|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 342 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 75 of 342:
| 
Jan 18 15:10 UTC 2006 |
Re #69: you wouldn't mind being harranged and forced in other ways by
intimidation and gifts into converting to Islam?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 76 of 342:
|
Jan 18 17:47 UTC 2006 |
Re #71: Protection from slave traders, availability of medicine and larger
amounts of food, etc., are all included. (One of the main examples given in the
film itself is that the Guarani, when living in the jungle, had to kill any
third child born into any family to keep the poplation down, because they were
nomadic; with the mission available, this was no longer necessary.)
Re #73: So, retitle nearly every item in the history of Grex the "Drift Item."
Re #75: There was no pressure from the Jesuits (either gifts, beyond what they
would have given anyway, or intimidation) -- the natives came of their own free
will. (It is noted that "with an orchestra, the Jesuits could have converted
the whole continent," since the Guarani inclined toward music.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 77 of 342:
|
Jan 18 18:09 UTC 2006 |
That's the point - indigenous people are seduced by the power of
outsiders. The "cargo cults" are examples. It is almost impossible to
prevent, but it does not have to be fostered. Missionaries intentionally
foster the conversion of indigenous people to the missionaries' ideas and
practices.
|
tod
|
|
response 78 of 342:
|
Jan 18 18:14 UTC 2006 |
Oil companies turn Amirs into XBox and Rolls Royce junkies, too.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 79 of 342:
|
Jan 18 18:48 UTC 2006 |
> Missionaries are abominations.
Spoken like a true non-believer!
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 80 of 342:
|
Jan 18 18:57 UTC 2006 |
Hey, if they're hot enough, I'll accept a missionary position.
|
aruba
|
|
response 81 of 342:
|
Jan 18 19:07 UTC 2006 |
Rane, I really think you are showing bigotry when you say "missionaries are
abominations". You can object to some of the things they do, but you can't
possibly say that (for example) allowing the native people in that movie to
be able to not kill some of their children was an immoral thing. Therefore,
at least some of what missionaries do is good, and therefore it's way over
the top to use the word "abomination".
|
kingjon
|
|
response 82 of 342:
|
Jan 18 19:28 UTC 2006 |
Re #77:
*What* "power" of the outsiders?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 83 of 342:
|
Jan 18 19:34 UTC 2006 |
I haven't seen the movie so I can't judge the practice in question. It is
true that I think I prefer our current morality on infanticide to what has
been practiced, but historically there have been societies with ritual
killings that served their beliefs. Take, for example, the Aztecs. How can
we judge them without knowing them? These issues have been brought up in
such fiction as Star Trek, where killings that serve the society (for
example, to manage space and resources) are accepted and thought natural
by the victims. How could one object to an eternal life in the hereafter
by having one's heart eviserated?
Some of our current moralities may, in fact, be eventually destructive to
this world and human existence.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 84 of 342:
|
Jan 18 19:38 UTC 2006 |
Re #82: planes, radios, cameras, guns, and ceremonial displays, all have
intimidated indigenous peoples. A set piece in fiction, reflecting some
reality, is "civilized" persons being taken as "gods" by "native" people
(and then found to be not gods at all.....).
|
kingjon
|
|
response 85 of 342:
|
Jan 18 19:45 UTC 2006 |
Re #84:
Set in 1750. Remember that. The first guns that entered the hands of natives
are in the fight to *preserve* the mission after the Church's official
protection has been withdrawn, and were stolen from the Portuguese army.
(They'd met guns in the hands of slavers, before). The "ceremonial displays"
were mostly produced by the natives themselves. (The biggest European influence
was in music, where many instruments were made in the mission and much
European-style music was performed, but native-style music (to my taste quite
ugly) remained outside the buildings.)
|
happyboy
|
|
response 86 of 342:
|
Jan 18 20:06 UTC 2006 |
the mission was lame, black robe was way better.
|
richard
|
|
response 87 of 342:
|
Jan 19 00:32 UTC 2006 |
hey guys, this is the MOVIES item. Remember, movies movies movies?
Does anyone go to the movies in the theater anymore? Judging from the
lack of movie reviews this time around, it doesn't seem like it.
There are some wonderful movies out there. Am I the only one who has
seen Brokeback Mountain (the current Oscar favorite), or King Kong, or
Good Night and Good Luck, or Woody Allen's "Match Point"? Hasn't
anybody seen Philip Seymour Hoffman as "Capote"?
These are great movies, if these movies don't get you into a movie
theater, what will?
|
richard
|
|
response 88 of 342:
|
Jan 19 00:38 UTC 2006 |
re #88 Movie theaters are in fact on the endangered species list. In
hollywood now, they are talking seriously about eliminating the lag
time between a movie's release in theaters and its dvd release. Movies
get downloaded off the 'net, or videotaped in a theater, and bootlegged
on the street all too easily. The only way some see to combat the
piracy is to release the movies on dvd straight away.
