tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-143886952024-03-19T05:18:20.662-04:00The BusybodyJust as cooks pray for a good crop of young animals and fishermen for a good haul of fish, in the same way busybodies pray for a good crop of calamities or a good haul of difficulties that they, like cooks and fishermen, may always have something to fish out and butcher. (Plutarch, "On Being a Busybody")Loren Rosson IIIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15002312216839280976noreply@blogger.comBlogger1000125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14388695.post-11091016659536590312014-05-11T11:03:00.003-04:002014-05-11T11:03:41.628-04:00Blog MovedAfter nearly a decade on Blogger, <I>The Busybody</I> has moved to <a href="http://rossonl.wordpress.com/">WordPress</a>. I'll be keeping this blog up, so don’t fear: if you've linked to my posts over the years, they will be preserved. But the old posts are now on the new blog as well, and moving forward, I will only be posting at WordPress. Loren Rosson IIIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15002312216839280976noreply@blogger.com18tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14388695.post-79100316030163867382014-04-22T14:52:00.000-04:002014-04-24T06:21:29.902-04:00Facebook Discussion of Zeba Crook's Parallel GospelsThere's been some lively to-and-fro on Facebook over the utility of Zeba Crook's <I>Parallel Gospels</I>. Readers may recall <a href="http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2012/11/zeba-crooks-sbl-response-to-mark.html">Zeba's SBL Response</a> to Mark Goodacre's session critique back in Novemeber 2012. Now he calls attention to <a href="http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/8404_10777.pdf">Mark's official RBL review</a> which reiterates many of the same points. With Zeb's permission I place below their Facebook interactions (Stephen Carlson also stepped in).</br></br>
By way of preface, I own both Throckmorton's <I>Gospel Parallels</I> (4th ed.) and Crook's <I>Parallel Gospels</I>. While I enjoy both, my readers won't be terribly surprised that Throckmorton remains my favorite tool. Especially for the elegant word alignment, though <a href="http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2012/10/retrospectivereview-q-thomas-and.html">also</a> for Mark's objections about giving Q undue tangibility. But on this latter point, see the below discussion and decide for yourself.</br></br>
Mark's third criticism -- Crook's "clunky" word-for-word renditions, as opposed to user-friendly translations per our English-speaking bibles -- is actually the one that doesn't faze me. Maybe it's because I already have so many English-bibles that I appreciate the grunt work Zeba has done here, and seeing the nuts and bolts of the Greek. Zeba's rendition approach actually fits the utility of a gospel-parallel quite well.</br></br>
_________________________________________________________</br></br>
<B>Zeba Crook</B> [Status Update]: I need to get better reading critical reviews (I admit, they sting), but I am disappointed to see Mark Goodacre still talking about the challenges of coloring (e.g., there are three primary colors so a synopsis should have three columns). My seven year old would have no problem using more colors as needed. I feel the complaint is beneath you, Mark.
<blockquote><B>Mark Goodacre</B>: Thanks, Zeb. Hadn't realized that it had been published, so thanks for drawing attention to it. On the colouring, why not explain how you, or your daughter, would do it with the extra Q column? I think I know how I would answer the query, but I'd be interested to hear your take. It's the kind of discussion that might be able to get to the heart of our basic disagreement about the inclusion of Q in a Gospel Synopsis, which would I think be useful.</br></br>
<B>Zeba</B>: When I teach from the synopsis, I tell my students NOT to colour Q at all because I don't want to prejudge their discovery of how much Q makes sense. I also tell them they cannot color Thomas since Thomas wasn't translated by the same principles as the rest of the synopsis. And nothing ever agrees with John, so colouring isn't a problem there either. But if one were inclined to colour Q, one could do so colours for: triple agreements, Mt/Mk against Luke, Lk/Mk against Mt, Mt/Q against Lk, and Lk/Q against Mt, and I'm not sure that doing so wouldn't do as much damage as help to the Q hypothesis. I just don't think that the colour issue is as worthy as your other comments (to which I responded two two years ago).</br></br>
<B>Mark</B>: Thanks, Zeb. But the cases of triple tradition with major agreements (so-called Mark-Q overlap) have four columns, so you need a scheme that has quadruple agreements, several types of triple, several doubles etc. I don't know how one does that with a three-colour mixed scheme. I think that sounds very difficult to conceptualize, but I'd be happy to see it if you think you can illustrate how it's done. If you are able to illustrate that it can be done as simply and straightforwardly as the more intuitive colouring scheme that one can produce on the basis of three synoptics, I will happily publicly retract my comments.</br></br>
<B>Zeba</B>: Mark, I never said it was more intuitive. And obviously 3 is simpler than 4, 5, 6 or 7. But perhaps having students use only 3 colours inscribes in their imaginations a gross over-simplification what is obviously an extremely complex problem.</br></br>
<B>Mark</B>: I'd settle for as intuitive or even almost as intuitive -- just show me how it works. But I'm a little surprised by the idea that working with the three primary colours would lead to "a gross over-simplification". That's like saying that insisting on three synoptic gospels is a gross over-simplification. My point is that if you have three synoptics (fact) and you have three primary colours (fact), then we can work with that fortuitous and intuitive outcome. Adding a fourth column to reflect one solution to the problem is the thing generating the problem here; it has nothing to do with the intrinsic complications of studying the synopsis.</br></br>
<B>Zeba</B>: Adding the fourth column for Q does not reflect one solution, any more than adding Thomas and John reflects solutions to whether either or both of those were reliant on the Synoptics. There are features of this synopsis that might just as easily undermine the Q solution in some people's eyes (such as the number of times that Matt and Luke agree in placement of Q material).</br></br>
<B>Mark</B>: Of course adding the fourth column for Q reflects one solution, Zeb. It reflects the Two-Source Theory, according to which Q is the source for Matthew's and Luke's double tradition, from which the wording in that Q column is derived. And there is, of course, a material difference between Q on the one hand and Thomas and John on the other. They are extant works with textual witnesses and citations in early Christian literature; they are not hypothetical texts reconstructed on the basis of a Synoptic comparison that works with a specific solution to the Synoptic Problem.</br></br>
<B>Zeba</B>: Yes, there are differences, but one need not be solely fixated on that difference (which is emphasized in the synopsis, no less). The fact is, scholars disagree about the questions of reliance, and one would just as easily (and just as wrongly) claim that putting Thomas/John there prejudices those debates.</br></br>
<B>Mark</B>: I suspect that you may just be being cute here, or facetious; I think you know full well that there is a world of difference between including a hypothetical text that is a result of studying the Synopsis and including extant texts that are not. But the inclusion of Thomas & John parallels do not prejudice debates about source-usage; they facilitate those debates -- they set out the evidence in a graphic way in order that we can have the discussion. The inclusion of Q, on the other hand, takes one particular conclusion about the Synopsis and then integrates it into the presentation of the Synopsis.</br></br>
<B>Zeba</B>: I respectfully disagree, and I'm not being cute. I maintain that the inclusion of Q is to facilitate the discussion, and that opposition to Q is just as feasible as support for it when studied in the context of his synopsis.</br></br>
<B>Stephen C. Carlson</B>: If one is to include hypothetical documents that could be a solution, why privilege Q? Why not include Ur-Markus too? Why not Deutero-Mark? Why not Pierson Parker's Koine Gospel common to Matthew and Mark but not Luke? Why not any of Bosmard's multiple sources? Why not Q1, Q2, and Q3? And whose Q to include? Harnack's? The IQP's Q with the baptism of Jesus in it? Including Q just begs too many questions and biases the answers. I think students ought to understand that the reality of Q is contingent in a way that all the other sources are not, and by including Q as if it is on par with Mark, Thomas, etc. muddles the lesson.</br></br>
<B>Zeba</B>: Stephen, if readers of my synopsis come away with a sense that Q is anything but contingent, then they aren't reading my synopsis. I think the only way you and Mark could have been pleased on this issue is I had not mentioned Q anywhere in the book. And why not infinite other sources? Like it or not, and rightly or wrongly, Q is relevant to current gospel research in a way those other issues are not. It's that simple.</br></br>
<B>Stephen</B>: The point is not that Q (or even our text of Mark) is contingent or hypothetical--they both are, of course--but that Q is contingent in a way that other sources are not. It is here that the reification of Q in the synopsis sends a mixed and muddled message.</br></br>
<B>Zeba</B>: I wasn't comparing Q's contingency with Mark's. I was saying straight out that Q is contingent and that if the reader of my synopsis doesn't get that, he's an idiot. As I said, the only way I think you and Mark wouldn't charge this project with sending out a mixed message is if there was no mention of Q anywhere in the book. But Q is part of the scholarly debate. Full stop.</br></br>
<B>Stephen</B>: Kloppenborg and other members of the Toronto school compare the Q's hypothetical nature with that Mark's text all the time. In fact, it's a favorite argument of his. Now, if you've disavowed this argument or comparison, please accept my apologies for presuming that you agree with it. I don't have any problem with mentioning Q in the introduction, where the student can be told that Q is contingent on a number of things without being shown that it is not in the synopsis.</br></br>
<B>Zeba</B>: I agree that the comparison isn't wholly persuasive. But that's not the point: I didn't make any such comparison in what I said.</br></br>
<B>Mark</B>: <I>"I think the only way you [Stephen] and Mark could have been pleased on this issue is I had not mentioned Q anywhere in the book."</I> -- I think that might be a bit unfair, Zeb, given that I have always attempted in my published work to engage critically with current Q scholarship, and to make sure that I have understood it and represented it fairly. My issue with the Q column is stated without prejudice to the arguments pro or con the existence of Q. It is a straightforward question, to repeat: do we wish to incorporate one of the solutions to the problem into the presentation of the data? Tuckett's JTS review, which I came across today, makes a similar point from the perspective of one who accepts the Q hypothesis.</br></br>
<B>Zeba</B>: I'm sure I've told you this before, Mark, but what really bugs me about getting hammered for the absence of line-by-line parallelization (Tuckett makes the same complaint) is that line-by-line parallelization is how I originally had it and wanted it, but OUP balked at the expense, because it really stretches out of the pericopae and leaves lots of white space (a benefit as far as I was concerned, but a waste of paper as far as OUP was concerned). Grrrr.</br></br>
<B>Mark</B>: Yes, you mentioned this at the SBL session, Zeb, and I'm afraid I couldn't help facetiously suggesting that OUP could have saved some extra space by eliminating the Q column!</br></br>
<B>Mark</B>: But more seriously, this is why reviews are helpful. Works like yours, at their best, improve in the light of repeated editions and revisions. OUP will hopefully see that there is a consensus in the reviews about this key element. I have found the same thing even in the synopsis excerpts that I have created -- publishers often have no clue what I am trying to do and eliminate all the hard work I have done and scrunch the text together. But for me, one of the things that is so striking about Parallel Gospels is that you go to such pains to render every word the same way, and then don't cash in the advantage of having them in word-aligned parallel.</blockquote> Loren Rosson IIIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15002312216839280976noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14388695.post-19380180745092493732014-04-12T20:26:00.001-04:002014-04-20T06:37:25.554-04:00Tribulation, Rapture, and Wrath (In That Order)For years I've been fascinated by Pre-tribulationists: Christians who believe they will be raptured (taken bodily up to heaven) before the onset of the apocalyptic tribulation. It's a belief that emerged only in the 19th century, but has been popularized by the <I>Left Behind</I> series to the extent of <I>The DaVinci Code</I>. There are technical problems with this view and the more general: early Christians not only expected to suffer the tribulation before they were raptured; they saw it as their holy mandate. Let's examine.</br></br>
Paul is the place to start on the subject. His description of the rapture is justly famous, being the most detailed and earliest (50s AD) version preserved in the NT:<blockquote>"For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel's call and with the sound of God's trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore comfort one another with these words." (I Thess 4:16-18)</br></br>
"We will not all die, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. When this perishable body puts on imperishability, and this mortal body puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will be fulfilled: 'Death has been swallowed up in victory.'" (I Cor 15:51-55)</blockquote>Obviously neither of these passages says anything to the effect of "comforting one another because you won't have to go through tribulation". The passage of I Thess 4 simply advises comfort because believers can count on seeing their loved ones again. Paul was addressing a concern about the bodies of Christians who died before the second coming (his answer: they will be resurrected from their sleep-state). In the passage of I Cor 15, he was addressing an opposite concern, about the bodies of Christians who were still living (his answer: they won't need to die first before being resurrected; their mortal bodies will be instantly clothed with immortality). Paul wasn't implying anything at all about the time of the rapture, only about the logistics of dead and alive bodies.</br></br>
He provided a vivid description of the rapture in any case, which impacted the gospel writers and the author of Revelation. The image of Jesus descending in the clouds and harvesting the faithful is present in the Markan Apocalypse (early 70s AD), followed by Matthew (80s) and Luke (90s), and these writers clearly state that the rapture takes place <I>after</I> the tribulation.<blockquote>"But in those days, after the tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. Then he will send out the angels [with a loud trumpet call], and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven." (Mk 13:24-27/Mt 24:29-31; cf. Lk 21:25-27)</blockquote>Astonishingly, today's Pre-tribulationists fixate on the text which comes right after this:<blockquote>"But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (Mk 13:32/Mt 24:36)</blockquote>This, they say, proves that the rapture could happen "at any time now". All it proves is that no one (not even Jesus, apparently) knows the exact day and hour when the rapture will take place. But whenever it happens, it obviously follows the tribulation! The Markan Apocalypse couldn't be clearer: there will be a nasty tribulation, involving wars, famine, earthquakes, false Christs, false prophets, and people dying for their beliefs. After this period the sun and moon will darken. Then Jesus will come in the clouds to rapture the elect.</br></br>
If it's so clear, then why is the doctrine of the pre-trib rapture so widely believed? An obvious (and perhaps flippant) answer is that modern evangelicals are self-entitled wimps and want to be saved by Jesus without having to bleed for it. But to be fair, there's another reason. At least some of them are genuinely misreading their bibles. They confuse "tribulation" with "God's wrath". They rightly point out that NT texts (such as I Thess 5:9) assure faithful believers that they won't have to suffer God's wrath. But "God's wrath" isn't the same thing as "tribulation".</br></br>
The book of Revelation makes clear that the Day of God's wrath doesn't come until the sixth seal is opened -- which is the point in the Markan Apocalypse at which the sun and moon are darkened:<blockquote>"When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and there came a great earthquake; the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree drops its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. The sky vanished like a scroll rolling itself up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. Then the kings of the earth and the magnates and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, calling to the mountains and rocks, 'Fall on us and hide us from the face of the one seated on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb; for the great day of their wrath is come, and who is able to stand?'" (Rev 6:12-17)</blockquote>This is the onset of God's wrath, and <I>it is from this point on</I> that the elect will be spared the ugliness running over the earth. They will be raptured, as the Markan Apocalypse makes clear, and which Rev 7 implies. Then the seventh seal will be opened (Rev 8:1-6), segueing into the full-blown horrors of the seven trumpets (Rev 8:7-11:19) and seven bowls (Rev 16:1-21). The trumpets and bowls seem to describe the same supernatural events from different perspectives -- God's punishments that steamroll over humanity: fire and brimstone, the sea turning to blood, rivers becoming poison, locusts pouring out of smoking pits, etc. They are unlike the horrors loosed by the seven seals before the rapture (Rev 6:1-13), which are worldly and involve nothing supernatural at all: war, famine, death, martyrdom.</br></br>
Simply put, the tribulation (Rev 6:1-13; Mk 13:1-25/Mt 24:1-29/Lk 21:8-26) is not a period in which God is pouring out wrath to punish people. Tribulation is persecution (Mk 14:17/Mt 13:21) and suffering through tyranny and oppression. People don't go through tribulation because they're bad; they go through it precisely because they're uncompromising in their faith; they endure it as a test of their faith. The New Testament is replete with this idea. Acts says that Christians "must" enter the kingdom of God through tribulation (Acts 14:22), and Paul even tells his converts to "rejoice" in their tribulation and sufferings (II Cor 7:4).</br></br>
In other words, modern Pre-tribulationists are about as far from the mindset of the New Testament as you can possibly get. The early Christians didn't count on escaping tribulation, whether through rapture or not. For them, suffering persecution was a badge of honor -- no less than the cross of Christ. Even when demoralized, they found it within themselves to persevere.</br></br>
This isn't to say that traditional Post-tribulationists are without fault. Many of them fall into the same trap of confusing the tribulation with God's wrath, and as a result put the rapture at the end of the seven-year period of Rev 6-16. <I>The rapture comes after the tribulation but prior to God's wrath.</I> The best timeline I've come across is this one produced by Pastor Steven Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church:</br></br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AsofUOOORr4/U0lmH6ExpZI/AAAAAAAAJe0/MF_HZpyNV8E/s1600/book_of_revelation_chart.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AsofUOOORr4/U0lmH6ExpZI/AAAAAAAAJe0/MF_HZpyNV8E/s320/book_of_revelation_chart.jpg" /></a></div></br>
Anderson is a controversial figure for some of his extreme fundamentalist views, but he does get some things right, and this is one of them. Contrary to popular belief, the tribulation is not the seven-year period depicted in Rev 6-16. It's the some-odd 3 ½ year period depicted in Rev 6 (and repeated from a different angle in Rev 13). The outpouring of God's wrath is the next 3 ½ year period depicted in Rev 8-11 (and repeated in Rev 16). The elect suffer through the first, and are raptured by Christ away from the second. At the end of this collective 7-year period, Christ descends again, but leaves the clouds this time and comes to earth with the saints he raptured 3 ½ years ago; the Battle of Armageddon takes place; and then he reigns on earth for 1000 years.</br></br>
Getting a handle on this chronology helps see the pattern. As Anderson <a href="http://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org/chronology_of_revelation_chart.jpg">outlines it</a>, there is a critical break at Rev 12 which starts the timeline over again, so that the sequence of <I>tribulation, rapture, wrath</I> depicted in Rev 6-11 is retold in Rev 13-16. Chapter 12 goes back even further to Mary and the birth of Jesus (12:1-6), and then describes the war in heaven which results in the devil being cast down to earth (Rev 12:7-9). It is <I>his</I> wrath (Rev 12:12) -- not God's -- that is about to spill out, as he persecutes God's elect and tries to destroy them. </br></br>
This is how the tribulation (Rev 13) unfolds. Not with the supernatural events of fire and brimstone, or rivers of poison, or locusts smoking out of pits. But by wars, natural disasters, famine, and martyrdom -- just as in Rev 6:1-11 and Mark's Apocalypse. The anti-Christ emerges and is given worldly power. Back in Rev 6, he was symbolized by the white horse (a mockery, or "fake Christ", of the warrior-Jesus to come in Rev 19:11). In Rev 13, he is symbolized by the beast who rises from the sea. The result is the same: he makes war on the saints to overcome them (Rev 13:7). Everyone worships him except believers (13:7-8), and those who don't worship him are unable to buy or sell anything (13:16-17). Those who defy him are beheaded (see Rev 20:4). His number is 666 (13:18). [Historically, the anti-Christ was the incarnation of Nero Caesar, who persecuted ancient Christians; the numerical equivalents of the letters in his name added up to 666.]</br></br>
The tribulation of Rev 13 mirrors Rev 6, just as the implied rapture of Rev 14 mirrors Rev 7, and just as God's wrath of Rev 16 mirrors Rev 8-11. The "tribulation, rapture, wrath" sequence is implied throughout other parts of the NT. As I already mentioned, I Thess 5:9 states that believers won't be subject to God's wrath, while II Thess 2:1-3 insists that the Day of Christ (the rapture) cannot come until there is a falling away (apostasy) and the man of sin (anti-Christ) revealed. Taken together, these align pretty closely with the schemes of the Markan Apocalypse and Revelation.</br></br>
The NT authors were by no means on the same page with all their beliefs. But many of them shared some common convictions, and a post-tribulation rapture was one of them. The NT expects faithful Christians to be tribulated -- persecuted, oppressed, robbed, starved, slaughtered -- and have their faith put to the test in horrendous ways. The rapture was never understood to avoid this. It was the reward that came after.</br></br>
My point is not to stir up apocalyptic fervor. But if you happen to be a pre-millenial Christian with literal convictions about the end times, then I would insist that a post-trib/pre-wrath rapture is the only sensible option for you; the pre-trib rapture is no more credible than the claims of <I>The DaVinci Code</I>. The more significant point is the early Christian commitment to suffering for the cause of Christ. The apostles were a lot like their savior: they were ready for martyrdom, and didn't expect God to bail their asses out to avoid tribulation.Loren Rosson IIIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15002312216839280976noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14388695.post-62035339568102743432014-04-07T19:29:00.002-04:002014-04-09T07:13:59.091-04:00The Top 10 Apocalyptic FilmsAlmost every site on the web confuses apocalyptic with post-apocalyptic films. I'm setting the record straight.<br /><br />
By <B>apocalyptic</B>, I mean a film set during a catastrophe that spells the end of civilization, or will do so if not averted. The catastrophe could be anything, and represented on this list are divine punishment (<I>Noah, The Rapture</I>), nuclear warfare (<I>Threads</I>), pandemic (<I>Pontypool</I>), nature (<I>The Birds</I>), alien invasion (<I>War of the Worlds</I>), resource depletion (<I>Sunshine</I>), environmental (<I>Before the Fall</I>), existential (<I>The Tree of Life</I>), and unknown (<I>The Leftovers</I>). <br /><br />
In some cases the apocalypse is averted (<I>Sunshine</I>, <I>War of the Worlds</I>), though at terrible cost. In most of these, however, the "end" actually comes, though it's not always clear what follows. <br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-N-HZjrcFSLo/U0AB6-tlWKI/AAAAAAAAJa8/Vt00RPv2dWc/s1600/sunshineposterb.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-N-HZjrcFSLo/U0AB6-tlWKI/AAAAAAAAJa8/Vt00RPv2dWc/s200/sunshineposterb.jpg" /></a></div>1. <I>Sunshine,</I> Danny Boyle. 2007. Critical approval: <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sunshine/"><font color="#FF6666">75%</font color="#FF6666"></a>. I can't say enough about this film. It's set in a future where the sun is dying, and people can barely stay alive and warm. A crew of eight embarks on a mission to deliver a thermo-nuclear payload that will re-ignite the sun's fire, so it's an outer-space film as much as an apocalyptic one. To get through one disaster after another, the crew members have to sacrifice themselves, and at one point they even contemplate murdering the one of them "least fit" in order to save oxygen. On top of all this, there is the subplot of a hideously disfigured religious fanatic who believes God wants humanity to die, and does everything he can to slaughter the crew. The theme of the apocalypse is woven in on multiple levels, and while the ending is "happy" on the macro-level (the sun is saved), it's tragic on the micro-level. <I>Sunshine</I> is Danny Boyle's best work, far better than his overrated zombie-fest <I>28 Days Later</I>.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rl0wlyy5Tt8/U0Au3UJ_pBI/AAAAAAAAJcQ/K6XscpzlFho/s1600/birds.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rl0wlyy5Tt8/U0Au3UJ_pBI/AAAAAAAAJcQ/K6XscpzlFho/s200/birds.jpg" /></a></div>2. <I>The Birds,</I> Alfred Hitchcock. 1963. Critical approval: <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1002448-birds/"><font color="#FF6666">96%</font color="#FF6666"></a>. This famous classic is nihilistic to the core and unapologetic about nature's savagery. And like the great horror films rarely seen anymore, it has the patience to let its characters breathe and become people we care about before terrorizing and killing them. The only humans-vs.-nature film that has affected me this strongly was <I>The Grey</I>, which was a wilderness survival thriller. <I>The Birds</I> is apocalyptic, portraying unstoppable biological forces that have suddenly decided to sweep down on a humanity minding its own business, for reasons we never learn. The coastal setting works wonders, and while at first blush it looks like a localized apocalypse, the implication is that birds are attacking elsewhere in the world. By '60s standards the attack sequences are terrifying. When nature comes after us, says Hitchcock, things aren't going to turn out okay, and I think he's probably right.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-am15JlBxDoc/U0ABsrV4Z8I/AAAAAAAAJas/qSWboswdAYM/s1600/noah-movie-poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-am15JlBxDoc/U0ABsrV4Z8I/AAAAAAAAJas/qSWboswdAYM/s200/noah-movie-poster.jpg" /></a></div>3. <I>Noah,</I> Darren Aronofsky. 2014. Critical approval: <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/noah_2014/"><font color="#FF6666">76%</font color="#FF6666"></a>. Here's the story of Noah's Ark, served up <I>Lord of the Rings</I> style. It works perfectly, because the first eleven chapters of Genesis are complete myth; the same sort of mythic pre-history that Tolkien intended by Middle-Earth. So when we see giant rock creatures (the Watchers) and bits of magic here and there, it somehow makes the story of Gen 6-9 seem as it should. It's a sweeping epic that doesn't soft-peddle God's act of genocide. Don't listen to complaints that this theme of divine vengeance has been anachronistically aligned with pagan environmentalism or vegetarianism. If Christians knew their bibles, they would know that a significant amount of "environmentalism" can be derived from scripture; and if we're going to be proper fundies, we would acknowledge that God didn't add meat to the human diet until after the flood (Gen 9:3). Noah isn't pro-environmental in any true modern sense, though it can resonate with some viewers on that level. Reviewed <a href="http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2014/04/noah.html">here</a>.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-czYwGPJwqj8/U0HYnB7oyDI/AAAAAAAAJeU/t3E6mzA-Sbg/s1600/tree+of+life+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-czYwGPJwqj8/U0HYnB7oyDI/AAAAAAAAJeU/t3E6mzA-Sbg/s200/tree+of+life+2.jpg" /></a></div>4. <I>The Tree of Life,</I> Terrence Malick. 2011. Critical approval: <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_tree_of_life_2011/"><font color="#FF6666">84%</font color="#FF6666"></a>. It seems that 2011 was the year of abstract apocalyptic films. There was Lars Von Trier's <I>Melancholia</I>, a metaphorical apocalypse manifested in a woman's psychological anguish; <I>Take Shelter</I>, a hallucinated apocalypse of a schizophrenic; and finally <I>The Tree of Life</I>, an existential apocalypse, and one of my favorite films of all time. Malick portrays an apocalypse experienced in the "now", as both wish fulfillment and transcendent reality. A man reflects on his childhood within the grand context of the universe's life cycle, from Big Bang to Absolute End; the latter intrudes on the present through visions of a dead and barren Earth, a white dwarf sun above it, desert shores with waves rolling in, and dead souls walking the shores. It's unquestionably the best apocalypse abstractly conceived.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-CeRAephDg3E/U0Rj6ZkIVcI/AAAAAAAAJek/5Bfc2uXGe6g/s1600/pontypool_ver3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-CeRAephDg3E/U0Rj6ZkIVcI/AAAAAAAAJek/5Bfc2uXGe6g/s200/pontypool_ver3.jpg" /></a></div>5. <I>Pontypool</I>, Bruce McDonald. 2007. Critical approval: <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/pontypool/"><font color="#FF6666">82%</font color="#FF6666"></a>. Then there was 2007, the year of the "town-under-siege". These are localized apocalypses which could spread globally if not contained. <I>The Mist</I> is set in Bridgton Maine, a town suddenly blanketed by a mist from which otherworldly creatures attack; <I>30 Days of Night</I> is a vampire slaughter-feed in Barrow Alaska. My pick, however, is <I>Pontypool</I>, set in the Canadian town by that name, not only because it actually results in apocalypse (when the credits roll, it's clear that the town's quarantine fails and the pandemic spreads), but because it's about one of the most bizarre and terrifying ideas I've come across: a zombie pandemic that spreads literally by word of mouth; a quantum virus (born of "perception") that has infected the English language (only English), and hearing certain words dissolves your mind and turns you into a cannibal. Seriously, this is one messed up idea: that you obsess language and become so scrambled by it that the only relief you can obtain is by chewing your way through the mouth of someone.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tJNqLY3gvQY/U0ACTYhl1FI/AAAAAAAAJbU/dSHZ1_8g2wg/s1600/war_of_the_worlds_poster_by_darkwatch7-d5qr7g7.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tJNqLY3gvQY/U0ACTYhl1FI/AAAAAAAAJbU/dSHZ1_8g2wg/s200/war_of_the_worlds_poster_by_darkwatch7-d5qr7g7.jpg" /></a></div>6. <I>War of the Worlds,</I> Steven Spielberg. 2005. Critical approval: <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/war_of_the_worlds/"><font color="#FF6666">74%</font color="#FF6666"></a>. Yes, it's a Spielberg film and has its problems. But it starts out strong, and is superior to the original classic. It plays especially well in a post 9/11 age, where everyone thinks "it's the terrorists" when buildings collapse around their ears and power goes out everywhere. And there's some weird psychology on display in the basement-shelter of a paranoid libertarian. The heart of the story is the sort of substandard stuff to be expected out of Spielberg (ineffectual father forced to connect with his children and do everything in his power to save them), but what places the film on my list is the sheer visceral imagery of the alien attacks. Honestly, the first sequence is among the best ever shot on celluloid: the weird "lightning storm", followed by the emergence of underground tripod vessels, which blast away and vaporize people running for their lives.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QdPaDjDfHCg/U0Ath_mMZfI/AAAAAAAAJb8/1Nxfzh_zhqc/s1600/threads.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QdPaDjDfHCg/U0Ath_mMZfI/AAAAAAAAJb8/1Nxfzh_zhqc/s200/threads.jpg" /></a></div>7. <I>Threads,</I> Mick Jackson. 1984. Critical approval: <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/threads/">na</a>. This one is both apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic, but I'm placing it on my apocalyptic list since it focuses more on the catastrophe and the build-up to it. It's a British TV-film that was born of the same intent as the American <I>The Day After</I> (1983), but it's much better -- and far, far more traumatizing. And keep in mind <I>The Day After</I> upset Americans so much that people were telephoning the government to ask if this is what a nuclear attack would really do. <I>Threads</I> takes place in the town of Sheffield, and when the bombs strike, things are as ugly as it gets; the aftermath sends humanity hurtling back into a primitive age of famine, lawlessness, and mental retardation. It's a completely miserable film to watch. It's well done, but you don't enjoy any aspect of it at all; you simply suffer through it as an educational exercise that was very necessary back in the Reagan years.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2y-nIXlPAuY/U0F_aIi6L2I/AAAAAAAAJdo/BqYGN0yUdjI/s1600/leftovers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2y-nIXlPAuY/U0F_aIi6L2I/AAAAAAAAJdo/BqYGN0yUdjI/s200/leftovers.jpg" /></a></div>8. <I>The Leftovers,</I> Damon Lindelof and Tom Perrotta. Summer 2014. I'm going out on a limb and predicting I'm going to love this HBO series. It's about a rapture-like event that whisks away millions of people across the globe, and focuses on the left-behinds in a New York town. From an interview with Lindelof: "You've got this big, crazy idea that informs every episode, which is that this thing happened, this sudden departure of 140 million people which depending on what side of it you're on, could be the Rapture. There could be some yet-as-undetermined scientific explanation for it, but still it's miraculous. This is going to be a show about sudden and abrupt loss and more importantly, what will at least in its initial presentation seem to be one that you can't receive closure from. If someone dies, that's a horrible thing and they must be mourned. But in this instance, you don't even know if you're supposed to mourn who’s been departed because they could be walking through your door tomorrow, or you could be zapped up or down or sideways to wherever they are." At the end of the season I'll revisit this list and rank it appropriately.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8qOzBJU7rc4/U0ACDqS5mcI/AAAAAAAAJbE/kniebUhIxGY/s1600/the-rapture-movie-poster-1991-1020210019.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8qOzBJU7rc4/U0ACDqS5mcI/AAAAAAAAJbE/kniebUhIxGY/s200/the-rapture-movie-poster-1991-1020210019.jpg" /></a></div>9. <I>The Rapture,</I> Michael Tolkin. 1991. Critical approval: <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/rapture/"><font color="#FF6666">64%</font color="#FF6666"></a> I was completely fooled by this one. I thought Sharon was a typical nut-job who found Christ and prayed for the apocalypse, but didn't think the film would take her expectations seriously. Especially when she goes out into the desert to wait for the rapture, and ends up (yes) shooting her little daughter to force God's hand. I mean, she blows her crying kid's brains out. For which she's rightfully thrown in jail; obviously the kingdom isn't coming for perverse born-again Christians. <I>Except that it does.</I> The horsemen of Revelation make a stunning literal appearance out of nowhere, jail prisoners are liberated... God, it turns out, is real and ushering in the end times. Tolkin treats his subject matter with a respect it doesn't seem to deserve -- indeed he portrays the outrageous at complete face value -- and in so doing, makes the rapture seem oddly plausible. <br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YzCFCi_4mP8/U0CTG2B0GGI/AAAAAAAAJc4/czOwgV19_wo/s1600/before-the-fall1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YzCFCi_4mP8/U0CTG2B0GGI/AAAAAAAAJc4/czOwgV19_wo/s200/before-the-fall1.jpg" /></a></div>10. <I>Before the Fall</I>, F. Javier Gutiérrez. 2008. Critical approval: <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/tres-dias/">na</a>. The Spanish title is <I>Tres Dias</I> (3 Days), which is the amount of time humanity has until Earth will be hit by a meteor larger than the one that wiped out the dinosaurs. The apocalyptic setting is used as a backdrop for a horror story: Amidst the chaos and riots, a convict breaks out of prison and decides to go after the children of a man who wronged him long ago. His likes to hang little kids, but the main character can't be bothered to care about protecting his nephews and nieces since the world is going to end. As the psychopath closes in (the film doesn't cop out on the subject of harming children), Alejandro gradually sheds his apathy and realizes that people who will die anyway are worth trying to save. It turns out to be a strong message in an original film.
