MovieChat Forums > Good Dick (2008) Discussion > Insightful to expose the futility of pre...

Insightful to expose the futility of prejudice...

posted 16 years ago by Bladerunner
14 replies | jump to latest

One of the things I loved about this movie is how her personality is exposed to the viewer. In the beginning, you don't know why she is the way she is, but you have all kinds of preconceived notions that mostly (probably in the majority of viewers) turn out to be wrong. In this way, the film is VERY insightful to show how we perceive people... wrongly. We tend to think the worst thing. For example, you ask a friend to your house for dinner and the brusquely turn you down. What do you think? You think, they don't like me, they don't like my cooking, they're too busy for me, I'm low on their list of friends, and so on. Later, they call and start sobbing as they share that their mother just passed away.

As I was watching the film I kept thinking, if I was him I'd LEAVE, right now. His persistence pays off, but it's not just blind persistence. He *sees* something in her that we don't. He knows her and his insight is just acute enough to keep her from being able to dismiss him completely. Instead of him tiptoeing with her, which would indicate that he doesn't really know her, he is just trying to ingratiate himself, he asserts his own personality and challenges her. It proves that he isn't just some leech who doesn't really love *her* he just wants to love *someone*. If he wasn't so challenging to her, so willing to be his own quirky self we might mistake his intentions. Clearly he isn't just trying to ingratiate himself, he SEES something in her, something he likes and feels is worthwhile to work for.

He is almost a bit like a fairy godmother. He pops in to her life, knowingly and turns it upside down, expecting nothing in return. Even his attempts to have sex with her feels like attempts to heal, they don't seem a bit selfish. For that reason, and many others this can be classified as a fairy tale, but one where Cinderella has been abused and the fairy godfather is romantically attracted to his charge.

Throughout the movie I felt like he was some angel, a guardian angel who swoops in to change her life for the better. The only time in the film we get a sense that he has a past as a human on earth — is when his friend asks him, "are you using again", "are you sleeping in your car again"? If it weren't for these lines, we might reasonably assume that he is an angel that has just fallen from Heaven who has the assignment of helping this young woman. There are moments in the film that support this. The gift of the cross necklace. His boundless patience with her verbal abuse, her rejection of him, her cruel, sexual outbursts and so on.

I think the fact that he is listed as just "man" in the credits is further evidence that he might have celestial parentage. His "gift" of knowing what movies she will like. His dogged and selfless, unconditional pursuit of her is another indication, not to mention his superhuman penis size ;-) I may be wrong, but I think that this characterization of him helps us understand his motives, because many times I could NOT understand why he was there.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] simplypm2004 16 years ago

What you describe as prejudice risen above is, in the context of the film, exactly what gives it the somewhat magical feel that you have characterized. The "Man" sees past the personality with all its quirks, to the "Woman". For him that is all that matters. Everything else has to be suffered. His genuine devoted interest to the "Woman" works like fairy dust that quickens her to life, from the condition where she lays dormant like Snow White. Everybody else only saw the weirdo. It wasn't that she wasn't a weirdo, but that in fact wasn't who she really was underneath it all. He was willing to deal with the weirdo until the real "Woman" awakened.

Rising above prejudice doesn't mean becoming blind to what is there, white washing it, or rationalzing it into something that it is not. It is rather dealing with it in such a way that doesn't condemn the person to their personality (which in the main is shaped by conditions in life before the real self has a chance to get to work).

(PRN) – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id-bFpYQzXE

[–] Bladerunner 16 years ago

I don't know about any "Snow White" stuff, but I do know that this woman acted weird, not because she was a "weirdo", but because she had been abused. She had been marginalized by a very powerful man who had convinced her she was nothing, could do nothing, and in fact... was nothing.

You speak of "who she really was underneath it all", but you also call her a "weirdo". As if she is both. No, she is not both. What she is, is a person who has been abused who is responding in a perfectly normal way to the abuse she has suffered. She is afraid of the world, suspicious of everyone, because she has never had a healthy relationship. When she finally faces this cruel man, and shakes off his burdensome yoke, she is free then to be who she really is, a beautiful young woman with normal needs like any other human being. She is free now to express those things, instead of having to fear any man, any relationship.

I think you play games with words lke "real self" and then you try to assert that she is both a weirdo and a "real woman awakened". She isn't both. She is truly one thing, but *responding* in a certain way because of the abuse, fear, and not knowing how to express herself, not knowing how to trust, to be in a relationship, to open up to a person, to put herself out there, willing to take a chance at being hurt for the joy of loving and expressing herself in love.

