logicalfallacy234 t1_je6l2mz wrote

Intereeeeeeeeesting, since Kubrick is actually often seen as the slow and ponderous and boring director! Though the three Kubrick films you mentioned are much more "pop entertainment", if you will, than stuff like 2001 or Barry Lyndon.

Ari Aster is excellent though! And a huge Kubrick fan! Eggers is too, I believe.

But yeah, The Godfather is paced a lot more like War and Peace or Crime and Punishment or something like that. It's not a crime film like pop culture makes it out to be. Godfather is quite far away from the modern crime dramas on TV that it helped inspire.


logicalfallacy234 t1_je69yar wrote

I actually think the best way to see Godfather (which is also my vote for greatest American film, over Kane, 2001, and Vertigo) is historical chronicle. If you want a similar movie/film, you could tell the story of the Syrian Civil War from the perspective of a single (preferably rich and powerful) family, or the story of the first 10 years of Vietnam after America left the country.

Even a biopic of like, someone like Lenin or Mao would replicate the feel and scale of The Godfather.


logicalfallacy234 OP t1_j1pxql2 wrote

Idk though! Part of the reason the film is so legendary is how much it sums up 20th century American history.

The replacement of family values with soulless capitalism WAS a thing that actually happened, like the Underground Railroad.

I think to separate the history from the film is to not understand why it’s so often held up as The Great American Film.


logicalfallacy234 t1_iu7yvn6 wrote

As television and popular film merge into this bizarre, unnatural monster called "content", this is indeed what will happen!

To be less negative, film and television are basically the same now. Television used to be always airing, and had these massive 26 episode seasons, most of which were episodic. Now, television is going after being 10-50 hour movies, it seems like.


logicalfallacy234 t1_ir2har0 wrote

Yup! My understanding is that for a lot of faith based people, they feel the only real way to bring that faith into the world is through politics. To them, the separation of church and state is a non-sequitur.

The Islamist philosopher Sayyid Qutab (who influenced a half century now of radical Islamism) felt that that idea of separation of the material and spiritual worlds agreed on in Ancient Greece is the central mistake of the Western world, that has caused all of its suffering. The way around that suffering IS making church and state one and the same.

I feel like a lot the modern radical Christian movement in America has arrived at that same thought, albeit usually less well-articulated, and aided by good old, Roman Empire style imperialism and racism.


logicalfallacy234 t1_ir2e4e7 wrote

Unfortunately, I do think the rest of the 21st century will be about a return to faith for many people, given the grim predictions for the century. Simply put, it's hard for humans to survive not believing in anything. It seems there's a need to have faith in something you can't prove. Empiricism seems to have its limits. Which is something the mullahs of Iran do understand, unfortunately.


logicalfallacy234 t1_ir2dlhq wrote

Have spent the last year and a half working on an epic play about the Revolution! And what motivated/is behind both the 1979 Revolution, and the current world's falling back to religion.

I do think the Iranian mullahs, and most religious people even, do have a case for a faith-based life, rather than a purely empirical evidence based on.