<br /><br />
<U>Dishonorable mentions.</U> The following most emphatically do not make my cut: <I>Independence Day</I> (1996), <I>Armageddon</I> (1998), <I>Deep Impact</I> (1998), <I>The Day After Tomorrow</I> (2004), <I>2012</I> (2009). All are embarrassingly absurd.<br /><br />
See also my <a href="http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2012/04/top-10-post-apocalyptic-films.html">Top 10 Post-Apocalyptic Films</a>.Loren Rosson IIIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15002312216839280976noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14388695.post-88948203437495636952014-04-07T05:30:00.000-04:002014-04-09T08:55:09.327-04:00The Top 10 Post-Apocalyptic FilmsAlmost every site on the web conflates apocalyptic with post-apocalyptic films. I'm setting the record straight.<br /><br />
By <B>post-apocalyptic</B>, I mean a film set after the end of civilization or its dramatic upheaval due to catastrophe. The catastrophe could be anything, and represented on this list are nuclear warfare (<I>The Divide,</I> <I>A Boy and His Dog</I>, <I>The Book of Eli</I>), pandemic (<I>Stake Land</I>), technological takeover (<I>The Matrix</I>), dysgenics (<I>Children of Men</I>), resource depletion (<I>The Road Warrior</I>), the breakdown of law and order (<I>Escape from New York</I>), environmental (<I>Snowpiercer</I>), and unknown (<I>The Road</I>).
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9h16vn05eUw/Uz8d_2_qlwI/AAAAAAAAJZc/dbMVChxFte8/s1600/The-Divide-2011-Movie-Poster1-e1318039207257.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9h16vn05eUw/Uz8d_2_qlwI/AAAAAAAAJZc/dbMVChxFte8/s200/The-Divide-2011-Movie-Poster1-e1318039207257.jpg" /></a></div>1. <I>The Divide,</I> Xavier Gens. 2012. Critical approval: <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_divide_2012/"><font color="#00FF00">25%</font color="#00FF00"></a>. Ignore the critics, this film is fantastic if you have the right expectations. It's a hard-hitting horror show set in the basement of a New York high rise apartment, where nine strangers gather to survive a nuclear holocaust. Despite uneasiness and distrust, they try working together at first, and do pretty well until cabin fever, radiation sickness, and their own base humanity take over. There's torture, rape, sex slavery, and full-blown lunacy on display, but unlike <I>The Road</I> (see #2 below), there's no light at the end of the tunnel -- which in this case happens to be, literally, a tunnel of shit. <I>The Divide</I> holds humanity completely captive to misanthropy and is unquestionably the best <I>Lord of the Flies</I>-themed film I've ever seen. The performances are brilliant; even I was deeply chilled by what Gens believes people are really like under our societal conditioning.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QBjYl4f5gFg/Uz8egChzLyI/AAAAAAAAJZk/lF0-4C7CPQk/s1600/the-road-movie-poster-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QBjYl4f5gFg/Uz8egChzLyI/AAAAAAAAJZk/lF0-4C7CPQk/s200/the-road-movie-poster-2.jpg" /></a></div>2. <I>The Road,</I> John Hillcoat. 2009. Critical approval: <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10009460-the_road/"><font color="#FF6666">75%</font color="#FF6666"></a>. Dispiriting in the way only Cormac McCarthy novel adaptations are, and the only entry on this list where the cause of humanity's devastation isn't explained. In a dead wasteland of marauding cannibals I would probably do as the lead character's wife and just kill myself. Nothing promises to get better, and it's impossible to survive in any way that makes life meaningful. Even the goodness inside the best of people isn't always so resilient: the father played by Viggo Mortenson sinks to some ugly depths to protect his son. Precisely because of this, <I>The Road</I> is so uplifting, especially when the two lone protagonists reach their destination at the eastern sea, and the father dies. There are even eschatological overtones, as the boy could be an implied messianic figure who, unlike his father, is able to "carry the fire" of goodness to the end. I watched this film a second time after the death of my own father in 2010, and it was helpful in the grieving process. It's a powerful and noble work.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-p6avyIuw2Xc/Uz8SZ7UhljI/AAAAAAAAJZM/4CKU_ilf2eE/s1600/snowpiercer-internationalposter-snowytrain-full.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-p6avyIuw2Xc/Uz8SZ7UhljI/AAAAAAAAJZM/4CKU_ilf2eE/s200/snowpiercer-internationalposter-snowytrain-full.jpg" /></a></div>3. <I>Snowpiercer,</I> Bong Joon-Ho. 2014. Critical approval: <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/snowpiercer/"><font color="#FF6666">83%</font color="#FF6666"></a> The U.S. release coincided with that of Darren Aronofsky's <I>Noah</I>, and I saw them back to back as a weirdly surreal double-feature. <I>Noah</I> is of course apocalyptic, telling the biblical story of the flood: a righteous man and his family are spared the global holocaust, and are commissioned to preserve the animal creation while humanity is wiped out; Noah goes homicidal on the Ark and barely stops himself from butchering his newborn granddaughters. <I>Snowpiercer</I> is post-apocalyptic, set in 2031, long after a sudden ice age froze the planet. The only survivors boarded a train called (yes) the Rattling Ark, which after 17 years is still keeping people alive in a perverse state of affairs. As in <I>Noah</I>, the lead protagonist fights urges to kill babies, and the cause of righteousness is under a question mark. The film is many things: a social class war, a claustrophobic horror piece, and bat-shit insanity that would make David Lynch envious.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4ZfC8OSqDPc/Uz8eoWuqd8I/AAAAAAAAJZs/9fMnYQmHCbA/s1600/roadwarrior_cstm_hires.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4ZfC8OSqDPc/Uz8eoWuqd8I/AAAAAAAAJZs/9fMnYQmHCbA/s200/roadwarrior_cstm_hires.jpg" /></a></div>4. <I>The Road Warrior,</I> George Miller. 1981. Critical approval: <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/mad_max_2_the_road_warrior_1981/"><font color="#FF6666">100%</font color="#FF6666"></a>. A #1 favorite on many post-apocalyptic lists, and the best movie sequel in any genre. Along with <I>Conan the Barbarian,</I> it was among the first R-rated films I saw as a young teen, and it left a serious impression. The '80s were a horrible decade for film, but a few gems like this from '80-'82 felt like layovers from the '70s. Like Conan (and Snake Plissken, see #7 below), Mad Max is an amoral anti-hero straight out of pulp escapism, something Edgar Rice Burroughs could have created, and his solitary wanderings across a wasteland remain an incredibly inspiring archetype. There's so much about this film impossible to forget: the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Co8vGjEz-xU">feral kid with the boomerang</a> who narrates the story as an adult, the amazing road stunts for pre-CGI days, and the idea of gasoline being the most precious commodity -- which resonates rather loudly in the 21st century. <I>The Road Warrior</I> has a high rewatch value, and I've seen it well over a dozen times by now.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AgXWT9fxYwE/Uz8ey9kx9dI/AAAAAAAAJZ0/IRMdISAwXwI/s1600/Stake-Land-2011-.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AgXWT9fxYwE/Uz8ey9kx9dI/AAAAAAAAJZ0/IRMdISAwXwI/s200/Stake-Land-2011-.jpg" /></a></div>5. <I>Stake Land,</I> Jim Mickle. 2010. Critical approval: <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/stake_land/"><font color="#FF6666">75%</font color="#FF6666"></a>. Not only is this a great post-apocalyptic drama, it's one of the best vampire films ever made, giving the middle finger to both the aristocratic version (<I>Dracula</I>) and juvenile pop model (<I>Blade, Underworld, Buffy, Twilight</I>). These are vamps as they should be, mindless savages who go for the jugular without fanfare. The story centers around a young man whose family is slaughtered; he's taken under the wing of a hunter who now slays vampires as they can only be killed, by pounding stakes through the bastards' hearts. The two embark on a <I>Road</I>-like odyssey to find a mythical refuge up in Canada, and run afoul a nasty religious cult along the way. This is the proper way to do an undead pandemic, and blows away the overrated <I>28 Days Later</I> (which isn't even the undead film it pretends, since the "zombies" aren't reanimated from death, just living people infected by mindless rage).
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vptbll-fqoI/Uz8e5SZfL_I/AAAAAAAAJZ8/PZFbTo3B3CM/s1600/matrix.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vptbll-fqoI/Uz8e5SZfL_I/AAAAAAAAJZ8/PZFbTo3B3CM/s200/matrix.jpg" /></a></div>6. <I>The Matrix,</I> Andy & Lana Wachowski. 1999. Critical approval: <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/matrix/"><font color="#FF6666">87%</font color="#FF6666"></a>. What hasn't been said about <I>The Matrix</I>? I will say this: it got me hooked on going to the theater to see movies instead of relying almost exclusively on the VCR. (Chucking the VCR and embracing DVDs would soon follow.) The Wachowski brothers managed to work in everything just for me: martial arts (I'm embarrassed to say I loved those god-awful '80s ninja films), realities inside the mind (Doctor Who's <I>Deadly Assassin</I> from the '70s was actually the first to use the matrix), with as much philosophy as action, even neo-gnosticism, and all in the context of a horrifying future where machines rule and people are nothing more than chemical batteries. And never mind that Keanu Reeves can't act to save himself. Here he doesn't need to. But skip the lousy sequels.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tyRwF8BZKtA/Uz8fFixEVgI/AAAAAAAAJaE/gNPsE7g-NaI/s1600/escape.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tyRwF8BZKtA/Uz8fFixEVgI/AAAAAAAAJaE/gNPsE7g-NaI/s200/escape.jpg" /></a></div>7. <I>Escape from New York,</I> John Carpenter. 1981. Critical approval: <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1006717-escape_from_new_york/"><font color="#FF6666">83%</font color="#FF6666"></a>. Some deny this qualifies as post-apocalyptic, since it's just New York City turned into a prison. But as <a href="http://post-apocalyptic.com/escape-from-new-york-definitely-post-apocalyptic/">this reviewer points out</a>, the background in the untruncated script involves global chemical warfare, and gas released on a massive scale causing people to go crazy and criminal everywhere. I'm amazed how well it holds up, and what the production team accomplished on such a low budget. The criminal world of Manhattan is compelling, and the terrorist plane crash near the World Trade Center is downright chilling to watch after 9/11, not to mention Snake Plissken's risky landing on top of WTC itself. It's no accident this film debuted months after <I>The Road Warrior</I>; Plissken is a lot like Mad Max, a perfect amoral anti-hero.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mmigqGxZ9Tk/Uz8fLsKxrGI/AAAAAAAAJaM/v_2HJJd4-cA/s1600/children_of_men_ver8.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mmigqGxZ9Tk/Uz8fLsKxrGI/AAAAAAAAJaM/v_2HJJd4-cA/s200/children_of_men_ver8.jpg" /></a></div>8. <I>Children of Men,</I> Alfonso Cuarón. 2006. Critical approval: <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/children_of_men/"><font color="#FF6666">93%</font color="#FF6666"></a>. This is an adaptation of the P.D. James' novel, except that women are infertile instead of the men. It's a future where people can't reproduce, immigration is criminal, terrorism runs rampant, religious nut-cases flagellate themselves, and law officials treat people like beasts. A pregnant woman suddenly offers hope for humanity, but it's not terribly clear why, anymore than how women lost their fertility to begin with. Cuaron's dislike for back-story and clear exposition seems to have led him to use the concept of infertility as a vague metaphor for the fading of human hope; yet the film ends on a note that plays into one's predispositions, so that optimists will sense at least some hope for humanity, others not so much. Whether this means <I>Children of Men</I> is unsure of its vision or profoundly polysemous, I'm not sure, but there's no denying its mythic power.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FDkss2gXh4A/Uz8fZFXJD5I/AAAAAAAAJac/N5oZ2gK02IM/s1600/book_of_eli_ver2_xlg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FDkss2gXh4A/Uz8fZFXJD5I/AAAAAAAAJac/N5oZ2gK02IM/s200/book_of_eli_ver2_xlg.jpg" /></a></div>9. <I>The Book of Eli,</I> Albert & Allen Hughes. 2010. Critical approval: <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_book_of_eli/"><font color="#00FF00">48%</font color="#00FF00"></a>. Yes, there's a lot about <I>Eli</I> that panders to the lowest common idiot, but it's atmospheric as hell, and I love the idea of a last surviving copy of the bible which people are willing to kill for. Gary Oldman's villain wants it for all the bad reasons, to sway and control the masses, while Denzel Washington's hero just wants to deliver it into scholarly hands out on the west coast. And while Denzel, true to form, pretty much plays Denzel, Eli's spiritual guardianship and preservationist sensibilities make him appealing beyond a martial arts superman. Ultimately, this is what spaghetti-western action looks like in a post-apocalyptic setting, and if there are glaring logistical problems (why has it taken Eli thirty years to wander across America to reach the west coast? how did he become such an over-the-top karate killing machine like <I>The Matrix's</I> Neo? he's <I>blind</I>, is he?), it's at least unpredictable and well crafted.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-F07AyMCe3zM/Uz8fS5FxmiI/AAAAAAAAJaU/BE32QJhZORg/s1600/Boy-and-His-Dog.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-F07AyMCe3zM/Uz8fS5FxmiI/AAAAAAAAJaU/BE32QJhZORg/s200/Boy-and-His-Dog.jpg" /></a></div>10. <I>A Boy and His Dog,</I> L.Q. Jones. 1975. Critical approval: <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/boy_and_his_dog/"><font color="#FF6666">77%</font color="#FF6666"></a>. I adore this cult classic, not least for its outrageous political incorrectness. And who better to play such an ignorant misogynist than Don Johnson? In an age after nuclear holocaust, women have become a rare commodity, but Vic has a telepathic dog (Blood) who can hunt and sniff them out for him to rape. The rewatch value comes in the relentless bickering sessions between him and Blood, which are strangely reminiscent of those between Tom Baker and his robotic dog K9 from <I>Doctor Who</I>. Both dogs are smug know-it-alls who treat their masters with borderline contempt, the huge difference of course being that while the Doctor and K9 are pretty much evenly matched in intelligence and wit, Vic is a truly ignorant piece of trailer trash. Blood gets in a lot of nice shots, one of my favorites being, "The next time you play with yourself, I hope you go blind." The twist ending is real shocker, where Vic kills the girl he just rescued, and cooks her to feed Blood, who remarks on the closing credits, "Well, I'd certainly say she had marvelous judgment, if not particularly good taste."
<br /><br />
<U>Dishonorable mentions.</U> I don't care for the following, but they make enough pick lists on the web to warrant comment: <I>Planet of the Apes</I> (1968) was always too cheesy (even by '60s standards) for me to take seriously, <I>Logan's Run</I> (1976) too flawed in premise, and <I>The Quiet Earth</I> (1985) too stale and hopelessly '80s in style. <I>Dawn of the Dead</I> (1978) almost made my cut, but lumbering zombies are hopelessly cliche and frankly not scary. Then there are the sci-fic crowd pleasers <I>Terminator</I> and <I>12 Monkeys</I>, which I don't think really count as post-apocalyptic because they don't feel like it; their dramas involve time travel and are grounded in the pre-apocalyptic "present".<br /><br />
See also my <a href="http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-top-10-apocalyptic-films.html">Top 10 Apocalyptic Films</a>.Loren Rosson IIIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15002312216839280976noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14388695.post-29438185877745022472014-04-03T01:00:00.000-04:002014-04-03T20:00:52.075-04:00Noah<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gZQvoJlZnHA/Uz2DoKCMkeI/AAAAAAAAJYs/cAxbAvzqJQc/s1600/noah_movie_poster_1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gZQvoJlZnHA/Uz2DoKCMkeI/AAAAAAAAJYs/cAxbAvzqJQc/s200/noah_movie_poster_1.jpg" /></a></div><font color="#00CCFF">"You may have wondered from time to time about the sanity of the decision to wipe out most of humanity. Then again, you've probably had days in which you said 'Amen' to the sentiment behind it." (John R. Coats, <I>Original Sinners</I>, p 47)</font color="#00CCFF"></br></br>
Color me a misanthrope, but yes, there are days I wish some deity would give the world a righteous enema. Though I'd want to be at ground zero when it happened.
</br></br>
Noah and his family were at ground zero, but they had the Ark, which is nicely realized in Darren Aronofsky's new film. <I>Noah</I> actually came at the right moment for me, because I'd been thinking how refreshing it would be to see the book of Revelation made into a film. Films about the gospels are cranked out every other year, but what about the more challenging and disturbing corners of the bible -- like Job, the war-stories of Saul and David, and Revelation? When I <a href="http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-chronicles-of-narnia-ranked.html">ranked C.S. Lewis' Narnian chronicles</a>, I explained why <I>The Last Battle</I> is the best of the series. Yes, it still traumatizes kids, and "kills off" the young protagonist Susan Pevensie in the most ridiculously unfair way; some readers decide they want nothing to do with a Christ-figure like Aslan who casts his wayward subjects -- those sweet talking animals -- into the incinerator. But this is what apocalypses are: outpourings of divine wrath that serve a justice so hyper it redefines the meaning of the word. They're mysteries. Like the Book of Job. And of course, like the story of Noah.</br></br>
Make no mistake, <I>Noah</I> pulls no punches in this regard; Aronofsky doesn't soft-peddle God's act of genocide. He takes license filling in the blanks of Genesis 6-9, but remains true to the heart of the story: a righteous man and his family are spared the global holocaust, and are commissioned to preserve the animal creation while humanity is wiped out -- because people, in God's eyes, deserve nothing less. Don't listen to complaints from the Christian right that this theme of divine vengeance has been anachronistically aligned with pagan environmentalism or vegetarianism. If Christians knew their bibles, they would know that a significant amount of "environmentalism" can be derived from scripture; and as for vegetarianism, if we're going to be proper fundies, we would acknowledge that God didn't add meat to the human diet until after the flood (Gen 9:3). See Chris Heard's wonderful <a href="http://drchris.me/higgaion/?p=1359">skewering of Christian ignorance</a> on these points. <I>Noah</I> cannot be called pro-environmental in any true modern sense, though it can resonate with some viewers on that level.</br></br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Ep9R6r46Mck/Uzyf-MtL5-I/AAAAAAAAJXo/4_8K6OBN03s/s1600/ark.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Ep9R6r46Mck/Uzyf-MtL5-I/AAAAAAAAJXo/4_8K6OBN03s/s200/ark.jpg" /></a></div>There has also been the provocative claim that <I>Noah</I> is pro-gnostic, and it is this claim I want to focus on. Brian Mattson's <a href="http://drbrianmattson.com/journal/2014/3/31/sympathy-for-the-devil">"Sympathy for the Devil"</a> argues that the biblical story of Noah has not been merely supplemented by gnostic and Kabbalah myths, but wholly subverted and re-appropriated by them. He writes:<blockquote>"Of all the Christian leaders who went to great lengths to endorse this movie, and all of the Christian leaders who panned it, <I>not one of them could identify a blatantly Gnostic subversion of the biblical story when it was right in front of their faces.</I>... Aronofsky did it as an experiment to make fools of us: 'You are so ignorant that I can put Noah up on the big screen and portray him literally as the 'seed of the Serpent' and you all will watch my studio's screening and endorse it.'... He's having quite the laugh. And what a Gnostic experiment. In Gnosticism, only the elite are 'in the know' and have the secret knowledge. Everybody else are dupes and ignorant fools. The 'event' of this movie is intended to illustrate the Gnostic premise. We are dupes and fools."</blockquote>Which is why, according to Mattson, everyone in the film -- protagonists and antagonists alike -- worship "the Creator" (never called "God"). The sides of Noah and Tubal-Cain are equally deluded. Noah isn't wicked like Tubal-Cain, of course, but he's a far cry from the righteous figure of the bible; he forces Ham to abandon a girl to her death, progressively alienates his family as they ride out the flood, and finally comes within a hair's width of butchering his two newborn grandchildren. This, says Mattson, is not a side commentary on the evil in everyone, but rather a deliberate alignment with the <I>Zohar</I> scheme of the Jewish Kabbalah, where "on the side of Cain are all the haunts of the evil species" (Tubal-Cain) and "from the side of Abel/Seth comes a more merciful class, yet not wholly beneficial" (Noah).</br></br>
The crux of the film -- Noah's homicidal mania on board the Ark -- is, according to Mattson, the expected behavior of a deluded follower of the false murderous god the gnostics believed Yahweh to be. When Noah finally breaks with this malevolence, lighting on love and mercy (which according to the gnostic myth the Jewish God doesn't have a single atom of), his enlightenment appears to have been triggered by the snakeskin relic: the skin of the serpent from the Garden of Eden.<blockquote>"The serpent was right all along [in gnostic traditions]. This 'god,' 'The Creator,' whom they are worshiping is withholding something from them that the serpent will provide: divinity itself. The world of Gnostic mysticism is bewildering with a myriad of varieties. But, generally speaking, they hold in common that the serpent is 'Sophia,' 'Mother,' or 'Wisdom.' The serpent represents the true divine, and the claims of 'The Creator' are false."</blockquote>The snake-skin relic is what controls Mattson's interpretation of <I>Noah</I>. It's the key, for him, that unveils Aronofsky's conspiracy. At the start of the film, <blockquote>"Lamech, rather strangely for a patriarch of a family that follows God, takes out a sacred relic, the skin of the serpent from the Garden of Eden. He wraps it around his arm, stretches out his hand to touch his son—except, just then, a band of marauders interrupts them and the ceremony isn’t completed. Lamech gets killed, and the 'villain' of the film, Tubal-Cain, steals the snakeskin. Noah, in other words, doesn't get whatever benefit the serpent's skin was to bestow."</blockquote><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eJ7aQ91AAO8/UzygGa7_t9I/AAAAAAAAJXw/XgEh1vKXjFc/s1600/ark+in+the+flood.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eJ7aQ91AAO8/UzygGa7_t9I/AAAAAAAAJXw/XgEh1vKXjFc/s200/ark+in+the+flood.jpg" /></a></div>That's an astute observation, but there's a glaring problem with it. Even if Noah remains unblessed by the snake-relic, Lamech has obviously received its spiritual benefits, and so on Mattson's argument he would be the gnostic prototype. Yet he counsels Noah to "walk with the Creator in righteousness" (I hope I'm remembering the quote right). Obviously a good gnostic would never associate the Creator with anything positive like righteousness.</br></br>
Mattson blunders at the endpoint too, in claiming that Noah finally learns love and mercy only immediately after obtaining the snake-skin relic from Tubal-Cain:<blockquote>"Noah kills Tubal-Cain and recovers the snakeskin relic: 'Sophia,' 'Wisdom,' the true light of the divine."</blockquote>Except that Noah does neither of these things. Ham is the one who stabs Tubal-Cain to death; Ham is the one who takes the snake-skin relic (and he's not blessed by it when he does; his arm doesn't light up with the appropriate glow). Noah doesn't even touch the damn thing until the very end of the film, when Ham yields it to him. Frankly, I saw no implied connection between Ham's removing the snake-skin relic off Tubal-Cain's corpse and the separate scene on top of the Ark, where Noah is about to butcher his granddaughters but after long moments of agony finally stops his blade. What I saw was Noah struggling brutally with his conscience and barely winning. I certainly didn't whiff any subtle enlightenment triggered by a relic acquired below deck.</br></br>
It's safe to say that the snake-skin doesn't carry the loaded significance Mattson ascribes to it. I agree there is something gnostic about it, just as there are gnostic and Kabbalah elements that crop up elsewhere. But they serve a supplemental role at best. <I>Noah</I>, on whole, doesn't denigrate the Creator (far less the creation, which is esteemed as positive) or glorify the serpent. It does take the vengeful character of God seriously, as obviously did the bible of "orthodox" Jews and Christians. Later gnostics couldn't cope with this dimension to God, and so cast him a lesser, primitive barbaric deity. Apparently Christians like Mattson can't cope with fleshed out (homicidal) portraits of figures like Noah -- who indeed are only mirroring the image of the divine on this point, yet with a balance that I think comes across loud and clear.</br></br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jBHcqxexksc/UzygRAk7B5I/AAAAAAAAJX4/g9zt-choag0/s1600/new+beginning.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jBHcqxexksc/UzygRAk7B5I/AAAAAAAAJX4/g9zt-choag0/s200/new+beginning.png" /></a></div>The only part of <I>Noah</I> I felt betrayed by was the treatment (or lack thereof) of Gen 9:20-27. In the epilogue Noah gets drunk in a cave, passes out, and Ham sees him naked. But that's it. Ham does not sodomize (or castrate) his father, nor does Noah curse Ham and his descendents. It's a complete cop out.</br></br>
I realize this is a PG-13 movie, but seriously, if Aranofsky is going to have the license to make Ham hate his father for forcing him to let a girl die, and if he's going to then have the balls to make Ham take revenge against his father by (yes) teaming up with arch-enemy Tubal-Cain, then <I>what better segue into the foul deed of Gen 9:20-27</I>? What better explanation for what Ham was driven to "do" to his father (Gen 9:24), and which in turn caused Noah to disinherit Ham (Gen 9:25), a mystery that has plagued commentators for centuries? Aronofsky set the groundwork perfectly, then walked away from it. The epilogue is a rip-off; a non-event.</br></br>
Anyway, do see the film. It's entertaining above all, and has a great battle scene that tries to outmatch Peter Jackson's ents. But it also forces the hard questions of Job, the stories of Saul and David, and Revelation. It's probably the best film I've seen made of a biblical story, and I'll be seeing it again this week-end.</br></br>
<I>Rating:</I> 4 ½ stars out of 5Loren Rosson IIIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15002312216839280976noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14388695.post-78029629762376855222014-03-08T14:06:00.000-05:002014-03-09T10:57:46.061-04:00Gnostic Mumbo-JumboI enjoyed Larry Hurtado's dismantling of the <a href="http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/ancient-gnostics-intellectuals-not-really/">myth of gnostic intellectualism</a>. As a Unitarian who celebrates religious diversity, I come into enough contact with neo-gnostics, and there are even aspects of gnosticism I find positively interesting. Salvation by self-discovery is something orthodoxy could use more of. But there's also a lot to laugh about in gnosticism, especially fantasies that they were intellectually and/or spiritually superior. Hurtado writes:<blockquote>"It's perhaps a natural mistake for people who haven't read the texts, given that 'gnostic' comes from the Greek word 'gnosis', which means 'knowledge'. But in the case of those called 'gnostics,' the kind of 'knowledge' that they sought wasn't 'intellectual,' but (to put it kindly) what we might term 'esoteric,' secretive truths expressed typically in cryptic, riddling form, deliberately intended to make little sense as expressed. Put unkindly, one might characterize it as a bunch of 'mumbo-jumbo' with no attempt to present them reasonably and in terms of the intellectual climate of the time... There are modern equivalents to the ancient gnostics, people who go for the esoteric, who imagine themselves special in some way [and] can leap into mystical truths."</blockquote>That's not uncharitable, just accurate, and again as a Unitarian I know all about the allure of pretentious spiritualities.<br /><br />
Hurtado's post reminded me of a novel called <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OceHiJ6HsrM/UxsT8K9cRBI/AAAAAAAAJTQ/HPH_jyxj_ME/s1600/straub_throat.JPG"><I>The Throat</I></a>, by Peter Straub. It's a mystery about a serial killer, narrated by a protagonist named Timothy Underhill who likes the Gospel of Thomas. At one point in the story he is derided for it by his friend and professor of religion, John Ransom (see pp 485, 487-88):<blockquote>John Ransom: "What's that mighty tome? I thought the gnostic gospels were my territory, not yours... I like the verse where Jesus says, 'If you understand the world, you have found a corpse, but if you have found a corpse, you are superior to the world.' [Thom 56] That has the real gnostic <I>thing</I>, don't you think?... Why are you <I>bothering</I> with such drivel?"<br /><br />
Tim Underhill: "I'm hoping to find out. What do you have against it?"<br /><br />
John: "Gnosticism is a dead end. When people allude to it now, they make it mean anything they want it to mean by turning it into a system of analogies. And the whole point of gnosticism in the first place was that any kind of nonsense you could make up was true because you made it up."<br /><br />
Tim: "I guess that's why I like it."</blockquote>Note that Tim Underhill is a lead character in many of Straub's novels, and according to the author a lot like himself, so Straub could be having some fun at his own expense. That's commendable. As I said, there's plenty to laugh about in gnosticism. Even if John Ransom is a despicable man (as we later learn), he nails the gnostics properly like Hurtado does.<br /><br />
