Comments on: Movie. Luther, 2003. (HIx: 3) http://firstword.us/2007/05/movie-luther-2003-hix-3/ How can you have the last word if you haven't heard the first? Tue, 01 May 2012 20:05:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: TJH http://firstword.us/2007/05/movie-luther-2003-hix-3/comment-page-1/#comment-1691 TJH Mon, 28 May 2007 13:45:39 +0000 http://butler-harris.org/archives/241#comment-1691 Joshua -- Good insight on the songs, but consider: the songs would still be objectionable even if they clarified the antecedent as God or Jesus. The objection would still be that their musical aesthetic is the <em>genre of boyfriend</em>. So it's not just that you "pour in" the "right" meaning. It's fundamentally a container for a Cosmopolitan, not for a slug of concrete. That's how the movie differs. In fact, many (even evangelicals) would probably watch it and not notice that jxf (to use Eliza's term) is missing. It seemed, somehow, to be there. In that sense it's like <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.butler-harris.org/archives/167" rel="nofollow">Nixon</a>, where the impression of a very bad man is built up, but afterward you say (if you think of it), "now what did Nixon do that was so bad again?" though of course here positive rather than negative. The genre "fits" in this case. Joshua — Good insight on the songs, but consider: the songs would still be objectionable even if they clarified the antecedent as God or Jesus. The objection would still be that their musical aesthetic is the genre of boyfriend. So it’s not just that you “pour in” the “right” meaning. It’s fundamentally a container for a Cosmopolitan, not for a slug of concrete.

That’s how the movie differs. In fact, many (even evangelicals) would probably watch it and not notice that jxf (to use Eliza’s term) is missing. It seemed, somehow, to be there. In that sense it’s like Nixon, where the impression of a very bad man is built up, but afterward you say (if you think of it), “now what did Nixon do that was so bad again?” though of course here positive rather than negative.

The genre “fits” in this case.

]]> By: Joshua http://firstword.us/2007/05/movie-luther-2003-hix-3/comment-page-1/#comment-1690 Joshua Mon, 28 May 2007 02:51:01 +0000 http://butler-harris.org/archives/241#comment-1690 For me, the facts presented in the second to last paragraph do not warrant an HIx rating any higher than a 2, and that is high. I can't stand that "fill in your own message" factor that many movies have. It reminds me of much Chrisitan music in which the pronoun "Him" can be replaced by "my boyfriend" and make good, if not better, sense. For me, the facts presented in the second to last paragraph do not warrant an HIx rating any higher than a 2, and that is high. I can’t stand that “fill in your own message” factor that many movies have. It reminds me of much Chrisitan music in which the pronoun “Him” can be replaced by “my boyfriend” and make good, if not better, sense.

]]> By: ElizaF http://firstword.us/2007/05/movie-luther-2003-hix-3/comment-page-1/#comment-1692 ElizaF Sun, 27 May 2007 18:10:12 +0000 http://butler-harris.org/archives/241#comment-1692 Yes, your caveat about the lack of jxf emphasis is also mine. For that reason I prefer the older, "classic" black and white version. Yes, your caveat about the lack of jxf emphasis is also mine. For that reason I prefer the older, “classic” black and white version.

]]>