Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
gareth higgins
Is this you? Claim Profile »
2 weeks ago
in 2009 Film Awards Part 1: ‘The Cove’ on The Film Talk
Ah Toby - that comes close to a spoiler, but I have to say that the man with the TV on his chest is the most moving thing I've seen at the movies this year. I am a raving fan of this film.
1 reply
1 month ago
in Angels and Demons: Some further thoughts on The Film Talk
I meant nothing more than the fact that Richard Dawkins wrote what he appears to think is a credible intellectual book about theology and religion, which, once read, shows no sign whatsoever of anything more than a passing acquaintance with some of the most distorted visions of what he is claiming to understand. Dawkins has a more refined and capacious mind than I do; but writing a book like 'The God Delusion' without engaging in anything more than a high school magazine level of study of theology seems to me, at the very least, intellectually suspect.
2 replies
Dale
I really do realize this is a film blog, not a religion-vs.-atheism blog, but ...
Here's what I'd say about Richard Dawkins: (a) He has said many times -- and I think he has a very good point here -- that the relevance of theology depends completely on the quality of an underlying truth claim, namely that a god either does or does not exist. If god does not exist, then theology does not matter at all, as it is nothing more than an edifice of word games and just-so stories founded on a delusion. If god does exist, nothing could be important than theology (defined here as the discipline devoted to understanding god's revelations, his will, his rules, etc.)
(b) While Dawkins has no discernible background in theology, his work in science establishes his expertise as an evaluator of hypotheses -- he has a very strong record of winnowing what's demonstrably true from the nice-sounding-but-false, the not-particularly-nice-sounding-but-false, and the outright-laughably-false. He is very explicit about his method -- it's all on the table. He has applied that demonstrated acumen to the question of god's existence/non-existence and found the hypothesis that god exists is, in his best judgment, false (he rates it a 6 on a 7-point scale where 1=100% certainly true and 7=100% certainly false).
Maybe he succeeded or failed in arriving at that conclusion, and maybe his method for getting to that conclusion is subject to criticism -- people differ -- but it is his central conclusion. I think he's right with (a) above, and that being so, he does indeed spend no time on theology. I would expect him to change on that -- I know I would -- were someone to successfully demonstrate, with strong reasoning and evidence and a supportable truth-evaluation methodology whose terms are specified, that the 6 needs to be dialed back to a lower number.
Departing from Dawkins's views now and speaking only for myself, I would simply ask you whether and to what extent you've considered all the theology you've rejected -- Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Mormon, other Christian sects, etc. I don't claim to know the answer -- maybe you've done precisely that. I recall you have a divinity background, and maybe that means you've studied all the theology on the books in exhaustive detail.
So I my smart-ass but still serious question is this: do you insist that every thinking person, yourself included, devote serious attention all the theology he/she does not currently embrace -- suspending judgment until it has all been given a fair hearing? Or do you just apply this to Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens, and other atheists?
Truly the conversation never ends.
Here's what I'd say about Richard Dawkins: (a) He has said many times -- and I think he has a very good point here -- that the relevance of theology depends completely on the quality of an underlying truth claim, namely that a god either does or does not exist. If god does not exist, then theology does not matter at all, as it is nothing more than an edifice of word games and just-so stories founded on a delusion. If god does exist, nothing could be important than theology (defined here as the discipline devoted to understanding god's revelations, his will, his rules, etc.)
(b) While Dawkins has no discernible background in theology, his work in science establishes his expertise as an evaluator of hypotheses -- he has a very strong record of winnowing what's demonstrably true from the nice-sounding-but-false, the not-particularly-nice-sounding-but-false, and the outright-laughably-false. He is very explicit about his method -- it's all on the table. He has applied that demonstrated acumen to the question of god's existence/non-existence and found the hypothesis that god exists is, in his best judgment, false (he rates it a 6 on a 7-point scale where 1=100% certainly true and 7=100% certainly false).
Maybe he succeeded or failed in arriving at that conclusion, and maybe his method for getting to that conclusion is subject to criticism -- people differ -- but it is his central conclusion. I think he's right with (a) above, and that being so, he does indeed spend no time on theology. I would expect him to change on that -- I know I would -- were someone to successfully demonstrate, with strong reasoning and evidence and a supportable truth-evaluation methodology whose terms are specified, that the 6 needs to be dialed back to a lower number.
Departing from Dawkins's views now and speaking only for myself, I would simply ask you whether and to what extent you've considered all the theology you've rejected -- Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Mormon, other Christian sects, etc. I don't claim to know the answer -- maybe you've done precisely that. I recall you have a divinity background, and maybe that means you've studied all the theology on the books in exhaustive detail.
