The Movie Thread

Tom Slick

Kingfisher
Orthodox
I am wondering what was the main thing you took issue with in regards to the way the church is portrayed?
Forgive me if I am going on too much about The Exorcist, especially if it seems like my observations are trivial, but our conversation prompted me to re-watch parts of the film and I would like to mention one more thing that I noticed for the first time.

One of the points I am trying to make is that although some of the anti-Christian elements of the movie may appear subtle, they are part of both a larger Hollywood pattern, which I think most on this forum are aware of, but also part of specific patterns of film-making from the producer/writer Blatty, director Friedkin, and the lead actress Burstyn.

What I noticed was that when Father Karras first meets Father Marrin, the exorcist, they greet each other with a a Masonic grip of the third degree master Mason. Here's the screen grab from the director's cut version of the blu-ray.

Karras and Marrin handshake 01.png

Here is a figure from one of the most common Masonic references in North America (not that I'm an expert, just that I'm familiar enough to recognize some things), "Duncan's Masonic Ritual and Monitor":

Duncans p. 147 fig. 17 3rd degree lions paw.png

Actors Miller and von Sydow do not reproduce the grip exactly the same way as shown in the manual, but it's very close and also quite distinctive from a normal handshake. Notice how Miller's index and middle finger rest on the middle of von Sydow's forearm near his wrist; it is totally different from a normal handshake and if anyone ever gripped you that way you would notice immediately.

Karras and Marrin handshake 02.png

Freemasonry is forbidden in the Catholic and Orthodox churches and to portray Catholic priests as Freemasons is another of the movie's blasphemies. I think one reason for doing this is that the producer/writer Blatty and the gay Jewish director Friedkin wish to be impious. Maybe I'm wrong to impute motives, but that is my conclusion after observing these patterns.

Blatty made a overtly Masonic movie in 1980, "The Ninth Configuration", which contained all sorts of references and allusions to their mythology and beliefs, so I think that like other Masonic directors*, he likes to insert symbols and references from his belief system into his films, especially when they can be used to show contempt for Christianity.

*A couple of films with extensive Masonic references:
The Man Who Would Be King (1975), directed by John Huston, starring Sean Connery and Michael Caine
The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada (2005), directed by and starring Tommy Lee Jones
 

Maddox

Kingfisher
Protestant
...On a similar note, when I watch Hitchock's "Rear Window" I get the very same impression from the first third of that movie as I do from UTSL. Jimmy Stewart's broken legged character passively observing any life outside of his own boring apartment is a metaphor for watching television. Honestly, I think Rear Window is over-rated and its flaws are similar to UTSL's because there's not an easy way to conclude a film with this kind of premise. Hitchcock used a lame murder mystery and UTSL used implausible conspiratorial events, both of which are the stuff of fantasy and entertainment.

Oh boy...this is one of my favorite films so I have to defend it.

While I agree with your metaphor, Hitchcock is also tackling the ethics of watching the neighbors from your own home. Looking out your own window, you're bound to get a glimpse of their lives. But at what point does it go from being okay to being creepy and wrong?

As for the murder mystery, I found the plot to be very interesting as both the protagonist and the audience are only given certain knowledge of what this man has been up to. Stewart's character sees things that we the audience don't, and sometimes, we are shown things that he doesn't see because he's sleeping.

Sure, it's not the most sophisticated murder story out there. But it doesn't need to be. IMO, it more or less serves as a vehicle for the love story between Jefferies and Lisa. It's because of this turn of events that Lisa decides to show Jeff that she can survive in his world by helping out with solving the murder.

What gives the film its depth though is all of the secondary characters in the other apartments. Hitchcock makes the audience the voyeur by allowing us to peek in on these peoples' lives. But more than that, each of these little subplots with the lonely single girl, the newlyweds, the old married couple, and all the others represents the spectrum from being single to being married. It forces Jeff and Lisa to see themselves in these characters as they were in the past and what could be in store for them in the future.

All in all, I found it to be a very entertaining film with a good deal of depth.
 

Tom Slick

Kingfisher
Orthodox
All in all, I found it to be a very entertaining film with a good deal of depth.
Very cool. You know and like the film and that's what counts. I have often enjoyed watching films the second time because of someone else's enthusiasm and knowledge, so excellent defense, Councillor! I'd take you as my defense attorney any day, lol.

