posted
Oh, it doesn't really annoy me. In fact, I'm kind of fascinated by it, mainly because I believe language to be one of the bulwarks of community, and I'm very interested in the way the LDS maintain their culture.
In this case, kat, I believe "spiritual" to refer to any movie that attempts to encourage people to speculate on higher purposes, fate, and meaning: the idea that there might exist a greater plan or ideal spirit to which we should appeal and aspire. Obviously, some people polled were determined to get blatantly religious films -- not necessarily spiritual ones -- on the list, perhaps because they confused the two. (For example, I would consider Prince of Egypt to be fairly religious, but not particularly spiritual. I think it's on the list because it's a Jewish film as much as a Christian one, and some of these inclusions were obviously politically motivated. Same goes for The Passion of the Christ, which isn't spiritual at all but is very religious.)
quote: In fact, I'm kind of fascinated by it, mainly because I believe language to be one of the bulwarks of community, and I'm very interested in the way the LDS maintain their culture.
I do think it is good for us as LDS in LDS culture to interact with those who are not of our faith or culture to keep things in perspective. If we don't choose to or don't have to associate with people outside our culture (any culture) we are going to become narrow-minded. That is why it is so refreshing to get new converts into the church. They stir things up just a bit, ya know?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
I agree about the list - I'm wondering what the purpose of compiling it was. Was it a scorecard? To sell magazines/ad space? Give the interns something to do? Justify someone's dues? To create a study guide for people looking to expand their earthly horizons?
In that case, should any movie which suggests or promote the idea of the platonic or higher ideal count? Your definition of spiritual isn't so far away from the LDS version I suggested. The only difference is that in the LDS version, that higher ideal/being is defined.
Under any definition, I don't like the list. The inclusion of Hell House especially - if POTC and Prince of Egypt were included to appease the religionists, then Hell House was included to appease the cynics of religion.
--
I like looking at LDS vocabulary for the same reason I like the Faith-Promoting Rumors and Mormon Legends. It's NOT doctrine, but the stories people tell and the language people adopt tells a story about that people that straight autobiography and history miss.
posted
"I'm wondering what the purpose of compiling it was."
Publicity, I'd imagine. Fun. A way of getting their members to discuss something.
And keep in mind the list was voted on, most likely with very little discussion -- which probably explains the presence of a few films that you and I would find questionable.
ALL of the "Top 100 films of X category" lists I've seen have some very questionable entries, for exactly the same reason.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the purpose was a push to discussion, it worked then. It should have started with "Resolved:".
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am fascinated, though, by the high number of foreign films, which are generally more artsy and thus less cut-and-dried about religion and society. I'm thinking specifically of Jean de Florette and Manon of the Spring (which were included as one movie O_o). They're classic standards of French cinema, totally secular in morality. They comment a lot on Catholicism (being set in pre-5thRepublic France) but their moral and underpinning are entirely French humanist.
This list has really made me think about my own definition of spirituality. I don't think I have a good definition outside of the specific religious one I employ in typically LDS situations.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no issue with the LDS lexicon as it is very useful and specific to the needs of LDS-based discussion. But the hair on the back of my neck stands up sometimes the way I hear some LDS talk around people who would not be familiar with the terms or the way they are used.
I have always been (or tried to be) hyper-sensitive to the non-LDS POV. When I was young, I would sit through all my church meetings and imagine that I was non-LDS and how all this would sound to me. The talks and lessons I enjoyed best were always the ones that would have been just as powerful to my "non-LDS" frame of mind.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I, personally, try to offend as many non-LDS as I can. Converts, especially. I don't like them at all. If someone wanted to be Mormon, they should have arranged to be raised as one.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:For example, I would consider Prince of Egypt to be fairly religious, but not particularly spiritual. I think it's on the list because it's a Jewish film as much as a Christian one
That's interesting, Tom, because I don't consider The Prince of Egypt a Jewish (or religious) film at all. In fact, I will never, ever allow my future children to watch it.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the only definition of "Spiritual" that everyone can agree to is the one that involves the definition of the folk song genre.
The word "spiritual" is very vague. In fact an atheist can use it, in my experience to mean the human spirit and nothing to do with a higher power whatsoever.