So one day soon you may be seeing a movie in a theater, and for a
premium price, if you like the movie, you'll be able to buy it on dvd
on the way out and take it home. This could endanger movie theaters,
because once people can buy brand new movies on dvd, many won't see the
point in paying high ticket prices to sit in a theater.
The thing is that there are some movies that you MUST see in a theater
to get the full effect. Like Peter Jackson's King Kong. You couldn't
possibly appreciate the magnitude of Jackson's sets and special effects
and sound effects on a small screen. You need to see a movie like that
on the very biggest screen possible with the best sound system.
Also isn't part of the fun of going to movies being able to watch great
films with an audience, as a collective experience? But maybe, judging
by this item even, people just don't have time to sit in a movie
theater for two hours anymore...
|
rcurl
|
|
response 89 of 342:
|
Jan 19 00:42 UTC 2006 |
Unless it becomes an audience-participation movie, I am completely unaware
of the other people there except for any annoying habits they have. Or are
those what you mean by a "collective experience"?
|
twenex
|
|
response 90 of 342:
|
Jan 19 00:43 UTC 2006 |
I'm with Rane on this one.
|
richard
|
|
response 91 of 342:
|
Jan 19 00:52 UTC 2006 |
re #89 I enjoy being in a theater and participating in collective
laughs or screams. I like seeing how others react to scenes, and when
I react myself in the same way, it enhances the experience. From the
way rane describes it, they may as well do away with the speakers on
the walls and just have headphones on the seats to use.
I mean do you go to a concert and not enjoy being in the audience with
other like minded fans of that particular musician>?
|
tod
|
|
response 92 of 342:
|
Jan 19 00:56 UTC 2006 |
re #87
I went to Syriana AND Fun with Dick and Jane on Monday.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 93 of 342:
|
Jan 19 01:01 UTC 2006 |
re #88: Apparently Stephen Soderburgh's movie "Bubble", apparently
released in September of 2005, though I hadn't heard of it until today
when I read a bit about one of the actresses in the local newspaper,
was released simultaneously in theaters, on DVD, and on cable.
|
twenex
|
|
response 94 of 342:
|
Jan 19 01:02 UTC 2006 |
What I get out of "the speakers on the walls" has little or nothing to do with
the laughs or the screams of the audience.
I mean do you go to a concert and not enjoy being in the audience with
other like minded fans of that particular musician>?
Yes, but a film is somewhat different. I suppose it might be the same if I
went to the cinema to see a film by particular directors or actors, but what
attract me to watching films (in the cinema) is the special effects. If a film
doesn't rely on SFX, then I don't bother with the cinema as film and film-food
prices these days amount to daylight robbery. So I don't get the same
experience from watching a film as I would get from, say, being in a room full
of people who are fellow fans of Black Rebel Motorcycle Club.
|
twenex
|
|
response 95 of 342:
|
Jan 19 01:03 UTC 2006 |
though I hadn't heard of it until today
when I read a bit about one of the actresses in the local newspaper,
was released simultaneously in theaters, on DVD, and on cable.
How telling re: the quality of the release.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 96 of 342:
|
Jan 19 01:08 UTC 2006 |
Speakers on the wall are used instead of earphones because a) they are a lot
cheaper, b) they won't get stolen or broken, and c) high fidelity sound is
vastly easier to attain. Nevertheless, individual speakers *were* provided
at drive in movies.
The main reasons for an audience at concerts is to a) make the event more
enjoyable for the musicians, and b) make the event affordable for the
audience. Otherwise I have no use for the audience, who sniffle, cough,
spread disease, stink, rustle, applaud at the wrong point, and create
other distractions.
|
tod
|
|
response 97 of 342:
|
Jan 19 01:10 UTC 2006 |
I like to sit in the front row and eat nachos loudly. I also laugh
inconsistently with the dialog to disrupt the audience. Its much like that
scene in Cape Fear.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 98 of 342:
|
Jan 19 01:19 UTC 2006 |
The speakers on the walls are for surround and ambience effects; for the
majority of the movie they aren't doing anything as the sound comes from
the main speakers behind the screen. If they were completely gone most
people would hardly notice the difference.
There's not much reason to go to the movies any more. More and more
people have sound systems at home rivaling that of the theater, and the
video quality will be getting into the same ballpark later this year
when HD-DVD and BD ship. Theaters have as much time dedicated to
commercials as the average TV show, and the costs have risen way out of
line with the service provided.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 99 of 342:
|
Jan 19 01:27 UTC 2006 |
re #95:
> though I hadn't heard of it until today
> when I read a bit about one of the actresses in the local newspaper,
> was released simultaneously in theaters, on DVD, and on cable.
>
> How telling re: the quality of the release.
Soderbergh is an Academy Award-winning director and critically lauded
auteur. I wouldn't assume that the release is low-quality simply
because I haven't previously heard of it (especially here in Ketchikan.)
The only assumption I think is warranted is that the film studio
responsible didn't engage in much of a promotion campaign. As I
understand it "Bubble" is an experiment by Soderbergh and Mark Cuban
to see whether an alternate distribution mechanism can compete.
I suspect they started deliberately with a small, non-mainstream film.
|