I once joked with another blogger about gnosticism being parasitic, latching onto a host religion, feeding off its nutrients, leaving little if anything recognizable. This is as true today as it was in antiquity. Consider John Sanford, who gives Jesus' sayings a complete psychoanalytic overhaul. The Good Samaritan, for example, is translated from a subversive parable about ethnic conflict into an interior jerk-off that has nothing to do with a "good Samaritan" at all:<blockquote>"We find our identity in the man who fell among the thieves... [We] fall prey to our own collective rigid attitudes, which in times of crises leave us bleeding and beaten on the road. In these crises all that is respectable and accepted -- the priests and levites -- pass us by. These persons in our lives whom we most adulate, and whose acceptance we most want, are the very ones whose opinions we fear in the time of crisis... Salvation comes from the 'Samaritan'. The Samaritan is the despised one, the one in ourselves whom we have looked down upon for so long. In being administered to by our inferior side, we can make a beginning towards wholeness." (<I>The Kingdom Within,</I> p 146)</blockquote>That's a perfect illustration of esoteric "mumbo jumobo" (per Hurtado) and indeed just "making things up" (per Ransom); of emptying out real-world entities like Samaritans, priests, and levites, and pouring into the shells whatever abstractions you want. Jesus (or the early Christians, or Luke) had been suggesting that cultural enemies (Samaritans) and evil men (traders) can be unexpected heroes. However orthodoxy later tamed the moral, the original idea remained. Even the trivial Sunday-school lesson you can derive from it carries echoes from the hills of Galilee. But the gnostic puts us in another universe. <br /><br />
Let me again stress that I don't bash gnosticism in favor of orthodoxy per se (that wouldn't make me a good Unitarian). Gnosticism's root idea is salvation by self-discovery, which I believe has solid potential. It's the parasitic strategy that's problematic. Theological evolution is one thing, and scriptural reinterpretation, however radical, can be for the better or worse. But gnosticism was less an evolution and more a hostile takeover. In its extreme forms, the material world became an evil place, the human body an evil vessel. The Hebrew scriptures praised an evil demigod, and Jesus became the remedy for this (badly perceived) problem. His sayings were interiorized to provide an inner escape route -- most of which, frankly, are obtuse spiritualizations masking as superior theology. Loren Rosson IIIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15002312216839280976noreply@blogger.com41tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14388695.post-82377211816788525242014-02-25T00:30:00.001-05:002015-08-24T06:32:32.664-04:00Ellen Page RankedPost updated <a href="https://rossonl.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/ellen-page-ranked/">here</a>.Loren Rosson IIIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15002312216839280976noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14388695.post-59334391159888456832014-02-24T00:30:00.000-05:002014-02-26T17:15:58.179-05:00Why Dark Tower is My Favorite Module<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0tL3Ra5gYwQ/UvlVCH77cmI/AAAAAAAAJHI/-yw2bpDkYHA/s1600/dark-tower1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0tL3Ra5gYwQ/UvlVCH77cmI/AAAAAAAAJHI/-yw2bpDkYHA/s320/dark-tower1.jpg" /></a></div>There's something extraordinarily primal about <I>Dark Tower</I>. You have a cursed village, dominated by an evil cult, its inhabitants never aging, hardly able to recall a time of law and good. Two buried towers, barely poking above the ruined countryside, its ancient powers locked in stalemate. An underground network connecting the towers, every other room a death zone. It haunts my imagination like no other module, and is the best dungeon crawl ever designed.<br /><br />
It doesn't hurt that it relies on my favorite pantheon of the Egyptians. (My lawful-good leaning PCs worshiped Egyptian deities; my chaotic-good characters bowed to the Norse.) Here the opposing gods are Mitra and Set, and the history bears repeating. During his mortal life (around 1500 years ago), Mitra was a paladin who opposed the serpent-demon Set. Both were killed in the battle between their followers, and both ascended to godhood. A thousand years later (500 years ago), Set finally enacted his revenge on the village of Mitra's Fist by creating a dark tower to oppose the white sanctuary. On a starless night the tower suddenly appeared out of nowhere and crushed half the village. Few reached the safety of Mitra's tower, and most of the village was wiped out. <br /><br />
New settlers came to Mitra's Fist, naturally hoping to find buried treasure. But their greed awakened the evil of Set's buried tower, and for the last three centuries the village has been dominated:<blockquote>"It took a hundred years of digging before searchers found the location of the original village. However, they encountered the unexpected. Something was digging up to meet them. News eventually stopped coming from the village. Mitra's Fist had changed almost overnight. Some force had possessed the village and its occupants, causing them to slay children, non-humans and Mitraic priests in one night of hell possessed fury. It is these very same villagers who have inhabited the old decaying buildings of Mitra's Fist for three hundred years since, never aging. For three centuries the village of Mitra's Fist has existed, unmolested by the outside world. Few have noticed that the village has had the same occupants for over ten generations. Few have noticed because few are those who can visit the village and not fall prey to the sharp, ceremonial dagger of the high priest of Set."</blockquote><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Fc9q2KIp8uw/UvdiyMpHayI/AAAAAAAAJEs/FZZC5H8lr04/s1600/lion+amulet.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Fc9q2KIp8uw/UvdiyMpHayI/AAAAAAAAJEs/FZZC5H8lr04/s200/lion+amulet.png" /></a>That powerful set up takes the long defeat theme of <I>The Village of Hommlet</I> (evil is cyclical, it can never be truly defeated, it will keep coming back) and meshes it with the steady creep of chaos in <I>The Keep on the Borderlands</I> (lonely isolated outposts fending off evil forces), but with a threat worse than either. This is a close-quartered clash of good and evil, in an underground of sadism and sacrifice. Enemies lie only rooms away, and the cold war has been festering for bloody centuries. The villagers above are cursed by immortality and unable to leave the mountain pass, dominated by the Set cult. Avvakris the Merchant (actually the high priest of Set) is one of the most memorable villains from any module, his son a half-reptilian, and his concubine a ravishing beauty who can either be found making love to him or as a half-eaten corpse with her heart removed.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hGPmhngZ6eM/UvaWiSQTA7I/AAAAAAAAJBw/KfXGjcOkuYM/s1600/mitra+set.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hGPmhngZ6eM/UvaWiSQTA7I/AAAAAAAAJBw/KfXGjcOkuYM/s200/mitra+set.jpg" /></a>The architectures are genius. Jennell Jaquays is famous for her non-linear dungeons and confusing environments in which no two groups of PCs can possibly have the same experience going through (note that the credits refer to Paul Jaquays, the name she used at that time in her career). They can retreat, circle around, bypass underneath, go back over old ground, or even use teleporting short cuts that appear without rhyme or reason. The dungeon is nested between the two towers via equally contorted passages. The rough path is a descent of Mitra's Tower followed by a climb up Set's, with a lot of unavoidable dungeon mess in between. <br />
<br />
<I>Dark Tower</I> is cherished even by today's players, and that surprises me a bit. The design is uncompromisingly old school: The clash of good and evil is primitive, and the forces of light don't always come across as benign. Mitra may be lawful good, but he speaks the language of war. His "lions" (saints) don't suffer fools gladly, and their holy relics are as likely to rape and possess you (even rob you of intelligence or leave you insane) in order to bring down Set's minions. The module is also light on plot, and equally tailored for evil-aligned PCs. There are rules provided for the bonuses received by clerics of both Mitra and Set when they enter the dungeon areas or tower under control of their deity. Needless to say, the scenes of blood sacrifice and mutilations are alien to the sissified elements that overtook the game by around the mid-'80s.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-udkrx7ZDoTE/UvaWVChIntI/AAAAAAAAJBo/uj8gkvy_sQg/s1600/dissenter.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-udkrx7ZDoTE/UvaWVChIntI/AAAAAAAAJBo/uj8gkvy_sQg/s200/dissenter.jpg" /></a>I suspect the module is widely loved because it's so archetypal. Villagers hunker down in oppressed, cursed isolation, whilst hideous rites are conducted beneath their homes. It's as haunting as D&D settings get, and I already mentioned the long defeat theme. Even assuming the PCs succeed in killing Pnessutt the lich, the liberation isn't a happy one: the villagers die (their bodies fast-forwarding 300 years of borrowed time), and neither tower is completely destroyed by the underground cave-in. The final sentence points to a future replay: "Considering the history of the dungeon, it probably won't be long before the digging starts again..."<br />
<br />
What can I say? <I>Dark Tower</I> is my favorite module for every obvious reason.Loren Rosson IIIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15002312216839280976noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14388695.post-81823586150372893472014-02-23T00:30:00.000-05:002014-02-24T14:11:30.444-05:00Why Inferno is My Favorite Module<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dwIclmo0FSk/UvlU0OcchWI/AAAAAAAAJHA/LRiXFb-G8E0/s1600/inferno.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dwIclmo0FSk/UvlU0OcchWI/AAAAAAAAJHA/LRiXFb-G8E0/s320/inferno.jpg" /></a><I>Inferno</I> is my ultimate gaming fantasy come true. But it's an anomaly in this six-part series, because it's a half module that was never finished. It's being finished now, however, in a delayed-blast profusion of modules and gazetteers. The first four circles comprised the classic module (1980), the fifth and sixth circles were published six years ago in <a href="http://www.fightonmagazine.com/FOMag_Issue003.php">Fight On, issue #3</a>, and a <a href="http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/121731/Gazatteer-of-Hell-Fire-and-Ice">gazetteer</a> of the seventh-ninth circles was released just three months ago. There are more gazetteers of the upper circles and modules of the lower ones on the way. For sake of simplicity, I will refer to this vast body of work as the Inferno Project. Though the recent publications aren't written for 1st edition D&D (for copyright reasons), they are entirely in the old-school vein and designed by the same genius, Geoff Dale.<br />
<br />
As I said, the Inferno Project is my dream come true, and it's a dream that began with Ed Greenwood's famous <I>Dragon</I> articles in 1983. I always loved <I>The Divine Comedy</I>, and Greenwood's Nine Hells took at least some inspiration from that epic. He gave us the wastelands of Avernus with atmospheric fireballs; the emerald clouds and stagnant rivers of Dis; the foul marshes of Minauros, plastered with rotting carrion, pelted by rain and hail; the volcanoes and lava rivers of Phlegethos; the swamp of Stygia, with surrounding mountains flashing their white "cold fires"; the black, smoke-filled layers of Malbolge and Maladomini; the glaciers and outer-space cold of Caina; and the misty realm of Nessus, where the very ground scorches those of non lawful-evil alignment. I wanted a module for all of this -- for the most epic outer-plane adventure imaginable. Little did I know that such already existed! <I>Inferno</I> had been published three years before, and even more incredibly was based <I>exactly</I> on Dante. But it was one of those obscure Judges Guild modules, not TSR, which my local stores didn't carry. It would be years before I became aware of Dale's version of Hell.<br />
<br />
I should stress that I still admire Greenwood's version. But Dale's is superior -- more imposing, and far more weird. In depicting the torture of souls, he produced a medieval canvass completely aligned with a literary classic. Some object to the Christian baggage, but that really isn't an obstacle; those elements have been tweaked for D&D's pagan context.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FOwHsZliJxE/Uv1k4zb5jII/AAAAAAAAJH4/aJntuGz9r8k/s1600/inferno1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FOwHsZliJxE/Uv1k4zb5jII/AAAAAAAAJH4/aJntuGz9r8k/s200/inferno1.jpg" /></a>In fact, the Christian layovers are some of <I>Inferno</I>'s best parts. My favorite encounter area in the history of D&D moduledom is the Noble Castle on the First Circle. It isn't a place of torment, rather a state of shadowy bliss for "virtuous atheists" who had the simple misfortune of existing in a time long past: "They are the just and good peoples from the Days Before the Gods and live in relative bliss and comfort." That's a brilliant translation of Dante's Limbo, which is the resting place for the virtuous unbaptized; i.e. those whose only sin was not knowing Christ, such as righteous Old Testament figures who predated Christ, and noble pagans from any time. There's something grievously upsetting about this pocket paradise stranded in an ashen wasteland, with its gardens, trees, clean water, benign wildlife, even music, and the benign hospitable souls (including paladins) forced to dwell here for eternity. They're content for the most part, yet aware their fate is somehow blighted. Above all, the Noble Castle underscores how <I>weird</I> the Inferno is, unpredictable and unfair. In the official rules, good souls could count on eternal rest in an upper plane befitting their alignment (the Seven Heavens, Twin Paradises, Elysium, etc). Dale's template of the afterlife is much less secure, and seems premised on the idea that souls can be kidnapped and confined where they don't really belong.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_1VPJpxTFX4/UvaU8U8FFdI/AAAAAAAAJBU/MN15pllQlWM/s1600/Infernomap.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_1VPJpxTFX4/UvaU8U8FFdI/AAAAAAAAJBU/MN15pllQlWM/s200/Infernomap.jpg" /></a>On the circles below the first, souls are tortured for whatever deadly sin they committed in life, and the juiciest punishment by far is the second bolgia of the Eighth Circle. As in Dante's poem, these are the flatterers, who live in a pit of shit since that's all they spoke in mortal life:<blockquote>"A noxious mix of sewage, offal, and other liquid filth fills the pit to a height of seven feet, and clouds of buzzing insects (flesh flies, poison gnats, giant mosquitoes) swarm above the liquid. Mortals swimming across the filth contract 1d3 disease each from the contact. Determine diseases from 1d12: (1) dengue fever, (2) tuberculosis, (3) diptheria, (4) tetanus, (5) malaria, (6) elephantitus, (7) yellow fever, (8) dysentery, (9) smallpox, (10) typhoid fever, (11) tapeworms, (12) bubonic plague; see <I>Codicil of Maladies</I> for details. An encounter occurs to mortals swimming the muck... (1) mud snakes, (2) giant slugs, (3) giant leeches, (4) type 8A devils. Mortals flying above the muck are attacked by type 8A devils."</blockquote><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TId6FEUx-70/UvbPWrejscI/AAAAAAAAJDg/aTIiXHehork/s1600/inferno2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TId6FEUx-70/UvbPWrejscI/AAAAAAAAJDg/aTIiXHehork/s200/inferno2.jpg" /></a>The Inferno Project owes to Dante also in terms of the tour-guide approach. Duke rulers like Plutus (Fourth Circle) can be receptive enough to show PCs around torture pits where souls labor in degrading tasks, and answer questions provided they have the proper passes and behave themselves. These civilized devils are also leering sorts who will as likely attempt to rape female PCs before murdering them -- a typical reminder of how faithful modules were to gritty pulp fantasy before D&D became so sissified. Some of the most vile and deadly magic items (often cursed) can be found throughout the Inferno, as well as hidden talismans that can be used against the devils.<br />
<br />
But it's the Dantean landscapes that mesmerize: the River Archeron, the Styx River, the City of the Heretics, the River of Boiling Blood, the Wood of the Suicides, the Desert of Fire (a smoldering 125 degrees), and, especially at bottom, the Frozen Swamp of Cocytus. The Ninth Circle encases all breeds of traitors and backbiters, is a constant 15 degrees, has winds blowing up to 80 miles/hr, blinding fog and roiling thunder that makes normal speech impossible. Lucifer is confined at the pit's center, and he's a piece of work at 750 feet tall -- and unfortunately the only ticket out of Hell.<br />
<br />
On the one hand, I think it's unfortunate that Dale's vision of Hell didn't become official. It became an obscurity I wouldn't even learn about until the days of internet. But then it's probably just as well. Not only did <I>Inferno</I> remain a half-finished product, it was too offbeat and worrying for many gamers. I consider it a superior alternative to the Greenwood template and am so glad to see the project nearing completion. It's my wet dream of Dante's hell-hole made real. If I could run only one more campaign in my entire life, it would involve every damned circle of the Inferno.<br /><br />
Next and final: <a href="http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2014/02/why-dark-tower-is-my-favorite-module.html"><I>Dark Tower</I></a>.Loren Rosson IIIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15002312216839280976noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14388695.post-81836345300930843002014-02-22T00:30:00.000-05:002014-02-23T04:12:34.281-05:00Why Vault of the Drow is My Favorite Module<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dSa5gXZzls4/UvlUVurF9mI/AAAAAAAAJG4/vClkhotnljg/s1600/D3VaultoftheDrowcopy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dSa5gXZzls4/UvlUVurF9mI/AAAAAAAAJG4/vClkhotnljg/s320/D3VaultoftheDrowcopy.jpg" /></a>If <I>Tomb of Horrors</I> is the most punishing D&D module, and <I>The Lost City</I> the most inspired, and <I>Castle Amber</I> the most rewarding, what is <I>Vault of the Drow</I>? Without doubt, it's the most brilliantly conceived. Many grognards call it the best thing Gary Gygax ever designed, and in hindsight it's obvious why. But back in the day it wasn't esteemed so highly. Certainly gamers I knew didn't think much of it; it was almost a non-event.<br />
<br />
I think there are two reasons for this, the first being <I>Vault of the Drow</I>'s problematic relationship to the modules which surround it in a series. D3 falls in the worst possible place, penultimately trailing five dungeon crawls: the giants of G1-G3, the caverns of D1, and the kuo-toan shrine of D2. By the time players hit D3 they're itching to get to the final module set on the Abyss (Q1), to which the Vault effectively serves as a mere doorstop. The second reason feeds into the first. The Vault is an underground realm, not a dungeon crawl, and with enough care can be mostly sidestepped by PCs not interested in lingering. Which is a shame, because the city of Erelhei-Cinlu resounds with opportunity. <br />
<br />
The problem is that I was blind to this, not only because I couldn't read a map properly, but because I and my players couldn't wait to get to the Abyss for the showdown with Lolth. Which is, of course, its own problem.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-y8_mFYPx_iE/UvdlQQou3QI/AAAAAAAAJE4/Vt_svwqCHtQ/s1600/drow2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-y8_mFYPx_iE/UvdlQQou3QI/AAAAAAAAJE4/Vt_svwqCHtQ/s200/drow2.jpg" /></a>As widely acknowledged today (with some embarrassment), <I>Queen of the Demonweb Pits</I> is an abominable module. Not only is the design a joke (resembling nothing horrifying like you'd imagine the Abyss to be -- even involving, yes, a goddamn spaceship as the spider-queen's lair), but there is simply no reason, per the plot design of G1-D3, for players to take the suicidal step of confronting Lolth on the Abyss. <I>Lolth and her priesthood have been all along opposing the renegade drow attempt to invade the surface world.</I> The goddess isn't the problem; her wayward servant in the Vault is. Q1 is a complete non-sequitur, and only makes sense if the PCs are overambitious hotheads or fools, or if they just want the orgasmic thrill of trying to kill a deity on her home plane. (Which of course is what we all wanted.) It's unclear what kind of module Q1 would have been had Gary Gygax not bailed on the project and left it in the hands of David Sutherland, but it's one of the greatest old-school ironies that a masterpiece like <I>Vault of the Drow</I> was overshadowed by a poorly designed follow-up that made absolutely no sense.<br />
<br />
The Vault is best used as either the final module in Gygax's G1-D3 series, or (as I prefer) a complete stand-alone. If I had respected the thing and gotten proper play out of it, I have no doubts it would be my favorite sandbox, eclipsing even <I>The Lost City</I>. The descriptive writing of the underworld is mind-blowing. Here's what greets the PCs upon entrance:<blockquote>"The Vault is a strange anomaly, a hemispherical cyst in the crust of the earth, a huge domed fault over 6 miles long and nearly as broad. The dome overhead is a hundred feet high at the walls, arching to several thousand feet height in the center. The radiation from certain unique minerals gives the visual effect of a starry heaven... These 'star' nodes glow in radiant hues of mauve, lake, violet, puce, lilac, and deep blue. The large 'moon' of tumkeoite casts beams of shimmering amethyst which touch the crystalline formations with colors unknown to any other visual experience. The lichens seem to glow in rose madder and pale damson, the fungi growths in golden and red ochres. The rock walls of the Vault appear hazy and insubstantial in the wine-colored light, more like mist than solid walls. The place is indeed a dark fairyland."</blockquote><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-f3J1A-RlSss/UvzozCf4kCI/AAAAAAAAJHo/SiDwB8yi9L0/s1600/Erelhei-Cinlu.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-f3J1A-RlSss/UvzozCf4kCI/AAAAAAAAJHo/SiDwB8yi9L0/s200/Erelhei-Cinlu.JPG" /></a>DMs who know what they're doing (as I clearly didn't back in the day) can serve up a nightmare world where factions of dark elves plot against each other, demons and undead walk the streets, and obscene sacrifices are offered to Lolth, all under that purple glow of phosphorescent fungi and bizarre "moon". There are torture parlors, bordellos, drug saloons, and avenues where the undead feast openly, but here's the thing: everything is disturbingly civilized. And gorgeous.<br /><br />
It's worth nothing that <I>Dragon Magazine</I> #298 fleshed out the Vault, especially the city of Erelhei-Cinlu (see right), as well as the sadistic culture of the drow. Their bloodsports entertainment is downright obscene, involving bound captives held beneath magic acid that drips onto the forehead, opening up a hole in the victim's skull and melting the brain: "During this time, orbs of telepathic power communicate the dying victim's memories to the salivating crowd. Attendees vicariously savor the captive's most traumatic and painful experiences as he slowly succumbs." There is also the matriarchal sexism, which allows females to fuck whomever they please, while husbands must remain faithful and are usually sacrificed if caught cheating. <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CL43_tMT94Y/UvdlXieUWgI/AAAAAAAAJFA/7Hbs_H10ZPM/s1600/Drider_by_Ironshod.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CL43_tMT94Y/UvdlXieUWgI/AAAAAAAAJFA/7Hbs_H10ZPM/s200/Drider_by_Ironshod.jpg" /></a>On the other hand, if a powerful priestess makes advances on another woman's husband, she can have him sacrificed for daring to spurn her advances. Attractive males often face these no-win situations and disfigure themselves to stay alive. As for whore houses, there are many, but the Alabaster Slab is the most degenerate, and one I'd be sure to patronize if I had a PC with nihilistic inclinations: a brothel of the dead, run by a demonic madame who provides the "darkest sort of oblivion" to clients. <br /><br />
The drow are D&D's most iconic race, and it's an outrage that they were later bastardized. Gone (by the mid-'80s) were the deprave sadists, and in their place a Disneyfied race of dark elves -- those poor misunderstood anti-heroes of a dawning political correctness. Gary Gygax had created a genetically evil race without apology, and his are the only drow I acknowledge. I was glad to see <I>Dragon</I> #298 do likewise, and honor the Vault with new surprises. In my teen years I grasped none of the Vault's potential, but in fact it has more potential than any other module. That's why it's my favorite.<br /><br />
Next up: <a href="http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2014/02/why-inferno-is-my-favorite-module.html"><I>Inferno</I></a>.Loren Rosson IIIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15002312216839280976noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14388695.post-28913856757628312452014-02-21T00:30:00.000-05:002014-04-30T12:31:12.185-04:00Why Castle Amber is My Favorite Module<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wW8rRwgWnzE/Uvp13nMPTcI/AAAAAAAAJHY/8A2gCmNv2wk/s1600/castleamber.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wW8rRwgWnzE/Uvp13nMPTcI/AAAAAAAAJHY/8A2gCmNv2wk/s320/castleamber.jpg" /></a>It's impossible for me to discuss <i>Castle Amber</i> apart from my experience of it. I remember thirty-two years ago like it was yesterday. My best friend was the DM and in top form, putting me and three other players though a truly demented campaign. It was weird from the first room, but we knew we were in a loony universe when we ran afoul the ogre dressed in a nightgown who thought it was Janet Amber (whom it killed), and got increasingly homicidal the more compassionate we were. My friend's impersonation of the ogre and falsettos added up to some of the best DM role-playing he'd ever done; we felt like we were really in that castle.<br />
<br />
<I>Castle Amber</I> is like something out of David Lynch: it has a fever-dream feel to it, and off-kilter encounters like the aforementioned ogre. The cover art of the Colossus epitomizes this theme, a staggering piece by Erol Otus which in my opinion is his best work ever. Those huge eyes still freak me out, and I remember them raising terrifying expectations. Our PCs were the recommended intermediate (3rd-6th) levels, yet we had <I>this</I> to look forward to? A fortress-sized 100 HD creature with 350 bloody hit points? The build-up to this encounter is fantastic, not least because the Colossus isn't even the focus of the adventure. It's just one of many nightmares to face in order to escape the insane world of the Ambers.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4XEtof4NlEQ/UvaPBAf9gEI/AAAAAAAAI_o/W-XkLWkklz8/s1600/castle_amber1_small.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4XEtof4NlEQ/UvaPBAf9gEI/AAAAAAAAI_o/W-XkLWkklz8/s200/castle_amber1_small.png" /></a>The Amber family is critical to the module's success, and I found their callous amorality far more chilling than straightforward evil foes. Moldvay describes them thus:<blockquote>"The personalities of the lost Amber family set the mood for the adventure. The Ambers range from slightly eccentric to completely insane. For the most part, the family is [chaotic evil]. While they are proud of their name, they seldom cooperate with each other. Most of them believe they can do anything once they set their mind to it. They live magically lengthened lives, but they have seen too much and are bored. They seek anything to relieve this boredom... It amuses them to watch adventurers battle obstacles, and they are equally amused whether the adventurers succeed or fail. A good spectacle is more important to them than defeating the adventurers. The Ambers tend to be fair, out of the belief that a rigged game is too predictable and not much fun."</blockquote><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ro-E-Nkosfk/Uva3sdGR9RI/AAAAAAAAJCk/mdqmm4j2SKs/s1600/m_x2_castle_amber.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ro-E-Nkosfk/Uva3sdGR9RI/AAAAAAAAJCk/mdqmm4j2SKs/s200/m_x2_castle_amber.png" /></a>For the first time I realized the extent to which character and role-playing defined a good D&D game, and how a trait like <I>boredom</I>, of all things, could produce not only deadly results, but dangerously unpredictable ones.<br />
<br />
The Ambers are as colorful as they are dangerous. There's the librarian Charles who buried his sister Madeline alive; the soul of Princess Catherine lurking inside a throne, waiting to possess someone (see upper left); the evil priest Simon, who feigns friendship and kills at first opportunity; Madam Camilla, itching to tell fortunes you'd rather not hear; Andrew-David the man-goat, who patrols the indoor forest with a Wild Hunt of dire wolves and sabre-tooth tigers; and many others. They exist in a cursed eternity, confined to their castle like incestuous wraiths.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Z2cKMKsiBBM/Uva3nWaHWjI/AAAAAAAAJCc/eihQRYf7e8c/s1600/X2_1_back.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Z2cKMKsiBBM/Uva3nWaHWjI/AAAAAAAAJCc/eihQRYf7e8c/s200/X2_1_back.jpg" /></a>But <I>Castle Amber</I> is a masterpiece even aside from all this demented creativity. It packs so much in short space -- well beyond what most 36-page modules offered back in the day. First there is the castle itself, with two large wings, an indoor forest, and a chapel, and not a room wasted (see above). Second is a dungeon, with hideous creatures like a brain collector, and potions that induce harrowing dreams that intrude on reality. The dungeon ends at a magical gateway to, third, Averoigne, the old home of the Ambers -- an alternate prime material world resembling medieval France, and where magic is a heresy punished by death. Here the PCs must acquire a number of artifacts (one of which can be obtained only by killing the 100-HD Colossus which is in the process of demolishing a town; another of which is an honest-to-gods <I>potion of time travel</I>) in order to return to, fourth, the tomb of Stephen Amber, which contains the means to break the castle's curse.
