@CopaExMachina I didn’t read the post and naively thought this was Nolan’s film. Had to give him credit and wonder why everyone was so critical before I realized the truth
at a job interview
"whats your biggest weakness?"
"understanding the semantics of a question but ignoring the pragmatics"
"could you give an me an example?"
"yes i could"
we should ban teenagers from ALL media. and then on their 16th birthday they are brought to a theatre to be shown a movie of a train coming directly at them to see if they react and flee in horror like they did in 1896
would be very interesting to still have lobsters this size around today. where's little jimmy? oh he got too close to the beach and was dragged away by a lobster. very tragic. but such is life in new england.
God commanded Abraham to kill his son Isaac because God himself would go on to kill his son, Jesus. And don't you remember how that story ended? Of course not. He never kills Isaac, they kill a lamb. Again, as an early revelation of Christ. The act of sacrificing your son and the pain of it was an exercise in empathy. Knowledge of God is terrible, because God is terrible, being God is terrible. Being responsible for all life is a heavy duty and any man who does not understand the weight of that duty is not fit to be a father of nations as numerous as the stars in the sky. A heavy price, a heavy test, for a heavy reward. And God delivers on his rewards. Consistently. The Bible is entirely about how trusting God pays off, and trusting other gods, including the Devil does not. And of course, yes, this is framing. Slaughtering rival tribes sounds good if you frame them as evil. Of course.
But I'm not letting anyone frame "stealing a baby to liquidate it into paste" as something that isn't evil.
And don't tell me what "literacy" means. You are imposing your very own values on the story. I'm taking the Puritan values of the time period, the characters, and the setting at face value. You are taking the moral relativism of the modern age as the text's moral value. The text never shows you moral relativism. It shows you Puritanism. Puritan assumptions are tested and confirmed across the entire movie.
In the first scenes of the movie, we see a witch stealing an infant baby, killing it, and using it to make a lubricant for her broomstick. My morals say this is evil, ok, but so do the morals of E V E R Y S I N G L E C H A R A C T E R I N T H E F I L M. Also in the first scenes of the movie, the father is told he is wrong, he is the sinner, and if he doesn't repent, he will be exiled. Exile is known to be a death sentence. Puritan folklore saw the woods outside the settlements as the dwelling place of the Black Man, and that wasn't a racial fear, that was a fear of the literal devil. And the family, the whole family, knew this when they ventured out into the woods because the father's pride had him believing his faith was greater than the settlement, his knowledge of God was greater, and that by that faith he'd overcome the danger. But in reality his choice to go into the woods was a choice to meet the devil.
Where, in the movie, within the moral context of the movie, is witchcraft portrayed as a good thing in the moral context of the world it takes place in? Or how about your own moral context? Or any moral context that you know? Show me where within the runtime of the Vvitch witchcraft is portrayed as anything but contrary to moral law? The film's framing is Puritanism. It's a "New England Folk Tale." What was the moral context of the New England Folk Tale? Who told New England Folk Tales? Why?
New England Folk Tales came from the people of New England and their moral context. In this case the Puritans, and the Puritan moral context. They told these stories both as entertainment and as moral instructions. No one told a folk tale in 16th century New England about how actually being a witch is good and you should claim your agency and pursue the life you want. They told you folk tales to make you fear Wytches and the Devell.
A timelapse showing the incredible movement of a growing vine, exhibiting both nastic movement to find, and then a thigmotropic response to grasp and hold.
📽: Roger P Hangarter