The (Now-Overrated) ILX Top 100 Films of the 2000s Poll Results

Clive Owen is the male companion that travels with the mother of the miracle child

guided by an angel?

obvious reference to the birth of Jesus.

apart from the stable and... the story itself, how is it "obvious"? could have been a LOT obvious-er.

xp it's a fun film and i don't hate it? i quote the, "i haven't lied all week / really? / no" line often enough. i don't passionately love it enough to defend it, but i never got into the backlash thing and i don't see it as the Evil Zach Braff Shins Indie Twee whatever archetype it supposedly has become. it's fun, i love Natalie Portman, and i don't even hate Zach Braff. i thought the first few seasons of Scrubs were fun.

it could have been a lot more obvious, sure - it could have been a Mel Gibson movie.

xp max - Mordy makes a good point when he says that the lowly birth of the savior/hero figure is a common trope in myth and predates Christianity, but considering the prevalence of Christianity in Western Culture, esp. in America, its historical influence of it and its imagery, it's hard for me not to see it as a Christian reference. That doesn't mean that it's solely a Christian reference, or that it's propaganda, or that I think the script should be changed to "expunge" anything that could be viewed as a Christian reference.

― sarahel, Friday, February 12, 2010 7:51 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

youre not answering my question--i dont have a problem with reading the lowly birth as a reference to jesus--what i dont see is how its "heavy-handed"

birth scene at the beginning of 'parfum' is a reference to jesus

it seems to me that sarahel has hang-ups about religion, which is totally cool, but should just admit that instead of pretending like those personal hang-ups can lead to an insightful reading of the film

most of ilx has hangups about religion?

clearly not that much of a hang-up since CoM came in 2nd place in the poll

it's heavy-handed because it's such a big deal. It's heavy-handed because of all the trials and tribulations it takes them to get there. It's heavy-handed in the awe the other people have for the child. Yes, it is perfectly logical in the context of the narrative, but to me, that's an overly simplistic way to look at it.

...

It's heavy-handed in the awe the other people have for the child. Yes, it is perfectly logical in the context of the narrative, but to me, that's an overly simplistic way to look at it.

it's the first child to be borned in like 17 years?

that's kind of a big deal!

why is this a simplistic way of looking at it?

I think if history mayne posted solely in "."s and "-"s he'd be a much more enjoyable poster.

it's ok, i felt the same way when sarahel was explaining to me why Almost Famous is sexist. the opinions don't seem to bear any resemblance to the actual films i saw

You can't just dismiss the demands of the narrative like that. If there's no miracle baby, no trials and tribulations, there's no movie. Of course it's a big deal - it's the main driver of the plot.

btw, OT, i saw Synecdoche, New York yesterday (while on mind-altering substances) due to the recommendations of this thread. i ended up having serious nightmares from it and its wormed deeply into my brain. if i had seen it earlier it would've definitely been on my list.

xpost. I felt the same about the reading of TWBB as some kind of pomo orgy of wink-wink film references.

again, when you're making a movie about the future of the human race, there's practically nothing you can conceive that won't be far-reaching symbolism.

it's heavy-handed because it's such a big deal. It's heavy-handed because of all the trials and tribulations it takes them to get there. It's heavy-handed in the awe the other people have for the child. Yes, it is perfectly logical in the context of the narrative, but to me, that's an overly simplistic way to look at it.

― sarahel, Friday, February 12, 2010 7:58 AM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

sorry, what? the fact that the baby is born in lowly circumstances is heavy-handed... because the babys birth is a big deal? youre not saying why the dirty apartments apparent reference to the manger is heavy-handed, youre just saying that there are some other tenuous parallels to the christ story

You can't just dismiss the demands of the narrative like that. If there's no miracle baby, no trials and tribulations, there's no movie. Of course it's a big deal - it's the main driver of the plot.

I'm not dismissing the demands of the narrative. But to say, there aren't connotations and references to other things outside of the narrative is a pretty simplistic way of looking at a narrative. I dunno, maybe it's "crazy" or "idiosyncratic" to see a movie or read a story and have it remind you of other things, other stories, other movies. But that's just the way I watch and read things.

As far as having "hang ups" about religion - sure I have "hang ups" - I live in America, I grew up around a lot of conservative Christians. I wasn't raised Christian and I don't believe in a lot of the things the people I grew up around did. I saw the miracle child's birth as a Christian reference, and as History Mayne pointed out upthread, there are a whole lot of Christian references in Western culture. Some of them are more interesting to me than others. Some of them are utilized in more compelling ways than others.

All fine, but maybe you shouldn't have said "heavy-handed", which is considerably stronger than saying, y'know, it reminds you of stuff. It made me think of the manger too, but not in a remotely overstated way.

youre not saying why the dirty apartments apparent reference to the manger is heavy-handed, youre just saying that there are some other tenuous parallels to the christ story

It felt heavy-handed to me probably due to the fact that it was the climax of the film and where all the suspense led up to, maybe if it were some trivial plot point, it might have felt less so.

I had the same problem with the TWBB argument. Sure, Citizen Kane is a famous lonely megalomaniac archetype, and you can see that in there, but it doesn't mean the whole film is ho ho Citizen Kane, do you see?

jesus etc a somewhat more ubiquitous fiction than charlie kane

All fine, but maybe you shouldn't have said "heavy-handed", which is considerably stronger than saying, y'know, it reminds you of stuff. It made me think of the manger too, but not in a remotely overstated way.