<br />
<br />
Incredibly, this module is scorned by today's D&D players. As far as I'm concerned, they're more insane than the Ambers; as always, the new school has it wrong. They want "realistic" modules, and this classic is surrealistic in the extreme. <I>Castle Amber</I> is gonzo pulp fantasy gone wild. And it offers more warped fun, and with such effortless economy, than any other module I know. That's why it's my favorite.<br /><br />
Next up: <a href="http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2014/02/why-vault-of-drow-is-my-favorite-module.html"><I>Vault of the Drow</I></a>.Loren Rosson IIIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15002312216839280976noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14388695.post-4392544489729715182014-02-20T00:30:00.000-05:002014-02-21T07:17:30.394-05:00Why The Lost City is My Favorite Module<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0kQ8-8qCeZY/UvlTOBZFV5I/AAAAAAAAJGg/lyXa6vuWb70/s1600/b4lostcover.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0kQ8-8qCeZY/UvlTOBZFV5I/AAAAAAAAJGg/lyXa6vuWb70/s320/b4lostcover.jpg" /></a>If you asked me to name the D&D module that most fired my imagination, that I obsessed like no other, that inspired me to keep building on its foundations, my reply is immediate: <I>The Lost City</I>. I spent countless after-school hours pouring over this thing. It got into my head like a cerebral tapeworm. Meals went untasted as I stayed in my bedroom designing new areas, expanding the underground, and giving the bottom pyramid tiers a complete overhaul. I took the world to bed at nights, dreaming of an ancient civilization fallen from glory, and whose descendents tripped through life half-baked on acid and in thrall to a Cthulhu-like deity monster. It suggested stories of lost culture, and hopeless struggles for restoration. I wanted to go there; that's the kind of grip it had on me.<br /><br />
That it's a beginner's module makes it all the more impressive. It's hard to come up with top-notch low-level adventures, but <I>The Lost City</I> is so inspired that I never resented the fact that the underground leaves plenty for the DM to develop. In essence, I see the module as epitomizing the Golden Age of D&D (1977-83). It's pulp fantasy at its purest, with homages to the Conan classic <I>Red Nails</I>, and a world unto itself. A perfect sandbox you can use over again with new plots. <br /><br />
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JN_HI9K5U6I/UvaSdqR0_zI/AAAAAAAAJAk/znGleTb_YD8/s1600/Lost_city_art.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JN_HI9K5U6I/UvaSdqR0_zI/AAAAAAAAJAk/znGleTb_YD8/s200/Lost_city_art.png" /></a>The rooms inside the five-tiered pyramid are filled with a variety of nasties: killer slime, geckos, oil beetles, rolling boulder traps, pendulum blades, a banshee, and a wight who is the transformed corpse of the ancient Cynidicean Queen Zenobia (see left). For PCs who advance to high levels, five lower tiers are provided, the bottom being the lair of Zargon (see bottom left). But it's the Cynidiceans themselves who define <I>The Lost City</I>. Their lives are a year-round carnival -- mushroom farming by day, hallucinogenic partying by night -- and this is how Tom Moldvay describes them:<blockquote>"Every Cynidicean wears a stylized mask, usually of an animal or human face. Some are made of wood, some of paper mache, and some of metal. They are decorated with beads, bones, feathers, and jewels. Most wear fancy clothes, flashy jewelry, and carry short swords. Some paint their bodies with bright colors. The Cynidiceans are a dying race. Each new generation is smaller than the last. Most of them have forgotten that an outside world exists, living most of their lives in weird dreams. The times when they seem normal, tending their fields and animals, are becoming fewer and fewer as the dreams replace reality. Their unusual costumes and masks only strengthen their dreams."</blockquote>Against this decadence, however, stand three renegade factions, the few "normal" Cynidiceans attempting to restore worship of the old gods: the Brotherhood of Gorm, the Magi of Usamigaras, and the Warrior-Maidens of Madarua. They're dedicated to overthrowing the Zargonites in their own way, as they distrust each other, and are certainly not above using PCs as pawns in their covert agendas. It all depends on how the PCs interact with them. This makes for a wonderfully unpredictable dynamic, and it's noteworthy that Moldvay emphasized this -- with a stern reminder for DMs to expect the unexpected from their players:<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZGfDmGuxlV8/UvebVknzRWI/AAAAAAAAJFQ/V6fSZ1aksxs/s1600/lostcity+underground.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZGfDmGuxlV8/UvebVknzRWI/AAAAAAAAJFQ/V6fSZ1aksxs/s200/lostcity+underground.jpg" /></a><blockquote>"The bickering between the three factions, and their attempts to restore sanity to Cynidicean society, give the DM the chance to add character interaction to the adventure. While the factions can be played as simple monsters with treasure, the DM and players can have a lot of fun with the plots and feuding of the factions. If this is done, the DM should plan in advance what the faction members may say or do if the party tries to talk, attack, or wait to see what the NPCs do first. It is important for the DM to avoid forcing the action to a pre-set conclusion -- the actions of the players <I>must</I> be able to make a difference."</blockquote><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cxoQapdOpWE/Uvebj1Is5gI/AAAAAAAAJFY/L_gzKG6ATuA/s1600/lostd.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cxoQapdOpWE/Uvebj1Is5gI/AAAAAAAAJFY/L_gzKG6ATuA/s200/lostd.jpg" /></a>Such advice, of course, was boilerplate wisdom in the old school and hardly needed spelling out. That Moldvay saw the need to do so in 1982 indicates what was slowly creeping into the game, and would become the new fad a year and a half later. Prior to the <I>Dragonlance</I> craze of 1984, railroading (i.e. pre-packaged plotting) was anathema in D&D. The Golden Age was one of open-ended sandboxes (i.e. locales/settings), which left plotting to the DM, but also to the players, with the result that stories grew spontaneously in game play. <I>The Lost City</I> is one of the best examples of this classic approach, and completely unlike today's adventure-path designs that predestine players' "choices".<br /><br />
You can have a lot of fun with the city, and one group of PCs I ran got terrific use out of the cache of fireworks. No self-respecting role players pass up the opportunity to explode skyrockets, and in this case, they were used quite dramatically in the underworld after defeating the Zargonites... to signal a new era with a glorious holiday.
<br /><br />
No module has galvanized me like <I>The Lost City</I>, and that's why it's my favorite.<br /><br />
Next up: <a href="http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2014/02/why-castle-amber-is-my-favorite-module.html"><I>Castle Amber</I></a>.Loren Rosson IIIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15002312216839280976noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14388695.post-72395289086123913582014-02-19T01:30:00.000-05:002014-02-20T06:23:09.520-05:00Why Tomb of Horrors is My Favorite Module<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uWD_5FUqw7g/UvlTxCrsKXI/AAAAAAAAJGw/iOtiuiKoJqI/s1600/tomb.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uWD_5FUqw7g/UvlTxCrsKXI/AAAAAAAAJGw/iOtiuiKoJqI/s320/tomb.jpg" /></a>To call <I>Tomb of Horrors</I> a "favorite" seems absurd on the face of it. It's certainly the most famous and notorious module, but it's impossibly unfair, and if you play it honestly you won't be playing for long. Gary Gygax only designed it to shut up complainers that D&D was getting too easy. He may have gone overboard by way of response, but it turned out to be just what the game needed in 1978. The tomb made an impact not only as a dungeon, but by the mentality it fostered. It's my favorite module because <I>it's the most reliable gauge of one's affinities for the old-school.</I> In effect, its a Platonic ideal. All killer dungeons walked in its shadow, unable to repeat the artistically perfect nihilism. The more we hated it, the more we loved it. Today's generation will never understand why.<br />
<br />
One thing I need to clear up, however, is Gary Gygax's disingenuous preface. He states that this is a "thinking person's module" -- in other words, one that challenges player skill more than character ability. In theory this is true, but in practice it's obviously bullshit. No one beats the tomb, no matter how smart they are; everyone dies, usually in the first few rooms. Player skill is as meaningless as character level when you're talking about instant death with no saving throws every step of the way, and the only means of sidestepping annihilation are non-sequiturs. The demi-lich is an instant soul-stealer, and can only be harmed by things you'd never dream of trying: expensive gems thrown by a thief; a low-level <I>shatter</I> spell (go figure); a <I>power word kill</I>, but only if thrown by an astral or ethereal spellcaster; etc. It's as if Gygax was playing Russian Roulette with the Player's Handbook, and pulling random spells and gimmicks from his ass to serve as get-out-of-hell free cards. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ThGx7muBdNQ/UvesKilaqfI/AAAAAAAAJFo/xr77r-Fq0lk/s1600/3ydIQu.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ThGx7muBdNQ/UvesKilaqfI/AAAAAAAAJFo/xr77r-Fq0lk/s200/3ydIQu.jpeg" /></a>One of my favorite encounter areas are the killer doors that gush blood:<blockquote>"The doors are 14' wide and 28' tall, made of solid mithril, 3' thick, and impregnated with great magicks in order to make them absolutely spell and magic proof. Where the halves meet, at about waist height, is a cup-like depression, a hemispherical concavity, with a central hole. The latter appears to be the keyhole for the <B>second key</B>, but if this is inserted, the character so doing will receive 1-10 points of electrical damage, while the <B>first key</B> will cause double that amount of damage to any so foolish as to insert it. The real key to these gates is the scepter from the throne room behind. If the scepter's gold ball is inserted into the depression, the mithril valves will swing silently open. But if the scepter's silver sphere is touched to the hemispherical cup the holder of the instrument will be teleported instantly and spat out at the devil's mouth at 6. [the tomb's entrance], nude, while all his or her non-living materials go to 33. [the demi-lich's crypt], and the scepter flashes back to the throne."</blockquote>Then come the gallons of cascading blood -- keep in mind that Gygax wrote this before Stanley Kubrick's <I>The Shining</I> -- if the doors are cut by a sharp weapon. It's the blood of all victims who have died in the tomb, and once again, you'd never guess what it takes to stop it from drowning everyone: a <I>levitate</I> spell coagulates the blood (but turns it into a massive ochre jelly) a <I>purify water</I> turns it to gas (but unfortunately poisonous), <I>raise dead</I> or <I>resurrection</I> destroys it (this solution being one of the few without any lethal side effects), etc.<br /> <br />
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JjxNhiMBn_w/UvaOB8aQqBI/AAAAAAAAI_Y/27gpD5v4wFc/s1600/greenmouth.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JjxNhiMBn_w/UvaOB8aQqBI/AAAAAAAAI_Y/27gpD5v4wFc/s200/greenmouth.jpg" /></a>I don't believe for a moment that any group of players ever honestly beat this module (a) on first entry, knowing nothing about the tomb's design in advance, and/or (b) without the DM toning at least parts of it way down. It's just not possible. But that's the point. The tomb gave DMs a license to be punishing off the scales, and players the okay to be masochistically thrilled by impossible challenges. It brought nihilism to the game, and while I doubt I knew the word as a young teen, the concept was slowly dawning on me. In some ways <I>Tomb of Horrors</I> messed with my psyche like <I>The Exorcist</I> (I was exposed to both around the same time). It disturbed and upset me, but rooted me in a framework that took fantasy very seriously. Thanks to it I would become receptive to important ideas (like the long defeat in Tolkien) and the amoral heroism of tomb robbing. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3zcc3llIXWU/Uvde3tr0SOI/AAAAAAAAJEg/6WCN2R8qJsU/s1600/demilich1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3zcc3llIXWU/Uvde3tr0SOI/AAAAAAAAJEg/6WCN2R8qJsU/s200/demilich1.jpg" /></a>And even if it can't be called a "thinking person's module" without winking too broadly, the principle is there, and was soon applied to modules that gave players an actual chance; <I>Ghost Tower of Inverness</I> and <I>The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun</I> to name a couple. It also goes without saying that you can tone down the module, which some DMs did, though that rather defeats the purpose. The unforgiving nature of the tomb is its point. Grognards thrill to it the same way videogamers thrive on those high levels they can never win. Today's D&D crowd is another story; for them it's too cruel. But if it's cruel it also repays strategic planning -- and knowing when the hell to run. You could possibly stand a slim chance of beating this thing with enough retreats and follow-up expeditions.<br />
<br />
<I>Tomb of Horrors</I> torpedoed my sensibilities like no other gaming product, and I rose from the ash anew. It taught me there were no limits to punishment, and that nihilism has its place in fantasy. It changed my view of gaming, even my view of life. That's why it's my favorite module.<br />
<br />
Next up: <a href="http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2014/02/why-lost-city-is-my-favorite-module.html"><I>The Lost City</I></a>.Loren Rosson IIIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15002312216839280976noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14388695.post-13377699075466435362014-02-18T06:19:00.000-05:002014-02-19T06:22:44.443-05:00Favorite D&D Modules UnrankedWhen I ranked the 40 classic D&D modules, it got tough around the top. On most of my lists, two titles at most compete for the top slot. For instance, <I>The Lord of the Rings</I> is my favorite novel, but so is <I>Shogun</I>. <I>The Lord of the Rings</I> is also my favorite film(s), but honestly, so is <I>The Exorcist</I>.<br /><br />
In the case of D&D modules, however, there are not two but <I>six</I> that tie as #1 favorites. This is how I <a href="http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2013/02/classic-d-modules-ranked.html">officially ranked them</a>:<br />
<br />
1. <a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mBYNordv0lA/UvlNbbEm8XI/AAAAAAAAJGA/nI8kdP5bWdc/s1600/tomb.jpg">Tomb of Horrors</a><br />
2. <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9KKLPgAPrRw/UvlM9bfT9NI/AAAAAAAAJF4/OTLjDe49MbQ/s1600/b4lostcover.jpg">The Lost City</a><br />
3. <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nGIANG3nmUw/UvlNnYB33iI/AAAAAAAAJGI/dtQOGh2GQZE/s1600/Castle+Amber.jpg">Castle Amber</a><br />
4. <a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rU0wfOEqGpk/UOK_apc_fCI/AAAAAAAAEzk/72iZvIiUVyk/s1600/D3VaultoftheDrowcopy.jpg">Vault of the Drow</a><br />
5. <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-B6cIjVfswjE/UOMRpx7k9MI/AAAAAAAAE5k/rTYOfhvC3p4/s1600/inferno.jpg">Inferno</a><br />
6. <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-v6gbbif5-uo/UvVxLrMs5oI/AAAAAAAAI-Q/BLVFrSlLUkw/s1600/dark-tower1.jpg">Dark Tower</a><br />
<br />
I'm happy enough with that ranking. Forced to choose, I go with <I>Tomb of Horrors</I>, and the others descend accordingly. But truthfully I can make a case for any one of them at the top slot. And that's exactly what I'm going to do. Each day starting tomorrow I'm going to explain why <I>each</I> module is my <I>personal favorite</I> of all time. <br />
<br />
First up: <a href="http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2014/02/why-tomb-of-horrors-is-my-favorite.html"><I>Tomb of Horrors</I></a>.Loren Rosson IIIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15002312216839280976noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14388695.post-79431710379514308072014-02-16T02:00:00.000-05:002015-08-25T06:25:48.719-04:00The Chronicles of Narnia, RankedPost updated <a href="https://rossonl.wordpress.com/2014/02/16/the-chronicles-of-narnia-ranked/">here</a>.Loren Rosson IIIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15002312216839280976noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14388695.post-80435207955727304922014-02-02T16:23:00.000-05:002014-02-04T11:20:12.784-05:00Ten Movie Scenes That Really Scared MeHere's my top-10 countdown of movie scenes that scared the be-Jesus out of me -- that made my hair stand on end, my heart stop, my body sweat and shake. Most are from horror films, though not all. There's a plane crash and underground cave-in that terrify me as much as the foulest demons from hell. There's even a scene from a fantasy film.<br /><br />
You can watch them all at once, or individually by clicking on the links below the playlist.<br /><br />
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/videoseries?list=PL9Iyy1ddDqk9cWYHGA03c2MFEAgrDUeSJ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br /><br /><br /><br />
(10) <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUNCiKyi1HM"><B>Final Scene</B>. </a><I>The Grudge,</I> 2004. For a PG-13 film <I>The Grudge</I> is pulverizing. I sat in my theater seat literally cowering with fear. There are many scenes I could choose from, but by the final one I'd reached the point that if the damn movie didn't end, I'd become a gibbering lunatic.<br /><br />
(9) <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC_HzDpoUgI"><B>Plane Crash</B></a>. <I>Flight,</I> 2012. This futile attempt of a pilot to stop his plane from crashing paralyzed me. But then I have a massive fear of heights.<br /><br />
(8) <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7N6dqRcWgtk"><B>Gollumized Bilbo</B></a>. <I>The Fellowship of the Ring,</I> 2001. Hobbits may come as a surprise on a list like this, but Bilbo's sudden demonic transformation near gave me a heart attack when I first saw it. It comes out of nowhere (it's not from the book) and is still a terrifying moment after so many viewings. <br /><br />
(7) <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQseahtPVAA"><B>"Get out!"</B></a> <I>The Amityville Horror,</I> 1979. This is the scariest haunted house scene I'm aware of. <br /><br />
(6) <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGKDPNyiSqc"><B>Confession</B></a>. <I>The Exorcist III: Legion,</I> 1990. The true sequel to <I>The Exorcist</I> is underrated and has more genuinely frightening scenes than most horror films. This scene in the confessional booth gave me nightmares.<br /><br />
(5) <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKR5KdHPiSI"><B>"What cards am I holding?"</B></a> <I>The Evil Dead,</I> 1981. Horror films like <I>The Evil Dead</I> -- and scenes like this in particular -- aren't made anymore. I mean seriously, this is appallingly low budget, yet more terrifying than any demon movie I've seen since it was made.<br /><br />
(4) <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ay-20NVD78"><B>Cave in</B></a>. <I>The Descent,</I> 2006. I always knew I was claustrophobic, but this film brought home just how much. I get so terrified watching this scene that my palms sweat, my heart races, and I stop breathing.<br /><br />
(3) <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAGh_Fl4cMw"><B>Bob</B></a>. <I>Fire Walk With Me,</I> 1992. The scenes of "Bob" in Laura Palmer's bedroom add up to the most brutal psychological horror in cinematic history.<br /><br />
(2) <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMbI7DmLCNI"><B>"Come play with us, Danny."</B></a> <I>The Shining,</I> 1980. The Overlook's darling twins need no explanation. I cursed Kubrick for a long time for messing me up with this scene.<br /><br />
(1) <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUSaj4tU1qU"><B>"The sow is mine."</B></a> <I>The Exorcist,</I> 1973. What scene can I possibly choose from the grand-beast of horror films? The one in which the sow is claimed, marking the point of no return. Loren Rosson IIIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15002312216839280976noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14388695.post-10497113786886631832014-01-27T02:00:00.000-05:002014-01-28T12:45:33.806-05:00Favorite Songs By Year<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ROR_UctQS54/Uue7U1liHvI/AAAAAAAAI7Q/raiwsE2VsoU/s1600/andthen.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ROR_UctQS54/Uue7U1liHvI/AAAAAAAAI7Q/raiwsE2VsoU/s200/andthen.jpg" /></a>It would be impossible for me to rank my favorite songs of all time. Unlike books and <a href="http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2014/01/50-favorite-films.html">film</a>, my feelings for music are in constant flux. Today I like The Walkmen, and all their songs are my favorites; tomorrow that will be true of Peter Gabriel. But here's a more manageable task: coming up with a favorite song of the year, going back about 40 years. </br></br>
I could go back as far as 1975. Beyond that point lie periods of music not generally appealing to me. I was born in the late '60s, and came of age in the '80s -- a faddish decade for music. But if you knew where to look, there was good alternative, and of course the omnipresent voices of U2 and Peter Gabriel. The '90s I associate with Radiohead most of all, and for me the past decade was ruled by The Walkmen. In recent years I find myself leaning increasingly to obscure bands, and I suspect when this decade has had its say, my favorites will be songs virtually no one has heard. (Witness my entry for the year 2013.)</br></br>
Enjoy the list. </br></br>
75: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5jRewnxSBY">Welcome to the Machine</a>, Pink Floyd. Three bands were responsible for broadening my musical horizons in the awful decade of the '80s. Not surprisingly, they were bands who shined during the '70s: Genesis, Rush, and Pink Floyd. <I>Welcome to the Machine</I> was among the first songs that showed me the true potential of music.</br></br>
76: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJO8kcZdfQM">Dance on a Volcano</a>, Genesis. Many great bands sell out at some point, but none so appallingly as Genesis. Their '70s music remains some of the best progressive rock ever recorded; in the '80s they deteriorated into top-40 sewage , and by the '90s they were even in the realm of the elevator. "Dance on a Volcano" is genius.</br></br>
77: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UElV9m9Q5Vk">Heroes</a>, David Bowie. This was the "tunnel song" in the film adaptation of <I>Perks of Being a Wallflower</I>, replacing Fleetwood Mac's "Landslide" from the book. Which is interesting, because I almost chose a Fleetwood Mac song for this year ("The Chain"). But it has to be "Heroes".</br></br>
78: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqfYYrr-Zt4">Deep in the Motherlode</a>, Genesis. Like U2's "Drowning Man" (see the 1983 entry), this song faded into tragic obscurity, and was never performed live after the '70s. It's about a guy traveling west during the Nevada gold rush, and has an epic sweep seldom captured in five-minute songs.</br></br>
79: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9LBsmM6VFY">In the Flesh</a>, Pink Floyd. It's impossible to disassociate this song from the warped fascist rally portrayed in the film. There are other songs hailed by Floyd-fans as <I>The Wall's</I> best ("Another Brick in the Wall", "Mother", "Comfortably Numb"), but... "if I had my way, I'd have all of them shot!"</br></br>
80: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Tq-UsaRchI">Spirit of the Radio</a>, Rush. It's ironic that this was the first song of the '80s: Rush's album was released on Jan 1, 1980, and "Spirit of the Radio" is the first track. Ironic, because the song is more a looking back -- encapsulating everything good about the '70s -- rather than looking forward to the abysmal '80s. </br></br>
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WawaWXyBNs4/Uue7ZniMcGI/AAAAAAAAI7Y/xuXYIh-NXuQ/s1600/Heaven-Up-Here.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WawaWXyBNs4/Uue7ZniMcGI/AAAAAAAAI7Y/xuXYIh-NXuQ/s200/Heaven-Up-Here.jpg" /></a>81: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLIpAytZOHU">A Promise</a>, Echo and the Bunnymen. Before their mainstream success in the mid-'80s came cult classics like this one. Forget the dancing horses, this is when <I>Echo</I> was really good. </br></br>
82: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdxmSayxfPY">Wallflower</a>, Peter Gabriel. Most would claim "Rhythm of the Heat", "San Jacinto", or "Shock the Monkey" as the best song from <I>Security</I>, but as excellent as those are, they don't beat the underrated "Wallflower". It's about the torture of Latin American political prisoners, but as always with Peter Gabriel, completely transcends politics.</br></br>
83: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S3N_rRTfWo">Drowning Man</a>, U2. "New Year's Day" made them popular, and "Sunday Bloody Sunday" marked them as pacifist revolutionaries. But "Drowning Man" is the real gem from <I>War</I>. It's devoid of percussion, heavy on bass, and delivers the most haunting use of an electric violin I've ever heard. To this day, U2 haven't performed it live since the '83 tour, which makes no sense at all.</br></br>
84: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Bko3EJwus">Where Were You Hiding When the Storm Broke?</a>, The Alarm. These guys opened for some of U2's concerts, and in some ways are a Welsh version of U2. Hilariously, they were called The Toilets in their early punk years.</br></br>
85: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-tBQYGOSFg">She Sells Sanctuary</a>, The Cult. I lost count of all the remixes; the original version is still the best. The Cult's music was a bastardization of so many forms -- post-punk goth, heavy metal, Zeppelinesque guitar -- and it worked wonders.</br></br>
86: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhAyafhooiE">There is a Light That Never Goes Out</a>, The Smiths. I agree with those who claim that The Smiths were the most important indie band of the '80s. Songs like "Panic", "Ask", and "Shoplifters of the World Unite" showed them doing things completely on their own terms, and this song is their very best. Who would guess that lyrics like this could sound so graceful: "And if a ten-ton truck/ killed the both of us/ to die by your side/ it's such a heavenly way to die." </br></br>
87: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4u2MyVlCa4">Never Let Me Down Again</a>, Depeche Mode. For whatever insane reason, this song didn't catch on much in America (the Germans loved it). During my freshman year at college, someone on my dorm floor played Depeche Mode relentlessly. I think I was the only one who didn't mind, and I became obsessed with "Never Let Me Down Again".</br></br>
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-z4JsYJ1Lp8Q/Uue7gnH5jyI/AAAAAAAAI7g/_Yl4D5jGxQE/s1600/children.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-z4JsYJ1Lp8Q/Uue7gnH5jyI/AAAAAAAAI7g/_Yl4D5jGxQE/s200/children.jpg" /></a>88: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY9sQ71LBnw">Beyond the Pale</a>, The Mission UK. Thus began my love affair with gothic rock. The lead singer's voice is goth legacy.</br></br>
89: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDEhCm0pxCo">Worlock</a>, Skinny Puppy. They're an acquired taste, but I've found that even the most shallow top-40 listener will confess to liking "Worlock", which takes brutal synths and rasping vocals and slowly morphs them into a lush melody. This is Skinny Puppy's masterpiece.</br></br>
90: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9mtt-aMdmM">Put the Message in the Box</a>, World Party. In my final year as an undergrad, I was (re-)expanding my horizons beyond gloomy, depressing-sounding goth music, and was delighted to discover the obscure band known as World Party. This song you can listen to over and over again. </br></br>
91: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk-tdsonJlk">Ultraviolet</a>, U2. The stated intent of <I>Achtung Baby</I>, as Bono tells it, was to "burn down <I>The Joshua Tree</I>" and do something entirely new. The result was a masterpiece. Everyone loves "The Fly", "Mysterious Ways", and "One" -- but "Ultraviolet" is my personal favorite.</br></br>
92: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0tCYctnOpk">Secret World</a>, Peter Gabriel. <I>Us</I> was released during my Peace Corps stint, and a friend mailed me the audio-cassette which I listened to on my cheap battery-powered Walkman (it's hard remembering the days before ipods). Lesotho was very much my own secret world, and this song resonated on many levels. It's one of three Peter Gabriel tracks to make this list, and probably my very favorite.</br></br>
93: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1acEVmnVhI">Disarm</a>, The Smashing Pumpkins. It's amazing how controversial this song was when released, and the hidden messages it was thought to contain. In any case, it's the Smashing Pumpkins' best song, and the video (which I linked to) is fantastic.</br></br>
94: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz-DJr1Qs54">Ode to My Family</a>, The Cranberries. This could well be my favorite song of all time. I never tire of it, no matter how many times played, and no matter when. I don't think there's another song I can say that about. "Ode to My Family" is pretty much the purest song I know.</br></br>
95: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEdpazLzYps">No More I Love You's</a>, Annie Lennox. A cover of the Lover Speaks song from 1986, and vastly superior to that original. Annie Lennox is a gift from the gods.</br></br>
96: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xicsALcqoN8">Don't Let It Bring You Down</a>, Annie Lennox. I'm not sure what happened in 1996, but it's the one year I can't come up with a suitably favorite song, so I'm drawing on Lennox's <I>Medusa</I> album again, especially since some of its singles were released in '96 anyway. This is a cover of Neil Young's cherished classic from 1970, and beautifully done.</br></br>
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gNPoUdq0GNQ/Uue7y-TULSI/AAAAAAAAI7o/CHiugBkKZKY/s1600/ok-computer.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gNPoUdq0GNQ/Uue7y-TULSI/AAAAAAAAI7o/CHiugBkKZKY/s200/ok-computer.jpg" /></a>97: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peLiLUIpNvM">No Surprises</a>, Radiohead. This band was a game-changer in the '90s. I think of them as I think of Pink Floyd in the '70s, U2 in the '80s, and The Walkmen in the '00s, each effortlessly dominating a decade with true uniqueness. (Each has a song that is idolized: "Another Brick in the Wall", "Where the Streets Have No Name", "Creep", and "The Rat".) In the case of Radiohead, their music seemed to come out of a new dimension. "No Surprises" is a special one for me.</br></br>
98: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41YWqUw5CJM">Every You Every Me</a>, Placebo. Thus began my love affair with Placebo. I couldn't decide between this song and "Pure Morning", so I flipped a coin. </br></br>
99: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6fTX5Z-Eb0">Take a Picture</a>, Filter. There's an embarrassing story to this one, involving me dancing, trying to get cute, and sending both me and my partner sprawling on our asses. Even so, it remained my favorite of '99. </br></br>
00: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7RFJQcHt88">Kite</a>, U2. After two miserable teen-pleasing albums (<I>Zooropa</I> and <I>Pop</I>), I thought U2 was dried up. It was a beautiful day indeed when I finally got around to buying <I>All That You Can't Leave Behind</I> -- fully expecting the worst, and getting gobsmacked with music as good as their early stuff. "Kite" is the crown jewel.</br></br>
01: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jmF_o6BlOo">The Breaking of the Fellowship</a>, Howard Shore. <I>The Lord of the Rings</I> films were my universe in the first years of the new millennium, and Howard Shore's symphony orchestra was so much of that cinematic experience. I think I've listened to this particular track as often as Beethoven's Ninth Symphony and Bach's Air in C. In the movie it plays over Frodo making the painful decision to abandon the fellowship, Sam chasing after him in the boat, and the final frame as they gaze out over Mordor.</br></br>
02: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts78Gg6RRHc">Growing Up</a>, Peter Gabriel. As much as Peter Gabriel evolves, his music is always timeless. He's the Stanley Kubrick of music making. For that matter, he's the Kubrick of music videos, and this video is as good as the song.</br></br>
03: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrNFjgCVeBo">The Grey Havens</a>, Howard Shore. Ditto for what I said about "The Breaking of the Fellowship". It seems almost a crime to play this piece without watching the sacred scene, so I use the actual movie clip.</br></br>
04: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fg8U3YG9wCA">The Rat</a>, The Walkmen. I'll grant this song is over-worshiped, but it is my favorite of '04, and it's easy to understand why the band chooses to end all their concerts with it.</br></br>
05: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPa89K_viiM">All These Things That I've Done</a>, The Killers. Considered by many music critics to be one of the greatest rock songs of all time, and for good reason. It is. </br></br>
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-h6aGfmDpzbM/Uue8CbjlD3I/AAAAAAAAI74/oTw7QWlu85U/s1600/restless_ghosts_coverrrr.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-h6aGfmDpzbM/Uue8CbjlD3I/AAAAAAAAI74/oTw7QWlu85U/s200/restless_ghosts_coverrrr.jpg" /></a>06: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtLeExoZcWI">Hands Across the Ocean</a> (Palmer Version), The Mission UK. The original 1990 version is too radio-friendly. This remake is almost an entirely different song, much better, and an absolute earworm.</br></br>
07: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4psFhG7uS3E">Your Arms Around Me</a>, Jens Lekman. It's impossible for me to hear this song without seeing Ellen Page do underwater-strip tricks, so that's the video-clip I use, from the movie <I>Whip It</I>. Lekman is a Swedish indie singer of compulsive, addicting ballads.</br></br>