So I my smart-ass but still serious question is this: do you insist that every thinking person, yourself included, devote serious attention all the theology he/she does not currently embrace -- suspending judgment until it has all been given a fair hearing? Or do you just apply this to Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens, and other atheists?
Truly the conversation never ends.
Jett Loe
hey gareth, wanted to reply to your original post earlier - but in a video comment, unfortunately that functionality is down right now so will be brief in text:
we've spoken before about your view that dawkin's take on theology is facile, and as you put it, at a 'high school magazine level' - i think that's correct re: comparing the people/concepts he discusses to your grasp/vision of faith/theology.
the thing is - the folks dawkin's talks about in his book - the ones who literally believe in satan/demons, (NOT as metaphor - but as reality), are legion - not everyone has your subtle approach. i just got back from a couple of days away in eastern tennessee and saw with my own eyes a congregation of THOUSANDS nodding along, saying "that's right" to a preacher who says the United Nations is a front for the anti-christ and hinted quite clearly that president obama himself might be the 'dark one'.
the folks in the pews sure seemed convinced. and it's this kind of non-reflection = swallowing the con man's codswallop that dawkins and others attack.
i know plenty of smart people who have faith - but i'd call it philosophical inquiry - these smart folks just happened to be inculcated/raised in organised religion - so it becomes the framework for the philosophical apprehension of the world.
does that make any sense?
we've spoken before about your view that dawkin's take on theology is facile, and as you put it, at a 'high school magazine level' - i think that's correct re: comparing the people/concepts he discusses to your grasp/vision of faith/theology.
the thing is - the folks dawkin's talks about in his book - the ones who literally believe in satan/demons, (NOT as metaphor - but as reality), are legion - not everyone has your subtle approach. i just got back from a couple of days away in eastern tennessee and saw with my own eyes a congregation of THOUSANDS nodding along, saying "that's right" to a preacher who says the United Nations is a front for the anti-christ and hinted quite clearly that president obama himself might be the 'dark one'.
the folks in the pews sure seemed convinced. and it's this kind of non-reflection = swallowing the con man's codswallop that dawkins and others attack.
i know plenty of smart people who have faith - but i'd call it philosophical inquiry - these smart folks just happened to be inculcated/raised in organised religion - so it becomes the framework for the philosophical apprehension of the world.
does that make any sense?
1 month ago
in Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus on The Film Talk
You do realise that that's the 'Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus' starring Deborah Gibson, i.e. the once and future 'Debbie Gibson', i.e. wandering minstrel behind such masterpieces of my teenage years as 'Foolish Beat', 'Shake Your Love', and 'Only in My Dreams', i.e. the woman who I can freely admit was the first female to appear on my bedroom wall, somewhere between 'The Goonies' and Tim Burton's 'Batman'.
'Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus' simply cannot fail. It must not.
'Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus' simply cannot fail. It must not.
1 reply
Jett Loe
Had no idea...
2 months ago
in ‘Rachel Getting Married’ as Racist Recruiting Tool and Indictment of Multi-Culturalism on The Film Talk
This film has clearly evoked strong feelings; it did the same for me, but of course in the opposite direction. I think it's an extremely exciting, alive piece of honest humanist art. I don't think you addressed the points I raised in my comment, so I'll try again:
1: Why do you think RGM isn't hopeful?
2: What's wrong with creative people enjoying themselves?
3: You say that one of the most contrived moments in the film is when the camera focuses on Ethan's plate. But is this not just exactly what everyone in the kitchen would have done? i.e. glanced at it first time round, tried to pretend it wasn't there, and then found oneself unable not to look at it again? This is an observational film - we're guests at the wedding, mildly uncomfortable, watching, not sure if we should be there. The Ethan plate moment is one of the most lifelike in the film.
4: Ultimately I think that 'Rachel Getting Married' is a fine film, not a masterpiece. I freely grant - always have - that the wedding itself is over the top and 'you had to be there' - but so has every wedding that I've ever been to. That's why this film is realistic: some people on their best behaviour, and so they act over the top; others find that their emotions get the better of them, so they have sex with the best man, or make embarrasing speeches, or get jealous over who gets what title. And, for a moment or longer, a community of two families can form, and people can taste a little bit of what life at its best could be like. That's all that's happening here. Nothing more, nothing less.
I think that the minority you refer to in your original post (and believe me, the Ethan and Sidney references bear serious thought) may well be pissed off by this movie, if they ever see it; but I imagine that anyone else affected by the issues it raises might just find a little bit of comfort in their struggle to make life work. I did, at least. It's sad that it made you angry. But from my perspective, in the world imagined by the film, we could agree to disagree and still be friends.
1: Why do you think RGM isn't hopeful?
2: What's wrong with creative people enjoying themselves?
3: You say that one of the most contrived moments in the film is when the camera focuses on Ethan's plate. But is this not just exactly what everyone in the kitchen would have done? i.e. glanced at it first time round, tried to pretend it wasn't there, and then found oneself unable not to look at it again? This is an observational film - we're guests at the wedding, mildly uncomfortable, watching, not sure if we should be there. The Ethan plate moment is one of the most lifelike in the film.
4: Ultimately I think that 'Rachel Getting Married' is a fine film, not a masterpiece. I freely grant - always have - that the wedding itself is over the top and 'you had to be there' - but so has every wedding that I've ever been to. That's why this film is realistic: some people on their best behaviour, and so they act over the top; others find that their emotions get the better of them, so they have sex with the best man, or make embarrasing speeches, or get jealous over who gets what title. And, for a moment or longer, a community of two families can form, and people can taste a little bit of what life at its best could be like. That's all that's happening here. Nothing more, nothing less.
I think that the minority you refer to in your original post (and believe me, the Ethan and Sidney references bear serious thought) may well be pissed off by this movie, if they ever see it; but I imagine that anyone else affected by the issues it raises might just find a little bit of comfort in their struggle to make life work. I did, at least. It's sad that it made you angry. But from my perspective, in the world imagined by the film, we could agree to disagree and still be friends.
2 replies
Jett Loe
More on Rachel
Gareth Higgins
Apologies - correction to the last paragraph of my previous comment:
I think that the minority you refer to in your original post (and I really do think it's fascinating - the Ethan and Sidney references bear serious thought, and that's just for starters) may well be pissed off by this movie, if they ever see it; but I imagine that anyone else affected by the issues it raises might just find a little bit of comfort in their struggle to make life work. I did, at least. It's sad that it made you angry. But from my perspective, in the world imagined by the film, we could agree to disagree and still be friends.
I think that the minority you refer to in your original post (and I really do think it's fascinating - the Ethan and Sidney references bear serious thought, and that's just for starters) may well be pissed off by this movie, if they ever see it; but I imagine that anyone else affected by the issues it raises might just find a little bit of comfort in their struggle to make life work. I did, at least. It's sad that it made you angry. But from my perspective, in the world imagined by the film, we could agree to disagree and still be friends.
2 months ago
in ‘Rachel Getting Married’ as Racist Recruiting Tool and Indictment of Multi-Culturalism on The Film Talk
This is a fascinating post, Jett; while I'm going to have to think about it further before I respond to what you say, let me add something about what you don't: Is the via negativa of how this film might be mis-interpreted by a small number of angry people not overwhelmed by the interpretation that most people have: that 'Rachel Getting Married' is actually an incredibly hopeful work of art that points in the direction of an integrated America, that doesn't offer easy answers to painful questions, and that is honest about the fact that we all draw from different cultures, all the time: the point is whether or not we can do so with generosity? In fact, is it not the case that if 'Rachel' is a racist recruitment tool then so is any film in which liberals are happy?
1 reply
Jett Loe
Rachel Getting Married as Racist Narrative
2 months ago
in Why Jett and I Have Free Tickets to the Movies on The Film Talk
It's simple - I told the nice woman at customer services that the film was one of the most offensive, uncomfortable, and unpleasant viewing experiences I had ever had, and I would appreciate it if she would refund the tickets. She immediately agreed to give us vouchers to let us come back for a free admission. The fact that we had only been in the screening for 10 minutes or so probably helped; but I think most cinemas would probably have a similar policy - or they should, if they want to take seriously the need to engender audience loyalty.
1 reply
Jett Loe
I'm betting it was your charming Oirish Brogue that got the job done...
7 months ago
in The Film Talk - Part 42 - Fear and Desire / Zack and Miri Make a Porno on The Film Talk
Tom! I don't have a Favourite Listener, of course, because to show such partiality would be against the egalitarian spirit of TFT - but thank you for the endorsement of my Verhoeven story.
1 reply
Jett Loe
Even though Tom called you Garth? Hmmm. That'll be my new name for ya.
+ Maybe I should check out Jay and Silent Bob - I mean, how sad could it make me?
+ Maybe I should check out Jay and Silent Bob - I mean, how sad could it make me?
Not all of us have seen this.
Film could be ruined.