She isn't really a sour person, that isn't her true personality. It is, in fact, a reaction to the abuse, a wall that she puts up for fear of being hurt. When she finally faces the object of her abuse, the object of her fear, the real person that she is can surface.

If a parent loses a child, is the grief-stricken persona that he wears in public (and private) truly who he is? Is he a melancholy person? Is he an aloof person that doesn't want to interact with the public? Or is that a response to the very real pain he is suffering?

There is only one "real self" as you call it, not two or three. One person, one personality, that expresses itself in many different ways. But when a person responds in a certain way because of abuse, or situational pain, that isn't truly the personality of that individual. As you say, there is one "real self" and all the rest is just behavioral-response to abuse, pain, suffering and so forth.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] simplypm2004 16 years ago

Now we know all that there is to know about the nature of self knowledge! You should write a book. Will be among the first who claims to have all the answers?

It's people like you, who condemned Socrates to death.

(PRN) – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id-bFpYQzXE

[–] Bladerunner 16 years ago

What an eloquent way of saying you don't agree with my position. Perhaps I should have just acted like you, and said it was people like you who nailed Jesus to the cross?

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] simplypm2004 16 years ago

Okay, so we're both right.

(PRN) – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id-bFpYQzXE

[–] Bladerunner 16 years ago

Haha. Well, I don't think you would have nailed Jesus to the cross, but if you mean we should cordially agree to disagree... I think that's a great idea.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] simplypm2004 16 years ago

No, I think we're all nailing Jesus to the cross every day.

On the other matter. It is one thing to say that you have one opinion and someone else has another. It is a rather different thing to assert that because you fail to see something, it doesn't exist. That equates to the accusation that the other must be delusional or something, and that something that is outside the scope of your experience or even imagination cannot be. A person blind to color, with equal justification, might say that all the fuss over that Monet guy is all nonsense. There is nothing there but a bunch of spots.

Here is a cut'n paste from another thread:

=================================================================================

Re: Beautiful movie
by simplypm2004 5 days ago (Sun Apr 12 2009 09:56:06)

I have to agree with the OP, and find that most of the critical comments that are brought to bear on the film proceed from minds that are, broadly speaking, out of touch with the deeper aspects of the human being that are at work here. For example:

Sobeit says, <<< A girl like the one in this movie would not take this boy into her apartment, especially a weird stranger who embarrassed her in front of other people when she checking out porns and then subsequently showed up mysterious in her apartment building and started knocking on her door everyday. Remember, this girl is more introverted, cautious, closed up and skittish than a normal girl due to her background. >>>

We are talking here about two girls. First there is the obviously disturbed personality and beneath it is the real girl. The real girl has been touched by the genuine interest that sees through to who she really is, and that is who opens the door a little, in spite of what her lower personality would compel her to do in the absence of such a stimulus. Of course in order to see such a distinction you have to be somewhat in touch with the real person in yourself.

===============================================================================

(PRN) – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id-bFpYQzXE

[–] Bladerunner 16 years ago

No, I don't agree that we are nailing Jesus to the cross everyday. He died once for our sins and rose from the dead, no one can re-nail Jesus to the cross although it seems at times that people are "hellbent" on doing so. ;-) In particular, some people want to keep Him on that cross as if He never rose from the dead. However, I understand your analogy and it is true that we all are guilty for His death in that regard.

As far as asserting that I told you that because I don't see something it doesn't exist, I certainly never did that. As a matter-of-fact I spent some not inconsiderable time elucidating my contention with your assertion that she was - in essence - two people. I certainly can, and did see your opinion and I addressed that. Your assertion that my disagreement with your opinion being tantamount to an accusation that you are "delusional or something" is simply wrong, and smacks of rank projection.

I made clear my contention with your position, and I did so – in what I thought was - kind, clear and reasonable language. When someone disagrees with another person, by definition that person "doesn't see things" from that person's perspective. That doesn't mean I don't "see" your position, I just don't "see" it as being exactly the *way* you do. I most definitely see and appreciate your opinion. In fact, I was thoroughly enjoying discussing/debating this with you until you veered it into the territory of personal attacks, claiming that it is "people like me that killed Socrates". You can't know this, but that is a very, very rank accusation because I have a degree in philosophy and Socrates is a character of antiquity that is near and dear to my heart, and I most certainly would not have been one of the people responsible for him quaffing hemlock. Gross sophistry is of the greatest offense to me; sophists were to Socrates as the pharisees were to Jesus, individuals (sophists) that were in part responsible for his death (Socrates). Then you were asserting that I was claiming to "know all the answers". I wasn't doing anything of the sort, I was just expressing my opinion in contrast to yours and (for some reason) that was offensive to you. I hope this clears some things up. I do see your side of the matter, and I appreciate your opinion, I simply disagree.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] simplypm2004 16 years ago

I'm not really hostile; just specific. Let me be clear, one aspect at a time.

