 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > SIGNS: The Movie | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/13/2002 8:00 PM (GMT -6) |   | Wow, S., many awesome points...Field of Dreams was a great movie. I just kept thinking that the movie would have been better if Mel Gibson's character worked through his grief and decided he still believed and had faith in God, even without the signs, even if many things are random. I think perhaps the reactions of many to this film shows that there are many closet Calvinists (in open theist clothing) on this bulletin board who secretly take comfort in a blueprint design for the cosmos. Wouldn't THAT be a good movie?
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/14/2002 4:50 AM (GMT -6) | | Semeia did an excellent job of reviewing "Signs." Awesome stuff. Even though I may disagree with some of her beefs of the movie, i.e use of crop circles as plot device, aliens coming to a planet made mostly of water, the very substance that could cause their extinction, etc. Still, she brought to this review some of these aspects which she thinks make for a bad movie. Which is cool. Way cool. What I was looking for personally. But here's my beef with her review...
As Semeia says, this movie bascially has Calvinist/deterministic slant to it. Here's my question.
WHO CARES???
I think it's coo if she doesn't like the theological bias here. I'm in total agreement with her strain of thinking. But it appears to me that she is looking for theological accuracy. That's coo too. If that is what she is looking for. But is this what Shyamalan is shooting for?
Really. Does it matter what kind of God is portrayed here? Is this the significant point that Shyamalan wants to make (that everything is predetermined)? And even if it is, why should that matter so much anyhow? See, here's where I'm coming from.
A minister loses his faith because of a tragic accident that his wife was in. These aliens come to earth and threaten to take away the most important "things" in his life, which really are not "things" but are people. Sitting on the couch having a speil with his bro, we have the two sides of humanity represented there. Believers and non-beleivers. Which one are you?
If you are looking for theological accuracy then this movie will be a disappointment. There's nothing inherently negative about that. As long as you know what you are looking for. Your expectations. If you are looking like I was, that it was a movie that portrayed faith positively, then you will like the movie irrespective of it's deterministic slant. And looking at it from a audience perspective, there is not much that is portrayed positively in Hollywood concerning religion.
How many of us came to the faith believing all kinds of muddle-headed poppey-cock? We didn't have our theology down pat, we still don't. I don't have a problem with young Christians expressing their religion in some of the strangest ways, though honestly and sincerely from the heart. I hope and pray that they don't stay there, but in the mean time, this is what faith "looks like" to them.
Similarily, this is generally the world's understanding of reality (predetermined) whether from a theological perspective or a mechanistic one and more times than not, it is the latter. I liked this movie for this reason (not just this reason alone though). At least God or religion was portrayed positively even though I think the movie was way off (inaccurate) theologically. Now those who don't question reality around them will even begin to think about such things and hopefully they will come to positive conclusions about faith (that God is there) and even further down the road they will develop some more substantial thoughts concerning faith (is it open or predetermined?).
Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 8/14/2002 6:11 AM (GMT -6) | | writerdad:quote:
I think perhaps the reactions of many to this film shows that there are many closet Calvinists (in open theist clothing) on this bulletin board who secretly take comfort in a blueprint design for the cosmos.
Well, then. Now I understand why I had a different interpretation of this movie. I'm a "closet Calvinist (in open theist clothing)" who "secretly takes comfort in a blueprint design for the cosmos."
Whew! Thanks, writerdad, for clearing that up for us. And--as always--so graciously.
Semeia: quote:
Using crop circles as a main plot device is the first problem. As Shyamalan must be aware, crop circles were proven to be a hoax and the people involved have long ago confessed.
Like the other movies you referred to in your post (E.T., Jurassic Park, etc.), realism is hardly a necessary ingredient for a good film. Also, you might take a look at Mephi's thread on crop circles for a different perspective.
Semeia: quote:
What amazes me is that a website that has more than its share of open theists would enthusiastically endorse a movie that, as I said to Iconoclast on our way out of the theatre, is an “Ode to Calvinism and determinism.”
It shouldn't be so "amazing" to you that an open theist would like this movie, if they might--just might--NOT interpret it solely as an "ode to Calvinism and determinism." I realize that you find this possibility outside the bounds of all rational thought, but apparently others here disagree.
Semeia: quote:
The whole point of the movie is that the accident “couldn’t have been an accident” (as the driver, Shyamalan himself, explicitly states). How did God know to “give” the son asthma ten years in advance of the accident and the invasion in order to prevent the poison from getting into his lungs? How did God know to create these pre-existing conditions to fight the aliens, if they were free-willed beings? That is nonsensical. And yet Mel states, ““Oh, THAT is why he has asthma!”” and it is that awareness (that it is really God behind everything) that gives him his faith back. Is it stupid? Yes. But we can’’t overlay it with our own interpretation in order to make it make sense. If the free-willed ““demon”” caused the accident, then why did the asthma, the distaste for water, and the strikeout career all take place before the accident? Why would God give the boy asthma for an event that may or may not occur a decade later? Or do millions of people have asthma just in case an alien tries to put poison up their nose? And what about the rest of us? Why doesn’’t everyone have asthma to protect them? The only way Mel’’s statement and the rest of the movie make sense is if one believes that the future can be exhaustively foretold because it is in fact predestined. God knows in advance that the alien will grab the boy and not the girl, so he gives the boy asthma. Period. That is Shyamalan’s point of view. Everything happens for a reason. The illogic of course is that why would God make the aliens to begin with if not out of a desire to make free-willed creatures? But if there is free will, none of the “foretelling” and pre-existing conditions make any sense. And if God is “selectively” intervening, why not intervene against the aliens to begin with, instead of intervening to give people very painful (dying words, asthma) resistance to the aliens? Those things are severe limitations of free will. If He’s going to do that, why not limit the free will of the bad guys instead? Or bring about a thunderstorm or two to defeat the aliens? It makes no sense at all.
