Episode 76: Super
9 Jan
In this episode, Tyler and Josh discuss James Gunn’s Super and Martin Scorsese’s Taxi Driver.
EPISODE BREAKDOWN
00:00:45- Intro, newsletter, The Podcast Awards, The Unemployed Mind, For The Title
00:07:55- Super
00:52:05- Taxi Driver
01:15:35- Episode wrap-up, Struck by Lightning, Sermon Recommendation- The One Resolution You Need to Make
I like how you always seem to be addressing something I’ve been thinking about, but offer a fresh and positive perspective (whereas I mostly tend to be a pessimist and find my thoughts running in circles).
About the movies: When I watched Super I wasn’t sure if I was “allowed” to like it as much (being a Christian), but it’s amazing how you guys always find interesting things in movies I wouldn’t think about. Taxi Driver is great and I should rewatch it, cause it’s been a while..
Kudos to Battleship Pretension for exploring the topic of intent. Super is one of those cases in which I wish I knew what the intent was.
I suspect James Gunn had a similar intent as Tarantino in Django Unchained—to bring to life violence and atrocity that we tend to overlook as words on pages of history. The Crimson Bolt strongly reminds me of Ezekiel, who begins his book by announcing his “visions of God” and condemns “rebellious people” in the second chapter. By chapter nine, Ezekiel and his cronies are using blunt objects to slaughter “old men,” “young men” “women,” “mothers,” and “children”—all “without compassion.” Many modern-day Christians often dismiss events like this as acceptable “in context”—as though there is any context in which the murder of children with blunt objects can be considered acceptable. Like Tarantino, I believe Gunn is attempting to provoke a sort of visceral awareness of these horrors. With humor, Gunn also highlights the absurdity of the delusions that motivate them, which is part of what makes Super an effective dark comedy.
When asked about Frank’s visions in an A.V. Club interview, James Gunn mentions, “What Frank goes through in the movie is not so dissimilar from experiences I’ve had.” I could relate to this, too. Notably, by the end of the film, Frank has given up his suit and chooses to pour the visions he was born with into a positive creative outlet. Letting go of the thing you thought you were looking for—and discovering the world of possibilities that await you when you do that—is something that I could relate to.
I just wish I knew if my reaction had anything to do with Gunn’s intent.
As always, good podcast. I’m already looking forward to the next one.
As you point out how quick Christians are to argue context, it fascinates me how quickly some atheists disregard context, as if it simply doesn’t matter. But, in this case, the term “rebellious” has taken on a different meaning in the modern age. At this point, when I think of a rebellious person, I think of a kid defying his parents by listening to death metal or something. I find that, in this scenario, there is often an accompanying assumption that the kid will eventually see the error of his ways and grow up.
When people were rebellious in the Old Testament, that means they were, for whatever reason, actively working against God and His people. And, in doing so, they were likely bringing people down with them. And to pull others away from God meant pulling them into Hell, not necessarily as a punishment, but as the only alternative. And so Ezekiel took action. It may not make much sense to us, but imagine somebody was pulling your son or daughter into oncoming traffic, or was perhaps holding a knife to their throat. You would do anything you could to stop that person, right? And, really, it wouldn’t make much difference who that person was. It could be another kid, or an old woman; they’re going to kill the person you love. Ideally, you would rather not have to hurt the perpetrator, but they have left you with no choice.
Another analogy is an arm or a leg with gangrene. Certainly, nobody would want to lose so valuable a body part, but if it’s between that and the eventual death of the body, the choice is clear.
I’m reminded of a friend that had testicular cancer. I always thought that, were I to get it, I would have some instinctive reservations about removing the testicle. But my friend assured me that, if it were between removing this valuable part of myself or making my wife a widow, I wouldn’t hesitate.
In the Old Testament, rebellion was not merely an attitude, but an infection, one that often threatened to destroy the whole body of believers. And so, though I’m sure it pained Him to do it, God had to take action.
“When people were rebellious in the Old Testament, that means they were, for whatever reason, actively working against God and His people. And, in doing so, they were likely bringing people down with them. And to pull others away from God meant pulling them into Hell, not necessarily as a punishment, but as the only alternative.”
Ah, the existential dilemma in Christianity.
Clare Carlisle on Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling
Soren Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling retells and interprets the story of Abraham and Isaac. In Kierkegaard’s hands the story becomes a model for the human predicament. In this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast Clare Carlisle provides an interesting overview of some of Kierkegaard’s themes in this book.
http://podbay.fm/show/257042117/e/1218386880?autostart=1
“When people were rebellious in the Old Testament, that means they were, for whatever reason, actively working against God and His people. And, in doing so, they were likely bringing people down with them. And to pull others away from God meant pulling them into Hell, not necessarily as a punishment, but as the only alternative. And so Ezekiel took action.”
