MovieChat Forums > MagneticMonopole > Replies
MagneticMonopole's Replies
Arronofsky was under no obligation to be slavishly faithful to the biblical texts he was borrowing from. There is a clear villain in the story and no need for Satan. The villain is humanity.
I agree that it is a powerful performance—even many bad reviews of the film have said as much. But from the buzz coming off of other films, there are a lot of other very strong performances this year, making the category of Best Actress unusually competitive.
Now you might say the same was true when she managed to get nominated for Joy, but mother! is a different animal altogether. When you consider how divisive the film was, practically hated by so many ordinary movie-goers, I think the Academy would shy away from alienating them by giving the movie such high level attention. So while it is possible she will be in the running again, I think it is highly unlikely we’ll see a nomination this year.
If I have time some day I'll post a link to it. He did so many Q & A's after the movie started getting screened that there are a lot to re-watch before I find the one confirming your theory.
You are spot on. In fact, Aronofksy said as much in one of his Q & A panels.
'Christianity is the last thing we need to worry about in this country. "
Christianity is actually the ONLY religion we need to worry about in this country, assuming you mean America and not Canada, where they don't have the dangerous power they possess in the US.
Muslims aren't the ones trying to get creationism and advocacy of their religion taught in public schools-Christians are. Muslims aren't the ones fighting against women's rights--Christians are. There aren't any Muslim theocrat's occupying important government offices--but there are Christian theocrat's everywhere in government, and a new one, Ray Moore, is about to enter the Senate from Alabama. These are people who are every bit as opposed to the values which founded America as any Muslim extremist. They are the same, in fact--only worse, for us, because they can actually advance their agenda's.
Get a clue. And learn to spell.
Excellent point, sleepingtiger. In my experience the best predictor of someone disrupting my theater experience is their age, not their color: the younger, the most disruptive. Teens are the worst.
(Or adults who stupidly bring babies or young children, but even though that fits the "young equals annoying" metric, in those cases I blame the parents.)
You are the one with alternative facts. Just prove me wrong, by your own standards: cite "google and the dictionary" saying exactly what you claimed in your opening post.
You can't. Because here is what the official dictionary definitions are, and they have nothing to do with the nonsense in your opening post in this thread:
Allegory
1. the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence; also, an instance (as in a story or painting) of such expression.
2. a symbolic representation.
Metaphor
1. a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting on kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money); broadly: figurative language--compare simile
2. an object, activity, or idea treated as a metaphor.
Isn't it embarrassing being caught lying and BS'ing in a public space? Maybe you shouldn't do it.
Google and the dictionary don't agree with you at all about the nature of either metaphor or allegory, which of course I knew already.
It is not a pleasant film to watch, but if you like imaginative film-making that is heavily metaphorical rather than realistic, you may very well like it. This is Aronofsky in Pi and The Fountain mode, with the brutality of Requiem for a Dream dialed to 11.
Oh, really? Citation, please.
"I think if it WAS "good", it would not polarize."
That isn't how art works. Things that are now regarded by most students and teachers of film as masterpieces were and still are polarizing for general audiences. Your "picturesque scene of a sunny meadow full of life and bringing feelings of happiness pleases nearly everyone living" sounds like the most un-ambitious, un-challenging thing one could possibly imagine. That is not what Aronofsky does.
Where were these rules for how metaphors and allegories work written down? Who decided that this is how fiction works? Was every writer in the world consulted? Some of them, maybe? Is there a contract you have to sign when you make a movie that says you agree with these rules?
A. Only a lunatic or someone with poor eyesight thinks she is flat chested.
B. Only someone with the maturity level of a nine year old would give a crap and actually start a thread about it.
Prediction confirmed. Thanks for being the poster boy for pure ignorance.
Sorry, pumpkin, but you are the one demonstrating your scientific illiteracy in a public space. I've been known about magnetic monopoles (which almost certainly don't even exist) since the 80's. You first heard about them when I started embarrassing you in this thread. And that's a fact.
Why don't you make an even bigger fool of yourself by articulating exactly what I got wrong? I can't wait!
(Don't worry, I know you won't, because you can't, for the same reasons you can't articulate your initial claims about this movie: you are all hot air and zero content.)
Magnetic monopoles have nothing to do with string theory, idiot. They were theorized before string theory even existed. String theory talks about them only in the sense that it has something to say about everything, being a theory of everything.
Talk about being dumber than a turnip. That's what happens when your understanding of science comes from brain dead TV shows.
No, idiot, I learned about magnetic monopoles from reading about science. I don't watch TV. It says a lot about your intellect that when the subject of science is broached, your mind automatically turns to some dumbass television sitcom.
I'll be happy to answer your questions when you make an effort to defend your comments about the film by actually supporting them with evidence from it. But you probably haven't even seen it.
Meanwhile, your posts here continue to be a case study in support of my claim that people who call art "pretentious" are typically know-nothings who are incapable of articulating anything substantial.
"Science has been wrong" is not an argument. Human civilization itself is threatened by the utter stupidity of science-deniers like yourself whose only motivation is selfish politics.
My, you are really one class act, aren't you?
"For centuries the geocentric theory--the Earth as the center of the solar system--was unquestioned science; starting with Copernicus the theory started to get reexamined, and finally rejected."
This is complete and utter ignorant BS. Once again you demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about. You are really embarrassing yourself.
Here's a history lesson for you, because you need it:
1. Science did not even exist as a word until the early 19th century. Even when the term was coined, the human race was still figuring out what the scientific method was. The institutions which we depend on to police and support scientific works were still being formed. Most of what came before that time would not qualify as science according to modern standards.
2, This is especially true of geocentric theories of the cosmos, which had more to do with reliance on religious and philosophical dogma rather than making testable observations and mathematical models.
So don't cite things people believed back then as "unquestioned science". That's just stupid beyond belief.
The fact of the matter is that your opposition to human caused global warming has nothing to do with science, because the science of global warming has already been decided and the case is closed.
You refuse to accept the facts because of your ignorance and your politics, nothing else. The fact that you are so gullible that you fell for a total lie about an actress said about hurricanes shows that you have no capacity for serious fact checking or critical thought.