You make some great points in here, Semeia. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I can definitely see a deterministic side to this movie. Shymalan certainly did not provide us with a neat and tidy presentation of the open view.
However, I don't think it is fair to completely discount the warfare motif. Was it completely consistent with the open view? Perhaps not. Is it the result of Shymalan filtering a deterministic supposition through innately logical open view presuppositions (like the overwhelming majority of people who have not had the luxury of digesting and processing the intricacies of the providence issue, as we have)? Perhaps. What is glaring about the movie's message, though, is that God is actively engaged in warfare AGAINST that which is trying to destroy us. Yes, perhaps Shymalan missed some things in his description of the way in which God does this, but the movie does disabuse us of the notion that God is engaged is some disgustingly elaborate puppet show in which he has Hitler on one hand and Ghandi on the other. I certainly don't think it was Shymalan's intention to suggest that any "blueprint" of God's was behind the aliens. He was working for the aliens' DEFEAT. Again, it is the SPIRITUAL WARFARE motif that Springs and I recognized. I would agree that the open view is not as neatly presented (if presented at all). Please read again what I wrote above:
"Now the movie certainly doesn't explain enough of his thought process to know exactly why he returns to God, but in my mind, there was no reason for his character to love God again unless he began to understand what the spiritual warfare model of theodicy provides: we cannot know with particularity which occurrences of bad stuff are orchestrated by God and which are not, but we can be assured that whatever actions He takes are in opposition to the enemy for our greater good. The "signs" are that God is GOOD, and He is always acting on our behalf (which is necessarily AGAINST that which is NOT on our behalf)."
This, I think, was the encouraging message of the film.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 8/14/2002 6:12 AM (GMT -6) | | I just saw Brandon's post above. RIGHT ON, BRO. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/14/2002 9:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Brett: no problem. Tis the loving thing to do. Now that you are out of the closet, if you need someone to talk to, you know where I be. Its always good to find your true self...maybe we should start a group for those who need it? I mean anything to keep people from deceiving themselves...
Edited by - writerdad on 08/14/2002 2:42:13 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 8/14/2002 3:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Just saw "Signs". Uh...let me just say that I LARGELY agree with Semeia. For real. No joke. I wasn't that impressed.
And let's be real. Gibson was NOT an unbeliever. He hadn't lost faith, per se. He still believed in God. He was ANGRY with God...but he was being a lil' biaaaaaa about the whole thing. How do I know? Easy. One minute, he's being a real being about it: owning up to the fact he "believes" that we are indeed all alone with no God to protect us and/or pray to. But then when his son starts having the darn asthma attack...what the heck does he say?
"Don't do this to me again. Not again. I hate you. I hate you!"
Now, who the heck is he talking to? Santa Claus? The aliens? Nope. He was talking to God. Which just goes to show a good point. Some people who call themselves being "freed" from God belief are often friggin fooling themselves. And it shows up with things hit the fan. Now, if he were to have been a REAL person about it...he'd have just taken it on the chin and kept his stance.
MOREOVER,
This reminds me of what I often see. When it comes to people with a crisis of faith like Gibson's, ALL you have to provide them with is some type of POSITIVE, yet LONG-ODDS occurance. All of a sudden, God's "real" again. Whatever.
At any rate, the movie was ok. But once you bring a lot of thought to it...problematic.
Edited by - Mephi2K on 08/14/2002 8:49:49 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 8/15/2002 2:51 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
And let's be real. Gibson was NOT an unbeliever. He hadn't lost faith, per se. He still believed in God. He was ANGRY with God...but he was being a lil' biaaaaaa about the whole thing. How do I know? Easy. One minute, he's being a real being about it: owning up to the fact he "believes" that we are indeed all alone with no God to protect us and/or pray to. But then when his son starts having the darn asthma attack...what the heck does he say?
"Don't do this to me again. Not again. I hate you. I hate you!"
Now, who the heck is he talking to? Santa Claus? The aliens? Nope. He was talking to God. Which just goes to show a good point. Some people who call themselves being "freed" from God belief are often friggin fooling themselves. And it shows up with things hit the fan. Now, if he were to have been a REAL person about it...he'd have just taken it on the chin and kept his stance.
Yeah, I definitely don't think Mel ever lost his BELIEF in God. It was his FAITH and TRUST in that God was lost. Like many who experience seemingly mindless tragedy, he could not continue to trust a God who he felt was not on his side. Hence the quote that you refer to: "Don't do this to me again! I hate you! I hate you!" Good point, Meph.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/15/2002 4:39 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
And let's be real. Gibson was NOT an unbeliever. He hadn't lost faith, per se. He still believed in God. He was ANGRY with God...but he was being a lil' biaaaaaa about the whole thing. How do I know? Easy. One minute, he's being a real being about it: owning up to the fact he "believes" that we are indeed all alone with no God to protect us and/or pray to. But then when his son starts having the darn asthma attack...what the heck does he say?
Is this a moot point or what?  It was a crisis of faith all the same.
quote:
Now, who the heck is he talking to? Santa Claus? The aliens? Nope. He was talking to God. Which just goes to show a good point. Some people who call themselves being "freed" from God belief are often friggin fooling themselves. And it shows up with things hit the fan.
There are no atheists in fox holes right?  Good point.
I'm thinking of taking my chill'ns to see it today and then sit down and discuss it with them. Need to start 'em young (thinking critically about the arts), see?
Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War | | Back to Top | | |
| 33 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:16 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|