08: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2GzL7q6Wj0">In the New Year</a>, The Walkmen. Songs like this come once in a blue moon. It's the Walkmen's best song to date, and taps the same plane of power attained by Rush's "Spirit of the Radio".</br></br>
09: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZnIDwnWJtA">Skeletons: Original</a> & <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syNmrAcXEys">Acoustic</a>, The Yeah Yeah Yeahs. The original song is ethereally transcendent; the acoustic version pure as it is simple. It's impossible to choose between the two, and I defy you to try. </br></br>
10: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TqK-8zbOS8">Mountain Lions</a>, Old Abram Brown. I used to work with the lead singer at my library, and that's how I learned about his indie rock band. Their <I>Restless Ghosts</I> album deserves way more attention; I've played it repetitively. "Mountain Lions" is my song of choice. </br></br>
11: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1G4isv_Fylg">Paradise</a>, Coldplay. These guys get a lot of flak, and frankly they deserve it. Songs like "Yellow" make my piles fester. But "Paradise" is the rare crowd-pleaser that's honest-to-God perfect.</br></br>
12: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPJQQeeYDYI">Battle Born</a>, The Killers. For me, this one ties with "Miss Atomic Bomb", and since everyone adores the latter, I'm going with the former. It's the expansive final track on an album with blazing ambition, and succeeds smashingly.</br></br>
13: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyeW-ltJx5E">Beatrice</a>, Yield & <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiZke4cq3b0">Into the West</a>, Tan Vampires. I choose two favorite songs from 2013, for two reasons. First so I can get 40 songs instead of 39 on this list. Second because they're obscure and thus all the more reason to promote them. The guitarist who calls himself Yield is actually biblical scholar <a href="http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2012/03/context-group-essentials.html">Zeba Crook</a> (who would have thought?), and Tan Vampires have been mucking about with Old Abram Brown (see the 2010 entry) with whom they share certain commonalities. Great songs both.Loren Rosson IIIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15002312216839280976noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14388695.post-71718951493665201382014-01-20T01:30:00.000-05:002014-01-22T14:04:57.749-05:00Abraham: "The Father of Everyone"People mean well when they say it, but is it true? Is there any scriptural basis for Abraham as a prototype for all faiths at once?<br /><br />
Unfortunately no. <br /><br />
In Judaism, Abraham is an ancestor by blood. In Christianity he is an ancestor by faith. In Islam he is an intolerant role model. The first is ethnically supremacist, the second is spiritually supremacist, and the third is militantly supremacist. None leaves much room for religious pluralism.<br /><br />
My approach to the question of Abraham is similar to that of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Inheriting-Abraham-Patriarch-Judaism-Christianity/dp/0691155690/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1390227460&sr=8-1&keywords=inheriting+abraham">Jon Levenson</a>, and not someone like <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Abraham-Journey-Heart-Three-Faiths/dp/0060838663/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1390227664&sr=1-3&keywords=bruce+feiler">Bruce Feiler</a>. We do ourselves a disservice when we are afraid to be honest about religious traditions. By all means turn Abraham into a multiculturalist if you want to. But be upfront about what you're doing, and don't claim a scriptural precedent for it.<br /><br />
<B>Judaism</B><br /><br />
The Hebrew Bible opposes the idea that Abraham is the ancestor of more than one people on an equal basis. His line of inheritance passes to one son and one grandson (Isaac and Jacob), but not the others. He is the ancestor of this line by blood, the Jewish forefather by natural descent (Isa 51:2). The Jewish people are his seed (Ps 105:6, Isa 41:8). He was circumcised and even kept the Torah, though it hadn't been given yet (Sir 44:19-20). He's the father of many nations (Gen 17:5), but proselyte conversion -- getting circumcised and taking on the full Torah -- is the only way for pagans to be saved on an equal basis; becoming Jewish is the way Gentiles become children of Abraham.<br /><br />
Otherwise they are just Noah's children. They can still be saved, and in fact most Jewish expectations entertain pagan salvation on a second-class basis. Many texts speak of Israel as a light to the nations, and her salvation going forth to the ends of the earth (Isa 49:6, 51:4; Mic 4:1); Gentiles would be added to Israel and thus saved (Isa 56:6-8; Zech 2:11, 8:20-23; Isa 45:22; Tob 14:6f; I En 90:30-33). Other texts speak of the Gentiles being subjugated under Jewish imperialism (Isa 49:23; Mic 7:17; I En 90:30; 1QM 12:13), and still others hope that Gentiles will be destroyed and their cities occupied by Israel (Isa 54:3; Ben Sira 36:7,9; I En 91:9; Bar 4:25,31,35; 1QM 12:10). <br /><br />
There is diversity, but it's generally clear. The Jews -- the physical descendents of Abraham -- stand at the center of human history, and their blessings radiate outward to pagans who acknowledge the significance of God's covenant with Israel. Gentiles can be saved as Gentiles, if they turn from idolatry to the worship of Israel's God, and follow minimal Torah standards required of righteous Gentiles. If they fully convert (get circumised and take on the whole Torah), then they become Jews and are saved as children of Abraham. If they chose the former option, they are saved as second-class members of the covenant community.<br /><br />
<B>Christianity</B><br /><br />
It's a common belief that the Abraham of Christianity breaks down racial barriers, and to some extent that's true. According to the apostle Paul, Abraham was justified by his faith alone, and such faith is the common ground uniting Jews and Gentiles on an equal basis. But two things need to be kept in mind.<br /><br />
(1) Paul demolished Jewish privilege, but he introduced a new form of supremacism: obviously, the exclusion of non-Christians. If salvation is by faith in Christ, how meaningful is it, really, to speak of such faith "breaking down barriers"? In fact, Paul's language of destruction for the unsaved (throughout all his letters) is more grim and uncompromising than most of the Jewish texts mentioned above, which at least entertain hope for pagan salvation, even if as "Noahide" second-class citizens.<br /><br />
(2) Paul not only introduced a new form of supremacism, but in one letter he went even further by replacing Jewish privilege with an implied Gentile privilege. In Galatians he disinherits the Jewish people by claiming they were no longer even Abraham's seed. In Romans he had the sense to drop this argument.<br /><br />
Let's see how Paul radically reinterprets the figure of Abraham in the two letters (for more detail on what follows, see <a href="http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2014/01/paul-and-law-pick-list.html">Philip Esler's books</a>).<br /><br />
<I>Galatians</I><br /><br />
In Galatians, Abraham is primarily the ancestor of Gentiles (Gal 3:6-9,14). His seed refers to Christ (Gal 3:16), and Gentiles are then included in this seed via Christ, through spiritual adoption as sons of God (Gal 3:26-29). Paul's argument is rather ridiculous, but he seems to think he has scored a zinger. He fixes on the fact that Abraham's seed is singular throughout Genesis, insisting with relish that "scripture does not say 'seeds" but 'seed'" (Gal 3:16), which he then (re-)interprets as Christ instead of the Jewish people. As if that weren't offensive enough, he then includes uncircumcised Gentiles in Abraham's seed at the expense of law-abiding Jews.<br /><br />
Abraham's seed is obviously singular in Genesis, but it's also obviously a collective noun (Gen 12:7,13:15,16; 15:5,13,18; 17:7,8,9,10,12,19; 22:17,18; 24:7). The seed refers to the Jewish people who keep circumcision and the Torah yet to be handed down by Moses (Gen 17:9-14). By making the seed refer to Christ, Paul disinherits the Jewish people. The promise bypasses them altogether, referring directly to the messiah, and then brings law-free Christians (who are mostly Gentiles) into the seed from there.<br /><br />
As for what Paul says about faith-righteousness, it's admittedly clever. He exploits a chronological technicality: Abraham had faith before he was circumcised (and before the law was given), and since that faith made him righteous, what's good enough for Abraham is good enough for pagans. Rival missionaries in Galatia would have made the obvious retort: you can't cite Gen 15:6 while ignoring Gen 17:9-14. Abraham's faith-righteousness in Gen 15 was credited to him on account of his covenant loyalty in Gen 17, without which the former would <I>not</I> have been credited to him. Paul simply denies the second part.<br /><br />
It's one thing to put Gentiles on equal footing by exploiting a chronological technicality. And it's certainly nice to insist that Gentiles don't need to become Jews in order to be saved on an equal basis. But it's quite another to go beyond this with the "seed" argument implying that Jews have been disenfranchised and Gentiles have the leading edge.<br /><br />
<I>Romans</I><br /><br />
In Romans, Paul tries to sanitize and improve his argument. Abraham is now the impartial ancestor of the Jewish and Gentile peoples (Rom 4:1-17). His seed does <I>not</I> refer to Christ anymore, but to both ethnic groups (Rom 4:16-17), against the polarizing implication of Galatians that Jews have been disinherited. In fact, Abraham became circumcised and sealed his faith-righteousness precisely in order to become the ancestor of Jews as much as Gentiles (4:11-12). <br /><br />
Paul no longer wants to abolish ethnic boundaries, as he did in Galatians. He does not repeat the offensive baptismal formula that "in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek" (Gal 3:27-28). Now he uses baptism (Rom 6:1-15) to <I>reinforce</I> ethnic differences: Gentiles escape the power of sin (Rom 6:16-23) in a different way than Jews (Rom 7:1-25). Gentiles die to ungodliness -- to "impurity and lawlessness" (Rom 6:19) -- and then become slaves of God (Rom 6:22), while Jews die to the law (Rom 7:4). But even though the law has no saving value, Jews are encouraged to practice it (Rom 14:5-6), and Gentiles are even commanded to obey at least parts of it while in Jewish company (Rom 14:15,21), so as not to give offense.<br /><br />
It's important not to lose sight here. As "Jewish-friendly" as the Romans version is, Paul's view of Abraham is still radical and supremacist. Christians descend from Abraham, but not from Isaac and Jacob -- Jewish lineage is still skipped over. It's a spiritual ancestry. The promises made to Abraham benefit Christians alone, and in Paul's day there were less and less Jews becoming Christians. Paul hoped in vain that this was a temporary state of affairs, that the biological children of Abraham had been "cut off" only to make room for Gentiles, and would be "regrafted" at the apocalypse (Rom 11). But of course the apocalypse didn't come, and in twenty years Judaism split forever with Christianity.<br /><br />
If Paul could finally insist on a measure of respect for the Torah and Jewish heritage in Romans, it was lip-service, since the law was ultimately useless and Jewish election a farce. Abraham was an ancestor by faith -- Christian faith -- and a clear prototype of spiritual supremacism.<br /><br />
<B>Islam</B><br /><br />
In Islam, Abraham isn't an ancestor. He is one of many prophets who points towards Muhammad -- a true Muslim, in other words, like Moses and Jesus (Qur'an 3:67). According to the Qur'an, the original forms of Judaism and Christianity were Islam. Abraham, Moses, and Jesus all taught Islam and it was their followers who later hijacked Islam and created what we know as Judaism and Christianity. As such, the Jewish and Christian preoccupations with ancestry and election distort the true Muslim teachings. Abraham is a role model, not a father figure.<br /><br />
Qur'an 60:4 specifies this role model in relation to people of other religions. Abraham expressed animosity and hatred for people including his father, who don't worship Allah. His hatred is precisely what makes him a good role model. The same passage (Qur'an 60:4) also makes clear that Abraham told his father he would pray mercy for him, and that this prayer of mercy (believe it or not) is what makes him a bad role model. In other words, Muslim believers should imitate Abraham when he says -- to even his closest relative -- that he hates someone and will hate him forever because he is not a Muslim. But believers should <I>not</I> imitate Abraham when he says that he will pray for a non-Muslim.<br /><br />
So in the Qur'an, Abraham is an exemplar of intolerance and hatred for non-Muslims. <br /><br />
Jon Levenson even suggests that the <I>jihad</I> could be the spiritual successor to Abraham's binding of Isaac. Where Jews have the substitutes of circumcision and the passover lamb, and Christians the eucharist, Islam has never accepted vicarious sacrifice. It demands personal sacrifice only, and the <I>jihad</I> is one such way to put the role demanded by Qur'an 60:4 into practice.<br /><br />
<B>Conclusion</B><br /><br />
As a liberal Unitarian I sympathize with the intentions behind interfaith dialogue -- intentions, basically, to turn Abraham into a prototype of Unitarianism! We need to respect each other, and to respect each others' creeds. But respect entails honesty, not distortion; reading in context, not cherry-picking; and being willing to disagree with scriptures that are not enlightened, instead of claiming that such scriptures are actually enlightened but woefully misunderstood.<br /><br />
If we have problems with our sacred cows, we can do as Paul did, and reinterpret as we please. We can turn Abraham into a prototype that serves our needs. We can make him a Unitarian and respecter of all faiths. But unlike Paul, we should acknowledge what we're doing: reinterpreting a problem, not agreeing with something which has been there all along but tragically misread. It's often claimed that the Qur'an is a book promoting peace, and that those who say otherwise, or act on it otherwise, misunderstand the Qur'an. In fact they understand it very well.<br /><br />
Someone like <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJtzM5XIRTY">Robert Spencer</a> also understands the Qur'an, and rightly points out its supremacism. But he then misleadingly claims that "in the understanding of both Jews and Christians, Abraham is a great father figure who embraces a huge variety of people". As we've seen, Abraham excludes and embraces in all three religions. The exclusive factor is particularly aggressive in Islam, but it's very strong in Christianity too. No one was a pluralist in antiquity. Whether ethnically, spiritually, or militantly, the monotheist religions enshrine a supremacist Abraham in their scriptures.Loren Rosson IIIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15002312216839280976noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14388695.post-4623732044351626662014-01-17T02:00:00.000-05:002014-01-18T08:35:34.091-05:00"Paul and the Law" Pick ListThree years ago I posted a <a href="http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2010/11/historical-jesus-pick-list.html">Historical Jesus Pick List</a>, which I've meaning to follow up with a list for "Paul and the law". These are my rankings of Galatians and Romans treatments. As before, I choose scholars not to endorse everything they say (though again my #1 choice comes close), but because they make contributions I personally think are important. Also as before, a certain N.T. Wright fails to make the cut, though ironically it's the recent release of his <I>Paul and the Faithfulness of God</I> which prompted me to post a list of far better treatments.<br /><br />
The first three are my crown jewels, (1) Esler for the imperative frameworks of honor-shame and social identity, (2) Sanders for obvious reasons, (3) Nanos for a persuasive alternative to Esler. The next three also make a strong tier, (4) Watson by decimating both the old and new perspectives, (5) Tobin by combing through all of Paul's contradictions and tensions, and (6) Given by calling Paul on his lies and deceptions. I couldn't leave off (7) Wrede, and the final three have important insights while missing the mark on whole.<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GsA6uqq74ig/Us86ub1U1tI/AAAAAAAAIsI/TuEcd_MQMeI/s1600/conflict+and+identity+in+romans.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GsA6uqq74ig/Us86ub1U1tI/AAAAAAAAIsI/TuEcd_MQMeI/s200/conflict+and+identity+in+romans.jpg" /></a></div>1. Philip Esler. <i>Galatians</i> (1998); <I>Conflict and Identity in Romans</I> (2003). Esler's books provide everything I look for. They ground Paul in the honor-shame framework of the Mediterranean. They account for dramatic shifts in thought between the two letters. They explain why Galatians is sectarian favoring Gentiles, and why Romans bends over backwards to favor both ethnic groups. They tease out murky backgrounds, suggesting that Antioch was about treachery instead of mere hypocrisy, and that Rome was about a church situation on top of Paul's personal conflict with the pillars of Jerusalem. They reject the old Lutheran perspective, while being unafraid to acknowledge Paul's offensive similarities with Luther. For the law was obsolete, and the best it promised but never delivered was now available by a different route (the spirit). Between the times of Abraham and Christ was a long period of gloom and doom; righteousness was anticipated by figures like David and Moses, but no one had the righteousness of Abraham, who was an exception to the rule in a faithless era. <I>Esler's work is the best treatment of Galatians and Romans to date.</I><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ytV-LdQ4szQ/Us8L2cd0X-I/AAAAAAAAIok/69l675UyEdw/s1600/ppj.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ytV-LdQ4szQ/Us8L2cd0X-I/AAAAAAAAIok/69l675UyEdw/s200/ppj.jpg" /></a></div>2. E.P. Sanders. <i>Paul and Palestinian Judaism</i> (1977); <i>Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People</i> (1983). He's the Schweitzer of the quest for the historical Paul. He smashed Protestant interpretations to smithereens. He ushered in a new era of study, which in turn prompted break aways, spin-offs, and rebellions. No matter what fads creep in, sensible critics return to his basic premise: that Paul broke with Judaism by shooting down the law and Israel's special place in the divine cosmos. Not because he found these inherently wanting; not because they implied an inferior way of religion; and certainly not because he couldn't keep the law himself. But because Christ's bizarre victory over evil made everything else trivial that nothing was sacred anymore. As a result, Paul began digging himself into holes explaining why the sacred used to be -- and then desperately out of these holes, the steepest slopes being those of Rom 7 and 11. <i>Sanders work remains the place to start, and the place you return to in varying degrees, for a solid understanding of Paul.</i><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KbGRZYzwodc/UtXWfD5Cx3I/AAAAAAAAI2E/8BPHxf6mIqI/s1600/nanos.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KbGRZYzwodc/UtXWfD5Cx3I/AAAAAAAAI2E/8BPHxf6mIqI/s200/nanos.jpg" /></a></div>3. Mark Nanos. <i>The Irony of Galatians</i> (2002); <i>The Mystery of Romans</i> (1996). The opposite of Esler can be just as persuasive. There was a time I found myself nearly convinced by Nanos' work. Unlike other "Jewish-friendly" reconstructions (Gaston, Gager), these books never go off the rails or abuse your trust. Parts of them I still agree with, especially the key argument of the Romans book, which clarifies the identity of the weak in Rom 14-15. These Jews are weak for the same reason Abraham would have been weak in Rom 4:18-25, had he failed to trust in God's ability to create life out of death in a stupendous context. In other words, the Roman Jews were weak for being non-Christian (failing to confess the resurrection), not for being Jewish (since they should be fully confident in their beliefs about diet and holy days). As far as the Galatians book goes, it's always going to be a tall order to milk a Jewish-friendly apostle out of this letter, but Nanos' theory of ironic rebuke never seems forced or strained, whether or not you can accept it. <I>Nanos makes the strongest and most persuasive case for a Jewish-friendly Paul who remained part of the synagogue.</I><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SEeN-Aa08-U/UtXXClfFyvI/AAAAAAAAI2M/AbD-aHWZzK8/s1600/watson.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SEeN-Aa08-U/UtXXClfFyvI/AAAAAAAAI2M/AbD-aHWZzK8/s200/watson.jpg" /></a></div>4. Francis Watson. <i>Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles: Beyond the New Perspective</i> (2007). This revised critique of the Lutheran perspective is just as smoldering as it was in the '80s, and its thesis remains intact. We get the same sectarian Paul who divorced himself from the synagogue and said the law was obsolete. But Watson calls us to move "beyond the new perspective" too -- which is effectively a plea to move backwards and forwards at the same time. Backwards to Sanders' view of Paul (which he has always approved) but forwards beyond Sanders' view of Judaism (which he now only half-approves as a corrective to Lutheran caricatures). Backwards also, in acknowledging that Sanders basically had it right before scholars like Dunn and Wright tried improving on Sanders in the wrong way -- over-emphasizing Gentile rights at the expense of Paul's radical breed of exclusive Christology. Watson's only major liability is his sectarian model, which works fine for Galatians but not for Romans, where Paul is trying to reinforce at least some ethnic distinctions in the body of Christ. <I>Watson skewers the old and new perspectives without mercy, and leaves us a more alien Paul to ponder.</I><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-yO-pjFzPkhE/UtXY1JfN3zI/AAAAAAAAI2U/DwNlLPPIWgM/s1600/tobin.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-yO-pjFzPkhE/UtXY1JfN3zI/AAAAAAAAI2U/DwNlLPPIWgM/s200/tobin.jpg" /></a></div>5. Thomas Tobin. <i>Paul's Rhetoric in its Contexts</i> (2005). For a long time, this was the book I was waiting for: an exhaustive catalog of Paul's revisions in Romans, which correct his claims made in Galatians and also the Corinthian letters. Abraham is no longer the ancestor of primarily Gentiles, but rather Jews and Gentiles in equal measure. Paul's freedom language is no longer from the law, but from the power of sin. The law is no longer active in confining people under sin, but passive in relation to it (the power sin is the real culprit). And much more. Esler accounted for some of these shifts in terms of audience; Sanders thought Paul was having a genuine change of heart as he struggled with his Jewish heritage; and Given claimed that Paul was just covering up his offensive views with deceptive polish. I think there are elements of truth to all of these, but <I>Tobin offers perhaps the most obvious reason of all: Paul evolved to clean up his image. His nasty reputation was killing him.</I><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AF5S3N95aM4/UtXagnVndTI/AAAAAAAAI2c/8UT7xNceJtE/s1600/true.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AF5S3N95aM4/UtXagnVndTI/AAAAAAAAI2c/8UT7xNceJtE/s200/true.jpg" /></a></div>6. Mark Given. <i>Paul's True Rhetoric: Ambiguity, Cunning, and Deception in Greece and Rome</i> (2001). This is the kind of book we need to see more of, that treats Paul like a real person instead of a theological architect, who lied to make his offensive views digestible. It suggests that in Romans Paul's views on the law and Israel hadn't softened at all. He was shrewd and sophistic, saying things he really didn't mean, patronizing the Jewish people with platitudes hither and yon. When he credits them with having "adoption", "the covenant/law", "worship", "the promises", and "the patriarchs" (Rom 9:4-5), that's empty credit, because we know what he really thinks: that real adoption comes from being liberated from the law and being led by the spirit, that there are two covenants, an old and a new, the former of which has been superseded by the latter, and that real worship takes place "in Christ" (the temple of one's body) rather than the Jerusalem temple; etc. A book like this forces interesting questions about the nature of one's "gospel truth", and given how often <a href="http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2005/09/lying-and-deception-in-homo-sapiens.html">everyone lies</a>, it's a treatment that needs more attention. <I>Given knows (and shows) too well what Paul really thought under his greasy arguments about Israel and the law.</I><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uSICQcjbHUc/UtmYNTNN3iI/AAAAAAAAI3Q/K8LRea0EIMc/s1600/Wrede.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uSICQcjbHUc/UtmYNTNN3iI/AAAAAAAAI3Q/K8LRea0EIMc/s200/Wrede.JPG" /></a></div>7. William Wrede. <i>Paul</i> (1904). This short classic does Paul more justice, and with less tools, than many of today's sophisticated treatments. Like Schweitzer, Wrede was a genius and his summary on redemption alone was ahead of its time: liberation for Paul was not deliverance from the torment experienced by guilty souls, but rather a complete change in the nature and conditions of people's existence. Paul spoke in terms of external powers, forces, and dominions, not internal states of being. Redemption went beyond forgiveness of sins; it involved a dramatic switch of allegiances, a bondage, slavery, to new powers. As for Paul's Gentile mission, it had to be free of Jewish ethnic customs and broadcast the superiority of Christianity in all ways, and "the doctrine of justification was nothing more than the weapon with which these purposes were to be won". <I>Wrede is still right after all these years: "righteousness" was not central to Paul's thinking.</I><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LWJxu_7kVb4/UtXandMZ4HI/AAAAAAAAI2k/VrngsK_LNCg/s1600/dog.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LWJxu_7kVb4/UtXandMZ4HI/AAAAAAAAI2k/VrngsK_LNCg/s200/dog.jpg" /></a></div>8. Douglas Campbell. <i>The Deliverance of God</i> (2009). This reminds me of a <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Primer-Modern-Analysis-Undergraduate-Mathematics/dp/0387907971">math textbook</a> I used in an Advanced Calculus class. It was all over the map, its proofs unwieldy, and it even bungled some theory. None of us could understand why the professor chose the damn thing, but he explained that its failures were its strengths: it forced students to come to terms with the math concepts through the author's illuminating deficiencies. That's a perfect description of Campbell's tome. It makes us wrestle with two competing schemes of salvation in Paul's thought -- justification and transformation -- and tease out their full implications. But Campbell jumps the shark in reshaping the former into the latter. That kills the patient. Justification theory is certainly present in Paul (Rom 2-4), even if only as a weapon to claim ground in a Jewish-pagan context. It's subordinate to transformation theory (Rom 5-8), granted, but it's not a mirage. The even greater value to this book is its correctives to the new perspective, especially in the way it rehabilitates legalism in the Jewish framework when understood properly. <I>Campbell's compulsive fascinating project assesses the old and new perspectives against a huge canvass of justification and transformation.</I><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zlML1nGlFKE/UtXbdoDSwjI/AAAAAAAAI2s/RdqSHT8JTkk/s1600/dunn.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zlML1nGlFKE/UtXbdoDSwjI/AAAAAAAAI2s/RdqSHT8JTkk/s200/dunn.jpg" /></a></div>9. James Dunn. <I>Romans</I> (1988). I throw this bone to the hyper-New Perspective. It argues that Paul affirmed Judaism more than he opposed it. He affirmed covenant faithfulness and claimed the law should be fulfilled. He only opposed the way the covenant confined the scope of salvation to the Jewish people. Paul didn't oppose the law, only the works of the law, since ethnic observances (like circumcision, food laws, sabbath) confined the grace of God to the chosen people -- they were covenant badges signaling Israel's favored status. Faith-righteousness did away with these badges and opened salvation to Gentiles on an equal basis. Like Wright, Dunn has a perfectly valid point about about the meaning of "works", and this interpretation works well enough in a context like Rom 2-4. But not in Rom 5-8, where Paul goes on to contrast faith with the law on whole. Paul says he destroyed the law in its entirety, and Jewish "works" are nowhere in view in Rom 5-8. But <I>where works are in view, Dunn has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that Paul was speaking of ethnic observances characterizing one as Jewish, and not good deeds in general.</I><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dJWmty1xIV4/UtaBntm3SWI/AAAAAAAAI3E/hLIknwx8BNQ/s1600/martyn.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dJWmty1xIV4/UtaBntm3SWI/AAAAAAAAI3E/hLIknwx8BNQ/s200/martyn.jpg" /></a></div>10. J. Louis Martyn. <i>Galatians</i> (2004). Here's another commentary with problems but massive strengths to make up for them. It assesses Paul's most affronting letter in terms of a dramatic apocalyptic divide between two ages. Martyn sees Christ and the Spirit as invasive entities that wipe out ritualism, sacramentalism, pseudo-possession and false empowerment -- indeed nothing less than the whole of "religion" itself. If the case is overstated, it perhaps needs to be in order to appreciate how dark Paul thought the age of Moses and the law really was. (Aside from Martyn, Esler is a rare scholar to clearly grasp this point.) It doesn't make for a pleasant view of Paul, and I think that's why so many resist it. Certainly those advocating a Jewish-friendly Paul will never accept it; nor will those like Tom Wright who want to see Paul in covenant-climaxing terms within the framework of their own Christian supersessionism. The unpleasant fact is that Paul was a hard-core supersessionist -- far more so than most are willing to give him credit (or blame) for. <I>Marytn underscores the black-and-white contrast of ages in Paul's thought.</I>Loren Rosson IIIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15002312216839280976noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14388695.post-8005460950694481602014-01-12T12:32:00.000-05:002014-01-12T14:03:04.779-05:00What I'm Reading: The Seven Altars of Dusarra<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7qlBQFNDPfA/UtLSHNHiSeI/AAAAAAAAIxg/bC2VxWZcq2g/s1600/7+Altars+of+Dusarra.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7qlBQFNDPfA/UtLSHNHiSeI/AAAAAAAAIxg/bC2VxWZcq2g/s320/7+Altars+of+Dusarra.jpg" /></a></div>One of my favorite books growing up was a fantasy novel called <I>The Seven Altars of Dusarra</I>, by Lawrence Watt-Evans. It's been out of print for a long time, and for whatever insane reason I discarded it at some point. But it's available in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Seven-Altars-Dusarra-Lords-Dus-ebook/dp/B004DNWRXS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1389545343&sr=8-1&keywords=the+seven+altars+of+dusarra">ebook</a>, which I began reading last night. <br /><br />
It's a sword-and-sorcery novel in the vein of the early pulps, and the second in a quartet called <I>The Lords of Dus</I>: <I>The Lure of the Basilisk</I> is the first (which I read last and thought of as a light prequel), <I>The Sword of Bheleu</I> the third, and <I>The Book of Silence</I> the fourth. I remember the third and fourth volumes being really good too, but none fired my imagination like the second. <br /><br />
The story's hero is Garth the Overman, morally ambiguous like all the great pulp-fantasy heroes. His personality reminds of Conan; his world is like that of Fafhrd and Grey Mouser (Lankhmar/Newhon); the sword he steals from one of the altars -- and which possesses him to wreak devastation in the third book -- calls to mind Elric's Stormbringer. Yet I don't remember any of this seeming like copycat formula or pastiche. Here is a <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/489207519">reader review</a> at Goodreads, written just last year, a lot of which targets how I felt about the book 32 years ago:<blockquote>Watt-Evans sends Garth, via the Forgotten King, to another portion of the map, this time with the job of stealing "whatever lies upon the seven altars of Dusarra." Soon Garth arrives in Dusarra and discovers that this job is, in fact, a hell of an undertaking.<br /><br />
What is a straightforward, fearless overman to do? How about throwing himself into any situation or opportunity that arises without forethought or strategy, relying on his martial prowess and gumption to get him through? Seriously, this guy fails in the planning department, and there were many times I wondered just how he was going to get out of the shit.<br /><br />
This frequent uncertainty -- combined with an eerie city that is obsessed with the "dark gods" of the national pantheon -- made for good reading, and I enjoyed paging through this in a day. The setting and plot reminded me of Leiber's Lankhmar stories, especially all of the scenes set in ill-lit temples devoted to perverse deities. The story takes a violent turn in the last act, and some of the gore surprised me; brutal as George Martin may get in Westeros, Garth and his warbeast do not hesitate to spill mass quantities of blood to achieve their means. The finale sets the stage for bigger things, and I remain interested in seeing where this all goes.<br /><br />
I gotta say: this series hit me from nowhere, and now I wonder what other fantastic tales are out there, hiding behind the wind namers and dancing dragons and black prisms and smart-mouthed city wizards that dominate the genre.</blockquote>Not only did Dusarra remind me of Lankhmar, I actually ended up liking the stories of Garth better than those of Fafhrd and Grey Mouser. I dare say <I>The Lords of Dus</I>, and <I>The Seven Altars of Dusarra</I> in particular, will remain my favorite pulp fantasy after all these years. Back to reading.