― gotanynewsstory? (Dorianlynskey), Friday, February 12, 2010 8:09 AM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

^^ this is what im saying

i agree that:

• there are references to the christ story

• those references amount to propaganda or parable
• those references are heavy-handed

as a a secular jew i picked up on what i tht were p obv and intentional echoes of the christ story - not just the stable, or the mother but i thought some of the soldiers hunting them was on some king herod shit - but really had no problem w/that. i mean it doesnt even really have anything to do w/christianity its just appropriation but i think those echoes are p necessary in putting the story on a lvl where the birth scene is possible - it signals to the audience that the movie is in some working on the lvl of myth. it gives the birth scene (which is amazing and the reason why the movie is my #1) its power and its context

I had the same problem with the TWBB argument. Sure, Citizen Kane is a famous lonely megalomaniac archetype, and you can see that in there, but it doesn't mean the whole film is ho ho Citizen Kane, do you see?

I didn't intend to imply that the whole film "is" or "is not" anything - I was merely posting about how I viewed it, and just like when Mordy and I were discussing Almost Famous, I thoroughly understand and expect that different people will see films different ways and pay attention to different things or see different things in them. Maybe it's because quite a few people on these threads are so vehement in their assertions that they are right and other people are wrong if they disagree with them that you are assuming that the things I said are meant as a "correct" reading of the film. Maybe I should have been more explicit in putting "I think" or "I saw it as" in my posts, as opposed to just implying it. I dunno.

I think the way that the editing seemed jumpy and the movie seemed to skip around a lot made me think of it as more "po-mo wink wink" than something with slower pacing.

xp max/dorian - fine, heavy-handed wasn't the best choice of words.

Fair enough

thanks

as a a secular jew i picked up on what i tht were p obv and intentional echoes of the christ story - not just the stable, or the mother but i thought some of the soldiers hunting them was on some king herod shit - but really had no problem w/that. i mean it doesnt even really have anything to do w/christianity its just appropriation but i think those echoes are p necessary in putting the story on a lvl where the birth scene is possible - it signals to the audience that the movie is in some working on the lvl of myth. it gives the birth scene (which is amazing and the reason why the movie is my #1) its power and its context

― Lamp, Friday, February 12, 2010 8:18 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

booming post btw

it'd actually be interesting, imo, to figure out what it means to have the pregnancy revealed in a manger, but that the birth doesn't happen until later. the Christ-story reverses this; Jesus is born first and then the revelation occurs in the manger. and the figures to whom the child is revealed -- the wise men in the Christ narrative, the Owen figure in CoM -- obv differ substantially as well. it might be interesting to look at it in the context of the annunciation too -- which it fulfills a similar narrative function as (the discovery of the conception as opposed to discovering the birth). which is to say, it's clearly different enough from the original Christ narrative that the parallels, in my mind, make CoM more interesting, not less.

more importantly? than that- any christ allegories didn't get in the way

yeah, that's for sure. i barely thought about them before this conversation. the most powerful parts of the film for me were the driving scene, the scene with the art-collecting cousin, some of the Caine scenes, that whole scene in the refugee camp (holy shit that scene)...

that's interesting to think about - honestly, I had mixed reactions to the birth part. It was definitely powerful and exciting, but I also found myself questioning why, and thinking about the whole born again Christian movement and the different ways Christianity was sold to the counterculture in the late 60s/early 70s, and what type(s) of narratives contemporary evangelical Christianity would use to appeal to today's equivalent of the counterculture. Again, this is just what the movie led me to think about.

yeah, i definitely don't see any relationship between American born again Christianity and CoM -- that strikes me as a pretty huge hang-up

like, what do you do when looking at / reading the vast amount of Western culture that deals with Christianity? do you think about Jerry Falwell when you're looking at michelangelo's annunciation? cause that's super depressing if true

a genuinely nasty modern film w. a fundie christian message is 'evan almighty'. this is not that.

forgot to think about christianity during the CoM birth scene cos that crazy animatronic/cgi baby was so rad

How is it a hang-up? I'm not saying the movie was bad because it made me think about it. I probably started thinking about that history because of Michael Caine's character, as well as the presumably leftist activists/radicals led by the Julianne Moore character.

Actually, when I look at Michelangelo's annunciation I think mostly about art history.

Jesus, you guys are disingenuous and mean for no reason sometimes. The funny thing is, I totally remember the Christ-born-in-manger thing as being heavy-handed too, but I can't remember why. Were there animals standing around or something? I think there might have been.

the kid is not born in a manger iirc, but in a grotty room in bexhill?

She was talking about Jesus for real.

THE KID IS NOT BORN IN A FUCKING MANGER

xpost Evan Almighty is a sinister piece of shit. Jawdropping in all the wrong ways.

a genuinely nasty modern film w. a fundie christian message is 'evan almighty'. this is not that.

thanks for sharing that truly brilliant insight with us.

i mean the last thing i want to be is disingenuous and mean but if we are going to have a discussion about a film lets get the specifics of that film right

I'm not saying it was, the 'thing' in question is the parallel. And I'm asking for help remembering exactly what it was that brought about the memory of it being somewhat ham-fisted. So... anyone who has actually seen the film recently want to add anything?

i have seen the film recently and i am adding: the christ parallels are not heavy-handed unless you are insanely sensitive to anything that even resembles a biblical story

please someone explain for me why my subjective opinion of the film is grounded in fact?