Silly, silly man…
UPDATE: Apparently the joke was not straightforward enough, my apologies.
So if you would like to read the article without having to find it, as viewers of the aforementioned blog have to find the signs site, here it is.
Over at our old friends blogs4God I noticed that one of the “bloggers” had reviewed the movie Signs. Again I am prompted to write a book on Good Blog EtiquetteTM, since the author of the review deigned to link the site of the movie he was reviewing. Tisk, tisk.
I will be blogging about this in length later, providing a much more relastic and informed review of the movie and its underlying current of faith and the human condition; I will be waiting so that I can watch the movie again so that it is fresh in my mind as I am refuting the sillyness that exists in the linked review.
Until then, remember: don’t think for yourself, or God forbid search a movie or novel for deep meaning. Expect everything to be handed to you, or explained out right as if you are a three year old child.
Words of wisdom.
Stroll on over and visit basil
March 1, 2007
Um, which blogs4God article are you referring to?
Stroll on over and visit basil
March 1, 2007
No. Bah. Literalism: the bane of all true endeavors.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Stroll on over and visit Mr. Hibbity Gibbity
March 1, 2007
(I just sent this to ‘what’s-his-face’. It was just a quick rebuttal to his gross negligence and shoddy review of ‘Signs’. Enjoy.)
This email is in regards to your movie review of ‘Signs’.
I find it somewhat problematic when an individual attempts to delineate what is right/wrong and/or acceptable/objectionable in a film; especially when said individual clearly has no understanding of film or the process of story development.
I find your review to be an article of multi-contradictions. ‘Signs’ is about faith, but in order to resolve that ‘tension’ that Mel Gibson’s character has developed between himself and God, the audience must first be shown ‘why’ that tension exists. Therefore, the fact that God isn’t shown in a very favorable light is a necessary aspect of this film. Without it, the character would have no dimension and would be unbelieveable.
In the end, God and faith are affirmed, and in my opinion, very strongly.
When Gibson’s character says, ‘I hate you!’ Yes, he is talking to God. But when he says, ‘Believe and do not be afraid’, he’s not accepting God back into his life. He’s simply attempting to calm his son down.
In general, your review is representative of most of Christianity today: you over-analyze the trivial and unimportant nuances, while jumping-over or ignoring entirely the themes that are the most vital.
“There are some interesting themes here, but they aren’t explored in any depth. (This isn’t surprising, bearing in mind that the business of Hollywood is entertainment. An attack by aliens is more entertaining than someone losing his faith in God over the traumatic death of his wife.)”
What!?! Did you watch the movie? If Shyalaman had wanted to make the typical ‘Hollywood’ movie, he could have shown the entire world being blown up, ala ‘Independence Day’. Instead, he took the risk of showing the impact of such an invasion on the lives of one family in a rural part of the country.
This ISN’T your typical ‘Hollywood’ film, because it DOES deal with faith and God. Just because it isn’t ‘The Jesus Film’ doesn’t give you the right to dismiss it or say that it’s message isn’t valid or that it’s misguided. On the contrary, it’s a poignant film and we as Christians would be only so lucky if we could create such a work of art.
As for your comments, that Shyamalan took to long to develop the backstory of Gibson’s life, I simply refer you to Hitchcock. Have you ever seen ‘Psycho’?
Bottomline: Learn to think outside of the box.
Stroll on over and visit James
March 1, 2007
Woo hoo! You tell him MHG!
Leave a Reply