From: gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell)
Newsgroups: alt.horror
Subject: Re: Jacob's Ladder (was Re: Flatliners
Date: 10 Apr 92 22:13:38 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

In article <204730@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, seawasp+@pitt.edu (Ryk E Spoor) writes:
> In article <15164@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell) writes:
> >> it's fine to torture people until they believe the way you do, well, you
> >> must get along well with the Gestapo. no thanks, I'll stay alive, if you
> >
> >You read as well as you watch movies Ryk. give it up - if you got the above
> >from what I wrote then there is simply no hope for you - stick to cartoons
> >and Star Trek...
> 	Sorry, dude, but that is PRECISELY what your interpretation implies.

No it isn't.  oops sorry - no it isn't dude.

> 	You state that the film showed a progression of Jacob's attempts
> to deny his death, and the attempts of others to make him accept that death.

Correct.

> 	Amoung other things, you state that the demon scenes are to show him
> what awaits if he does NOT accept his death.

 I said I think it might be - it may also simply be that he is, as Dante
was, being shown hell - I'm still unclear if my interpretation is correct
or if the other guy who posted earlier is closer - but you're correct
about my idea..

> 	It is the classic torture-brainwash method: you do what we want, you
> won't hurt anymore. If you DON'T accept what we want, you are in for a 
> world of hurt. Mafia thugs and Nazi villains and other heavies use this
> approach.

Simple heaven and hell approach I'd say. Nothing that isn't spelled out
in the old testament - I'm not saying I particularly buy into this 
philosophy - but it seems pretty clear that the movie is reflecting
the philosophy presented by Danny Aiello's character with respect to
angels/demons heaven/hell and so on...

> >Who threw it out? I simply put it in line with the rest of the story - you
> 	YOU threw it out. You said, and I quote: "the drug did not exist".

 I do not throw out the sub-plot - I throw out the *reality* of the drug
itself - that is, the guy is dying (as you point out) the idea that Jacob
sees the future through totally distorted eyes (the use of technology and
culture of the late 60's early 70's) except for the drug seems far-fetched 
to me - why the inconsistency? Why would it be the only accurate thing
he sees???

> >And of course we assume that it is the fault of the film that you don't
> >have this knowledge right? The film-makers should never ever assume that
> 
> 	To answer you question: NO. All I meant by that statement was that
> since there are a lot of people who are NOT Biblically educated, the
> symbolism that you derided as SIMPLE was, in fact, not so simple.

 Umm... perhaps but I don't think so. The names are not only obvious
but the dialogue in the film actually points it out  - some line about
 " I hate all those religious names" or something like that - to which
the response is "they're biblical names and so is yours" (more or less).
Now that is what I call obvious - when symbolism is used and the author/
writer makes a point of telling you it is there. Their meanings may not
be as obvious (i.e. the selection of the name Jacob for example) but the
use of the names themselves should give a pretty clear indication that
they have some purpose. Also the "HELL" sign shown as Jacob awakes in the
subway - again, not a very subtle hint of what we are dealing with. As
someone else pointed out, the lighting is pretty clear also - every time
we see Gabe or the chiropracter they are in an ambient lighting that
is intended to make them appear angellic. granted other things are
slightly more obscure like the fact that Danny Aiello's character is
doing what to Jacob each time?? and so on.... but I really don't think
that it would be difficult for most people to figure out that there is
some sort of consistent use of religious symbols/names/references in
the film and that they may have some sort of importance UNLESS they went
in looking for HellRaiserIII in which case they might miss it.

> >the audience might have the slightest bit of intelligence. We should
> >be able to take the most obvious interpretation of a film and the film
> >should fly or sink based on that simplistic interpretation. Again, it
> 
> 	Occam's Razor, my friend. The simplest explanation is most likely
> the correct one. 

 You're joking right? I hope so any way.... think back to your course
in Short Stories and tell me you believe this to be the case.... please
see the later article I posted with respect to questions I have for you
if we go ahead and assume that the obvious is true and that the drug
is in fact the reality of the film...
 
> 	My reason for going to the movies is different than yours. You
> will judge many things to be better than I will, and I will judge others
> to be better than you will, simply because we have different standards.

