From: 6500cws@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Christopher Wade Skinner)
Newsgroups: alt.horror
Subject: Re: Jacob's Ladder (was Re: Flatliners
Date: 11 Apr 92 02:23:37 GMT

In article <204730@unix.cis.pitt.edu> seawasp+@pitt.edu (Ryk E Spoor) writes:

>	Sorry, dude, but that is PRECISELY what your interpretation implies.

>	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.

Let's now return to reality.  What the previous poster is inferring
stems from the theological interpretation of the film - not that
torture is "good", or done for Jacob's benefit, but that it is an
aspect of his denying death.  You can't go from saying "I don't
understand it, cause its dumb" to "I don't like it, cause its icky."

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

No.  The very act of not accepting his death leads to those traumas.
In this interpretation, the act of letting go = the end of the trauma.

>	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.

Boy oh boy, talk about foaming at the mouth and falling over backwards.
I think your truss is too tight, old man.  Hardly what the theological
aspect of the film argues - I thought you didn't understand it anyway.

>	YOU threw it out. You said, and I quote: "the drug did not exist".

Well, for the purposes of the theology, it doesn't have to, really.
I think it might 'exist', but that's hardly the point of the film,
and the film hardly hinges on that *very* contrived subplot.

>	Missed YOURS on the movie, dude. 

Arn't you the one who doesn't like what he doesn't understand.  Go
play with your leggos.

>	Nope. You have it all wrong. I gave my opinions on the film. I don't
>say it's garbage FOR SOMEONE ELSE. If it turns your crank by all means go
>and watch it. 

Garbage by whose standards?  As I have previously said, calling
something "bullshit" in a public forum, and implying by extension
that people who liked it were pretentious, you've opened yourself
up to well-deserved criticism.  Nor have you addressed the 
substantive points in replys disagreeing with you.


[Much self-congratualtory contentiousness deleted.]

>	Occam's Razor, my friend. The simplest explanation is most likely
>the correct one. 

In as much as that goes, it really doen't apply to painting, photography
literature (the Bible), myth, origins, etc.  You have proved that you
are anti-right brain activity.  If there were "one" explaination of
king lear or the tempest, the world would by a sorry place.  But, for
those in search of the lowest common denominator of gratification, you
make an excellent spokesperson.

>	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.

You exceeded standards in your first posting.  You also attacked 
literary criticism.  And YOU started this thread.

>	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.

You have said very nasty things about "pretentious bullshit", and made
remarks about people who enjoy what you don't.  Live with the reaction
that you get.

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

A good example of "I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and humm
loudly" school of thought.  Don't ever try to work with a human
editor, who might just think your attitude a trifle narrow and 
immature.  Now, of course, if you write only for yourself, and never
show your work to anyone, then you have the right to refuse to accept
any other interpretation.  Adrian Lynne could use your very argument
above to say "well, piss off, then, with your criticism of JL, because
it's my movie, and you have no right to criticize or interpret it."
And he could say the same to me, or anyone.  But then, why does
Peter Greenaway make films?  Why does Lynch?  Why does
Cronenburg?  Well, primarily to make money, but also to promote a
shared vision.  Once art = public spectacle (be it book, painting, or
film) we will interpret it as we see fit. 

HINT: The "exercise" in question is that of the mind.

>	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 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.

Well, then, having proved once and for all that you think 
thinking =! entertaining, you've made it clear that, yes, you are
anti-intellectual.  Good for you there still is some semblence of
a _civitas_ for you to live in.  Pretty soon, it'll all be gone.

By the by, what I take issue with in your (endless) posts, is mainly
the idea that JL was hard to understand at the expense of being
entertaining.  I though it was entertaining because it was complex.
If we have different interpretations, fine, but since 
"not entertaining" =! pretentious bullshit in any reasonable 
discussion, I have the right to call you shallow.

Hey, bring Mr. Wasp some more panem, and a fresh circus, please!

>                                 Sea Wasp
>                                   /^\
>                                   ;;;

cws