Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Becca Hornick--Apocalypse Now
I found the movie to be raw and intense. It was rough to watch at times because to me it was kind of scary. But the things that were scary to me were not exactly the things one would think. I think the part that scared me the most..well freaked me out the most...was when they left the boat to go looking for mangos. It wasn't because of the tiger because i knew that was coming, but because I don't ever recall seeing a vivid picture of the vietnam jungle and that is what freaked me out. I just started thinking about all the men who got lost in those jungles or who spent a lot of time in them and I feel for them. I truly began to understand the horrors of that place and see where minds could easily have been lost in those jungles (especially if the guys were doing acid). Speaking of acid, the sufer character during his acid trip made me feel weird also. In any movie where they portray an acid trip I always get this weird feeling because as the viewer I am supposed to, but this guy was seeing things that could mess you up sober. I feel like that could have been the way it was for the real soilders there too, seeing those kinds of things ( i know that movie wasn't supposed to be an actual representation, but I'm sure some of the things weren't so far off) could really alter your psyche with out drugs, and adding drugs, whoa I'd be gone. I feel like the only thing you could do is check out mentally. My cousin is in the war right now and sent the family a video he made and there were bombs and guns going off in the back ground pretty much the whole time, and there were pictures of the wounded, and the dead, and seeing those things on a daily basis could really cause someone a lot of change in their life. I mean myself seeing two people in a casket in the past month has been hard on my mental wellbeing I couldn't imagine adding a jungle and people being killed infront of me. The movie made me really ponder what life is really about. And how thankful I am that we have people serving our country and people like me who couldn't handle it don't have to.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Susan Watkins -- Outside Reading 1
I've been coming across a particular theme in several different areas of my life recently, and haven't really had a chance to sit down and process it. I guess this is a good place to do so.
In a book I'm reading, Brian Mclarren's A New Kind of Christian, one of the characters suggests that perhaps Heaven and Hell aren't really two different places, but rather the same place seen through two categorically different lenses. He says that people who have spent their whole lives preparing for Heaven and know the King of Heaven would probably be ready for its light, warmth, and joyous noise, so it would seem to them a paradise. However, those who had been avoiding the King their whole lives and steeping themselves in isolation and anger would find the light blinding, the heat scorching, and the noise a cacophony.
Otto discusses something similar when he describes mysterium tremendum, pointing out that what we perceive as the Lord's wrath in text sources like the Old Testament could possibly be merely His unveiled joy. Both would be equally devestating to us as feeble mortals. We assume that just because something destroys us it is evil or angry, which C.S. Lewis says would be like saying a mighty waterfall is angry with every gnat it sweeps up in its current ('Til We Have Faces)
I'm not sure how I feel about Mclarren's idea, but it seems to be tying itself in with more and more things I study. I was excited to see how it relates to Otto's work, and will have to consider it more because it could potentially redefine some of my beliefs about the spiritual world.
In a book I'm reading, Brian Mclarren's A New Kind of Christian, one of the characters suggests that perhaps Heaven and Hell aren't really two different places, but rather the same place seen through two categorically different lenses. He says that people who have spent their whole lives preparing for Heaven and know the King of Heaven would probably be ready for its light, warmth, and joyous noise, so it would seem to them a paradise. However, those who had been avoiding the King their whole lives and steeping themselves in isolation and anger would find the light blinding, the heat scorching, and the noise a cacophony.
Otto discusses something similar when he describes mysterium tremendum, pointing out that what we perceive as the Lord's wrath in text sources like the Old Testament could possibly be merely His unveiled joy. Both would be equally devestating to us as feeble mortals. We assume that just because something destroys us it is evil or angry, which C.S. Lewis says would be like saying a mighty waterfall is angry with every gnat it sweeps up in its current ('Til We Have Faces)
I'm not sure how I feel about Mclarren's idea, but it seems to be tying itself in with more and more things I study. I was excited to see how it relates to Otto's work, and will have to consider it more because it could potentially redefine some of my beliefs about the spiritual world.
Apocalypse Now Reflection
Apocalypse Now is a very interesting film and at first glance it can seem very chaotic. Kurtz is a very dynamic character that can be characterized as out of touch with civilization. I do not think he is totally insane, however, because he seems to have reasoning behind all of his decisions. Kurtz consciously decided to turn away from the world and go back to man’s primitive and harsh side. Kurtz goes all in during the war and leaves everything he knows for a new lifestyle. Kilgore is almost Kurtz’s opposite, Kilgore has a very unusual method in handling operations but he still clings on to the things that remind him of home. Kilgore yearns for surfing and barbecues with t-bones and beer. Another aspect of the film that I enjoyed was the imagery. In one of the last scenes a cow was being sacrificed in a very gruesome way while Kurtz was being assassinated. This was the one scene that stood out in my mind and I believe it had the most power. This scene showed how ruthless war can be and it also showed that Kurtz believed that he was dying for a cause just as the sacrificial cow.
Susan Watkins -- In Class Film 2
I thoroughly enjoyed the movie The Jacket, although I had reservations about it when I first heard it described. I think I expected to be more disturbed by how inhumanely Jack was treated, but the film handled it in a really tasteful way and turned his sufferings into something more beautiful and redemptive.