In fundamentalist Christian circles the term "spiritual" seems to be directly correlated wtih the number of Bible verses memorized and no internal feelings whatsoever.
So given the vagueness of the vernacular definition of "spiritual" it isn't surprising to me that the list is wide and varied. It is just a list. Why is everyone so uptight about it?
posted
beverly, the short answer (which is the only one I have time for right now) is that I feel they played fast and loose with the story and still failed to capture its essence.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK. I honestly did like it myself. From my perspective, they caught the "essence" very well. But, are you Jewish? It is entirely possible that we have very different takes on the story because of different perspectives on scripture/religion. For instance, I do not know if Jews appreciate OSC's books about Old Testament stories, while as an LDS I enjoy them very much.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
beverly, I am Jewish. However, I don't claim represent the "Jewish perspective" - for all I know, plenty of Jewish people adored the movie.
It's the fact that it's a children's movie that really bothers me. I hate the idea of children seeing it and thinking that that is the story of Moses. My future children will be raised Jewish and they will learn the story of Moses in shul (synagogue).
I haven't read OSC's OT books yet. I do plan to. I don't anticipate having a problem with them, especially since they are aimed at an adult audience.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, I think I understand. Not that this is the same thing, but it reminds me of how some Christian parents object to "Veggie Tales" because they don't want their kids to think that David was an asparagus and Goliath was a giant pickle, or that Shadrack, Meeshak, and Abendigo worked in a chocolate bunny factory. But the way I see it, the goodness of the stories far makes up for a misunderstanding that I can explain to them pretty easily.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not why I object. I'm not concerned that my children will ask me where they can find the chariot race passage in the Torah.
My objection has to do with decay of meaning. I think that having religious or spiritual stories representated in cute singing cartoons detracts from the spirituality. Why do these stories need to be "jazzed up" to get children (or adults) interested in them? I feel that they can stand on their own merits.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why do these stories need to be "jazzed up" to get children (or adults) interested in them? I feel that they can stand on their own merits.
Oh, I love that. I agree. There are lots of places to get entertainment, but people/kids are hungry for undiluted spiritual food. They can take it straight.
posted
Good thought! There are these cartoons, "Living Scriptures" they are called, that are rather popular among LDS. They kinda do the same thing. And they are dang expensive. And they're not very good (though I understand the scripts are written by OSC. It is more the art and animation that sucks).
I will happily accept their "free offer" or buy them for cheap at a garage sale, but I so don't go for the idea that if I don't have these films my kids won't learn the scriptures and they will grow up spiritually devoid. They indeed *can* take it straight. And relying on these movies *can* do more harm than good.
posted
You can scar your children for life by reading them stories "straight from the Bible" too.
I was. We read the story of David and Goliath straight from the Bible, and I wanted to know more about Goliath. There's a passage where it goes into great detail about how the sons of Gath had 9 fingers on each hand and their armor and all. Dad flipped over to that passage and read it to me.
Anyway I had vivid nightmares about Goliath as a result. David never came to save me, and if I shut my eyes I can still vividly remember the picture of Goliath from my nightmare 20+ years later.
quote:Publicity, I'd imagine. Fun. A way of getting their members to discuss something.
Yes to all of those reasons, but I daresay also to encourage discussion among not just our members, but also the public in general. I believe most of the folks at the Arts & Faith Forum (including myself, although I'd like to note that I did not participate in the creation of this list) are interested in creating a general dialogue about film, philosophy, and spirituality that is ignored by most folks' weekend trip to the theater.
quote:And keep in mind the list was voted on, most likely with very little discussion -- which probably explains the presence of a few films that you and I would find questionable.
There was, a great deal of discussion, which can be found here. Probably, there should have been even more, but the list will be revised yearly, so you can consider the discussion as on-going.
Annie:
quote:I am fascinated, though, by the high number of foreign films, which are generally more artsy and thus less cut-and-dried about religion and society.
All the better to begin a discussion with, no? At least, as long as people will watch a foreign/artsy film in the first place. Working at a video store, I've had plenty of experience with customers complaining about films not being in English...
