a "religion". If you extend the definition to religion, you probably either mean a satire targeting religion, or a comedy featuring religious themes. I am scratching my head in confusion as to how one could "mimic" religious beliefs themselves for comic effect, unless the intent was mockery and ridicule of those beliefs. The concept just does not compute.

You also said that you would not recommend this film to Christians because some of them (evidently meaning those who actually take their religion seriously) would find it offensive. I am still trying to figure out what you meant by that.

So you have ignored all of my actual words and phrases, and replaced them with your own projected fears.

No. I have paid close attention to your words, and asked you to clarify.

I have provided examples of parody (imitation for comic effect,) but you are excluding and contesting them, because in your mind, they do not add up to an attack on religion, (which I am not positing,)

Great. None of them are attacks on religion. But in that case I personally would prefer not to call them "parodies of religion" (whatever else they may be parodies of), because I think this invites confusion. But I will accept your explanation that YOUR meaning is entirely innocuous.

If we accept that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and parody is imitation (the consensus definition, not your acrobatic redefinition to only include less than positive attitudes,) then it follows, naturally of course, that parody can also be the sincerest form of flattery.

I still don't see how one can "imitate" a religious belief itself. Unless you mean pretending to adopt a belief one does not actually subscribe to (perhaps for the purpose of appealing to a particular audience). But if the film pretends to adopt beliefs, then I do not see how it can be distinguished, on it surface, from a film that actually does reflect those beliefs. Once again, I make no claim about the Coen's private beliefs.

But regardless, I reject the attitude that somehow being angry and accusatory makes one righteous.

You should too.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but it sounds vaguely accusatory.

I actually recommended a movie that I like, and that I think you would too. 99% of people on these boards would take that as a friendly gesture.

This is the first time you told me you liked the movie (The Tree of Life) yourself.

For you, it was an opportunity to begin a new round of suspicion and hostility.

That sounds vaguely accusatory as well.

But I am glad we now agree that the film is in no way hostile to or critical of Christianity. I accept your clarification that, when you called it a satire or parody of religion, you merely meant that it was a comedy featuring religious themes, and a satire of things other than Christianity (like the KKK), and a good-natured attempt to imitate rustic dialect and culture. Which it is. If you meant anything else, I don't know what it could be.

[–] pclassic 10 years ago

But I am glad we now agree that the film is in no way hostile to or critical of Christianity.

Yes, we agree. You've managed to fight your way through your faux outrage, and emerged with the awareness that I never suggested otherwise.

I accept your clarification that, when you called it a satire or parody of religion, you merely meant that it was a comedy featuring religious themes,...

Um, OK. I guess. I've made pretty clear that I believe the those "religious themes" you are so immersed in are cartoon parodies, lovingly rendered, not the best or (even a good place) to begin a serious conversation about depictions of Christianity in film or religion in general.

But good luck to you.

Adieu.

[–] nystulc 10 years ago

pclassic wrote:

You've managed to fight your way through your faux outrage

You seem to be having a bit of trouble with own faux outrage. Or else you would not still be trying to pick a fight.

and emerged with the awareness that I never suggested otherwise.

No, I merely accepted your "clarification" as a "clarification". If I were to be perfectly honest, rather than polite, I would be forced to admit that I am pretty damned sure you were trying to disagree with me about something, though at this point I have no idea about what. Or maybe you wanted to fight with me about nothing. Do you want to let it be? Or do you want to fight about nothing some more?

Um, OK. I guess.

You don't seem too happy about it. I think you really wanted to disagree with me about something.

I've made pretty clear that I believe the those "religious themes" you are so immersed in are cartoon parodies, lovingly rendered, not the best or (even a good place) to begin a serious conversation about depictions of Christianity in film or religion in general.

Are you trying to disagree with me about something? Or is that just my paranoia and faux outrage?

And if you have no problems with the positions I have taken, why this implied accusation that I am "attempting to begin a serious conversation about depictions of Christiantity in film"? What exactly are you objecting to? You admit it has religious themes, but you don't want me to discuss them? Why? What SHOULD we have a "serious" discussion about? Suggest a topic, please.

[–] armensog 10 years ago

Dude, I admire your patience, but you should give up on it, as Coens have done. Do not try to prove anything. Coens movies are fables, and those who don't see, will not see anything. Movies like Barton Fink, A Serious Man, The Man who wasn't there.. how can you explain them to people who never feel on the same wave as the directors? I can't say I agree about everything in your post, but for sure, Oddysseus theme in this movie is only an outer layer, just a theme to build on. Coens said they haven't even read the book, and only got this by other adaptations. I agree that it's a story about salvation, superstition, rationality and how they tie together. And the themes and songs are Gospel at its best. Not without criticism of some aspects of Christianity (Goodman's character being a KKK member and stuff), but it has the spiritual ideas for sure. But you will NEVER explain this to ppl who don't wanna see that. I've tried to do the same with Raising Arizona, which is flooded with Christian symbolism and Christmas themes and very subtle nuances about salvation, but it's plain useless. SUch ppl might not even believe it if the directors say that to their face, that's why Coens NEVER do, and that's why I love them. Some years from now their movies will be analysed by real critics I hope, and will get the recognition they really deserve. Just don't waste your time on the forums. Been there. Done that. Pointless.. absolutely pointless.