tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2608865863680527081.post2362144224250254332..comments2024-03-13T07:41:37.532-04:00Comments on Vic & Walter Thiessen - On Movies...: Cloud AtlasWalterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16391426206936180224noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2608865863680527081.post-88730548747035008202013-09-15T14:14:06.829-04:002013-09-15T14:14:06.829-04:00You may be correct, but my comments on that killin...You may be correct, but my comments on that killing were entirely based on the novel.Vichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12090966032076073337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2608865863680527081.post-19935055770253207582013-09-14T16:26:24.232-04:002013-09-14T16:26:24.232-04:00I may have to watch the film again to know - but I...I may have to watch the film again to know - but I thought there were clear consequences to killing the Kona man. My memory may be incorrect, but I thought there had been a window where, if he had left the Kona man alive, he could have hidden and survived without the battle (and didn't someone else get injured besides his leg?).Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16391426206936180224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2608865863680527081.post-31716634999568980172013-09-14T12:47:50.189-04:002013-09-14T12:47:50.189-04:00Having now almost finished the book, I must commen...Having now almost finished the book, I must comment on the inconsistencies in this story in its depiction of redemptive violence. I had hoped that the book was so clear in its own use of redemptive violence that the filmmakers (working closely with the author throughout) had no choice but to fill their film with it. But the book is much more ambiguous (though inconsistent). Early on comes the story of a pacifist tribe in the South Pacific which is killed or enslaved to the very last person because of their refusal to defend themselves. The message there is very unclear and perhaps I need to wait until I have finished the book (and the last half of that 19th-century story) before commenting further. But I have completed the story of the distant future, in which we see the protagonist (Zachry) slitting the throat of a Kona man who has passed out in Zachry's home (the Kona had just wiped out the village, enslaving the survivors). Zachry had been given three prophetic warnings earlier in his life, warnings which he took very seriously. The first warning was not to kill Meronym by cutting the rope which would have led to her death. The third warning was not to cross a certain bridge. Zachry heeds both of those warnings and the results have a very positive outcome in his life. The second warning is not to slit the sleeping man's throat. The warning causes him to hesitate, but he kills the man anyway, though he is convinced that he will suffer dire consequences as a result. Indeed, he lives in constant fear every minute that he will suffer those consequences. But as far as I can determine, the only consequence of that action is that he gets an arrow through his leg. Painful, yes, but it eventually heals with no long-term effect and hardly seems worth the warning. So what was the big deal? On top of that is the inner conversation Zachry has just before killing the sleeping man, a conversation in which he convincingly argues against the killing of the man because: 1) his people forbid the stealing of another person's life, saying it will poison the killer's soul and such a person is then shunned for life lest they infect other's souls; 2) this act of revenge would not bring his family back to him; 3) it would "stone" his soul; 4) he himself, or his brother, might have been born a Kona or adopted by Konas and so it was like he was killing himself or his brother; and 5) Old Georgie clearly WANTED Zachry to kill this man. All very good arguments but he kills the man anyway, saying that "in our busted world, the right thing ain't always possible. Okay, I understand where Zachry and the writer (Mitchell) are coming from, and I wish some of that conversation and hesitation had been conveyed in the film, but ultimately all of the "redemptive" violence in the story is excused in one way or another as part of what it means to be human. Killing the Kona was seemingly supposed to result in consequences which would make Zachry ultimately regret the human impulse of revenge, but I find no evidence of such consequences and continue to have serious doubts and questions about a book and film that are otherwise brilliant. I cannot, of course, expect writers and filmmakers to share my opinions about redemptive violence, but I look for signs of recognition of the inconsistencies which this story flags up time and again (including Walter's comment above).Vichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12090966032076073337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2608865863680527081.post-85015893607114090642013-05-21T11:06:39.648-04:002013-05-21T11:06:39.648-04:00Well, I'll confirm the 'wow.' I'm ...Well, I'll confirm the 'wow.' I'm surprised at the hesitancy from critics and the show at the box office. I was quite impressed by pretty much all of it (except the violence as you suggest - especially the graphic quality of part of it). In terms of its philosophy, I think it's stuck somewhere between karma and grace - not too surprising. I wonder that the implications of Sonmi's speech aren't seen as more strongly in contradiction to the violence. Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16391426206936180224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2608865863680527081.post-63236174166153033272012-11-01T07:52:58.657-04:002012-11-01T07:52:58.657-04:00Sounds like something not to be missed. We'll ...Sounds like something not to be missed. We'll have to wait until late February before it's released here.Borevillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08866805653886022051noreply@blogger.com