I agree of course - however, as I have said, my failure to grasp a
story does not make it bad in my eyes - unless I can convince myself
that I could not understand it because it was simply poorly made - much
of your argument was/is based on things that are not true such as
the knowledge that he was not supposed to have had, or the symbolism
being totally obscure and so forth - and yet, when these arguments fell
apart you still refused to admit that maybe you are at fault for the
misunderstanding - or to put it better - it was not the film's
fault that you did not grasp what others did...

> 	I do not sneer at your intellectual capacity; do me the kindness
> to assume that mine is not quite as miniscule as you make it out to be.

I didn't want to - but you continually seem to insist that somehow your
lack of knowledge about some of the symbols implies that the film is
poorly designed - that strikes me as someone who is trying to say "I
couldn't understand X because I don't know Y and so X sucks" - pretty
stupid approach in my opinion...

> >I suggest to you that many people who are familiar with literature and
> >literary criticism are familiar with many of the names and basic stories of the
> >old testament as they are frequently referred to in some of the greatest
> >masterpieces of world literature.
> 
> 	And many other people are familiar with the names and stories of the
> old testament and nothing else because it is the True Word of God, Halleluja.
>I wouldn't take a PTL Fundamentalist's word on the meaning of anything, either.

See - this is what I'm talking about - you want me to consider you to be
intellectual but you refuse to accept that you may have missed something
relatively obvious to many - I could care less about the relative ethics
of the movie, in particular its vision of heavan and hell, but I 
recognize that such a msg. is there - I do not refuse to accept it because
I may have missed it the first time around or because I do not agree with it.

> 	I don't accept most 'literary criticism', since it seems to be an 
> exercise in futility; no one manages to PROVE any of the assertions they make,
> and almost ANY assertion is accepted as valid. 

 Look - I am no deconstructionist - I see obvious symbols and I try to use
them to try to figure out what is going on - that's it - I've failed
to grasp many films - but more often than not it is because of some 
ignorance on my part - not the film maker's. I can watch a film like
the Hellraiser films and enjoy them - face it, there is no hidden msg or
meaning there - but if you try to view a film like JL in the same way,
you're out of luck - you won't have a clue and you will miss a chance
to see something good - I may be wrong, but it seems clear to me that
your expectations of the film when you went to see it caused you to
try to take everything at face value - your perception that his visions
were not possible due to mistakes was wrong - it indicates that you
were assuming too much about the meaning and msg. of the film and
frankly didn't watch with the careful eye that a film like JL requires.
IF you don't like to watch a film like that, then fine - but recognize
that your unwillingness to do so has nothing what-so-ever to do with the
relative merit of the work.

> I've had 'literary' types
> earnestly tell me that they could read a story *I* wrote and tell me what it
> meant BETTER than I could, and thus they were qualified to interpret what
> authors meant because it didn't matter what the author THOUGHT they meant.

Then they're idiots, in my opinion. But when someone who couldn't even
see symbols that are pointed out in the dialogue tells me that I am missing
the point, then I think the same of them...

> At that point my acceptance threshold was exceeded. When I WRITE something
> I KNOW what I mean, and no critic can tell me otherwise.

Agreed.

> 	In short, my preference for viewing is that if you want to make a
> statement, MAKE IT. If you want to make a subtle statement, one that takes
>thought to find, okay, that's cool; but if you do that at the expense of making
> the film entertaining, don't be surprised if many people either don't get
> it or find your film lacking. 

 I agree. But one would hope that said people would be able/willing to
accept the fact that their interpretation/observations were flawed.

> I don't mind a film that ALLOWS me to think.
> I DO mind one that FORCES me to think just to wring any kind of enjoyment
> from it, because by the time I get to GO to a movie I've probably already
> HAD IT with thinking. I go to the movies for a fun time.

 I don't agree with all of this. Yes I go to some movies for pure escapism.
I don't want to see a terminator movie that makes me re-hash some 18th
century work or what have you - but that is only once in a while. Sometimes
I like something that makes me think... I find that fun as well...

			gln
Xref: sparky alt.hypertext:393 alt.cd-rom:1352