As for The Prince of Egypt, I saw it when it first came out and wasn't very impressed. I'm not sure I'd go so far as boycotting it, but I certainly won't be going out of my way to ever see it again.
This and a few others that I have seen (44/100) I wouldn't have personally voted for, but as this thread has shown people have different definitions of the word "spiritual" and different tastes.
Movies are a peculiar form of art, ranging from pure entertainment to serious works of art to pretentious crap ( ), so it's hard to make such a list that will be universally hailed. But personally, I find the lack of art consciousness and discussion (particularly in music and film) in this country disturbing. So I really appreciate lists such as this which focus on a "deeper meaning" to movies. Yes, they're fun, but hopefully they'll also be challenging and encourage discussion and maybe even produce some insight into ourselves and the world we live in.
Posts: 1295 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mrs.M, I can't speak for "the Jewish perspective" either, but I absolutely agree with your take on Prince of Egypt.
quote: It is entirely possible that we have very different takes on the story because of different perspectives on scripture/religion. For instance, I do not know if Jews appreciate OSC's books about Old Testament stories, while as an LDS I enjoy them very much.
*nods* Yes, quite different perspectives. In fact, while I enjoyed some of the details from Stone Tablets, Sarah, and Rebekah, I don't consider them to be true to the Bible (let alone true to the Jewish view).
I sort of viewed them as stories about other people of the same names . . . And since that little conceit has started wearing thin, and the stuff I was hearing about the new book before it even came out was bothering me, I've decided not to read it. *shrug* I try to be open-minded, but I have limits.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka, Mrs. M, thanks for helping me to understand your perspective on this better.
Rivka, I must admit, I am sad that you do not intend to read OSC's Rachael and Leah, because it is an excellent book completely aside from the Old Testament story. Sooooo good. It deals with some very insightful interpersonal issues, and some of them hit me so deeply. I think it has a lot to offer both men and women, but it is definitely a story I would want my young-adult daughters to read for the wisdom contained therein.
posted
God didn't kill his wife to send him a message. I believe that she was the sort of person who prayed daily that her children would be safe, and God's answer to that prayer took a very odd form. You might as well say that God's knowing that in a time of crisis, she and the children would have voted to stay at the house and not go to the lake is what killed them.
I think Groundhog is very spiritual.
To me, spiritual is what does not remain after death. Maybe not the LDS definition, but oh well. That can include bad as well as good.
I believe we have to come to Christ physically as well as spiritually, so I don't agree with kat's definition. We come to Christ physically through ordinances and obedience.
Other movies I found very spiritual:
The Truman Show (for me, about overcoming dysfunctional paradigms from my family of origin). The Matrix (living in the world but not of it) Jean de Florette/Manon de Sources (was that on the list?) Liar Liar/Bruce Almighty (sure, they were "trying to be" and they worked, for me...) And beyond that, you probably don't want to know...
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:God didn't kill his wife to send him a message. I believe that she was the sort of person who prayed daily that her children would be safe, and God's answer to that prayer took a very odd form. You might as well say that God's knowing that in a time of crisis, she and the children would have voted to stay at the house and not go to the lake is what killed them.
I think it depends on whether or not she was going to die in the car crash anyway. There are two possibilities:
1. She was going to die anyway. The car crash was just another of those supremely-crappy things that happen in this life, and as long as it was happening, God thought it sounded like a good time to send a message that would be remembered.
2. God killed his wife in order to turn her into a celestial radio.
If the first, then I like the details of the movie as well as the choice. If the second, then MNS was smoking something if he thought that was inspirational, and he made a truthful movie in spite of himself.
posted
I think Rashomon and Frailty should've made the list. They certainly would've been better choices than American Beauty or Fight Club.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems to me this is a list of movies that make statements on "reality" that people find meaningful. When I say reality, I mean either the things that are of lasting importance or things as they really are beyond the limits of our perceptions. All this can be summed up into one word: Metaphysics.
The variety of movies on this list is a testament--to me--of the great variety of things that strike a chord with different people. For one, it might be Groundhog Day. For another, Fightclub. For another, American Beauty. For another, The Life of Brian. I can believe that these movies all hold a profound "aha" moment for different sorts of people.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I may change my mind, Beverly. I hadn't planned to read the others, but I did enjoy them, for the most part. So the decision is subject to appeal. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think it depends on whether or not she was going to die in the car crash anyway.
