about the first point: the movie is fairly straight-forward in terms of its story telling and it flows nicely. it keeps you interested until the end of the 2 and a half hours. but when i say i didnt get it, i mean i didnt get the point. seriously, what was the point? the director has been acclaimed as an artist with a keen insight into humanity and the way people treat each other. and his other movies hold true to that. but i got to the end of "there will be blood" and i thought to myself "so what?" (for those who have not seen it, i am being vague on purpose). i guess it was sort of like the movie "signs" when the twist was that there was no twist.
about the second point: one of the main characters of the movie is a young pastor of a church in the middle of no where (now here?). now, the actor did a good job portraying a "fire and brimstone" preacher that has all the good intentions in the world (for those who havent seen the movie, think of the pastor from "pollyanna"). and i think that as a character he fit the movie well. but as i watched him cast out a devil from the hands of an elderly lady with arthritis, i realized that if i ever came across some one with that much vigor for religion i would probably slap them... with my fist... while holding brass knuckles... which i may or may not have in a shoe box in a closet... some where... now, this has nothing to do with my religious beliefs conflicting with theirs. nor does it have anything to do with me being offended by them. if they want to act that way, fine. it just annoys me.
about the second point (sort of): the other day i was with a friend who had recently become a vegan. so obviously i had to ask him "why?" after denying that his vegan wife made him do it, he said that he liked the feeling that nothing had to die for his meal. (which to date is the best explanation a vegan has given me). so then we got in to a (polite) discussion about whether or not the bible condones eating animals. and he made the comment that we should only eat meat in times of famine (thus retracting to the typical LDS-vegetarian stand). which i normally would accept as a valid answer (or say that the current prophet has said that it is ok to eat meat). but the problem i have with this answer is that he is not mormon. it was a defense that he stole from his (also not mormon) vegan wife who has made it a habit to quote the book of mormon and the d&c against mormons. usually about this very subject. now, i think it is great that two non mormons like to quote LDS scripture. but because the arent LDS they usually take things out of context and (like i mentioned before) the current prophet has said that it is ok to eat meat, a fact that they wouldnt know about. but the real question i have is why they use LDS scripture to support their views at all? they dont believe in the church or its teachings except for (seemingly) this one thing. and because of this they dont accept current revelations. what i am getting at is that because they are both born and raised non-LDS utahns they have built up a defense to combat the culture they are stuck in.
and frankly, i dont blame them.
No comments:
Post a Comment