However, you may be identifying with the fantasy. I think what Hitchcock is actually doing with the subplots is mocking his audience's habituated voyeurism because the lonely single girl, et al, simply represent the TV plot archetypes of secondary and tertiary characters that are used to occupy attention we focus on the boob tube that could be given to the actual people in our lives. I think that's Hitchock's primary theme in RW.

I think if Hitchcock were doing it the way you say, then the second and third parts of Rear Window, Vertigo, North By Northwest, etc., but not The Birds, would be more sensical and not break the internal consistency of their respective films so badly and frequently. David Lynch does something similar in some of his films, but he's not benign like Hitchcock.
 

Hypno

Crow
Speaking of Vertigo, I think this is Hitchcock's best film. People respect it but often rank others of his higher for reasons that escape me. The only other film of his I like as much is Psycho, but it doesn't bear repeated viewings once you know the plot twists.

Some of Hitchcock's films don't hold up that well. He was really innovating some things, and a lot of his innovations have been copied and refined, and improved. The whole premise of Rear Window and North by Northwest have been done in other films but better, at least in the sense that the pacing and suspense are at a modern standard, faster.
 

GigaBITE

Sparrow
Oriental Orthodox
I gave in and watched Beavis and Butt-Head Do the Universe based on the attached clip going viral. I always liked the show, and the first movie, but was worried this was going to be a bowdlerized and tame version suited for our times but it turned out to be 90s-like in the best possible way. Judge has his cake and eats it too by transporting the two characters from 1998 to 2022 so the double entendres and lowbrow jokes are still intact, so even though it's set in the present, it actually transports its audience to the past. Who knew all it took to escape clown world, if ever so briefly, was two clowns?

 

Pete345

Robin
Orthodox
Forgive me if I am going on too much about The Exorcist, especially if it seems like my observations are trivial, but our conversation prompted me to re-watch parts of the film and I would like to mention one more thing that I noticed for the first time.

One of the points I am trying to make is that although some of the anti-Christian elements of the movie may appear subtle, they are part of both a larger Hollywood pattern, which I think most on this forum are aware of, but also part of specific patterns of film-making from the producer/writer Blatty, director Friedkin, and the lead actress Burstyn.

What I noticed was that when Father Karras first meets Father Marrin, the exorcist, they greet each other with a a Masonic grip of the third degree master Mason. Here's the screen grab from the director's cut version of the blu-ray.

View attachment 44091

Here is a figure from one of the most common Masonic references in North America (not that I'm an expert, just that I'm familiar enough to recognize some things), "Duncan's Masonic Ritual and Monitor":

View attachment 44092

Actors Miller and von Sydow do not reproduce the grip exactly the same way as shown in the manual, but it's very close and also quite distinctive from a normal handshake. Notice how Miller's index and middle finger rest on the middle of von Sydow's forearm near his wrist; it is totally different from a normal handshake and if anyone ever gripped you that way you would notice immediately.

View attachment 44097

Freemasonry is forbidden in the Catholic and Orthodox churches and to portray Catholic priests as Freemasons is another of the movie's blasphemies. I think one reason for doing this is that the producer/writer Blatty and the gay Jewish director Friedkin wish to be impious. Maybe I'm wrong to impute motives, but that is my conclusion after observing these patterns.

Blatty made a overtly Masonic movie in 1980, "The Ninth Configuration", which contained all sorts of references and allusions to their mythology and beliefs, so I think that like other Masonic directors*, he likes to insert symbols and references from his belief system into his films, especially when they can be used to show contempt for Christianity.

*A couple of films with extensive Masonic references:
The Man Who Would Be King (1975), directed by John Huston, starring Sean Connery and Michael Caine
The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada (2005), directed by and starring Tommy Lee Jones

To be honest, I used to do this handshake when I was younger, along with a left-hand on the shoulder. I did this for people I liked and respected or was trying to make a good impression with, such as a future father in law. I just considered it to be a cool and meaningful bro-shake. I had no idea it would be considered Masonic, and it never crossed my mind. If anything, I would have said it was a handshake between two knights.
 

Hypno

Crow
What is your opinion on the latest Top Gun movie? I loved it.

I can see why a lot of people like it. Its a big Hollywood action film, and it delivers the same way a Marvel film does.

But I prefer the original.

