From: seawasp+@pitt.edu (Ryk E Spoor)
Newsgroups: alt.horror
Subject: Re: Jacob's Ladder (was Re: Flatliners
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:35:01 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

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.

	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.

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

	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.

>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".

> OH really? Well, I missed your name on the book... 

	Missed YOURS on the movie, dude. 


>Give it up will ya..... do me a favor though - go read a poem by Dante
>called  _The Divine Comedy_, its plot is of a type called a Christian

	The first part called _Inferno_, of course. Any gamer is familiar
with it, if they're at all well read. I've read it. So? It's a much more
"to the point" story. If it were written the way JL was filmed, no one
would ever have read it.

>films by the way) but you seem to actually believe that since you didn't 
>understand it, then it had no clear meaning and thus is garbage and
>worthy of being publicly trashed by you - you simply reject out of hand
>the idea that your background in symbolism and allegorical work is poor
>at best and that you really haven't a clue about the issues that are essential
>to this particular film.


	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. 

	What I DO do is something else again... see in a moment.

>> 	By the way -- a lot of your objections to the "obviousness" of the
>> film stemmed a lot from the use of Biblical names and images. While I
>> have read the bible, I don't remember many names from it and only general
>> plotlines; 
>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

	You really DO try your best to be NASTY, don't you? I may be
snappish, but I TRY to maintain SOME form of civility (something much
more important in my opinion than our present civilization admits).

	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.

>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. 

	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 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 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.

	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.


	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.

                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;