Loren Rosson IIIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15002312216839280976noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14388695.post-1135685679862016612014-01-05T03:00:00.000-05:002014-01-07T06:34:55.529-05:00The Best Scenes in The Lord of the RingsYesterday I featured the worst scenes in Peter Jackson's <I>Lord of the Rings</I>, the ones I removed in <a href="http://lorenrosson.blogspot.nl/2014/01/my-special-cut-of-lord-of-rings-films.html">my special cut of the films</a>. Today I rank the best scenes. It's easy to get the impression from yesterday's post that <I>The Fellowship of the Ring</I> is my favorite film, while <I>The Two Towers</I> and <I>The Return of the King</I> leave much to be desired. That's not the case at all. Even before my ruthless editing, the third film has always been my favorite, because whatever its deficiencies it more than makes up for on whole. It's tragic on a biblical level and an emotional juggernaut.<br /><br />
Of the following twenty scenes, seven are from <I>The Fellowship of the Ring</I>, four are from <I>The Two Towers</I>, and nine are from <I>The Return of the King</I>.<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5gVC6wA-qkc/UsX2rD-z5EI/AAAAAAAAIgw/3pV382HxW0o/s1600/grey+havens.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5gVC6wA-qkc/UsX2rD-z5EI/AAAAAAAAIgw/3pV382HxW0o/s200/grey+havens.jpg" /></a></div><B>1. The Grey Havens.</B> The best scene of the book is the best scene of the film, and breathes Tolkien's theme of the long defeat: the failure of Frodo, the passing of the elves, and the foreordained deterioration of men. If it doesn't make you cry, then you don't have your priorities straight. If on my deathbed I could watch one scene from one film, it would be The Grey Havens from <I>The Return of the King</I>. The white shores and far green country awaiting Frodo would be out of my reach, but I'd take comfort anyway.<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sziiHga8gH8/UsX2ytu67nI/AAAAAAAAIg4/2rJ_ZdH7JU0/s1600/mount+doom.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sziiHga8gH8/UsX2ytu67nI/AAAAAAAAIg4/2rJ_ZdH7JU0/s200/mount+doom.jpg" /></a></div><B>2. "Do You Remember the Shire?"/"The End of All Things."</B> I have to take these two scenes together, as they're counterparts. In my (many) theatrical outings a decade ago, they overwhelmed me and affected me so much I was shaking. No film has ever had that kind of power over me. The first scene is the courage, finishing the one-way journey with no real hope of success. The second is the aftermath, the unexpected victory even in failure (Frodo claimed by the Ring), and accepting imminent death. <br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AmRUoP9ozOg/UsXyKwnOckI/AAAAAAAAIec/1zLyZ-H6CX8/s1600/breaking+of+the+fellowship.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AmRUoP9ozOg/UsXyKwnOckI/AAAAAAAAIec/1zLyZ-H6CX8/s200/breaking+of+the+fellowship.png" /></a></div><B>3. The Breaking of the Fellowship.</B> This one's a cheat, but really everything is a favorite scene from Aragorn and Frodo's farewell to the closing credits. The Uruk-hai battle is fantastic, and the scene between Aragorn and the dying Boromir is probably the noblest in the trilogy. Frodo's resolve to go to Mordor alone, remembering Gandalf, and Sam chasing after him in the boat all culminate in an emotional scene foreshadowing dark times ahead. This entire sequence stands as a serious cinematic achievement for its perfect closure despite being a cliff-hanger.<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CfayHpIkBgo/UsXySV8buHI/AAAAAAAAIek/A2V-3on5Eu0/s1600/pelennor+fields.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CfayHpIkBgo/UsXySV8buHI/AAAAAAAAIek/A2V-3on5Eu0/s200/pelennor+fields.jpg" /></a></div><B>4. The Siege of Gondor & the Battle of the Pelennor Fields.</B> This one's another cheat, but once the boulders start flying, the battle for Minas Tirith doesn't let up until the last oliphaunt goes down. It's relentless chaos and destruction -- the catapult attacks, winged Nazgul, Grond, and (best of all) the apocalyptic charge of the Rohirrim. Eowyn's confrontation with the Witch-King exceeds expectations, and the army of the dead is a brilliant transposition from the book. Their victory implies that Theoden and Denethor were both right, that Sauron's forces could not have been defeated by the armies of men. <br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mQpw9p8MMAQ/UsXyZ0fqgNI/AAAAAAAAIes/tn8NWsCT-F8/s1600/flight+to+the+ford.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mQpw9p8MMAQ/UsXyZ0fqgNI/AAAAAAAAIes/tn8NWsCT-F8/s200/flight+to+the+ford.jpg" /></a></div><B>5. Flight to the Ford.</B> Beginning with Arwen and Frodo on horseback and ending with the incredible flood at Bruinen. Arwen's close evasive action, coupled with the pulse-pounding choir music, still leaves me mesmerized after seeing it so many times. It's a testimony to Jackson's vision that he can alter a crucial scene from the book and make it even better. I also find it fascinating how horse chases work so well in movies, unlike car chases which easily become boring. This scene is the best horse chase in any film, hands down.<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-M4dtDQIFVLg/UsXyfyP7rxI/AAAAAAAAIe0/0v0mcZQQvv4/s1600/gandalfbalrog.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-M4dtDQIFVLg/UsXyfyP7rxI/AAAAAAAAIe0/0v0mcZQQvv4/s200/gandalfbalrog.jpg" /></a></div><B>6. Gandalf and the Balrog (TT).</B> My favorite scene of the second film is the flashback starter. The battle between Gandalf and the demon as they hurtle down the shaft makes the preliminary confrontation on the bridge look like child's play. Great music goes with it too. Complaints about the Balrog's wings continue to this day (Tolkien's Balrogs of course <a href="http://lorenrosson.blogspot.nl/2012/01/bibles-and-balrogs-earliest-isnt.html">don't have wings</a>), and it is rather silly that the creature is falling when it could have just flown upwards. But it doesn't matter; this scene is a juggernaut.<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uGpjgAu42GU/UsvmVWh_-jI/AAAAAAAAImA/2tbNxDqayUM/s1600/morgul+vale.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uGpjgAu42GU/UsvmVWh_-jI/AAAAAAAAImA/2tbNxDqayUM/s200/morgul+vale.jpg" /></a></div><B>7. The Morgul Vale.</B> The most terrifying scene in the trilogy and true to the book. I could easily vote it the best purist scene, even if the Witch-King isn't on horseback. It's hard to imagine the terror of the Black Breath being conveyed so convincingly, but here it is. I was nearly cowering in my seat the first time I saw this in the theater, just like Frodo cringing and holding his ears against the Nazgul shrieks. Tolkien describes a "noisome exhalation of decay", and the sorcerous reek on display is hideous.<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wVCQRLGRBU4/UsXy8ZvcjSI/AAAAAAAAIfE/KNJrRwWS5Lo/s1600/FrodoBilboSting.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wVCQRLGRBU4/UsXy8ZvcjSI/AAAAAAAAIfE/KNJrRwWS5Lo/s200/FrodoBilboSting.jpg" /></a></div><B>8. Frodo and Bilbo in Rivendell/Gollumized Bilbo.</B> We don't get much of Frodo and Bilbo together in the Shire, which turns out to be fine, because their interactions in Rivendell are perfect. First is the scene by the waterfall, where Bilbo produces his finished book, "There and Back Again", and they contrast their adventures. In the later scene, Bilbo passes over of Sting and the mithril vest and asks to see the Ring. His sudden demonic transformation nearly gave me a heart attack when I first saw it; it's that scary.<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1dx9zF2HF7A/UsX3L0AZuDI/AAAAAAAAIhA/dhnvsE59OkE/s1600/Mirror+of+Galadriel.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1dx9zF2HF7A/UsX3L0AZuDI/AAAAAAAAIhA/dhnvsE59OkE/s200/Mirror+of+Galadriel.png" /></a></div><B>9. The Mirror of Galadriel.</B> I had forgotten how frightening some scenes in the first film really are. Peter Jackson started as a horror film director, and no one else -- certainly not Speilberg or Lucas -- could have made Lothlorien so ethereally haunting and Galadriel's temptation so terrifying. Much as I love the way the Shire and Rivendell are realized in these films, it's the eerie forest of Lothlorien that impresses me most. The scene at the Mirror is the best, and it's great that we get to see the water ring Nenya.<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-i41E8__1Pig/UsbsDcvbGEI/AAAAAAAAIjk/AG1X87rdSz4/s1600/Voice+of+Saruman.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-i41E8__1Pig/UsbsDcvbGEI/AAAAAAAAIjk/AG1X87rdSz4/s200/Voice+of+Saruman.jpg" /></a></div><B>10. The Voice of Saruman.</B> This eight-minute scene is brilliantly acted by Christopher Lee and a vast improvement over the lame "Sharkey" epilogue from the book. The dialogue is pure Tolkien, even including the part about "the rods of the five wizards". You can feel Saruman's relentless contempt for Theoden as he goes on about Rohan being nothing more than a "thatched barn where brigands drink in the reek and their brats roll on the floor with the dogs". It's wonderful poetic justice when he's impaled on his own machinery.<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-F7G20nQYQNg/UsX316-R3ZI/AAAAAAAAIhQ/_zrdMJWC-QE/s1600/forbidden+pool.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-F7G20nQYQNg/UsX316-R3ZI/AAAAAAAAIhQ/_zrdMJWC-QE/s200/forbidden+pool.jpg" /></a></div><B>11. The Forbidden Pool: "A Clockwork Orange".</B> The waterfall and pool are just how you imagine them from the book, and the shot of Gollum squatting over and eating the fish is great. His regression to self-pity and schizophrenia after Frodo's treachery is heartbreaking, and in the extended version the rangers beat the living shit out of him. Faramir comes off considerably darker than Tolkien's character, and rightly so. This is the kind of reality lacking in most fantasy, where good guys are usually a bit too good to be true.<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HjBr8RH7ydA/UsdYAgKTXSI/AAAAAAAAIj0/ZYRkO7iEHlw/s1600/Frodo+Poisoned.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HjBr8RH7ydA/UsdYAgKTXSI/AAAAAAAAIj0/ZYRkO7iEHlw/s200/Frodo+Poisoned.jpg" /></a></div><B>12. Frodo Poisoned/Sam and Shelob.</B> The first part of Shelob's lair is pretty good, but the second part is an absolute classic. The spider is played brilliantly against Frodo after his narrow escape (Shelob's revenge), and her silent stalking (with no scoring) as she positions herself above to sting him is genius directing. The rescue battle shows Sam coming into his own, just like Tolkien wrote him, and his grief over "dead" Frodo is some of Sean Astin's best acting. <br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GhFVTx-GJh4/UsX4IWwWPJI/AAAAAAAAIhY/-TS1dO4cv24/s1600/weathertop.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GhFVTx-GJh4/UsX4IWwWPJI/AAAAAAAAIhY/-TS1dO4cv24/s200/weathertop.jpg" /></a></div><B>13. A Knife in the Dark.</B> Misty Weathertop, the steady advance of the five Nazgul, and the music all combine to offer a scene scary and gothic. And the sight that greets Frodo when he puts on the Ring comes right off Tolkien's pages. Much like the Morgul Vale (#7), I could vote this one of the best purist scenes. Jackson nailed the Nazgul in a way that shows him at home in the horror genre. <br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XKREh7i9iAM/UsX0y4aho_I/AAAAAAAAIf0/nluEXSzcQeU/s1600/where+is+the+horse+and+the+rider.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XKREh7i9iAM/UsX0y4aho_I/AAAAAAAAIf0/nluEXSzcQeU/s200/where+is+the+horse+and+the+rider.jpg" /></a></div><B>14. "Where is the Horse and the Rider?"</B> In the book Aragorn recites this poem (the Rohan anthem) as he approaches Edoras. But it's far more cinematic to have the King of Rohan himself tragically recite this before going into battle, what he thinks is certain doom for his people. This one still gives me chills after so many viewings. Great theatrical acting on Bernard Hill's part, and by far the best part of Helm's Deep.<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oRHgV4MpYHw/UsX4kh2JCOI/AAAAAAAAIho/XNxOj2J9tRA/s1600/pippin's+song.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oRHgV4MpYHw/UsX4kh2JCOI/AAAAAAAAIho/XNxOj2J9tRA/s200/pippin's+song.jpg" /></a></div><B>15. Pippin's Song for Denethor.</B> The editing here is brilliant. Pippin singing -- cut to Denethor gorging -- cut to Faramir galloping to suicide -- cut back to the steward's slobbering mouth -- back to Pippin's lamenting anguish -- to Faramir again -- it's a uniquely memorable scene that has Jackson stamped all over it. Billy Boyd is a gifted singer. It's impossible to forget the details of this scene, it carries such impact.<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZJenxXZMZ8Q/UsX1BS4MGSI/AAAAAAAAIgE/yCV9d3yhtDs/s1600/treason+of+isengard.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZJenxXZMZ8Q/UsX1BS4MGSI/AAAAAAAAIgE/yCV9d3yhtDs/s200/treason+of+isengard.png" /></a></div><B>16. The Treason of Isengard.</B> The interior of Orthanc is splendid, especially the chamber of the Palantir. The wizard battle between Gandalf and Saruman, absent from the book, could have come off rather cheesy. But it's surprisingly well done. There's none of the lightning or fireworks of B-grade fantasies; the wizards use telekinesis to beat the crap out of each other, and you can practically feel their bones cracking as they get pounded against the walls and floor. The score is perfect, and the choir reaches that intense crescendo as Saruman goes crashing through the double doors.<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0NOrLEGOoc4/UsX48eWVYyI/AAAAAAAAIhw/YZGmioKubNw/s1600/arwen's+fate.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0NOrLEGOoc4/UsX48eWVYyI/AAAAAAAAIhw/YZGmioKubNw/s200/arwen's+fate.jpg" /></a></div><B>17. Arwen's Fate.</B> Elrond's vision of the dead Aragorn, and Arwen wandering alone in the empty forest of Lothlorien, brilliantly captures the long defeat theme. Elrond's monologue comes from Tolkien's appendices: "Aragorn will come to death, an image of the splendor of the kings of men in glory, undimmed before the breaking of the world. But you, my daughter, you will linger on in darkness and in doubt. Here you will dwell, bound to you grief, under the fading trees, until all the world has changed and the long years of your life are utterly spent."<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9JMR4pgXRNQ/UsX1OtqcvvI/AAAAAAAAIgU/xqCtOIpQgLQ/s1600/Black+Gate+Opens.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9JMR4pgXRNQ/UsX1OtqcvvI/AAAAAAAAIgU/xqCtOIpQgLQ/s200/Black+Gate+Opens.jpg" /></a></div><B>18. The Black Gate Opens.</B> The theatrical version wrecks this by omitting the Mouth of Sauron. In the extended version the Mouth displays the mithril vest in order to prove that Frodo is dead and the Ring is on its way to Sauron. Going into battle, the army of the west really has no hope at all, and Aragorn's line ("For Frodo") refers to the hobbit's sacrifice -- they are avenging his death rather than buying time for him. But it's a great scene in either case. Even the theatrical version conveys hopeless courage as the Army of the West charges the hordes which outnumber them.<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RXlJYmuRDeo/UslQnsCjkMI/AAAAAAAAIlo/TFxQ3yyk4CU/s1600/sam's+star.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RXlJYmuRDeo/UslQnsCjkMI/AAAAAAAAIlo/TFxQ3yyk4CU/s200/sam's+star.jpg" /></a></div><B>19. Sam's Star.</B> This really should have been in the theatrical version: Sam overcome by a single sign of beauty in the worst hell on earth, and Frodo on death's door. The shot of Mordor here is the best in the film, a wasteland reminiscent of Ted Nasmith's drawings. Much like other scenes between Frodo and Sam in Mordor (especially the sacred ones of #2), it's diminished by commentary.<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zo4py87iqCM/UsbmAxpMwWI/AAAAAAAAIjY/WsTjpDsDkKI/s1600/Green+Dragon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zo4py87iqCM/UsbmAxpMwWI/AAAAAAAAIjY/WsTjpDsDkKI/s200/Green+Dragon.jpg" /></a></div><B>20. The Green Dragon.</B> Here is hobbit culture at its purest. The hobbits get drunk and rumor-monger, the Gaffer tells Frodo he's as cracked as Bilbo, and Merry and Pippin are just themselves -- a couple of singing, boisterous clowns. Their song ("Hey-ho, to the Bottle I Go") is actually a fusion of two songs from the book, one of which Pippin sings solo while taking a bath at Crickhollow. This scene renders the "Concerning Hobbits" prologue superfluous and shows more in a single minute than Bilbo's voice-over explains in five.Loren Rosson IIIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15002312216839280976noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14388695.post-17190030756527104172014-01-04T02:00:00.000-05:002014-01-07T07:09:15.380-05:00My Special Cut of The Lord of the Rings FilmsIt seems that everyone agrees Peter Jackson has gone off the rails. His <I>Hobbit</I> is a mess as his <I>Lord of the Rings</I> is a masterpiece. This week-end I watched the latter, a marathon I hadn't done since 2004. I'm pleased to say the trilogy holds up superbly. Especially since I improved on it by removing scenes I can't stand, thanks to special software. Now <I>The Lord of the Rings</I> is truly perfect.<br /><br />
Here is the list of all the scenes I cut. The three extended DVD versions have a total running time of about 11 hours. My special cut runs about 10 hours (9 hrs 56 minutes), which means I ended up axing about 10% of Jackson's story. If you have the software for it, I encourage you to make your own special version of the films. It's such a treat to watch <I>The Lord of the Rings</I> without being able to complain about the worst scenes that make you curse at the screen. Stay tuned tomorrow for my <a href="http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-best-scenes-in-lord-of-rings.html">ranking of the best scenes</a>.<br /><br />
<B>THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING</B><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Cysnb_QT03Q/UsbdtkE-1kI/AAAAAAAAIiI/Trf84exHQpg/s1600/Concerning+Hobbits.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Cysnb_QT03Q/UsbdtkE-1kI/AAAAAAAAIiI/Trf84exHQpg/s200/Concerning+Hobbits.jpg" /></a></div><B>Concerning Hobbits.</B> I used to love this extended scene. Ten years later I now see that it fails on every level. (1) It's effectively a second prologue, voiced-over by Bilbo, on top of the excellent prologue narrated by Galadriel. (2) It commits the sin of explaining, not showing; we see plenty of hobbit culture at Bilbo's birthday party and the Green Dragon that we don't need it explained to us. (3) It rudely jerks us back and forth between Bilbo (in his study at Bag End) and Frodo (in the wagon with Gandalf), which makes for a poor introduction to them both, dividing our interest. (4) Indeed, Bilbo opening his front door to Gandalf is his perfect first scene. If you think you like the Concerning Hobbits prologue, I encourage you to dig out your theatrical version and play it; it's the much stronger and better introduction to Frodo and Bilbo.<br /><br />
Basically I use the theatrical version from the start of the film up to Gandalf passing through Bilbo's "No Admittance" sign. From then on, I use the extended version which is otherwise flawless. Except for a small matter...<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7UJg0nEGZtk/Usbd2KsvhXI/AAAAAAAAIiQ/hvNzOO5IcnE/s1600/Moria+riddle.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7UJg0nEGZtk/Usbd2KsvhXI/AAAAAAAAIiQ/hvNzOO5IcnE/s200/Moria+riddle.jpg" /></a></div><B>The Doors of Moria.</B> There's a story to this one. On the day before <I>The Fellowship of the Ring</I> was released in the theaters, I was certain I would hate these blockbuster adaptations of my favorite story. But I was trying to get in the spirit and be a good sport, and when a co-worker asked me what part of the movie I was looking most forward to, I said (somewhat sarcastically) the part where Gandalf threatens to knock on the doors of Moria with Pippin Took's head. Of course, by the time I got to Moria I was in love with the film after all, but still disappointed that my favorite line didn't make it. To add insult to injury, Jackson further reduced Gandalf by having Frodo solve the door riddle for him. I removed this from my special cut. And since the extended version has the Pippin line I wanted, all is now perfect.<br /><br />
Also: I cut some of the battle with the Watcher of Moria, which looks a bit like a videogame.<br /><br />
<B>THE TWO TOWERS</B><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4EWWQI2ednk/Usbd87cFTjI/AAAAAAAAIiY/FVJMzM2ticI/s1600/Frodo+and+Sam+in+Osgiliath.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4EWWQI2ednk/Usbd87cFTjI/AAAAAAAAIiY/FVJMzM2ticI/s200/Frodo+and+Sam+in+Osgiliath.jpg" /></a></div><B>The Osgiliath Detour.</B> I love Jackson's Faramir. He's a darker character than Tolkien's, tempted by the Ring as he should be, and much more believable. The "Clockwork Orange" scene at the Forbidden Pool (Gollum getting beaten to a pulp) is one of my favorites. But I absolutely hate the detour to Osgiliath -- more than any scene in the trilogy. Faramir should have let the hobbits go when Sam explodes at him. That's where I made my special cut, right before Faramir can say, "The Ring will go to Gondor." In my version of <I>The Two Towers</I>, Frodo and Sam do not reappear until the epilogue in the forest.<br /><br />
The Osgiliath scene is actually a disaster in every way. The Nazgul that confronts Frodo is poorly used. Frodo's attack on Sam is unconvincing. Worst is Sam's monologue, cribbed from the Stairs of Cirith Ungol in the book, about the "tales that really matter". It's one of my favorite Tolkien passages, in which Sam reminds Frodo about the great heroes of Middle-Earth who "had many chances of turning back, but went on, and not all to a good end". Jackson rewrites the pessimism in favor of crass cliches; now those great heroes kept going, not despite the hopelessness of their cause, but rather the opposite: "because they were holding onto the good in this world worth fighting for". Having Faramir recant and let the hobbits go after this cheesy line makes it twice as awful.<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vCdUwvqwSFo/UsbeDP5MvfI/AAAAAAAAIig/wkh-WiTlpno/s1600/Elves+at+Helm's+Deep.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vCdUwvqwSFo/UsbeDP5MvfI/AAAAAAAAIig/wkh-WiTlpno/s200/Elves+at+Helm's+Deep.jpg" /></a></div><B>Helm's Deep.</B> I took a heavy axe to Helm's Deep, as the catalog of crimes is huge. First are the elves, who have no business participating. They undermine the thoroughly bleak feeling the battle is supposed to have. I obviously couldn't get rid of every scene with elves, but I did cut all the close-up shots, and especially Haldir, whose death was melodramatic and contrived. (Unlike the genuinely emotional deaths of Boromir and Theoden.) <br /><br />
There are also lame scenes prior to the battle filled with corny dialogue. I removed them all. One such scene is Legolas and Aragorn's shouting match over the way they are outnumbered. Another is when Aragorn tells the young Haleth that "there is always hope". Always hope? The idea that hope springs eternal is an alien intrusion in Middle Earth. The Aragorn of the books said things like, "We must do without hope, and at least be avenged." (After leaving Moria.) See also my comments about the Osgiliath scene above. <br /><br />
Finally, there are the videogame battle sequences: Legolas surfing on his shield; Aragorn and Gimli jumping a wall and holding off multitudes of orcs. Anything like this I got rid of.<br /><br />
In the end, my version of Helm's Deep is far shorter and much more impressive.<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HItfVyo7JFs/UsbeJmchIvI/AAAAAAAAIio/0ZGzMKR1WaI/s1600/Sorry+Treebeard.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HItfVyo7JFs/UsbeJmchIvI/AAAAAAAAIio/0ZGzMKR1WaI/s200/Sorry+Treebeard.jpg" /></a></div><B>Pippin Manipulates Treebeard.</B> Let me be clear: I love the fact that the ents act like Switzerland and first decide not to get involved against Saruman. I also approve the way Treebeard reverses the democratic entmoot decision like a tyrant, when he sees the tree massacre and flies into a rage. I consider all of this an improvement on Tolkien. However, I do not like how Pippin engineered Treebeard's discovery of the clearcut. This is the same problem I had with Frodo solving the riddle at the doors of Moria. I understand that Jackson wanted to give the hobbits more proactive roles, but making them clever at the expense of immortals like Gandalf and Treebeard are cheap Hollywood maneuvers. So I cut the scene -- a truly stupid and ridiculous one -- where Pippin suddenly tells Treebeard, in a very conniving fashion, to go south, as if Pippin would know the precise location of a tree massacre but Treebeard would not. The result is that in my cut, Treebeard stumbles on the tree slaughter by accident, and in that scene I removed Pippin's condescending "I'm sorry, Treebeard", which implies that he regrets having to give the ent a wake-up call.<br /><br />
<B>THE RETURN OF THE KING</B><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-z3Hg9G_BO6g/Ush5bXK7NXI/AAAAAAAAIks/3LKWizH_sSo/s1600/smeagol+and+deagol.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-z3Hg9G_BO6g/Ush5bXK7NXI/AAAAAAAAIks/3LKWizH_sSo/s200/smeagol+and+deagol.jpg" /></a></div><B>Smeagol and Deagol.</B> This scene is mostly well done, but I don't care for it. A prologue is unnecessary in the second and third films. (Gandalf falling with the Balrog is an excellent start to <I>The Two Towers</I>, but that's a flashback more than a prologue.) <I>The Return of the King</I> opens perfectly on Frodo and Sam waking up in Ithilien. I should also note that Gollum's makeup job is atrocious as he evolves over the centuries. Bottom line, I removed the entire scene. We know how Gollum began.<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FLq5oOOctzM/Usbeoeg_4KI/AAAAAAAAIi4/1H1SLQMCWYo/s1600/Gimli+blows+away+ghosts.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FLq5oOOctzM/Usbeoeg_4KI/AAAAAAAAIi4/1H1SLQMCWYo/s200/Gimli+blows+away+ghosts.jpg" /></a></div><B>Early extended scenes.</B> With the exception of Saruman (criminally omitted from the theatrical version), all of the extended scenes prior to Denethor entering his pyre chamber are either silly or superfluous. They bog down the pace at points when things are supposed to moving quickly, and some of the levity (used so well in extended scenes of <I>Fellowship of the Ring</I> and <I>Two Towers</I>) clash with an increasing dark tone. So from the point of Saruman's death up to that of Denethor marching into his death chamber, I simply use the theatrical cut of the film. Thus in my version, there is no drinking game between Legolas and Gimli. Merry does not kneel before Theoden. (A poorly handled scene, unlike Pippin's oath to Denethor: Merry acts like a giggling school girl with no dignity whatsoever. Also, there's not even the payoff we get in the book, when Merry speaks to the dying Theoden on the Pelennor Fields; Jackson wisely chose Eowyn instead.) Pippin does not speak words of encouragement to Faramir, which somehow ring hollow. Sam does not encourage Frodo with "There and Back Again" optimism near the cross-roads, which contradicts his more realistic outlook in the book (on which point see my criticism of his Osgiliath monologue in <I>The Two Towers</I>). Merry doesn't have the uninspired dialogue with Eowyn en route to Minas Tirith. Most importantly, Gimli does not act like a clown on the Paths of the Dead, and he certainly does not <I>blow ghosts away from him with his goddamn breath</I> -- a truly outrageous scene -- nor do we get the cheesy avalanche of skulls.<br /><br />
After the point of Denethor's entry into the pyre room, however, the extended scenes are all excellent. Denethor gets in his best line from the book: "You may triumph on the field of battle for a day, but against the power that has arisen in the east there is no victory." Gandalf confronts the Witch-King, who shatters his staff. Eowyn does battle with the Orc leader Gothmog. Eomer grieves in rage on the Pelennor Fields. It takes Pippin a long time to find Merry wounded on the battlefields -- well into evening. We get the Houses of the Healing. There are two important scenes in Mordor, with Frodo and Sam joining the orc army, and the especially moving one of Sam seeing the star, when Frodo is at death's door. And finally there is The Mouth of Sauron at the Black Gate. Naturally, I retain all of these.<br /><br />
However, there are three particularly offensive scenes from the Pelennor Fields I removed...<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WFcwGmUMLGE/UshwBbjBcUI/AAAAAAAAIkc/97stzlf5XSo/s1600/Ninja+Legolas.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WFcwGmUMLGE/UshwBbjBcUI/AAAAAAAAIkc/97stzlf5XSo/s200/Ninja+Legolas.jpg" /></a></div><B>Ninja Legolas.</B> His oliphaunt acrobatics put a stain on an otherwise perfect battle where you feel the heavy realism of war on both sides. Suddenly with Legolas, we're out of <I>Braveheart</I> and into <I>Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon</I> (a film I deplore). Legolas has cheesy stunts elsewhere (like the shield-surfing at Helm's Deep, which I also removed), but at least they're usually brief. His oliphaunt stunt goes on forever. Not in my version. Gone.<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aoyvAegsVhE/UsfzUVny1eI/AAAAAAAAIkE/eOfJiqt3MT0/s1600/Merry+Eowyn.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aoyvAegsVhE/UsfzUVny1eI/AAAAAAAAIkE/eOfJiqt3MT0/s200/Merry+Eowyn.jpg" /></a></div><B>Indiana Eowyn.</B> Eowyn's oliphaunt maneuvers aren't as offensive as Legolas', but they're silly nonetheless and there's no reason to keep them. Besides which, the extended version gives Eowyn and Merry more battle scenes -- better and more believable ones than the Indiana-Jones like ride under the oliphaunt that ends with Eowyn chopping off its legs in a single stroke.<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3hNuOyfPi5Q/UsbfC_cMpxI/AAAAAAAAIjI/dyB5omx1YBQ/s1600/Gandalf+deludes+Pippin.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3hNuOyfPi5Q/UsbfC_cMpxI/AAAAAAAAIjI/dyB5omx1YBQ/s200/Gandalf+deludes+Pippin.png" /></a></div><B>A Far Green Country (Gandalf deludes Pippin).</B> I don't like trashing this scene, because it involves some of the best writing from the final pages of the book, and is brilliantly acted by Ian McKellan and Billy Boyd. The problem is that it's horribly misused. Gandalf comforts Pippin with promises of a paradise he'll never obtain. Only the elves go to Valinor. Mortals -- men, dwarves, and hobbits -- never get to see those "white shores and far green country under a swift sunrise". Frodo and Bilbo were exceptions, granted them as Ringbearers. <br /><br />
