Sunday, 4 January 2009
ive started another IMDB post that states:
Hey guys! for my Critical film research I need to gain my own perspective on:
"What evidence is there to suggest that in fact Tim Burtons films are reenactments of childhood nightmares for an adult audience?"
How ever despite my own ideas about it I also have to gain primary sources to back up my own opinions...
Thats where you guys come in =] I need to have other opinions aroung this statement to see how others rather than myself interpret Burtons films =]
I would really apreciate it if you could leave your opinions!!
Thank you !!!!!!!!! xXx
Im hoping that i get some sort of answer from it to help me build my primary research up! Also i just like to see how others view the same things i do and if their views are different.
How bad is it though that ive never seen 'Nightmare Before Christmas' :O!! Its gone down to like £4 in Zavvi though so am debating whether to get it :/ anyone got any advice on whether i should ??
It created great controversy when released in 1979 by the hugely popular comical team: Monty Python.
The (alleged) representation of Christ proved controversial. Protests against the film were organised based on its perceived blasphemy. On its initial release in the UK, several town councils – some of which had no cinemas within their boundaries, or had not even seen the film for themselves, banned the film. Most of the religious groups who kicked up a fuss hadn't actually seen the film. They'd just heard rumours.
The film parallels the life of Christ with that of an ordinary little man, poking fun at the folly of organised religion and the foolish actions of follow leaders like sheep. Despite being born on the appropriate day in the appropriate town (something that briefly confused the three wise men and led to some unpleasantness over the gold, frankincense, and myrrh), Brian was, the movie makes clear, not the Messiah. He was not Him, his mother was Mandy, not Mary, and his Life was not blasphemy. Reinforcing this point, Brian is shown listening — at a distance, and with some interest — to the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus is portrayed with respect.
It was decided to open Life of Brian first in America, where freedom of speech and religious choice is enshrined in the constitution. Or so it was thought. Life of Brian received its world premiere in New York on August 17 1979, the same week as Apocalypse Now and The Muppet Movie. However despite this New York, screenings were picketed by both rabbis and nuns ("Nuns with banners!" observed Michael Palin) while the film was banned outright in some American states. In the UK, Mary Whitehouse and other campaigners launched waves of leaflets and picketed at and around cinemas that showed the film, a move that was only felt to have ironically boosted the publicity!
One of the most controversial scenes was the film's ending: Brian's crucifixion. Many Christian protesters said that it was mocking Jesus's suffering by turning it into a "Jolly Boys Outing" (such as when Mr. Cheeky turns to Brian and says: "See, It's not so bad when you get up here"). Despite this it is argued that crucifixion was not completely interrelated with the religion of Christianity as shown when two thieves are crucified next to Jesus in the bible.
In fact The Pythons often prided themselves on the depths of the historical research they had taken before writing the script. They all believe that, as a consequence, the film portrays 1st century Judea more accurately than actual Biblical epics, with its focus centered more on the average person of the era.
The Pythons unanimously deny that they were ever out to destroy people's faiths. On the DVD audio commentary, they contend that the film is unorthodox because it parodies the practices of modern organised religion, but that it does not blasphemously ridicule the God that Christians and Jews worship. When Jesus does appear in the film (first, as a baby in the stable, and then later on the Mount, speaking the Beatitudes), he is played straight (by actor Kenneth Colley) and portrayed with respect. The music and lighting make it clear that there is a genuine aura around him on both occasions.
On the other hand in the appearance was billed as the "U.S. Comedy Arts Festival Tribute to Monty Python" (1998) John Cleese is found to believe: "I don’t think it’s a heresy. It's making fun of the way that people misunderstand the teaching." "No, it's not attacking the Church, necessarily. It's about people who cannot agree with each other".
This can then be debated as other critic believe the real target of the movie's satire is not religion as such, but the unholy baggage that too frequently comes with it — the credulity, the fanaticism, and that very human urge to persecute, well, someone!
In conclusion I believe that theoretically this film was not made to persecute religions specifically but can be seen as shocking. It comments on organised religion and to some extent the tyrannous rule that is created by not only religion but by political power as well. Both to some extent can be argued come hand in hand with each other. I can see how it would offend those who’s life revolves around religion but the notion that it is made clear that ‘Brian’ is NOT Jesus is an important one. It separates the two characters and the notion that the scenes with Jesus in are depicted respectfully and ‘straight’ show that these characters are always shown to be separate and distinctive in there own rights. However it does then show that the creators knew the parallels they would be creating so had to prove that these characters were different. I feel it is pin pointing a folly in society as a whole an the fact that we as individuals have to feel apart of something bigger and more powerful than what we are. To some extent a ‘hope’, we can cling onto to understand to help guide us through our life and the prejudices that occur when others don't believe the same things we do. This therefore can be observed as more political shock rather than visceral or the narrative type of shock. The narrative used is that of how things are misconstrued within society depicting religion, politics and human nature which is still relevant within today’s society and always will be.
Wednesday, 19 November 2008
All I can say is they must dislike me =[ People that commented only made silly remarks or led me to sites that said ' DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK'- if only they understood to get other peoples views WAS my homework!! GRRRRRRRrrrrr
It makes you feel well stupid and belittled =[ why couldnt they have been constructive!!??
Oh well it just makes me more determined to find out information =]
For example the drawings were of :
- A Chocolate Bar
- A Candy Cane
- A Dog
All of these have connotations of happiness and warth we gain from interacting with them eg: food- eat it and makes us happy ( sugar) and 'dog' is a best friend!
However the words written down were a complete contrast to this! They all connoted the downsides to childhood eg: Isolation, Neglect, Mysterious etc.
This shows the drastic contrast of how Burtons films are interpreted by each individual. How certain films can infulence them as for this i didnt show any clips of Burtons films.
It was very productive as different persepctives were shown and how they mirror or contradict the ones that I myself have.
THANKS again guys =] xXx
The link to the best one is:
Its also quite weird as i had no idea about Vincent Price untill Sophie told me about him and I seems alot of Tim Burton fans automatically relate him to Burtons films.
How Vincent Price was an iconic figure for Burton when he was young and how he encompases him into his adult world.
This opens up the question of whether its childhood in general that is portrayed through Burtons films or whether perhapse it is Burtons childhood that is being disected and displayed to us and how universal it actually is!
Wednesday, 12 November 2008
Tuesday, 11 November 2008