Movies you've recently watched

[Malthus]

Your aunt?  Seriously?  I used that essay as my biggest reference.  She's a great writer, though when I read A Handmaiden's Tale at the tender age of 13 I started hating my own gender.  It was baaad.

I'm not a big fan of her early '70s brand of feminism, never was, and I think Handmaid's Tale is her weakest book.

Though I do think, family aside, she's a great writer.

It's a fantastically scary sequence.  Tried to figure out what was so scary about it, had to write a really, really important essay about it and I didn't find any literature focusing on that scene specifically.

The thing that makes that scene truly horrifying is that the preacher appears like an unstoppable force of nature. The kids cannot turn to the adult world for help, as it has consistently betrayed them and sided with him, or like that old "uncle" has demonstrated weakness and worthlessness (he's too old and drunk to help). They can only run, and how can a young boy with a baby sister in tow outrun a grown psycho who is like a force of nature?

[Queequeg]

Where the hell have you been the last six years?

In law or something?  Is she Jewish or is Malthus half-Jewish?   

He's half Jewish.

He talks about his ethnicity and his aunt all the time.

I knew that his wife is Ukrainian and that he is at least part Jewish and Canadian, but I don't remember him talking about Margaret Atwood at all.  That's pretty weird, I'd figure I would remember that. 

[Malthus]

Where the hell have you been the last six years?

In law or something?  Is she Jewish or is Malthus half-Jewish?   

He's half Jewish.

He talks about his ethnicity and his aunt all the time.

I knew that his wife is Ukrainian and that he is at least part Jewish and Canadian, but I don't remember him talking about Margaret Atwood at all.  That's pretty weird, I'd figure I would remember that.

I hardly talk about her "all the time", but the subject has come up before. She's my dad's sister.

We share the same last name.

[Syt]

Star Trek, Star Wars, Terminator and X-Files are not mythos.

Main Entry: my·thos 
Pronunciation: \ˈmi-ˌthōs, -ˌthäs\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural my·thoi  \-ˌthȯi\
Etymology: Greek
Date: 1753
1 a: myth 1a b: mythology 2a
2: a pattern of beliefs expressing often symbolically the characteristic or prevalent attitudes in a group or culture
3: theme, plot <the starving artist mythos>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mythos

Are you saying that Star Wars has no plot?  Maybe the prequel trilogy.

While I don't disagree with the dictonary's definition, I still think that mythos is too big a word in its connotation to apply to pop culture.

[Queequeg]

The thing that makes that scene truly horrifying is that the preacher appears like an unstoppable force of nature. The kids cannot turn to the adult world for help, as it has consistently betrayed them and sided with him, or like that old "uncle" has demonstrated weakness and worthlessness (he's too old and drunk to help). They can only run, and how can a young boy with a baby sister in tow outrun a grown psycho who is like a force of nature?

I think its more than that.  There's something demonic about him.  That specific shot, my favorite, when he falls into the mud and starts trying to get out is horrifying partly because its a kind of fall, as though Preacher is so furious that he's willing to run into the mud like some kind of snake.  First saw Night of the Hunter when I was reading Paradise Lost, I made the (I thought tenuous) connection between Milton's Satan and Preacher, was fantastically proud of myself when Atwood did same. 

To me, saying he is a force of nature implies that somehow Preacher is natural.  I don't think he is.  He's demonic; brilliant and powerful but totally corrupt and perverse. 

If you watch it again, pay very, very close attention to the music, it really adds a lot even if you don't recognize it.  Walter Schumman (who died just a little while after this was made) put together one of the most impressive scores in movie history.  The flight to the river is particularly memorable; love the battle between Preacher's demonic BUM BUM BUM BUM and the more traditional suspense strings, later on some of the notes are drawn out to unnatural lengths to further confuse the viewer's perception of time.  Its fucking brilliant.

The scene in question.

If you get the chance, try to read the novel and see Cape Fear.  Both worth it.  The novel is great, just not as singularly awesome as the film.  A lot more perverse.  My favorite quotation:

He was tired. Sometimes he cried in his sleep he was so tired. It was the killing that made him tired. Sometimes he wondered if God really understood. Not that the Lord minded about the killings. Why, his book was full of killings. But there were things God did hate--perfume-smelling things--lacy things--things with curly hair--whore things. Preacher would think of these and his hands at night would go crawling down under the blankets till the fingers named Love closed around the bone hasp of the knife and his soul rose up in flaming glorious fury. He was the dark angel with the sword of a Vengeful God. Paul is choking misogynistic wrath upon Damascus road.

He's one of the few authors other than Melville capable of making a scene simultaneously scary, lyrical, perverse and blasphemous. 

[jimmy olsen]

That's not the first time you've quoted that here.

You're obsession is a bit disturbing.

[Queequeg]

That's not the first time you've quoted that here.

You're obsession is a bit disturbing.

I just found out that a poster on this board just saw my favorite movie and is a direct relation of a great author who wrote an amazing essay on said movie.  I'm not totally sure what reaction would be normal, given that I am somewhat excitable as is. 

[Malthus]

I think its more than that.  There's something demonic about him.  That specific shot, my favorite, when he falls into the mud and starts trying to get out is horrifying partly because its a kind of fall, as though Preacher is so furious that he's willing to run into the mud like some kind of snake.  First saw Night of the Hunter when I was reading Paradise Lost, I made the (I thought tenuous) connection between Milton's Satan and Preacher, was fantastically proud of myself when Atwood did same. 

To me, saying he is a force of nature implies that somehow Preacher is natural.  I don't think he is.  He's demonic; brilliant and powerful but totally corrupt and perverse. 

