I am guessing some of our differing views on specific films may be a difference in angle of pursuit, in intention , in view -- in an active sense. And has to do with definitions. In my mind, I am making a clear distinction between spiritual films and great films. Thus a spiritual film, may be mediocre, a great film may not be spiritual, and a great spiritual film may not also be a great film -- though would probably be at least "good". I am guessing, from your remarks, that you are looking for "great spiritual" films, not simply "spiritual films". And I am not looking at great films, and then further probing for spiritual "metaphors" and messages.
> So although it's really fun to try to come up with > ways to describe what makes a film "spiritual," I > think I'm going to try to resist the temptation. > I'm going to stick to the same definition I use for > art -- I know it when I see it. I was struck that we, and several others, tend to agree that certain lists of films are "spiritual". It appears that there is something "there there" -- its intriguing to me to understand what makes such spiritual and why others are not -- what is the spiritual aesthetic, what are the key elements of a spiritual film criticism, what is the theoretical foundation from which to judge films as to being spiritual. Perhaps, as I am sure some would say, that such analysis destroys the innocence -- perhaps that is yor view, but I am yet not convinced. > > And some visceral impacts may be decidedly "non-spiritual" -- it > > may be a fine edge to discern. As examples, at the end of > > Schindlers List, I could barely breath, I had to force breath, and > > could not move. The film had "manipulated" me to a new state -- > > like a guided meditation. > > That's Spielberg's trademark, and IMO why it took so long > for him to win an Academy Award. He *can* manipulate the > audience, pretty much *any* audience, even jaded filmgoers, > and the people in the Academy resented him for that. They > tend in the Academy to resent runaway success period, and > no matter how much they resented him, he could force them > to feel what he wanted to feel *anyway*. I think some "bad" films can be great spiritual films. I think some "bad" films are such because they are manipulative. "Sleepless in Seattle" and "You've Got Mail" come to mind. Hmmm a definite Meg Ryan / Tom Hanks theme here. While such films might be entertaining in an escapist sort of mind-numbing way, IMO, they are sort of like letting some disemboddied entity take over your mind and body, or your soul, -- as in channeling. You allow yourself to be manipulated, not for some transcendetal effect, parallel to "guided meditation", but rather to be mainlined with sweetness and "feel-good" sentimentality. As nutritious and long-run fulfilling as eating Sugar Pops. While these are "crappy" films, in the general sense, such films "could" be great spiritual films, if upon viewing them induces an awareness within the viewer as to why and how such films are manipulating them -- thus in a sense -- creating an innoculation agains such in future films -- and in life. > > And I am not sure whehter they are > > catalytic and transcend the warrior "tool", or simply induce macho > > warrior identification. I would think "First Blood" might better > > serve the catalytic warrior role than some of the Mel/Arnold genre > > mentioned. > > Interesting. I would say the opposite. To each his > or her own, I guess. First, I am probably thinking of different Mel and Arnold films than you -- as you state later, one needs to go film by film. And I have a great deficiency in some film areas -- there have been periods of three years of more when I rarely saw any films, if any. Other times, I saw a lot. With DVDs and NetFlix, I am slowly filling in the gaps. I have not seen Conan -- so I simply cannot judge. And Road Warrior was seen too long ago to view sensibly. And these appear to be your top warrior films. So I really can't offer up a criticism or alternatives. First Blood came to mind, not becasue I think its a particularly good film, but because it has, as I remember, certain strong spiritual warrior themes. Such as: i) never give up, no matter how bad it gets, no matter how overwhelming, never give up, keep going, and ii) conventional social views are not, often are not, the TRUTH -- be willing to live outside the "law" or social convention if needed to pursue the truth. I would stipulate without (re)viewing them that Road Warrior and Conan are (probably) better films than First Blood. Whether they are better spiritual films is another question and one I will have to wait to answer -- upon (re)viewing your picks. > > The key questions from this spiritual film aesthetic is whether > > the warior identification is used, then transcended -- either by > > the characters in the film, or in the "process" and transformation > > induced in the films' viewer. Blue Crash (great girl surfer film) > > and Bend It Like Beckham are better spiritual warrior films, IMO, > > than Mel and Arnold fare -- though I appreciate some of their > > works quite a lot. > > Can't agree. Haven't seen the "Beckham" film, and Blue > Crush was cute, but trite to the max IMO and with acting > and plotting that wouldn't have cut the mustard on cable > TV. Whereas "Conan the Barbarian" was IMO a great film > by *film* standards, as was "Braveheart." One just can't > generalize when talking about Arnold and Mel IMO; context > is all...you have to specify *which* Arnold or Mel film. I don't think Blue Crush was a particularly good film, it was formulatic and manipulative -- of the sweet sugar variety. But for me, the great, right-smack-in-the-middle-of-nature surfing shots, the low-key girl-power comraderie of the girls, the overcoming of fear, the don't give up ethos, etc, and the apparent ease in the transcending of the warrior role and title-holder at the end by the protagonist -- and moving on, made it an interesting spiritual warrior, albeit small, flick for me. Bend It Like Beckham is also manipulative -- but for me, it became clear(er) what emotive buttons it was pushing, and thus, just for that, was a growth experience. And the film addresses identification, within ones self and by others, from multiple and mixed angles: race, culture, age, gender, sexual orientation -- an interesting spiritual theme. And shit, yes, I admit it, I had a glowing lump in my throat when the final goal was scored -- I was cheering. (I am not giving anything away, going into the film, its obvious, per its formulatic mode, that a "final goal" will be scored.) ====================== --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > A benefit of this exercise has been to ponder