It was painful to cut this scene, because unlike Sam's Osgiliath monologue, the transposition is well conceived. It's an inspired scene, much like Boromir's moment with the Ring on Mount Caradhras (a great move from Emyn Muil in the book) and Wormtongue's creepy come-on lines to Eowyn (recreated from her description in the Houses of Healing). But I had to kill it. We can't have Gandalf feeding poor Pippin delusions. <br /><br />
And finally, this one from Mordor.<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dDIAwfwKp_4/UsiTOqi9X5I/AAAAAAAAIlY/RhKOX_Ta3NE/s1600/Ducking+from+the+Eye.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dDIAwfwKp_4/UsiTOqi9X5I/AAAAAAAAIlY/RhKOX_Ta3NE/s200/Ducking+from+the+Eye.jpg" /></a></div><B>Ducking from the Eye.</B> This one irks me. That Frodo and Sam could hide from the Eye by "ducking" is rather silly, and it continually cuts back and forth to interrupt what's going on at the Black Gate. Because it just looks wrong, I removed it to keep the spotlight on the approach to the gate right before the Mouth of Sauron appears.Loren Rosson IIIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15002312216839280976noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14388695.post-51695447094003077102014-01-01T01:00:00.000-05:002014-01-01T19:08:20.859-05:0050 Films I'd SaveWhen asked to rank my 50 favorite films of all time, I thought it would be an impossible task. A top 500 list would be more feasible. But then I made it easy by simply imagining I could <I>save</I> only 50 films -- that whatever I chose would be the only ones I could ever watch again. That cleared things up pretty fast. Ranking them in order also became fairly easy when approached this way.<br /><br />
It's worth noting directors who have multiple entries. Ingmar Bergman gets 7. Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch, Alfred Hitchcock, and Martin Scorsese each get 4. William Friedkin and Quentin Tarantino each get 3. Kathryn Bigelow and David Cronenberg each get 2. That adds up to 33 films right there, leaving only 17 directors with single entries. So it's fair to say I've been hooked by certain visionaries.<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9RJ9WEg9gyA/UeFxkW6AtBI/AAAAAAAAHhg/qNtKpAzZpNA/s1600/lotr3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9RJ9WEg9gyA/UeFxkW6AtBI/AAAAAAAAHhg/qNtKpAzZpNA/s200/lotr3.jpg" /></a></div>1. <i>The Lord of the Rings,</i> Peter Jackson. 2001, 2002, 2003. I never thought my favorite story could work as a film, let alone as an action blockbuster. But the casting here is flawless (except for Orlando Bloom), the scoring genius, and the setting of New Zealand too good to be true. But it's the emotional core that makes it a miracle. In my (many) theatrical outings I was overwhelmed, moved to tears, and in the final 45 minutes of <I>Return of the King</I> so affected I was shaking. No film, save the next, has ever had that kind of power over me. Tolkien's story is about the long defeat, as he saw it -- the failure of Frodo, the passing of the elves, and the foreordained deterioration of men -- and Jackson nailed the theme in all the parts that matter. <br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_NmCh42hZM">"Do you remember the Shire?"</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZMAzCuvEje0/UeFyh0bw1TI/AAAAAAAAHhw/jLVJ87XD4zA/s1600/exorcist2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZMAzCuvEje0/UeFyh0bw1TI/AAAAAAAAHhw/jLVJ87XD4zA/s200/exorcist2.jpg" /></a></div>2. <i>The Exorcist,</i> William Friedkin. 1973. This could also be my top choice, so consider it a tie. It never gets old and resonates on many levels, even new ones I've only recently discovered. It's the scariest horror film ever made. It's the strongest crisis-of-faith statement -- more so than even <I>Doubt</I> and <I>Winter Light</I>. It has the gritty feel of an induced documentary, but with artistry owing to Ingmar Bergman. It pulverized me when I first saw it as an 11-year old, and has stayed in my head for years, making me terrified of my own existence. I don't think it's possible to achieve what this film did ever again. But I keep waiting to be proven wrong.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUSaj4tU1qU">"The Sow is Mine."</a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Z4Uq9W-s1nY/UeFzmTmTfpI/AAAAAAAAHiM/8ra6-vnhbjk/s1600/vertigo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Z4Uq9W-s1nY/UeFzmTmTfpI/AAAAAAAAHiM/8ra6-vnhbjk/s200/vertigo.jpg" /></a></div>3. <i>Vertigo,</i> Alfred Hitchcock. 1958. Whenever I watch <I>Vertigo</I> I feel mesmerized all the way through. It's about a necrophiliac fantasy, some say a reflection of Hitchcock's deepest obsessions, but in any case his most personal film. It's about a man who wants to bang a woman who's dead; it's about a man on fire for a woman who doesn't exist; it's about a man who stole a woman from the very husband who hired him, and the fact that she was really a decoy does nothing to exonerate him since he didn't know this when he began the affair; it's about a man who loses both women, the same woman, twice in exactly the same way. I'm glad that <I>Vertigo</I> dethroned <I>Citizen Kane</I> as the acclaimed best film of all time; it deserves the honor.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tesqTwX7cpc">Judy becomes Madeline.</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gdCIBuGE2ac/UeFzTSWCAhI/AAAAAAAAHiE/3_ZtVHYuLO0/s1600/space2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gdCIBuGE2ac/UeFzTSWCAhI/AAAAAAAAHiE/3_ZtVHYuLO0/s200/space2.jpg" /></a></div>4. <i>2001: A Space Odyssey,</i> Stanley Kubrick. 1968. I used to respect this classic from a distance, admiring the aesthetic around the difficulty of "experiencing" it, but in recent years that distance collapsed; now it's my favorite Kubrick film, my favorite outer-space film, and my favorite futuristic film. It plumbs the vastness of space through some of the most ecstatic imagery ever put on celluloid, and grounds this vision in humankind's evolutionary roots. There are genius shots like the falling bone from the primitive chimpanzee age "becoming" the space shuttle in the 21st century. I consider Dr. Bowman's transformation into the Star Child the best open-ended conclusion in cinematic history.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwBmPiOmEGQ">Hal murders Dr. Poole.</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-U01_Fa7j-Y8/UeF82w5x1LI/AAAAAAAAHjA/2SrMEnNQKhE/s1600/pulpfiction10.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-U01_Fa7j-Y8/UeF82w5x1LI/AAAAAAAAHjA/2SrMEnNQKhE/s200/pulpfiction10.jpg" /></a></div>5. <i>Pulp Fiction,</i> Quentin Tarantino. 1994. I've watched this more times than any film to date. I count it among three that educated me profoundly (the others being <I>Blue Velvet</I> and <I>Taxi Driver</I>), showing me that movies could be art as much as entertainment. And sickeningly hilarious. I remember laughing so hard I was choking when I first saw it, scarcely able to believe what the characters were saying and doing. Tarantino is that rare breed of writer-director, like Kubrick, who is in complete command of his material. No one writes dialogue like he can, and in the case of <I>Pulp Fiction</I> every stroke of the pen was inspired.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBBni_-tMNs">"I shot Marvin in the face."</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hXXe6VFUpjc/UeGAUuW6a3I/AAAAAAAAHjg/Vn-iztADsKE/s1600/Cries+and+Whispers_00002.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hXXe6VFUpjc/UeGAUuW6a3I/AAAAAAAAHjg/Vn-iztADsKE/s200/Cries+and+Whispers_00002.jpg" /></a></div>6. <i>Cries and Whispers,</i> Ingmar Bergman. 1973. Some days I call <I>The Seventh Seal</I> my favorite Bergman film, but I'm going on record with <I>Cries and Whispers.</I> Perhaps it's because of the similarities with <I>The Exorcist</I> -- clock imagery, house atmosphere, bedridden agony, vaginal mutilation, etc. (Both films were robbed of best picture the same year; certainly one of them should have taken it.) It's a horrifying look at pain, about a woman dying of cancer attended to by her dysfunctional sisters. The hurt on display is relentless, with facial contortions, gasps, and screams punctuating every other frame. And the use of the color red is, for my money, the most effective use of color in any film I've seen.<br /> <br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm8uMuCSSbo">Agnes' suffering.</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6k8ejLEJDbM/UeF0LPphNAI/AAAAAAAAHiY/8fJ9LsO7U94/s1600/The.Seventh.Seal.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6k8ejLEJDbM/UeF0LPphNAI/AAAAAAAAHiY/8fJ9LsO7U94/s200/The.Seventh.Seal.jpg" /></a></div>7. <i>The Seventh Seal,</i> Ingmar Bergman. 1957. Bergman's most famous film sounds a bit boring when described (a knight plays chess with Death), but it's the knight's journey around the game's intervals, through a land struck by plague and religious fanaticism, and his attempts to penetrate God's mysteries, that drive the story. There's so much entertainment here -- bar brawls, apocalyptic tirades, insult contests, self-mutilation, and a witch-burning to top it off -- that the theological side helpings make it the most balanced art-house film I know. The final Dance of Death is oddly comforting for its nihilism, and a tune I could move to when I reach my end.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2APtvDMIEo">Apocalyptic procession.</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-d3b5VwhN6A8/UeF0Z0JVLEI/AAAAAAAAHig/606tbLIAXVM/s1600/shining_shot2l.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-d3b5VwhN6A8/UeF0Z0JVLEI/AAAAAAAAHig/606tbLIAXVM/s200/shining_shot2l.jpg" /></a></div>8. <i>The Shining,</i> Stanley Kubrick. 1980. This is the only horror film that's come close to pulverizing me on the same level as <I>The Exorcist</I>, and it's far scarier than the book. The book is good on its own right, but Stephen King was misguided in making a faithful version for TV. <I>The Shining</I> is the best example (granted there are many) of "what works in a book doesn't on screen", and Kubrick's artistic license was pure genius. He took the skeleton of a haunted hotel story and fleshed it out with more uncompromising terrors and a unique tone that doesn't let you tell yourself things are going to be okay. The result may be more minimalist than what King intended, but it's sure as hell more effective, and that's what any true horror artist aims for.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtI0uG6tjew">"Okay, let's talk."</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KKigr4YzY5I/UeHX7P6rfsI/AAAAAAAAHmU/5V6cAto8GuM/s1600/Twin+Peaks+Fire+Walk+with+Me_00001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KKigr4YzY5I/UeHX7P6rfsI/AAAAAAAAHmU/5V6cAto8GuM/s200/Twin+Peaks+Fire+Walk+with+Me_00001.jpg" /></a></div>9. <i>Fire Walk With Me,</i> David Lynch. 1992. It has an awful reputation, and I used to regard it as one of Lynch's mediocre efforts until I got a full distance from the TV series. You have to watch it this way. If you take it in conjunction with the show, or if you expect in any way a "Twin Peaks" movie, you will be let down. The TV show was about mystery intrigue and small town dynamics. <I>Fire Walk With Me</I> is an intensely personal film, and a horror picture -- the best horror film of the '90s, mind you -- that stands completely on its own terms. The scoring is brilliant, it's shot beautifully, and there are scenes more savage, terrifying, and heartbreaking than I've seen anywhere else. This is Lynch's best film, appreciated by few.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQtm1eznrtU">The Bang Bang Bar</a>, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvV6F_OuluE">The Pink Room</a>. <br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--o_qG3Nk9ZE/UeF0wBRYLmI/AAAAAAAAHiw/vAk0jh0jQnE/s1600/tree-of-life-1.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--o_qG3Nk9ZE/UeF0wBRYLmI/AAAAAAAAHiw/vAk0jh0jQnE/s200/tree-of-life-1.png" /></a></div>10. <i>The Tree of Life,</i> Terrence Malick. 2011. Like <I>Space Odyssey</I> this is a picture-perfect film showing humanity dwarfed by celestial mysteries. It spotlights an American Catholic family within a macrocosm of evolution, and an implied dialectic of nature vs. grace. But grace emerges not as something which contradicts nature (even if it's its conceptual opposite), rather something inherently part of it, or complementing it, or mutating from it. Every frame depends on just the right camera angle, scoring, and particular subtleties around snippets of dialogue you can barely hear. It ends on a spiritual apocalypse that could move an atheist: the yearning for reunion in some form of afterlife, a hopeless fantasy we cling to in order to cope with pain and loss. I'm turned by new surprises each time I watch <I>The Tree of Life</I>.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EEIeH7ymwA">Birth of the universe.</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-oI0i8S5RiqQ/UeHCSe9fi2I/AAAAAAAAHjw/j46jvGNZKfw/s1600/doubt.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-oI0i8S5RiqQ/UeHCSe9fi2I/AAAAAAAAHjw/j46jvGNZKfw/s200/doubt.jpg" /></a></div>11. <i>Doubt,</i> John Patrick Shanley. 2008. My favorite stage-play based film is a parable that refuses certainty about anything. We never find out for sure if the priest molested his altar boy, though things point alarmingly in that direction. But then we get smacked with a mother who thinks that isn't so bad. The dialogue sequences between her and Sister Aloysius are harrowing, as she insists through tears that Father Flynn is a good refuge for her son, who is gay and beaten for it at home by an abusive father. That scene is so upsetting (see below), and entertains a hard idea in a world which pathologizes eroticism between adults and youths. <I>Doubt</I> is a perfect film in every way; the performances are first rate, and every line of dialogue earns its keep.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Iy23LVFG1w">"Let him have my son."</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HFgqsNEGbSE/UeHCZijZ8MI/AAAAAAAAHj4/3aCwByvvA9Q/s1600/12_angry_men.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HFgqsNEGbSE/UeHCZijZ8MI/AAAAAAAAHj4/3aCwByvvA9Q/s200/12_angry_men.jpg" /></a></div>12. <i>12 Angry Men,</i> William Friedkin. 1997. Another dialogue-driven favorite of mine, and this remake is superior to the '50s classic. This time the jury has four Afro-Americans, and better acting by all involved, to make the film more relevant. Mykelti Williamson steals the show as racist juror #10, now a Muslim whose burning contempt for Hispanics and nasty put-downs draw the ire of the other black jurors. George C. Scott is as good as his predecessor Lee J. Cobb, as the unyielding juror #3, and ditto for Jack Lemmon, who replaces Henry Fonda as moral crusader juror #8. Then there is Armin Mueller-Stahl, who plays the shrewd intellectual antagonist, juror #4, who has always been my secret hero of <I>12 Angry Men.</I> Hot tempers and shouting matches have never been more primal.<br /><br />
Scene: No good ones on youtube, but Juror #10's hate speech would be my scene of choice.<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UOm0p8C04G0/UeM5-AG3IbI/AAAAAAAAHs4/esoCjqTeWa8/s1600/hard+candy5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UOm0p8C04G0/UeM5-AG3IbI/AAAAAAAAHs4/esoCjqTeWa8/s200/hard+candy5.jpg" /></a></div>13. <i>Hard Candy,</i> David Slade. 2006. This film is <a href="http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2006/08/hard-candy-little-red-and-pedophile_29.html">so many things</a>: a dialogue drama, revenge thriller, enacted domination fantasy, and morality puzzle. I see a different film every time I watch it, and in the sum of those viewing experiences certain faults become strengths. The first time it was a Lolita set-up which turned into castration revenge. On second viewing I knew what was coming, and since Hayley was faking the castration her torture seemed a cop-out, and Jeff's suicide silly and unbelievable. But on third and later viewings I saw an enacted domination fantasy: a man's guilt-ridden wet-dream of being tormented by a 14-year old fantasy figure, and ending in his "noble" agreement to kill himself. <I>Hard Candy</I> works brilliantly for me on these meshed levels of reality and fantasy.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArhHPmWGUzU">Jeff meets Hayley.</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1UVXQfwSscg/UeHD3Z13IjI/AAAAAAAAHkg/sweQvaUzo7Y/s1600/eyes.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1UVXQfwSscg/UeHD3Z13IjI/AAAAAAAAHkg/sweQvaUzo7Y/s200/eyes.jpg" /></a></div>14. <i>Eyes Wide Shut,</i> Stanley Kubrick. 1999. Whenever I hear people criticize "boring slow-paced art films", this is my first line of defense to get them reformed. It's slower than molasses but thrilling in every frame, and I'm not just talking about the orgy. Of course, this is Kubrick we're talking about, and he did the same thing in <I>Space Odyssey</I>, but I'm amazed how hooked I am by long camera takes of, say, Tom Cruise wandering streets. And even those who sneer at artistry can't fail to be impressed by the Christmas-seasoned atmosphere, which marries a perfect aesthetic to lustful themes both real and imagined. But yes, the orgy is fabulous too, like every other weird thing that happens to Dr. Bill on his night out, from professions of love next to a patient's corpse, to an underage girl's seductive airs at a costume shop.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n-ojOnrfYk">The reality of the orgy ritual.</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GgACOFah-DU/UeHDoEy5s1I/AAAAAAAAHkQ/3JdqZCudB0w/s1600/blue-velvet.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GgACOFah-DU/UeHDoEy5s1I/AAAAAAAAHkQ/3JdqZCudB0w/s200/blue-velvet.png" /></a></div>15. <i>Blue Velvet,</i> David Lynch. 1986. This nightmare of perversions is what started me on a new avenue in life. I saw it as a college freshman, and at the risk of sounding melodramatic, it was an epiphany. Films would no longer be "just movies" for me; I saw that they had the capacity to illuminate, stun, delight, and horrify in lasting transcendent ways. <I>Blue Velvet</I> makes artistry out of sadism, sadomasochism, and full-blown lunacy; yet around all the suffocating depravity is also worked a stunning beauty, particularly in the relationship between the Kyle Maclachlan and Laura Dern characters. It's impossible to exaggerate its impact on me. <br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP2OwiCmk88">In Dreams.</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DxmdueICAlg/UeHDvid3XgI/AAAAAAAAHkY/DBhaT1rYqr8/s1600/mulholland02.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DxmdueICAlg/UeHDvid3XgI/AAAAAAAAHkY/DBhaT1rYqr8/s200/mulholland02.png" /></a></div>16. <i>Mulholland Drive,</i> David Lynch. 2001. If <I>Blue Velvet</I> threw me into a new world of cinema I could barely begin to define, <I>Mulholland Drive</I> reinforced the magic 15 years later, at the time Peter Jackson was giving magic a new name. It's about frustrated wish-fulfillment: Diane is the reality, Betty the dream; the first comes last, and makes devastating sense of the second; this reinvented figure is loved by everyone, a naive Hollywood star, and she gets off super lesbo sex with the woman who in life barely returns her affections. This manner in which people from Diane's life fill their dream-roles is a brilliant recontextualization of a go-nowhere actress drowning in criminal guilt, and it's one of the most intimate experiences I get out of any film. <br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrC3Bf-CvHU">Llorando.</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bSX6PbFhCvo/UeHD-MHsY9I/AAAAAAAAHko/yKD_HRVufwU/s1600/rope01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bSX6PbFhCvo/UeHD-MHsY9I/AAAAAAAAHko/yKD_HRVufwU/s200/rope01.jpg" /></a></div>17. <i>Rope,</i> Alfred Hitchcock. 1948. I say that <I>Pulp Fiction</I> is the film I've seen the most times, and I believe that to be true. But <I>Rope</I> could make a liar of me at any time. Everything about this film is tailored to my tastes: it's dialogue-driven, occurring in real time; it builds tension at a slow pace, in the claustrophobic setting of a rich apartment; the characters are demented, or at least off-kilter; the subject is morbid. Two college students have killed a classmate just for killing sake, as they consider themselves morally superior and above the law. They then host a dinner party to celebrate their act, and to make it stimulating hide the corpse in an antique chest which they serve food on. It's Hitchcock's most undervalued film, and I'm thoroughly addicted to it.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m6LnOL8qL0">"Strangulation Day".</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WGqqvnnQEik/UeHDhPNipAI/AAAAAAAAHkI/B1PNyKto0wc/s1600/batpod1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WGqqvnnQEik/UeHDhPNipAI/AAAAAAAAHkI/B1PNyKto0wc/s200/batpod1.jpg" /></a></div>18. <i>The Dark Knight,</i> Christopher Nolan. 2008. I generally despise superhero films, so I love it when the genre is either upended to make fun of itself or overhauled to take itself seriously for a change. James Gunn's <I>Super</I> is an example of the former, making us laugh at deranged "heroes" who take pipe wrenches to people who cut in line at the movies; in such satire, heroes are losers and hardly better than those they go against. Christopher Nolan destroys our optimism in the other way, through a would-be liberator like Batman who can only escalate terror as he tries fighting it. Heath Ledger is so good as the nihilistic Joker that I saw this in the theater four times. It's too bad the other films in Nolan's trilogy weren't nearly as impressive.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79HJj9PewU8">Joker crashes the party.</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KkDG8RLFA98/UeR8zZ0hpiI/AAAAAAAAHto/4W-4533XdGI/s1600/united+93a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KkDG8RLFA98/UeR8zZ0hpiI/AAAAAAAAHto/4W-4533XdGI/s200/united+93a.jpg" /></a></div>19. <i>United 93,</i> Paul Greengrass. 2006. I said that no films have had held me in their power like <I>The Lord of the Rings</I> and <I>The Exorcist</I>, but this one has come close. I felt entirely helpless watching it, against expectations. It's a skillfully directed and respectfully made film with not a single exploitive frame. It makes you think about 9/11 for the right reasons, and is mercifully devoid of hindsight politics. Interesting is that Ben Sliney agreed to play himself; to this day I can't fathom how he got slammed with 9/11 his first day on the job as the FAA's National Operation Manager. <br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npez0IROybI">South Tower hit.</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HJOuz5sDykk/UeHE2ct6ySI/AAAAAAAAHlE/wQBVst8m8-g/s1600/taxi+driver.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HJOuz5sDykk/UeHE2ct6ySI/AAAAAAAAHlE/wQBVst8m8-g/s200/taxi+driver.jpg" /></a></div>20. <i>Taxi Driver,</i> Martin Scorsese. 1976. The third pivotal turning point in my cinematic education was Scorsese's masterpiece, which I saw in the mid-'90s. <I>Blue Velvet</I> was the bomb that opened my eyes. <I>Pulp Fiction</I> showed me there are no rules. <I>Taxi Driver</I> was the introspective gem, in many ways the quintessential film of the '70s, which was of course the Golden Age of Hollywood before it burned out. It taps into paranoia, alienation, and psychopathic "benevolence" in a sprawling first-person character study, and showed me how deep a filmmaker could go inside someone without becoming self-indulgent about it.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tiHTm6nBUw">What a 44 Magnum pistol can do.</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KOPFi94-kPM/UeM1KPisZTI/AAAAAAAAHsg/vnNFPqwyFfY/s1600/pans02.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KOPFi94-kPM/UeM1KPisZTI/AAAAAAAAHsg/vnNFPqwyFfY/s200/pans02.jpg" /></a></div>21. <i>Pan's Labyrinth,</i> Guillermo del Toro. 2006. This is how fairy tales were before Disney polluted them: unnerving, with as much horror as fantasy. Here an 11-year old girl retreats into her imagination to escape the brutalities of fascist Spain, but it's never clear whether the labyrinth is truly imaginary. At some points it seems obvious that Ofelia is imagining things as a child would: her stepfather can't see the faun she's talking to; her "fairie" friends are really grasshoppers; etc. On the other hand, Ofelia could not have escaped the locked attic, but she did, and so her chalk door must have really opened a magic portal. Her murder at the hands of her stepfather is stunning, and her after-world "reward" as bittersweet as the Grey Havens.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoN56mHkSJw">Ofelia's death.</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qo4rYpUlw44/UeM-MSjoowI/AAAAAAAAHtY/GjI1LyOWd3Q/s1600/alien-chestburster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qo4rYpUlw44/UeM-MSjoowI/AAAAAAAAHtY/GjI1LyOWd3Q/s200/alien-chestburster.jpg" /></a></div>22. <i>Alien,</i> Ridley Scott. 1979. Explanation is hardly needed for this one. It remains the scariest sci-fic film ever made. Kubrick's <I>Space Odyssey</I> showed space travel to be an awe-inspiring wonder; Scott showed the underside with claustrophobia, isolation, and invincible savagery. I never cease to be amazed at those who insist that James Cameron's sequel is superior. <I>Aliens</I> is just <I>Alien</I> on steroids, not even a fifth as scary, a cheap blockbuster involving military personnel whose job to die defending others. In the perfect original we feel the raw terror of six civilians stranded in space, hunted and devoured one by one, between nerve-wracking pauses.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsD6AL3HJtM">Chestburster.</a> <br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6lk8tHOyPnE/UeHG3KI9X7I/AAAAAAAAHlk/2gEgUnWiiFA/s1600/fanny-and-alexander2_lowres-detail-main.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6lk8tHOyPnE/UeHG3KI9X7I/AAAAAAAAHlk/2gEgUnWiiFA/s200/fanny-and-alexander2_lowres-detail-main.jpg" /></a></div>23. <i>Fanny and Alexander,</i> Ingmar Bergman. 1982. This is what I consider pure storytelling: ghosts and magical surrealism, a boy's gifted imagination, and Dickens-like tragedy under an abusive stepfather. But it's the androgynous figure of Ismael I'm endlessly fascinated by, and still have a hard time nailing down. He's so dangerous that Isak keeps him locked up; when he channels Alexander's wish to murder his stepfather, he erotically caresses the boy; he could even stand for Islam, implying that pagan Christianity (Alexander) needs the lethal power of Islam (Ismael), aided by Judaism (Isak), to break the power of orthodox Christianity (his stepfather the bishop). This is a five-hour epic that I wish lasted ten.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSmUY1k5c5U">Alexander and Ismael (the Fire).</a> <br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ApqWoffQBcU/UeHXz9FNkEI/AAAAAAAAHmM/GmUGKlCRvc8/s1600/cook.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ApqWoffQBcU/UeHXz9FNkEI/AAAAAAAAHmM/GmUGKlCRvc8/s200/cook.png" /></a></div>24. <i>The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover,</i> Peter Greenaway. 1989. Albert Spica is the most vile and despicable character represented on this list, the kind of person you can't believe the Lord-His-God doesn't strike dead. He presides over a banquet in a restaurant every night, eating and acting like a hog, demeaning his wife, the cook, customers, and even his thug colleagues. It's a gross obscene display, but for all the repugnance this film is dazzling eye-candy. Every room of the restaurant is saturated in arresting color (red dining room, green kitchen, white bathrooms), and the characters' clothes change color accordingly as they walk from one place to the next. The final act of forced cannibalism is perhaps the sweetest poetic justice I've ever seen.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=norKGYkqKEU">The restaurant.</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JM77M7v4NN0/UeKvI_-v9kI/AAAAAAAAHoo/1-fgFtQx-bM/s1600/the_divide_00096.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JM77M7v4NN0/UeKvI_-v9kI/AAAAAAAAHoo/1-fgFtQx-bM/s200/the_divide_00096.jpg" /></a></div>25. <i>The Divide,</i> Xavier Gens. 2012. I'm pleased to say that of my 50 picks, only three are Rotten Tomatoes. <I>Fire Walk With Me</I> (#9) was simply misunderstood, and <I>Crash's</I> (#46) pornography blinded critics to a perfect film. But there's no excuse at all for <I>The Divide</I>'s poor reception. It's the best Lord of the Flies-themed film I've ever seen, period. The performances are brilliant. Nine people are trapped in the basement of a high-rise apartment complex after a nuclear bombing, and despite their initial solidarity, cabin fever and base instincts quickly take over. There's torture, rape, sex slavery, and overblown lunacy... Even I am deeply chilled by what Gens believes people are really like under our societal conditioning.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPJfHtjS6mo">Mickey's fingers.</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gXJyc3hO1X0/UeHgiyl_2uI/AAAAAAAAHmk/WRXg8pRlYY8/s1600/InglouriousBasterds.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gXJyc3hO1X0/UeHgiyl_2uI/AAAAAAAAHmk/WRXg8pRlYY8/s200/InglouriousBasterds.jpg" /></a></div>26. <i>Inglourious Basterds,</i> Quentin Tarantino. 2009. For the longest time I thought <I>Pulp Fiction</I> was Tarantino's first and last masterpiece. Then came this ripper. Please note that I'm no friend of cartoon villains, especially in brutal historical periods, so it's all the more an indication of Tarantino's genius that he can use caricature to great effect. Especially in the character of Landa, a brilliantly conceived Nazi I could watch all day. As for the Jewish Basterds, they're a ludicrous wish-fulfillment fantasy that entertain as they self-indict. The film forces us to see ourselves as Nazis as we cheer the Basterds on for their inhumanities, in the same way Hitler applauds the on-screen carnage of his propagandist film.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWgHiUZYRSo">Bar shootout.</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-opMVMtwxAUM/UeHgtntZvII/AAAAAAAAHms/2jtATYiHnsc/s1600/django-unchained-ku-klux-klan.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-opMVMtwxAUM/UeHgtntZvII/AAAAAAAAHms/2jtATYiHnsc/s200/django-unchained-ku-klux-klan.jpg" /></a></div>27. <i>Django Unchained,</i> Quentin Tarantino. 