If you watch it again, pay very, very close attention to the music, it really adds a lot even if you don't recognize it.  Walter Schumman (who died just a little while after this was made) put together one of the most impressive scores in movie history.  The flight to the river is particularly memorable; love the battle between Preacher's demonic BUM BUM BUM BUM and the more traditional suspense strings, later on some of the notes are drawn out to unnatural lengths to further confuse the viewer's perception of time.  Its fucking brilliant.

The scene in question.

If you get the chance, try to read the novel and see Cape Fear.  Both worth it.  The novel is great, just not as singularly awesome as the film.  A lot more perverse.  My favorite quotation:

He was tired. Sometimes he cried in his sleep he was so tired. It was the killing that made him tired. Sometimes he wondered if God really understood. Not that the Lord minded about the killings. Why, his book was full of killings. But there were things God did hate--perfume-smelling things--lacy things--things with curly hair--whore things. Preacher would think of these and his hands at night would go crawling down under the blankets till the fingers named Love closed around the bone hasp of the knife and his soul rose up in flaming glorious fury. He was the dark angel with the sword of a Vengeful God. Paul is choking misogynistic wrath upon Damascus road.

He's one of the few authors other than Melville capable of making a scene simultaneously scary, lyrical, perverse and blasphemous.

I would disagree - think of all the images of nature that the film-maker frames the scene with: the spiders' webs, the bunnies being snatched by hawks, etc. This is done expressly to draw attention to the notion of the preacher as predator and the kids as his prey (also in the name of the movie, which is "night of the hunter" and not "night of the demon"). The movie has lots to say about the nature of religion as well of course ...

One of the great themes in the film is that of dualism. This is made explicit by the "love" and "hate" on the preacher's hands, but shows up in all sorts of ways throughout - like the duet at the end: the preacher and the orphan-woman share a religious background, only she is if you will the good expression of religion and he's the bad. 

[Oexmelin]

That's not the first time you've quoted that here.

You're obsession is a bit disturbing.

I just found out that a poster on this board just saw my favorite movie and is a direct relation of a great author who wrote an amazing essay on said movie.  I'm not totally sure what reaction would be normal, given that I am somewhat excitable as is.

Duh, the only normal reaction is to post the entire essay from this great author while limiting your own enthusiasm or contribution to this smiley  and an incipit of great wisdom in the form of: «Wow !» or «I love that movie», or «I can't wait seeing it again» or «Good!».

[Queequeg]

Duh, the only normal reaction is to post the entire essay from this great author while limiting your own enthusiasm or contribution to this smiley  and an incipit of great wisdom in the form of: «Wow !» or «I love that movie», or «I can't wait seeing it again» or «Good!».

Yeah, I was going to say, Timmy isn't one to criticize another for excessive enthusiasm. 

I would disagree - think of all the images of nature that the film-maker frames the scene with: the spiders' webs, the bunnies being snatched by hawks, etc. This is done expressly to draw attention to the notion of the preacher as predator and the kids as his prey (also in the name of the movie, which is "night of the hunter" and not "night of the demon"). The movie has lots to say about the nature of religion as well of course ...

One of the great themes in the film is that of dualism. This is made explicit by the "love" and "hate" on the preacher's hands, but shows up in all sorts of ways throughout - like the duet at the end: the preacher and the orphan-woman share a religious background, only she is if you will the good expression of religion and he's the bad.

I don't know about you, but I've never seen an owl reach towards the light in prayer before eating a mouse.  That said, I think this is a false dichotomy I brought up; a predatory nature is implied in the term "demonic", I think, and my argument with you is more in terms of vocabulary than anything else.  I think Max Cady serves as a better example of a "force of nature" as he's really just an animal, but I see your point.

[jimmy olsen]

That's not the first time you've quoted that here.

You're obsession is a bit disturbing.

I just found out that a poster on this board just saw my favorite movie and is a direct relation of a great author who wrote an amazing essay on said movie.  I'm not totally sure what reaction would be normal, given that I am somewhat excitable as is.

Duh, the only normal reaction is to post the entire essay from this great author while limiting your own enthusiasm or contribution to this smiley  and an incipit of great wisdom in the form of: «Wow !» or «I love that movie», or «I can't wait seeing it again» or «Good!».

You see me cracking on any of his other extensively detailed responses? No. It's the nature of the material being detailed and the way he keeps returning to it over a long period of time.

[Neil]

That's not the first time you've quoted that here.

You're obsession is a bit disturbing.

Disturbing?  I'm normally all for piling on the evil Russophile, but you have no right whatsoever to call anyone's behavior regarding film disturbing.  Sure, Spellus is obsessive in everything he does, but he didn't mail a Big Gulp cup full of semen to Peter Jackson when King Kong was released.  He didn't threaten to murder the families of critics who gave Star Trek a bad review.

[garbon]

I hardly talk about her "all the time", but the subject has come up before. She's my dad's sister.

We share the same last name.

One day we will all know.

[Queequeg]

You see me cracking on any of his other extensively detailed responses? No. It's the nature of the material being detailed and the way he keeps returning to it over a long period of time.

It's my favorite movie.  Most of my friends don't want to talk about it nearly as much as I do.  This is an outlet.  You mean to tell me that no one else on this board uses Languish as an outlet for various interests or anxieties they have IRL?

[Malthus]

You see me cracking on any of his other extensively detailed responses? No. It's the nature of the material being detailed and the way he keeps returning to it over a long period of time.

No-one else sees this as "disturbing". Time to move on I think.

Plenty of more disturbing behaviour by Languishistas to complain about.