<<< "There is only one "real self" as you call it, not two or three. One person, one personality, that expresses itself in many different ways." >>>

This position seems to assert that for an individual, personality equates to self, that this is his universe. I am suggesting that apart from the personality, where the self lives and experiences itself, is another slumbering being. Furthermore that this being can be awakened and known, that it generally lies dormant. Your position asserts that I see something that does not in fact exist. It is not a big jump to conclude that I must be delusional, exerting as I do, that something exists when in fact, according to you it does not. I am not simply saying that there is a theory of a higher self, some sort of hairsplitting philosophical distinction, but there is in fact a spiritual, knowable being. This being is there, and generally goes unnoticed because all of the attention is focused on the experience of the personality.

Did you ever notice that every time that you look in a mirror, it is always you looking back. Have you observed how differently you appear to yourself as time progresses through your years. You've looked at yourself when you were 8 years old, 10, 17... One aspect changes, it is the aspect that you are looking at, your reflection - your personality. You get to know yourself as your personality. It is transitory, subject to errors, misconceptions, shaping and molding by outer influences etc. Who you really are is the viewer. This simple observation serves to illustrate a phenomena that usually escapes people. The knower has been the uninterrupted knower. The known, your personality has been in existence only for as long as your memory serves you. And this would be your "lower self". For most, it is the only self ever noticed.

(PRN) – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id-bFpYQzXE

[–] Bladerunner 16 years ago

Your position asserts that I see something that does not in fact exist. It is not a big jump to conclude that I must be delusional, exerting as I do, that something exists when in fact, according to you it does not.

I see your position, and have always seen it; I completely understand the dynamic that you envision. I simply see it differently than you. I'm not saying that you don't see something, I am simply saying that what you label as two beings, two entities is actually one expressing itself in many ways.

I also see her two sides, a woman who is damaged and abused, and a women who is aloof, bitter and angry. If I were accusing you of being delusional, I would be asserting that you don't see two different expressions: her being one way with this man and one way in private with herself.

I acknowledge that you see two different expressions. How we differ is in how we interpret *what* we see.

An example would be this: I see a boy being overly kind to his mother and I interpret that as him being manipulative. You see this boy being overly kind and interpreting it as learned behavior on his part. We both see the same thing, we simply disagree on his motives. There is no "delusion" going on for either of us, we simply interpret WHAT we see, differently. THAT is what we have here. We both see the same thing, a woman acting one way yet also capable of acting vastly different. The difference is, you see it as two separate "beings" I see it as one being with different emanations.

So, what do we do, well... you tell me why you think it's two separate "beings", I tell you why I think it's one being with different expressions based on life experiences. I don't think you're delusional, I just think you've interpreted it wrong (and you think I've got it wrong).

Don't forget that I could say exactly what you have, I could say that since you don't see things my way, I must be "delusional". I know however, that you simply disagree with me, you interpret things differently and I'm totally okay with that.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Bladerunner 16 years ago

A cogent and well-thought out response.

A few thoughts...

First of all, lets take into account a scripture that was written by Paul, which you used to subsume the underlying theory of a separate "being". Galatians 2:20 "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." So, when we except the Lord, we in essence "kill" our "old man" and give ourselves over in submission to the leading of our Lord. However, does that mean that this "man" leaves me? And is this "man" a separate being within me? How does the Lord characterize this "old man" that lives within me?

In Romans 8:9 it says: "You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you". Ahhhh... this "nature" that lives within me. Does this nature ever leave us even if we become a Christian and are "crucified with Christ"? 1 Corinthians 9:27 "No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize." It is ever present, this sinful nature, it lives with us until we are united to Christ.

Are there two men that live within me, or is there a *nature* an expression of my being that is at work? Again, we come back to Paul, who wrote in Romans 7:15-24

I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do-this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God-through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

You wrote:

So, in the final analysis, it is our striving, and not our ideas that matter most

Can this be true? Can my striving be the most important? Or is it rather the ideas, the basis of my faith that gives me life? If I reject Christ, and strive as Saul did to persecute the truth, do I matter? Does my life have meaning? I can strive to be good, I can strive to have faith, I can strive to do all these things, but if I don't have salvation, predicated upon my awareness that I am a sinner and need Christ, what does all this striving accomplish?

