MovieChat Forums > Owlwise > Replies
Owlwise's Replies
Because his voice is the right voice to deliver his songs. Too much professional polish would only diminish their power and impact.
They're comparable in self-selecting out of mainstream society and living by their religious beliefs, I'd say.
And I don't intend or want my post to suggest anti-Semitism, which I loathe. My own politics are on the humanistic progressive side, in fact. What I'm talking about is any sort of enclave that rejects the common heritage of all humanity in favor of a narrow, rigid, conformist belief system. As I've said in another post on this thread, adults who willingly choose to live that life have every right to do so. But their children don't get to make that choice, and because of that, they're denied access to a greater, larger, richer world. Some might reject it even then. But some would welcome it and thrive in it, finding the chance to explore their full capabilities and possibilities as distinct and unique individuals.
You have a good point, and I won't deny it. I'm just saying that I agree with the OP in being troubled, as I find the fundamentalist, isolationist wing of any religious or ideological belief system troubling. For those who choose it as adults, they have every right to do so. But children don't have any choice in it. Some may very well grow up happily in such a system; many no doubt do. But for those who feel imprisoned by it, life can be hell, especially if they understand that it doesn't have to be that way for them. Some find the strength to leave, some don't. And that can be tragedy.
I'm not pretending to have any easy answers here, just those troubling questions.
I think the original question was addressing the fact that their children are raised in deliberate ignorance of so much basic knowledge, from history to science to the humanities to respect for other ways of life. If parents deliberately crippled their children physically in accordance with their religious beliefs, they'd face legal consequences, and quite rightly so. But isn't mentally crippling a child just as bad? Many who have found their way out of the ultra-orthodox life are angry & shocked to discover just how much common knowledge was denied them, knowledge that a grade schooler is familiar with. And with the denial of that knowledge comes the denial of so many possibilities, the most important of which is the freedom to choose a life of one's own, rather than having another's life imposed on you.
The OP asked a valid & troubling question, it seems to me.
I see nothing wrong with trying to help working people get a better wage, one that they can live on and that they deserve.
The welfare checks is where many in the mainstream world will draw the line, I think. Whereas other self-contained religious groups, such as the Amish, will make a point of <b>not</b> accepting or applying for welfare, in keeping with their beliefs of non-involvement with the government.
Agree with you on "The Way to Eden" -- it had the seed of an interesting idea, i.e., how some might have second thoughts & questions about the technological triumphs of the future, possibly at the expense of basic humanity & Nature. That "hippie spirit" is older than the 1960s, after all, going back to the English Romantic poets, among others. And as you say, there's no reason it wouldn't or couldn't come around again in the future. If they hadn't insisted on using caricatures of 1960s hippies, and had instead created something analogous but different, more organically growing from that same future, it would have worked. And I say this as someone who was a young teen during hippies days & still cherish the best of what it had to offer.
I too like this episode … not only on its own merits, but also because writer Jerome Bixby took his basic idea & expanded upon it decades later into the low-budget but richer, even more fascinating film <i>The Man From Earth</i>.
A fine review!
I was actually sympathetic to & moved by Max von Sydow's isolated intellectual, as his essential loneliness & need become more obvious & painful to see as the film progresses. And he knows that he's responsible for that loneliness, but for all his intellect, can't do anything about it. (Or won't, which in this case is nearly the same thing as can't, as he's so locked into his intellectual identity that he's afraid to go beyond it.)
Ah, I take your point.
Exactly. If he didn't like a film that I did, he always went into why it didn't work for him, rather than just dismissing it with <i>Worst Film Ever!<i>
Siskel's favorite film was Saturday Night Fever, so much so that he bought John Travolta's disco suit when it was auctioned. Hardly a snob. But he did look for & hope for the best in film, which some confuse with snobbery. In some cases, it can turn into that … but not in Siskel's case, I fell.
If the movie had been more faithful to the book, which is not only fun reading for kids but genuinely charming for adults, it might have worked.
My faulty memory to blame! Thanks for catching & correcting that. :)
Sadly agree. I'm all for diversity in films & welcome new characters of any & every background as long as the resulting film is solid work. But retro-fitting diversity doesn't always work well; it certainly didn't in this case, I'm sorry to say. Because it's a wonderful & could have made a wonderful film. But for anyone who did read the book, Meg is & always will be a gawky, skinny, red-haired girl. That's a big part of what makes her Meg.
What a lot of people dislike is that it comes thisclose to the book in some places, but then falls short in the most crucial ones. The book itself is excellent. This is the second time a film adaptation of it has failed, because filmmakers thought they could "improve" on a classic. Too much CGI didn't help, either. It would have benefitted from a "less is more" approach.
Well said! :)
Roger Ebert's original review says it beautifully:
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/godspell-1973
That's it exactly. For someone who was young at the time, all of this makes sense naturally. Those born after that time won't be quite as familiar with the vibe from then. Love that you mention Harvey Cox's wonderful book The Feast of Fools, which still has a lot to say, especially in these more cynical & dark times.
Just a supporting role, close to being a longer cameo, but I love his accountant in Dave.
On the contrary, duckofprey may have a very good point. People change as they grow older. Some may become more open, some more closed; some more flexible in their worldview, some more rigid. The OP is fixated on what he sees as pointless rebellion, so maybe this is an issue for him. Especially because the film isn't about rebellion for the sake of rebellion at all, but rather about questioning what you've been taught & realizing that you should & in fact do have some say over your own life.