tonight, i saw Hotel Rwanda. it's about one man who tried to protect over a thousand people during the genocide there. and about how most of the world stood by and let it happen
( Read more... )
puppies, monkeys, snow, stars, children._electric_monkApril 25 2005, 05:33:58 UTC
i think you missed the point. every movie about tragedy is supposed to make you feel ashamed. that's their purpose. who did what to dissuade who isn't the point. neither is the fact that hutus and the tutsis aren't even of different tribes(it was a bogus caste system set up by the danish(?)). humans, at the urging of satan, did this. and the fact that humans could be influenced to do such heinous acts of slaughter makes one think about how Jehovah feels. i've been brought to tears more than once trying to empathize with Jehovah when looking at what His creation does to itself.
don't get me wrong; i get where your coming from. but just because michael moore or that 'supersize me' guy produce propganda, doesn't make the message completely without merit. in this western life, sometimes you have to beat someone over the head with your perspective to jolt people out of complacence.
Re: puppies, monkeys, snow, stars, children.jdbartlettApril 25 2005, 07:45:46 UTC
Yeah, sorry about that, I was kinda digressing from the theme of Eric’s post, really. I just recognized the name of the movie and remembered having seen a couple of trailers for it.
I’m generally against movies on the theme of true-life tragedy, not because many are designed to shame (although that does seem rather negative), but because they lie in the process. From what I’ve seen of Hotel Rwanda’s advertising, it belittles the humanitarian relief efforts that took place during the genocide. I don’t think the movie’s context justifies that because it’s an indirect lie and therefore damages the movie’s reputation and thereby damages the impact its important message. It also sends out negative signals to those alive now who provided aid during the conflict: that what they did didn’t matter, or wasn’t enough. None of those effects were intentional, of course, but they could have been avoided. No message, even one whose importance is unquestionable, justifies a lie in its delivery. That’s not just because of principal, but also because
( ... )
i value your imput._electric_monkApril 26 2005, 21:59:09 UTC
i hear ya cluckin', big chicken. the value of Z is a tricky one. and the problem is that God is usually the only one who knows it's value. and the only way we can come to an approximate knowledge of Z (this pertaining to things outside of accurate knowledge of Bible truth) is X times Z minus 'as much bias as we can find'. this equation is, of course, discernment
( ... )
Cool stuff. Something I thought about after I posted the “impossible for art to be incorrect” comment is the direct relationship between art and perspective. Not just in traditional realism, where perspective decides subject, angle and color, but especially in impressionist and expressionist art, which can be very revealing of the artist. Art is an expression of perspective.
Related to this is the perception of perspective. Discernment, as you pointed out, is one factor that alters X’s perception of Y’s perspective and possibly brings it closer to Z, but X’s perspective alone alters his perception of Y’s perspective and therefore alters X’s discernment. For example, Y may paint a lady dressed in black. To Y, black may be a symbol of elegance and beauty, but X may perceive black as being related to death and mourning. X would not be incorrect to say that he feels that black is related to death and mourning, but he would be incorrect to say that Y painted the lady in black because black is related to death and mourning. Even though his
( ... )
Reply
don't get me wrong; i get where your coming from. but just because michael moore or that 'supersize me' guy produce propganda, doesn't make the message completely without merit. in this western life, sometimes you have to beat someone over the head with your perspective to jolt people out of complacence.
Reply
I’m generally against movies on the theme of true-life tragedy, not because many are designed to shame (although that does seem rather negative), but because they lie in the process. From what I’ve seen of Hotel Rwanda’s advertising, it belittles the humanitarian relief efforts that took place during the genocide. I don’t think the movie’s context justifies that because it’s an indirect lie and therefore damages the movie’s reputation and thereby damages the impact its important message. It also sends out negative signals to those alive now who provided aid during the conflict: that what they did didn’t matter, or wasn’t enough. None of those effects were intentional, of course, but they could have been avoided. No message, even one whose importance is unquestionable, justifies a lie in its delivery. That’s not just because of principal, but also because ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Related to this is the perception of perspective. Discernment, as you pointed out, is one factor that alters X’s perception of Y’s perspective and possibly brings it closer to Z, but X’s perspective alone alters his perception of Y’s perspective and therefore alters X’s discernment. For example, Y may paint a lady dressed in black. To Y, black may be a symbol of elegance and beauty, but X may perceive black as being related to death and mourning. X would not be incorrect to say that he feels that black is related to death and mourning, but he would be incorrect to say that Y painted the lady in black because black is related to death and mourning. Even though his ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment