Todo Tiene Su Como-Se-Llama

Well, I'm heading to the Denver airport in one hour. When I return from my trip in two weeks (minus a day or two--I still need to figure everything out with the time changes and all), I expect you to have hit level 30 and have 100+ gold. Alright, alright, maybe not. Oh yeah, and try to get some rest, watch some movies, and forget about classes. Sunshine is good too. We'll talk later.

I miss you.

100+ gold?!!?!? good gravy, it took me FOREVER to just get enough for a mount!! *grumbles about lack of good drops, and exhorbitantly high training costs* If you pass lvl 51 before I get back to school....I'll cry.

;) Hm, 6 more days, I get another paycheck. That'll be nice :) Heh, you can always look forward to that man. I have to admit...I'm not missing hmwk at all, blasted stuff. Ah well, hope you get to do something fun this weekend. Remember to thank God for the little things, at least you still have those. ;)

Madness of King George would have recieved an A from me.

I get F-word boredom in pulp fiction

You know, you're right . . . there's a lot of language in the movie. Tons, in fact. And it's very violent and there are some other disturbing elements in it. But I loved (as the rating shows) and as I talked it over with Rachel, explaining why I loved it, I realized something.

For the benefit of those who haven't seen the movie, let me just quickly do some sketchy background (there's a LOT more to it than this):

You've got two characters, Vincent and Jules. They're hit men . . . evil guys. They go around and shoot people for a mob boss. Jules has an unusual MO: he always quotes Ezekiel 25:17 before killing someone.

"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

Anyway, one day they go in to execute some guys who have totally screwed their boss on a deal, and one of the guys is hiding in the bathroom without them knowing it. When they least expect it, he bursts out of the bathroom and unloads a large gun at them from very close range.

They are completely untouched, so of course they shoot the guy. Then they look around and . . . You can see the bullet holes in the wall behind them.
RIGHT behind them. It's as though the bullets just went right THROUGH them without TOUCHING them.

Jules is convinced that it is a miracle of divine intervention, Vincent is totally skeptical. Jules and Vincent wind up spending most of the movie arguing over whether this was a miracle or not, and Jules decides that he simply cannot continue living the way he is when God has reached out and touched his life that way. Vincent thinks he's crazy.

The two of them stop at a restaurant to have breakfast on the way back to see the boss, where Jules is going to retire from his life of crime for good . . . Vincent is still arguing with him about it. And two small-time crooks try to pull a robbery on the restaurant . . . Vincent is gone to the bathroom at this point.

Of course, Jules winds up pulling his gun and getting the drop on the two crooks, and as he sits there and talks to them, he comes to realize what the verse means that he's been quoting all this time (and pardon the language, because he's still a criminal and it wouldn't be realistic or convincing if he just suddenly stopped swearing): "I been sayin' that shit for years. And if you ever heard it, it meant your ass. I never really questioned what it meant. I thought it was just a cold-blooded thing to say to a motherfucker before you popped a cap in his ass. But I saw some shit this mornin' made me think twice. Now I'm thinkin': it could mean you're the evil man. And I'm the righteous man. And Mr. 9mm here, he's the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or it could be you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. I'd like that. But that shit ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd."

And that just struck me as such a profound look at the transformation that God can effect in ANYONE'S life when he just reaches out and nudges them. And Jules goes on and gives the robbers his wallet full of money and shoos them out the door . . . I doubt they ever steal again after that. Vincent, meanwhile, refuses to see any of this, and winds up dead a few days later . . . That's just the consequence of the life he leads. God gave him his way out, and he didn't take it.

Another thing that struck me was that Jules reaches his moment of grace and acceptance at the end of a chain of events begun in the midst of a violent epiphany. Now . . . who else wrote stories like that? (for those not following, see "Understanding Keats," two posts down)

hmmmm.... very intriguing point at the end.

What I will ponder in light of your comments is this: Isthe profanity of that movie as central to the story as the grotesque in O'Conner (or Agee or other southern gothic writers).? Of course that means I'll have to watch the movie again....and of course that means late at night so my daughter won't hear and my wife won't beat me.

My question to you is: How much intellectually stimulating content is required in order to overcome excess profanity or other troubling content? You have given high marks to 2 movies that indeed are critically acclaimed, but which have problems I find difficult to overcome in my judgement of "great flicks"....Lolita (portrayal of the young girl as seductress troubles me inspite of the redeeming parts you noted in earlier post), Pulp Fiction (I struggle with the battering effect of the language).....just wondering if you have a philosophy or go with your gut...

Fry, I think it's very important to re-emphasize that your own natural environment plays a huge deal in how the environment of the film impacts the viewer. As you've noted on Lolita, the fact that you have daughters really ruins the artistic value of the movie for you because of the innate morality problem that the premise of the film presents you with. While it bothers Jared and I as well, we don't even have to deal with little sisters, much less daughters and so it doesn't really impact us on the same level that it impacts you.

Conversely with Tarantino's film, we have much more experience with a profanity-laden environment and culture than you do, so to us, the inherent shock value has worn down a bit and the profanity eases its way into extreme language, but not unconscionable under the right circumstances. Thus, it isn't that the language doesn't impact our decisions, but rather it isn't the distraction to us that it is to some, taking away from the value of the movie with every occurence, merited or not. I'm going to use this as a cue to Jared to replay Shroud's HotEL presentation, as I think he can take this and run fairly well...

Post forthcoming . . .

I will admit more sensitivity with the first film (Lolita)...though I am not certain more means inappropriate...though it is more likely due to my role in schools, law enforcement and county children’s services than my having daughters. My discomfort comes not from the consideration of inappropriate desire but specifically the portrayal of the girl (Believe me, listen to stepfather justify his actions with a stepdaughter because she was "teasing" him or "wanted" it and you'll see a dark part of man you'll never forget...and law enforcement/CSD workers hear it everyday)

Also....while I live on the mission field now, I grew up in logging and commercial fishing towns in Oregon (in the 70's and 80's). "I've been one acquainted with the night" certainly and more than I would like to admit. Be cautious in assuming too much about someone's background ...they might run off with your wooden leg!

Though I'll grant you, profanity in film and other media is greater now than in my youth. I do know that has a numbing affect. That was my original comment on the movie...the language bores me. The f-word (and the mother f-word) has been reduced to a grunt or "y'know" or some other meaningless, vapid phrase.

I still think my points are valid- at what point does thematic or cinema graphic greatness overcome unpleasant or grotesque elements? There are certainly films and books that are greater than the sum total of their parts. Those works use unpleasant things as just a part of a construct of a beneficial whole---I love the D.H Lawrence books, I detest the modern romance novel, in between lie Updike and John Irving who sometimes use sex and profanity effectively and sometimes gratuitously/ineffectively. I think both Updike and Irving are great writers…Updike is probably the greatest short story writer of the last half of the 20th century, but not all of his books are great.

In all I am not asking Jared to change his views...just defend them...which he usually does quite effectively. He has me toying with the idea that Lolita is a great film....but he has a little work to do yet. Neither excellence nor greatness is something to be lightly considered.

Just ordered reading Lolita in Tehran....but of course my issues are with the film not the story.

Hi Jared,

I'm sorry that you are so stressed and depressed... at least you are doing all your work though. Well, I'm off to Alaska tomorrow. Have a good summmer.
asa