the question of the > > spiritual aesthetic, what are the key if not the appropriate > > elements of a spiritual film criticism, what is the theoretical > > foundation from which to judge films as to being spiritual. > > > > Unc started such a discussion in his origianl post. I need to re- > > read and integrate with some emerging thoughts. > > > > Perhaps among some elements of the aesthetic: > > > > 1) deeper levels emerge later in the fim, or after repeated > > viewings... > > I've seen many of my favorite films a dozen times each. > I've watched a few of my favorites more than that. A > great film gets *better* with subsequent viewings. > > > ...where a different, best -- a contrasting, opposing, > > symbolism/ message emerges where one goes "holy cow dung!". This > > is not about character twists where the good guys are really > > seen to be bad guys, etc, though that may too me a category. What > > I am referring to is a "process" that the film takes you through, > > and wakes something up inside, shifts something. In some cases it > > may be "manipulation", but then so are "guided meditations". As > > a "technique" or spiritual process, "manipulation" may be an ok, > > even a good thing, if its a catalyst, it causes a transformation > > of insight, and then itself (the catalyst) dissappears. The > > Winslow Boy is a good example of that, for me, though I am curious > > if others "got it" in the same way that happened to me. > > Yup. If I think of myself as the same person after > seeing the film as I was before seeing it, it prob- > ably wouldn't fit my definition of "spiritual." > > > 2)spiritual warrior is a good and relevant category. However, > > again as above, it should be a catalysis, not a thing in itself. > > It should serve as temporary tool that "shocks" or transforms > > awareness to a new newness. If identity remains stuck as > > "spiritual warrior" then it is binding not liberating. > > I agree, with the caveat below. > > > Use of temporary identification of being a > > "spiritual warrior" should be temporarily catalytic not permanent. > > Unless your path happens to be that of a warrior, in > which case it might be a good thing. :-) > > > Does the spiritual warrior film induce such catalytic process change > > -- or does it induce a more permanent identification, a new, albeit > > higher, set of chains. Some of the films mentioned, all testosterone > > soaked odyessies, have certain liberating aspects, but their > > excesses, IMO, diminish their overall impact. > > I have never met a film whose excesses in this area > diminished my appreciation of it as a spiritual film. > But then, as far as I can tell, I spent quite a few > lifetimes as a warrior, so *none* of the stuff that > bothers other people seems to affect me in the least. > I sometimes don't even notice the violence if the > film has captured my attention in other ways. > > > And I am not sure whehter they are > > catalytic and transcend the warrior "tool", or simply induce macho > > warrior identification. I would think "First Blood" might better > > serve the catalytic warrior role than some of the Mel/Arnold genre > > mentioned. > > Interesting. I would say the opposite. To each his > or her own, I guess. > > > Thats if one really wants to be pumped up, or perhaps more > > accurately, puffed up, in male warrior mode. In some real ways, I > > think chick warrior films may more naturally be catalytic rather > > than creating new binding identifications. > > They are certainly liberating in that we have all been > programmed to see women *not* as warriors, and *not* > having the qualities of them. Anything that blows away > that stereotype is a good thing in my book. The part of > Ripley in Ridley Scott's "Alien" was originally written > for a man. But what a difference it makes when it is > played by a woman. > > > The key questions from this spiritual film aesthetic is whether > > the warior identification is used, then transcended -- either by > > the characters in the film, or in the "process" and transformation > > induced in the films' viewer. Blue Crash (great girl surfer film) > > and Bend It Like Beckham are better spiritual warrior films, IMO, > > than Mel and Arnold fare -- though I appreciate some of their > > works quite a lot. > > Can't agree. Haven't seen the "Beckham" film, and Blue > Crush was cute, but trite to the max IMO and with acting > and plotting that wouldn't have cut the mustard on cable > TV. Whereas "Conan the Barbarian" was IMO a great film > by *film* standards, as was "Braveheart." One just can't > generalize when talking about Arnold and Mel IMO; context > is all...you have to specify *which* Arnold or Mel film. > > > 3) Do the films have a visceral impact in "spiritual" regions of the > > body? Do they leave you literally breathless, with a profound punch > > to the solar plexus, a huge glow in the heart, or a huge lump / > > glow in the throat? This is not a cerebral response, its beyond > > thinking. > > While an interesting criterion, I suspect this is more > individual than anything else. I've sat in films with > a dozen friends, all students of the same spiritual > teacher, and had the same film "hit" each of them > completely differently. > > > 4) Does the film help one to "disrobe" from current identities and > > either leave one "naked" or at a minimum transform identification > > from a small idividuality to a larger whole -- "the land" (Out of > > Africa), a people, an ideal. Or best of all, destroys > > identification -- often through disillusionment with all or at > > least prominent attachments. > > > > 5) Does the film, in itself, or specific sub-plots or characters' > > conflicts, create useful analogies for the spiritual path, > > "experiences" and states? > > > > 6) Does the film create unresolvable conflicts which prompt / force > > transcendance? > > > > A continuing dialogue, more thoughts emerging ... > > All interesting, all fascinating "criteria" for a > "spiritual film," but I find myself wondering whether > some (or all) of them might tempt one to fall into the > trap of expectation. For me, the main quality of a good > film is that it *surprises* me, and takes me somewhere I > have never been before. If I were sitting there expecting > or even hoping for one of the aforementioned categories, > I would be *resisting* the possibility of a new experience, > hoping for a repeat of an old one. > > So although it's really fun to try to come up with > ways to describe what makes a film "spiritual," I > think I'm going to try to resist the temptation. > I'm going to stick to the same definition I use for > art -- I know it when I see it. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