2012. Ditto for everything I said above: this film does to American slavery what the Basterds did to Nazism; they're equal favorites of mine. I honestly don't know whose performance I revere more, Leo DiCaprio as the despicable plantation owner or Samuel Jackson as his collaborationist slave, a cranked up Uncle Tom -- or in Jackson's own words, "the most deplorable negro in cinematic history". The brutal realistic violence done to slaves is run parallel with the cathartic violence of overblown revenge, a dualism that Tarantino has tamed to near perfection.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLup3ye_gIo">Arrival at Candyland.</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QB38HKTjbAY/UeKtE-5Cx2I/AAAAAAAAHnM/ZbJ-Rn08X1o/s1600/Rear-Window-rear-window-28348571-720-480.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QB38HKTjbAY/UeKtE-5Cx2I/AAAAAAAAHnM/ZbJ-Rn08X1o/s200/Rear-Window-rear-window-28348571-720-480.jpg" /></a></div>28. <i>Rear Window,</i> Alfred Hitchcock. 1955. In which endless suspense is wrung out of a spying busybody, banal loneliness, bickering, pointless existence -- and finally a murder plot. I love how voyeurism is indicted through the nurse's accusations, and my favorite scenes involve the early sparring between her and James Stewart's character, and then Stewart and his girlfriend (Grace Kelly), as they razz each other over their relationship. Stewart's acting is effortless as always, and he gets not one but two terrific "shut up" lines, whilst Kelly railroads him for his diseased peeping Tom behavior, until finally convinced there's something truly nasty going on across the street. I don't call this blog <I>The Busybody</I> for nothing.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ez6dw3ywcc">Caught spying.</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-f7Py3VHvaLY/UeHEFRl44fI/AAAAAAAAHkw/1tphy4ph0tI/s1600/jun02.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-f7Py3VHvaLY/UeHEFRl44fI/AAAAAAAAHkw/1tphy4ph0tI/s200/jun02.jpg" /></a></div>29. <i>Juno,</i> Jason Reitman. 2007. The genre of light comedy is normally anathema to me. But <I>Juno</I> is so arresting and honest in its simplicity, and its characters so endearing, that it works just right. It's also genius for fooling the pro-life crowd into thinking it endorses their agenda. Even if you know nothing about scriptwriter Diablo Cody (a pro-choice feminist) and actress Ellen Page (also a pro-choice liberal who participates in films she believes in), the film clearly establishes a girl's choice to have her baby without glorifying teen pregnancy, and that she would be supported by her friends and family regardless of her choice. It takes choice for granted, assumes hard-won rights, and doesn't need to preach. I've watched this many, many times.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzXfoFFsmhU">Prom fight.</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hR3SoAyZ5Os/UeKtNqrev6I/AAAAAAAAHnU/ZFAf3BGE6sg/s1600/zero-dark-thirty.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hR3SoAyZ5Os/UeKtNqrev6I/AAAAAAAAHnU/ZFAf3BGE6sg/s200/zero-dark-thirty.jpg" /></a></div>30. <i>Zero Dark Thirty,</i> Kathryn Bigelow, 2012. Last year was a sanctimonious one for critics. Spike Lee leveled ridiculous complaints about <I>Django Unchained</I>'s supposed racial insensitivity (the repeated use of the n-word), while others pounced on <I>Zero Dark Thirty</I>'s supposed apologetics for waterboarding and similar torture procedures used by the CIA in the days following 9/11. It's no accident that these were the two best films of the year, and thankfully they were well received on whole. Bigelow isn't a political propagandist in any case, and her expose of the hunt for Bin Laden is her best film to date, finer and more disciplined than even <I>The Hurt Locker.</I><br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLC0nRJJXvg">Bin Laden's Courier.</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VXNquLzjTCk/UeKtYH9cjII/AAAAAAAAHnc/5u5bmMYbX6Y/s1600/faith+trilogy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VXNquLzjTCk/UeKtYH9cjII/AAAAAAAAHnc/5u5bmMYbX6Y/s200/faith+trilogy.jpg" /></a></div>31. <i>The Faith Trilogy,</i> Ingmar Bergman. 1961, 1962, 1963. I'm cheating here, since each of the three films stand on their own. If I took them individually, <I>Through a Glass Darkly</I> and <I>Winter Light</I> would place lower, and <I>The Silence</I> much higher; this slot feels about right for treating them as a whole. Bergman was obsessed with the riddle of God's silence, and each film escalates the issue: from the spiritual frustration suggesting God as sinister, to the anger questioning his existence, to finally accepting there are no answers (though the ongoing search for answers remains important). These were the first Bergman films I saw, and Harriet Andersson quickly became my favorite female Bergman actor, Gunnar Bjornstrand my favorite male; I like the way <I>Glass Darkly</I> and <I>Winter Light</I> complement each other in other ways, one by the intense character interactions of incest and psychological breakdown, the other more by explicit theology. <I>The Silence</I> is the unnerving masterpiece.<br /><br />
Scenes: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41dVm3EauOU">The spider god</a>, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eR6ZPZwEpU">words that kill</a>, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5zAFmZ9hAI">hotel of the grotesque</a>.<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-g1s_22CqQK4/UrRxF7iOLiI/AAAAAAAAIYw/58UbdeHC2NA/s1600/sunshine.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-g1s_22CqQK4/UrRxF7iOLiI/AAAAAAAAIYw/58UbdeHC2NA/s200/sunshine.jpg" /></a></div>32. <i>Sunshine,</i> Danny Boyle. 2007. I can't say enough about this film. It flew under the radar when released, and it's still largely unheard of. It's set in a future where the sun is dying, and a crew embarks on a mission to deliver a thermo-nuclear payload that will re-ignite the sun's fire. Captain Kaneda's death is a powerful sacrifice, and from that early point the mission becomes one calamity after the next; more crew members have to sacrifice themselves, and they even contemplate murdering the one of them "least fit" in order to save oxygen. On top of all this, there is the terrifying subplot of a hideously disfigured religious fanatic who believes God wants humanity to die, and does everything he can to slaughter the crew. Underrated is an understatement for <I>Sunshine</I>.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR69EKvcW-4">Captain Kaneda's death.</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dJ2UYLukHK0/UeHi4KarV2I/AAAAAAAAHm8/tON6Dof3xbE/s1600/videodrome04.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dJ2UYLukHK0/UeHi4KarV2I/AAAAAAAAHm8/tON6Dof3xbE/s200/videodrome04.jpg" /></a></div>33. <i>Videodrome,</i> David Cronenberg. 1983. If there was ever a film that merits the cliche "like nothing you've seen before", this is it. The idea is that watching videos can somehow physically change and corrupt you, and involves everything from torture porn to sadomasochism to mind control, all weaved through the body horrors of flesh guns, male "vagina" slots that play VHS tapes, and cruel metamorphosis. There is a snuff-film franchise, and a plot to broadcast a signal to millions of viewers, which will create a "new flesh" -- the merging of human consciousness with a media stream of sexualized violence. This is one of those films that can make you high without drugs, like Pink Floyd's <I>The Wall.</I><br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWvrcLBnjh4">"Long live the new flesh."</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-j3QtQ0X6g14/UeKtz8sSMaI/AAAAAAAAHn0/hQGAwP-MgL0/s1600/Shame_00001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-j3QtQ0X6g14/UeKtz8sSMaI/AAAAAAAAHn0/hQGAwP-MgL0/s200/Shame_00001.jpg" /></a></div>34. <i>Shame,</i> Ingmar Bergman. 1968. I went through a period of watching every war film I could get my hands on. Most were Oliver Stone films -- annoying, politically self-righteous screeds. Others were scarce improvements. Not until I found Stanley Kubrick and Terrence Malick would I get what I was looking for. Yet as much as I revere <I>Paths of Glory</I> and <I>The Thin Red Line</I>, they don't quite make this cut. Only one war film does: Bergman's <I>Shame</I>. It has no axes to grind (Stone), no politics (Kubrick), no cosmic "messages" (Malick) -- nothing to interfere with the close-up intimacies of a married couple who are are uprooted from home, falsely accused of bad allegiances, and humiliated beyond endurance. The exodus into a sea of corpses will haunt me forever.<br /><br />
Scene: Nothing much available on youtube.<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Vg9dUFGL9VU/UeKt7UxUmNI/AAAAAAAAHn8/rAT4JNY3hrQ/s1600/hour-of-the-wolf1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Vg9dUFGL9VU/UeKt7UxUmNI/AAAAAAAAHn8/rAT4JNY3hrQ/s200/hour-of-the-wolf1.jpg" /></a></div>35. <i>Hour of the Wolf,</i> Ingmar Bergman. 1968. This one has surface similarities with <I>Shame</I>, besides being tied at the same place on this list. They were released the same year; they star Max Von Sydow and Liv Ullman as a married couple on an island; they involve the character played by Max crumbling under extreme pressure. But in <I>Hour of the Wolf</I> the pressure is interior rather than exterior -- inner demons, personal alienation, homosexual guilt, necrophilia, and the intensified blurring of reality and fantasy. We're never sure if we're seeing Johan's demons, or those shared by Johan and Alma together, or some combination with reality. We're also not sure if Bergman lost his goddamn mind when he made this film. <br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE5vJKSeX5o">Necrophiliac weirdness.</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/--_q2f0L27fM/UeF-2l6vscI/AAAAAAAAHjQ/s6LEbWjz2-M/s1600/Eraserhead_00001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/--_q2f0L27fM/UeF-2l6vscI/AAAAAAAAHjQ/s6LEbWjz2-M/s200/Eraserhead_00001.jpg" /></a></div>36. <i>Eraserhead,</i> David Lynch. 1977. This nightmare is about many things, from a commentary on reproductive mores, consequences of unplanned sex, fear of parenthood, industrial pollution, even a mysterious Old Testament text which Lynch refuses to come clean about. My bet is on chapter 3 of Job, arguably the most existentially spiritual book of the bible. I'm not surprised that Stanley Kubrick forced his actors on <I>The Shining</I> to watch it. Like the haunted hotel picture, <I>Eraserhead</I> traps us in a unique dreadful atmosphere. It's for my money the best use of the black-and-white medium in any film.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV2xAAJOmVo">Death of tadpole baby.</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-39i2MdeKkUg/UeKuLw314EI/AAAAAAAAHoM/ZQNXoFQYjGc/s1600/Goodfellas2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-39i2MdeKkUg/UeKuLw314EI/AAAAAAAAHoM/ZQNXoFQYjGc/s200/Goodfellas2.jpg" /></a></div>37. <i>Goodfellas,</i> Martin Scorsese. 1990. It's funny how <I>The Godfather</I> films haven't aged well for me. Back in the '90s I'm sure I would have included them on a list like this. Even after seeing <I>Goodfellas,</I> I thought both were masterpieces tackling their subject matter from different angles. Conceptually, I even like what Coppola was doing more than Scorsese. Michael Corleone is a tragic figure, and he and his family are mostly sympathetic characters. In <I>Goodfellas</I>, gangsters are unmitigated scumbags. But that's the point: Scorsese removed the honor which seems over-romanticized when you watch the Corleone family too much. It was time for the eye-opening reality of organized crime. I mean seriously, watch the clip below, and it's clear why Scorsese rules over Coppola.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8wJt59Q6So">Tommy and Spider.</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MzpaWV9xFeY/UeKuUXvTI1I/AAAAAAAAHoU/07yc3paOMzM/s1600/casino56.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MzpaWV9xFeY/UeKuUXvTI1I/AAAAAAAAHoU/07yc3paOMzM/s200/casino56.jpg" /></a></div>38. <i>Casino,</i> Martin Scorsese. 1994. Can anyone judge this film without worshiping the one above? The standard line is that <I>Goodfellas</I> is a work of art, and <I>Casino</I> a good film that walks in the other's shadow. This is wrong; both are masterpieces. That Joe Pesci is the same homicidal maniac in both doesn't affect this conclusion. Had <I>Casino</I> been made first, everyone would be calling it the masterpiece, and in a way I think it does more. It's as much about place as character, like the Godfather films capturing an era in a mob-runned city (Las Vegas) before the law got control. It has a more epic feel, and I even like the characters slightly better. It's ultimately a tie though, when you get down to it.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLpihqqsFKQ">F-bombs in the desert.</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tUQ5JV5uzf0/UeKudU6kelI/AAAAAAAAHoc/beyAxtbikS8/s1600/The-Departed-the-departed-17244792-900-506.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tUQ5JV5uzf0/UeKudU6kelI/AAAAAAAAHoc/beyAxtbikS8/s200/The-Departed-the-departed-17244792-900-506.jpg" /></a></div>39. <i>The Departed,</i> Martin Scorsese. 2006. Yet another film you can get lynched for daring to float on the same plane as <I>Goodfellas</I>. But again, I'm doing exactly that, and as with <I>Casino</I> this film works even stronger in some ways. It shows gangsters infiltrating the highest levels of law enforcement, and cops doing vice-versa. The mole theme of losing one's identity works wonderfully, and <I>The Departed</I> frankly has the highest re-watch value of Scorsese's gangster trilogy. It's constantly hilarious and endlessly violent; it throws curve-balls you never see coming. Even its liability works for rather than against -- the appallingly phony Boston accents (aside from Damon and Wahlberg, who are from Boston), which I can't help think were put on deliberately.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b66y1LHixqY">Elevator carnage.</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-p4ZtOt0Y_d0/UeKwxzVJhOI/AAAAAAAAHpI/dIQxpp_TS8s/s1600/seven+shoot.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-p4ZtOt0Y_d0/UeKwxzVJhOI/AAAAAAAAHpI/dIQxpp_TS8s/s200/seven+shoot.jpg" /></a></div>40. <i>Seven,</i> David Fincher. 1995. I remember a point in my life when I thought <I>The Silence of the Lambs</I> couldn't possibly be topped in the serial-killer genre. Now I can't remember the last time I watched it. The is the one that never gets old. It feeds my fascination with the seven deadly sins and the contrapasso punishments of Dante's Inferno, though admittedly all this would have failed if not for the sickening way John Doe gets his victory in the end. Everything about this film is perfect: the atmosphere, scoring (the prologue's Nine Inch Nails song, and the library scene's Air on the G-String in particular), and casting. Morgan Freeman, Brad Pitt, and Kevin Spacey fill their roles as if born to play them.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1giVzxyoclE">The box.</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kZInkFR3HB0/UeK_TqxTLEI/AAAAAAAAHpo/jGPd5pmdDBM/s1600/Conan3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kZInkFR3HB0/UeK_TqxTLEI/AAAAAAAAHpo/jGPd5pmdDBM/s200/Conan3.jpg" /></a></div>41. <i>Conan the Barbarian,</i> John Milius. 1982. This is a very special film for me, and one of only three fantasy entries on this list. It was my first R-rated experience and did a wonder on my pre-teen sensibilities. Between scenes of graphic sex -- especially Conan's coupling with a vampire who goes rabid on him at the moment of orgasm -- and a deluge of blood and gore, I was utterly stupefied. <I>Conan</I> threw me into a world of lust and brutality I was so unprepared for at age 12, high adventure where thieves rob the temples of evil priests, rescue their victims, battle giant snakes, and stumble on forgotten swords held in the clutches of cobwebbed skeletons. It also spoiled me rotten, as the '80s decade afterwards unleashed a deluge of cheesy, PG-rated fantasy.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huTKdSZMRPg">Thulsa Doom beheads Conan's mother.</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HHkdyAbEqNg/UeLFd6YyPSI/AAAAAAAAHrw/UZEPlTcSc2Q/s1600/birds28.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HHkdyAbEqNg/UeLFd6YyPSI/AAAAAAAAHrw/UZEPlTcSc2Q/s200/birds28.jpg" /></a></div>42. <i>The Birds,</i> Alfred Hitchcock. 1963. My favorite post-apocalyptic films are <I>The Divide</I> (#25) and <I>The Road</I> (#49). This is my favorite apocalyptic film. It's nihilistic to the core, unapologetic about nature's savagery, and like the great horror films rarely seen anymore has the patience to let its characters breathe and become people we care about before unleashing the terror. And what a terror -- even by today's standards, the bird attack sequences are convincing. When nature comes after us, says Hitchcock, things aren't going to turn out okay, and he's probably right. We never learn why the birds have turned on humanity, and, like the reason for Regan McNeil's demonic possession, we don't need or want to know.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydLJtKlVVZw">Crows on the playground.</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ksovHvxtXAE/UeK_dG17daI/AAAAAAAAHpw/6s1FtWMAxVk/s1600/killerjoe2.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ksovHvxtXAE/UeK_dG17daI/AAAAAAAAHpw/6s1FtWMAxVk/s200/killerjoe2.png" /></a></div>43. <i>Killer Joe,</i> William Friedkin. 2012. Friedkin has been a lot like Tarantino. He took the world by storm in his early years, lost his mojo somewhere along the way, then made a raging comeback. <I>Bug</I> was one such comeback (it almost made this list), and <I>Killer Joe</I> an even better one. The Tarantino parallels continue, as I get filthy sick laughing at things in this film which are far from funny. It's about white trash culture, hiring a hit man to kill your mother, loaning out your sister for sex, and everything careens out of control an outrageous climax: a forced blowjob with a chicken leg (it's already become legendary) and a pulverizing "last supper". <br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8xIliY_XRM">The chicken-bone scene.</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dqndsPW-_XE/UeK_1eUvwVI/AAAAAAAAHqI/wqAU7PrsPhQ/s1600/barry-lyndon-duel.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dqndsPW-_XE/UeK_1eUvwVI/AAAAAAAAHqI/wqAU7PrsPhQ/s200/barry-lyndon-duel.jpg" /></a></div>44. <i>Barry Lyndon,</i> Stanley Kubrick. 1975. Whenever I'm asked for a historical film that really immerses you in the time period, this one comes first to mind. Kubrick evokes the Enlightenment era with incredible ease, the irony being that there seems precious little enlightening about this world of primitive warfare, ugly duels, brawls, and dishonest gambling. In any case, after three hours I find that I've near forgotten myself and the values I hold. Furthermore, the common complaint that Kubrick lacks life and emotion is disproven by <I>Barry Lyndon</I>. The scene with Barry weeping over the bed of his crippled son has me doing the same, even if I loathe him by this point in the story.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bos2ZTGNZc">The duel.</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ItzlWLRpoqE/UroQXJkBpLI/AAAAAAAAIcA/o5LlvPWFOgQ/s1600/Adele-Exarchopoulos-and-Lea-Seydoux-in-Blue-is-the-Warmest-Colour.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ItzlWLRpoqE/UroQXJkBpLI/AAAAAAAAIcA/o5LlvPWFOgQ/s200/Adele-Exarchopoulos-and-Lea-Seydoux-in-Blue-is-the-Warmest-Colour.jpg" /></a></div>45. <i>Blue is the Warmest Color,</i> Abdellatif Kechiche. 2013. It's sad that the film has gained notoriety for graphic lesbian sex scenes, which for the record are tasteful and well used. The pornographic tone fits the early part of the story where the young Adele is discovering herself and seeing herself in wildly adolescent terms. The real theme is the all-encompassing power of love, which can be wonderful and then destructive, but with room for healing afterwards. Long after the painful break up, Emma is able to forgive, and Adele obtain at least some measure of closure, knowing this was a once in a lifetime experience. It's a rare example of a film that's long to begin with, but I wish could be twice as long.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0NGcfesIL4">Homophobic bullying.</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VOuYpZCMQp4/UeLALmAWBqI/AAAAAAAAHqY/2pRZeuxooFw/s1600/crash1.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VOuYpZCMQp4/UeLALmAWBqI/AAAAAAAAHqY/2pRZeuxooFw/s200/crash1.png" /></a></div>46. <i>Crash,</i> David Cronenberg. 1996. Who would come up with a fetish of being sexually aroused by car crashes? Cronenberg of course. I would probably call <I>Crash</I> the most artistic NC-17 film I've seen. It's not sensational, just the opposite in fact, incredibly subdued and polished. The cold blue look works wonders in this regard, and dialogue seems to be spoken through a dream-like filter. The parallel of surrendering to an automobile wreck and giving oneself up to a sex partner sounds too crazy to take seriously, but it works in context, and approaches the artistic nihilism of Ingmar Bergman.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3tiPDkrwr0">Car fetishes.</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-O1c5W2aOySg/UeLAVA1kTlI/AAAAAAAAHqg/MKiczFRDQP0/s1600/Sawdust+and+Tinsel_00001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-O1c5W2aOySg/UeLAVA1kTlI/AAAAAAAAHqg/MKiczFRDQP0/s200/Sawdust+and+Tinsel_00001.jpg" /></a></div>47. <i>Sawdust and Tinsel,</i> Ingmar Bergman. 1953. Anne and Albert are unquestionably my favorite cinematic couple. They hurt each other, despise each other, cheat on each other, yet persist in loving each other, trapped in a harsh career of a traveling circus. I've reached the point where I've stopped calling <I>Sawdust and Tinsel</I> underrated, as it seems to have undergone reassessment by enough Bergman scholars in recent years. I catch new and hidden meanings each time I see it. It's a cruel parable of sexual power and degradation, in which the humiliating worlds of the circus and theater collide.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnzXSxuwrcs">Anne's confession.</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-56NH4-fNH_E/Ur1w2KU4hhI/AAAAAAAAIdc/1cksX0M-42A/s1600/The-Grey.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-56NH4-fNH_E/Ur1w2KU4hhI/AAAAAAAAIdc/1cksX0M-42A/s200/The-Grey.jpg" /></a></div>48. <i>The Grey,</i> Joe Carnahan. 2012. First things first: wolves are <a href="http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/02/03/would-real-wolves-act-like-the-wolves-of-the-grey/">outrageously misrepresented in this film</a>. In reality the poor things are wimps, so you need to suspend disbelief and just pretend this film takes place on an alternate Earth where wolves evolved with nasty temperaments more akin to grizzly bears. The distortion makes it feel more of a horror picture, which in many ways it is. But it's a survivalist film that has the honesty to kill off the entire cast, one by one, as they flee a crash that's left them stranded in the Alaskan wilderness.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9hnYXb9y9I">"Live and die on this day."</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-J2f9KB3gasc/UroYQF4LfHI/AAAAAAAAIcc/WiYpgp08BHI/s1600/the_road6.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-J2f9KB3gasc/UroYQF4LfHI/AAAAAAAAIcc/WiYpgp08BHI/s200/the_road6.jpg" /></a></div>49. <i>The Road,</i> John Hillcoat. 2009. I often say, with considerably strained patience, that literal adaptations of novels don't work; that's why we need talented directors and scriptwriters who can "crack the code" of the book and make it work on screen. Once in a blue moon, however, the novel is the film. Like <I>The Road.</I> The post-apocalyptic setting is bleak as you'd expect from Cormac McCarthy, with lone innocents fleeing marauding cannibals across a desolate world. The ending panders too much to those preferring tidy closure -- the one part of the book I would have changed -- but that's a small quibble on my part.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mwq0mgvC1eY">"Take off your clothes."</a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-33tAXzwS5pk/UeLCGRWx90I/AAAAAAAAHrQ/PvvAiBRiAE4/s1600/near_dark_01_stor.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-33tAXzwS5pk/UeLCGRWx90I/AAAAAAAAHrQ/PvvAiBRiAE4/s200/near_dark_01_stor.jpg" /></a></div>50. <i>Near Dark,</i> Kathryn Bigelow. 1987. I could spend days unpacking this beast. It's one of my favorite horror films, but not very scary, since we're made to identify with the vampires who have a grand old time terrorizing and feeding off humanity. It's a love story reminiscent of the romance in <I>Let the Right One In</I>, and while the latter is more critically acclaimed, I'll take Caleb and Mae over Oskar and Eli any day. Noteworthy is the cast (three of the vampires) recycled from <I>Aliens</I>; James Cameron was Bigelow's husband at the time, and she made the far better movie. Just as her award-winning <I>Hurt Locker</I> was vastly superior to the trashy <I>Avatar</I>. Some things never change.<br /><br />
Scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgPvXQX-k0E">Bar Feast.</a><br /><br />Loren Rosson IIIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15002312216839280976noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14388695.post-29678252109996417472013-12-24T10:56:00.003-05:002013-12-24T14:27:34.494-05:00Phil Robertson is like a Jihadist: He Knows His ScripturesIt should go without saying that Phil Robertson is a public embarrassment, but it's also important to keep our facts straight. As <a href="http://www.jasonstaples.com/blog/2013/biblical-illiteracy-rears-its-head-in-phil-robertson-flap-3168">Jason Staples</a> does in his recent blogpost, which is worth citing at length:
<blockquote>
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hYNKbSha_Dg/UrmH-73LtmI/AAAAAAAAIbg/pfyvEa6pXeY/s1600/o-KINGDOM-900.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hYNKbSha_Dg/UrmH-73LtmI/AAAAAAAAIbg/pfyvEa6pXeY/s200/o-KINGDOM-900.jpg" /></a>"The quote on the left [see image to the right] is not Robertson's at all. It is a quotation of 1 Corinthians 6:9–10. Remarkably, two of the three quotes attributed to Robertson... are not Robertson's words at all but rather direct quotes from the New Testament (the other coming from Rom 1:24–32). <br /><br />
"It's also worth noting that Pope Francis presumably agrees with these quotes from the apostle Paul, which have long guided Catholic tradition in this area; he has simply changed the rhetoric surrounding the issue to emphasize that the Church does not and (at least in terms of doctrine) has never reduced people to behavior or desires, emphasizing that a person is more than his/her sexual preferences or choices. Robertson, of course, said much the same thing, though far less eloquently than the philosophically-trained Pope, in his GQ interview.<br /><br />
"How exactly the Pope <I>interprets</I> these passages [emphasis mine] is unclear, and that's the discussion that would be more valuable here. Instead of ripping Robertson for quoting these passages, the more worthwhile discussion concerns Robertson's interpretation and application of these passages in the modern day. But instead, numerous media outlets have irresponsibly misattributed these quotations with the presumed aim of demonizing Robertson without such a discussion. The way many have latched onto Pope Francis' rhetorically attractive but still firmly traditional quotations without acknowledging that he continues to uphold traditional church teaching (the 'only' in the above quote [to the right] is quite significant) is similarly problematic."</blockquote>
This is well put, and is the same problem we've seen repeatedly when post-9/11 critics quote the Qur'an and are then accused of misrepresenting the Qur'an. It happens all the time to Robert Spencer when he quotes militant passages preaching hate and warfare against non-Muslims, and when he furthermore points out that there is currently no mainstream sect of Islam or school of Islamic jurisprudence that has officially re-interpreted or spiritualized these passages. (All four schools of Islamic jurisprudence still teach that the Muslim community should wage war against unbelievers and subjugate them under its rule.) Of course, there are millions of Muslims who ignore this and choose to co-exist peacefully with others; but that doesn't change what the Qur'an actually teaches and what mainstream Islam continues to uphold. As an analogy, the Catholic Church continues to affirm the intrinsic immorality of contraceptives, even if many Catholics ignore the teaching.<br /><br />
The point is that Phil Robertson is not "misrepresenting Christianity". He is citing Paul verbatim. Now, one might argue that he is taking Paul's statements out of context, but frankly I don't even think that's the case, because Paul's indictments largely transcend his <I>sitz im leben</I>. Scholars tell us he was swiping temple prostitution (pederasty) as part of his attack in Rom 1:24-32 and I Cor 6:9-10, and while that's undoubtedly true, it's not the whole story. The apostle hated male homosexuality across the board. The flip-side, however, is worth noting: like the rest of the bible, Paul is silent on the subject of female homosexuality if Rom 1:26 points to alternative heterosexual behavior instead of lesbianism. This isn't surprising: as the product of an honor-shame macho culture, he was (certainly) homophobic about male homo-eroticism, and (possibly) indifferent to female homo-eroticism.<br /><br />
I admire Paul greatly as an historical figure and early Christian thinker, but I consider his views on (male) homosexuality to be obsolete -- as obsolete as his instruction for women in the church. I take for granted there is nothing remotely immoral or wrong about homosexual behavior between two consenting adults. Jason Staples probably thinks differently. But where we agree is on how issues like this should be assessed. If someone is unambiguously upholding Paul's position, that should be acknowledged instead of implying that he's fabricating his own bigotry; if someone more admirable (like Pope Francis, whom I do have much respect for) is more delicately upholding Paul's position, that too should be called out for what it is. When Islamic radicals cite the necessity of the jihad, they are doing justice to their Qur'an, and it's not "Islamophobic" to point this out. It is not hateful to point out hateful passages or homophobic ones. If we're going to confront problems like holy wars and homophobia, we need to do so honestly, and the honesty begins by acknowledging that problems like these are often embedded in the scripture of one's religion. They won't go away by pretending that they're overblown, misunderstood, or even invented by fringe fanatics or bigots.Loren Rosson IIIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15002312216839280976noreply@blogger.com0