My problem with the new one is too much of it is unbelievable. Its far fetched. If you don't have a problem with that, don't let me ruin it for you. I won't go into detail and rain on anyone's parade.

The original was a lot more limited in scope but at the time Russia and especially its MiGs were feared. Encounters, let alone dogfights, were rare.

The scope of the film was more subtle, but better, in my opinion. Even Cruise's romantic relationship was more beliavable with lesbian Kelly McGillis than the better-looking but worse actress Jennifer Connelly

I have passes to see the new one. But I told my son I'm not taking him until him and his friends watch the first one.
 

Pete345

Robin
Orthodox
I can see why a lot of people like it. Its a big Hollywood action film, and it delivers the same way a Marvel film does.

But I prefer the original.

My problem with the new one is too much of it is unbelievable. Its far fetched. If you don't have a problem with that, don't let me ruin it for you. I won't go into detail and rain on anyone's parade.

The original was a lot more limited in scope but at the time Russia and especially its MiGs were feared. Encounters, let alone dogfights, were rare.

The scope of the film was more subtle, but better, in my opinion. Even Cruise's romantic relationship was more beliavable with lesbian Kelly McGillis than the better-looking but worse actress Jennifer Connelly

I have passes to see the new one. But I told my son I'm not taking him until him and his friends watch the first one.
Fun fact: the Russians (Soviets) were not the enemy in the original Top Gun. It was never clearly laid out who it was, but most likely the NORKs.
 

Tom Slick

Kingfisher
Orthodox
To be honest, I used to do this handshake when I was younger, along with a left-hand on the shoulder. I did this for people I liked and respected or was trying to make a good impression with, such as a future father in law. I just considered it to be a cool and meaningful bro-shake. I had no idea it would be considered Masonic, and it never crossed my mind. If anything, I would have said it was a handshake between two knights.
Sure, it won't always be. First time it ever happened to me was just three years ago by people I'm pretty sure aren't Masons, but they might have grown up around them, who knows.

Some of the Masonic traditions have become mainstreamed into the culture through various means.

Standing at attention in the military with heels touching and creating a 45 degree angle is Masonic.

1657854255059.png

Asking if someone is "on the level" comes from Masonry.

The term blackballed is mainstream, but it comes from the Masonic recruiting procedure where a candidate is recommended by someone already in the lodge and everyone votes by placing either a white or black marble into a jar. If even a single member of the lodge casts a vote with a black marble or ball, the candidate is rejected. The process was described well by George Orwell in his early novel, "Burmese Days."
 

Maddox

Kingfisher
Protestant
Speaking of Vertigo, I think this is Hitchcock's best film. People respect it but often rank others of his higher for reasons that escape me. The only other film of his I like as much is Psycho, but it doesn't bear repeated viewings once you know the plot twists.

Some of Hitchcock's films don't hold up that well. He was really innovating some things, and a lot of his innovations have been copied and refined, and improved. The whole premise of Rear Window and North by Northwest have been done in other films but better, at least in the sense that the pacing and suspense are at a modern standard, faster.

There was a high school teacher who played this film for his class a few years back. After the movie finished, he asked his class what they thought about it.

A lot of the kids thought it was creepy that Stewart's character was following this woman around town and wanted to dress her like the other lady he once knew. I thought this said a lot about how younger people today feel about love. They seem to have no concept of what it means to be infatuated with someone. It's a normal human emotion, but kids today look at it like a mental illness. But not an illness to sympathize with. No, these men should be locked up and not allowed around women because they're dangerous to society.
 

Hypno

Crow
Yeah that’s cultural programming.

Most kuds these days find Seinfeld offensive because of racial or sexual stereotypes. They sort of have a point, but the larger point is that the culture has changed
 

JayR

Kingfisher
Atheist
Yeah that’s cultural programming.

Most kuds these days find Seinfeld offensive because of racial or sexual stereotypes. They sort of have a point, but the larger point is that the culture has changed
I've seen this first hand. When I helped my daughter move into her new apartment and got her TV all set up, her roommate (male, preferred pronoun "they'"), was flipping through the channels, so I whipped out the old Seinfeld bit -- "Women want to see what's on. Men want to see what ELSE is on!"

He gave me a blank stare. "That's not funny."

Made me sad -- I love Seinfeld.
 
Top