One thing I thought was really interesting was the relationship between Jack and Jackie. The fact they have such similar names is our first clue that their relationship is something deep and almost uncanny, a suspicion which was confirmed as the movie went on. When she was a little girl, Jackie was helpless in the situation with her mom and Jack stepped in to save her. Then when he travels back in time, Jack is helpless and Jackie is able to save him in return. Throughout the movie, their lives complement each other's, like a soul split into two bodies. Young girl and grown man, healthy mind and damaged mind, pessimism towards life and optimism, future and the past. Then, at the end of the movie when they are finally together, the sun shines through and they are complete. It was beautiful.
One thing I thought was really interesting was the relationship between Jack and Jackie. The fact they have such similar names is our first clue that their relationship is something deep and almost uncanny, a suspicion which was confirmed as the movie went on. When she was a little girl, Jackie was helpless in the situation with her mom and Jack stepped in to save her. Then when he travels back in time, Jack is helpless and Jackie is able to save him in return. Throughout the movie, their lives complement each other's, like a soul split into two bodies. Young girl and grown man, healthy mind and damaged mind, pessimism towards life and optimism, future and the past. Then, at the end of the movie when they are finally together, the sun shines through and they are complete. It was beautiful.
Susan Watkins -- In Class Film 1
I have to admit that I thoroughly enjoyed watching the segments of film from Koyaanisqatsi, although I've heard a lot of different reactions to it. Personally, I really enjoy movies that focus on audiovisual elements over basic plot and narrative structures. I find that I connect with them on a deeper level, even though sometimes the connection is more vague and harder to understand.
Koyaanisqatsi was great for me because I really experienced a sense of mysterium tremendum as described by Otto, especially at the beginning of the movie. The images of rolling mountains, sky, clouds, and especially water made me feel more and more like I was part of them, like it was myself that was so vast and eternal, or rushing along like the rivers and oceans. I really experienced that kind of "blank awe" that Otto describes as part of mysterium and fascination. The tremendum, though, I think really struck me more through the music than anything. The low, rumbling repitition of "Koyaanisqatsi" legitimately disturbed me, and it was like even without speaking Hopi I could have guessed that it was a word of power and desruction. I think the height of my disturbance came when the images of metal powerline poles and wind-power structures were paired with this music. For whatever reason, they seemed so wrong and terrible. When that music faded, though, so did my sense of tremendum.
So, I think I liked the movie primarily because I felt such deep and strong reactions to it, and I think movies that can inspire that kind of response are products of great artistry.
Koyaanisqatsi was great for me because I really experienced a sense of mysterium tremendum as described by Otto, especially at the beginning of the movie. The images of rolling mountains, sky, clouds, and especially water made me feel more and more like I was part of them, like it was myself that was so vast and eternal, or rushing along like the rivers and oceans. I really experienced that kind of "blank awe" that Otto describes as part of mysterium and fascination. The tremendum, though, I think really struck me more through the music than anything. The low, rumbling repitition of "Koyaanisqatsi" legitimately disturbed me, and it was like even without speaking Hopi I could have guessed that it was a word of power and desruction. I think the height of my disturbance came when the images of metal powerline poles and wind-power structures were paired with this music. For whatever reason, they seemed so wrong and terrible. When that music faded, though, so did my sense of tremendum.
So, I think I liked the movie primarily because I felt such deep and strong reactions to it, and I think movies that can inspire that kind of response are products of great artistry.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Apocalypse Now- Paul Crowley
One interesting dynamic of the movie is comparing Kurtz to Kilgore. And while on the surface they may seem similiar, they are completely different. Kurtz has shunned away all aspects of his former life. He is completely emersed into the primevil culture that he is running. And he is in my view completely insane. Kilgore on the other hand is doing his best to hang on to a semblance of his former life. He does this by surfing. And while it may seem odd to some people, it is Kilgores way of keeping a sense of normalcy. So in my view they are completely different.
It is also intersting to compare both leaders treatment of their men. Kilgore tries to give his men treats such as beer and food. He does this to bring them closer to home. Both Willard and Kurtz are critical of this. They think they have make their men just like the Vietcong. They have to have everything invested in the War. They have to have no hope of returning home. Only then can they win the War.
In my opinion, the optimal way of doing things is Kurtz and Willard way. You must make the men completely and totally invested in the War. The man who is defending his home (like the Vietcong) are much more likely to win the war. The Americans needed to fight with this savagery and will. However in my opinion, the problem is making the men like that. How do you go about doing it? The better thing to do is to fight like Kilgore, give the men something to do look foward to and be happy about (surfing and beer).
It is also intersting to compare both leaders treatment of their men. Kilgore tries to give his men treats such as beer and food. He does this to bring them closer to home. Both Willard and Kurtz are critical of this. They think they have make their men just like the Vietcong. They have to have everything invested in the War. They have to have no hope of returning home. Only then can they win the War.
In my opinion, the optimal way of doing things is Kurtz and Willard way. You must make the men completely and totally invested in the War. The man who is defending his home (like the Vietcong) are much more likely to win the war. The Americans needed to fight with this savagery and will. However in my opinion, the problem is making the men like that. How do you go about doing it? The better thing to do is to fight like Kilgore, give the men something to do look foward to and be happy about (surfing and beer).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