If a person is raised by good parents, in the admonition of the Lord in a loving, friendly and fairly disciplined home will the expression of my personality be different from a person who was raised in a abusive home? More importantly, do these things matter in the *formation* of my personality? After all, aren't I a product of my experiences? Don't my memories, my experiences in part define who I am? I think you agree with me on this matter, because you write:

Her personality, having been shaped up until this point entirely by the influences of her past, began to be taken hold of by who she really was, and began to be shaped by a vision of the future.

I would say that her personality IS who she "really is", but the expressions of her personality weren't who she really was. Instead, those were defense mechanisms learned in response to a cruel father, a cruel world. What this loving man did was, show her another way, another possible "future" as you put it.

You wrote:

Perhaps this type of language will better characterize the distinction which I see between who we are in our lower personality and this completely new being, who we may or may not bring to life within us.

I suppose I don't have any particular argument with that. I see it as this, that we are formed by our experiences, by our upbringing, by the things we were taught. However, we have a sin nature, left to our own devices we are doomed for destruction. When we accept Christ as our Savior, and the Holy Spirit indwells within us, we then seek to conform this human body and our mind (our personality) to the Lord's guidance. This nature never leaves us, but we work and study and conform our actions our hearts to be more like Christ. This nature never leaves us, but we learn to control and conform to Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit that lives within us. Without Christ, without the Holy Spirit we can do none of this. After we are crucified with Christ and we die to self, it is in our conforming to Christ that we find life.

In this regard, your assertion that our striving is the most important is very correct. After this happens, ideas are secondary, striving becomes the noble goal the most important aspect of our life. We seek, our whole lives, to conform our person to the example of Christ. We run as if the win the prize, and everything is secondary to our work in this regard.

I suppose I just don't agree with this notion of a "higher self", because there is no "good" in us. There is no "higher self" in us. Instead, there is the Holy Spirit, there is Christ who forgives us and gives us the strength, the power to follow Him, to be better persons. In fact, the MORE we die to self, the more we put to death that sinful man that we are the more we truly live. But it isn't a goal for me to find the greatness in myself, that I possess a "higher self", but to understand that only through *denying* my self, in admitting that I am sinful, in admitting that the only good that exists within me is in Christ that I find true wisdom and purpose.

If we accept Christ and we die to self and raise Him and His will up within ourselves, do we deserve praise? Because truly the good that exists within us, the good that we do, the better person we become is only in our conformation to Him, or giving over of our sinful self, our sinful desires to His will that we find purpose, success, wisdom and meaning.

You wrote:

If He begins to work in you, enabling you to be something other than what you were, that new thing that you are is also a different being, after the pattern of the "New Adam". This is not an action that arises out of the personality, the "Old Adam," but arises from within the I itself, as it draws on completely new sources.

I guess in that I find confusion. This new being that I am, is new because Christ now dwells within me. I've been crucified with Christ and I'm now in the process of dying to self, and instead honoring and raising up more and more my conformation to the Spirit that dwells within me. It's not a "self" thing, instead it's a destruction of self to the conforming of my mind to the will of God.

However, I am a new man a new "being" in Christ, but only through my association with Christ. I reject Christ and I'm not left with any new "self" a "higher self". It is only in Christ living within me and my conforming to Him that I am a new being.

Anyway, more and more it seems to me that we're saying the same thing in a different way. I suppose I just see that this girl is the same girl, her personality is the same, she is still the same person, she is still a collection of her memories of her experiences, but in this man's love she has discovered a new way of expressing herself a new way of living. She will always bear the scars of the abuse she suffered, but she has see the futility of the former way she lived and in this man's love she now finds the confidence to shuck off the yoke of her abusive father and begin to live her own life. She will always be an abused woman, but how she expresses herself, how she lives is totally new. She is better, she is new because she has decided to give up the old way of living and allow herself to give love and accept love and stop avoiding dealing with the pain that has enslaved her all these years.

You ask what "my way" is... my way started 26 years ago when I saw the futility of my existence and the very real state of my soul and I accepted the truth of who Christ was and accepted Him as my Lord and Savior. In those 26 years I've worked to die to myself and conform myself to Him, with varying degrees of success. My new life is predicated on a truth, founded in faith that I have life in Christ and a future only in Him. I know that any service to my own self, to my own desires is death, that my life is fulfilled in more and more being like Him, and living my life accordingly. It's not "my" way, it's His. I... am second.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]