I definitely think the car accident was not an anyway thing. Did you not hear the "meant to be" repeated both by Ray and Colleen to the Mel Gibson character? That is where my theory arose that it was an answer to her own prayers.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Did you not hear the "meant to be" repeated both by Ray and Colleen to the Mel Gibson character?
Yes, but are they the authority on why it happened? Perhaps it was "meant to be," but not in the directness that they seem to imply. In other words, accidents happen and God can use the moments of life to enhance faith or experience.
posted
In the story of the monkey's paw, a woman wishes for a thousand dollars and her son is killed. The life insurance payment is a thousand dollars.
A woman prays for her kids to be safe, and God kills her to turn her into a celestial radio. Now they are physically safe and motherless. Darn prayer.
God doesn't play cruel jokes when he answers prayers, and being pinched in half as a result of praying for your kids safety is the kind of answer a monkey's paw would give.
The adults left alive may have finally gotten peace with the woman's death by saying God did it for reception purposes, but in this, I agree with Tom. That's crap.
I don't think that's how prayers are answered in OSC's books either. Where does someone die a violent death as a result of standard prayer of "keep my loved ones safe"?
posted
I'm sorry, kat, I didn't mean to make you feel bad about your own mother's death.
Quim, though, comes to mind. I know not a great example. But I presume the milieau of aliens approaching the earth was not a variable God could prevent.
I was just sharing the meaning of it for me personally. Again, sorry to offend you.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it's fine. I'm really not offended. I admit my own experience lends more than a little disbelief at the idea that of all the possible options, breaking Mom in half was the best God could come up with, but I think I would think this anyway.
I really liked Signs, but that was one serious plot hole. With Quim, what needed to happen was something dramatic to shock them out of the impending war and provide a martyr to rally around. In that case, Quim's death was sad but meaningful. In Signs, what needed to happen was an epiphany that the aliens were fatally allergic to water. No one needed to die for that to happen - what's wrong with a flash of insight at the appropriate moment? The mom dying in order to draw some attention to her words was swatting a fly with a battle-axe.
Don't you think it's a bit embarassing for faith? I like the idea of choosing to believe when both options are viable, but I don't like the idea that the only way faith can be sustained is if you turn off the logic circuits.
*musing* We know that faith produced from evidence of visions and miracles doesn't last anyway. The problem is that coming to faith in the way described by the scriptures for most of the population is inherently unfilmable; how do you film a growing inner assurance?
A lot of changes this year. It is now published by Image Journal. Also "Spiritually Significant" is no longer an official part of the title.
Posts: 1295 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
I read through the list, read through the posts, and didn't understand what half of you were talking about! It took me to the end to realize that this was an old post...
1)I'm glad Ushpizin (The Guests) was on the list. Great movie. Very moving.
2) On the Prince of Egypt discussion - I agree that it probably isn't a good idea to show it to kids - but having been a teenager when I first watched it, I'll admit that I found the "When You Beleive", singing at the splitting of the sea scene to be incredibly moving. I still get goosebumps when I watch it. Actually, I just arranged the song for my acapella group.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've only seen 2 on that entire list. Au Revoir, Les Enfants (which was FANTASTIC. I watched it in the original French for a class. I cried. A lot.), and It's A Wonderful Life. I agree with both being on the list, but unfortunately, the general idea behind IAWL has been done soooo many times now that it's gotten to be monotonous in many aspects. Still, my family watches it every Christmas.
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Well that's annoying.
I read through the list, read through the posts, and didn't understand what half of you were talking about! It took me to the end to realize that this was an old post...
The new list was published this morning. I just bumped the old thread. Sorry!
Posts: 1295 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Spiritual" isn't a word that has any real importance for me, but if I had to give it personal meaning I guess I'd say it describes that which is deeply existentially significant - to me.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
In fact, I'm kind of fascinated by it, mainly because I believe language to be one of the bulwarks of community, and I'm very interested in the way the LDS maintain their culture.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
It should have started with "Resolved:".
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Kat![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