Now for my perspective(but please give the Kierkegaard’s episode a listen). I do not understand the context. When it comes to people rebelling against God, what does that mean? Barbarism? A believe in other God(s)? Different lifestyles?
It could mean any/all of those things, but the common thread seemed to be people actively working to undermine God’s authority. That, of course, may not sound like such a bad thing, but, assuming for a moment that the Bible is true and a relationship with God is the only way towards salvation and eternal joy, then those rebels are robbing not only themselves, but other people of that.
And, once again, I’m sorry to harp on this, but I just don’t understand why you feel the need to listen to the show. You say you’re looking forward to the next show, but I wonder why. I suppose you enjoy our thoughts about movies, but we eventually wind up at an interpretation that you not only disagree with completely, but also seem to think is socially destructive, to such an extent that you feel the need to step in and, for lack of a better word, correct me. It makes me wonder if you actually like what we’re doing with this podcast, since a huge portion of the central premise of the show is something that you very much dislike.
I guess I just don’t understand how you can respect us as artistic critical thinkers, while doubting our critical thinking abilities in so crucial a matter as religious belief. Given the premise of the show, wouldn’t your disagreement with one interfere with your appreciation with the other?
I am also an atheist, but I also like listening to the show. Why, you should ask, because I find it weird and fascinating that there is a podcast that is examining films through the lens of Christianity (well, your particular strain of Christianity), even though most the films cover are not considered and/or attempt to be Christian.
It just a fun to listen to. It’s like listening to a couple of Marxist cinephiles examining Pixar films, through a Marxist lens.
I guess I am fascinating with religion (not jut Christianity). I just like the mythological and philosophical aspects of them and how they evolve over time. Also the aesthetics, which is why I enjoy visiting old Churches/ religious landmarks.
This is a great podcast on the different World Religions:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/world-religions/id465307570
Oh, I did not mean “weird” in a derogatory manner. I meant it in a cool, HP Lovecraft manner.
Oh, please don’t get me wrong. I have absolutely no problem with non-Christians listening to the show. I understand and recommend listening to the views of people that are different than us.
But to listen to something that one may actively disagree with and then weigh in constantly with that disagreement seems counterproductive. It makes me wonder why that person showed up in the first place. I realize that this show is not a church, but it seems like somebody going to a church service, ostensibly just to see what it’s like, only to try desperately afterwards to convince all the regular churchgoers how wrong the pastor was. This was never meant to be a debate podcast/website, so when people come here knowing what it is, again ostensibly because they’re interested in hearing other perspectives, it seems strange to me that those people so often feel the need to disagree so wholeheartedly (and often wind up being not-so-subtly insulting). After a certain point, it starts to feel like the person isn’t quite so interested in a different perspective as much as he’s looking for a place to express his own.
I agree with Antho42. Recently, I’ve been immersing myself in Hinduism, and I would love to listen to a podcast that explores movies through a Hindu perspective if I could find one. If this show ever changed gears end started reviewing films from a Hindu, an Islamic, a humanist, or even a Marxist lens as Antho42 mentioned, I would keep listening and chiming in.
All the atheist podcasts I listen to encourage believers to engage (whether through e-mail, comments, or the show itself), such as my personal favorite, the Atheist Experience, which describes itself as a show “geared at a non-atheist audience” and gives priority to theists who call into the show.
I love film of all varieties, and I’m fascinated by religion of all varieties. If a podcast explores one of those two topics (or better yet, both), and the show is entertaining and engaging (which More Than One Lesson certainly is), I’ll listen. And if it’s especially thought-provoking (which More Than One Lesson also is), I’ll take the time to comment. Consider it a compliment that I enjoy your show just that much.
I guess my concern lies not with the fact that you listen, nor even the fact that you comment regularly. It’s the tone that occasionally pops up.
The original point of my show- though it’s arguable whether or not I’m achieving it- was to make Christians more comfortable with film by discussing Christian themes in films that wouldn’t normally seem to have them. The secondary point- though one that was very important- was to use an exploration of a film’s themes as a way to encourage Christians in their daily walk with Christ.
Your comments often make it seem like you’re trying to subvert the purpose of the show, and in fact it often seems like you’re trying to convince my audience to NOT be Christian anymore. I’m sure you think you’re just asking questions, which would be fine, but you’re asking them from the position of a person that no longer believes and is thus trying to use the questions to persuade people away from the faith, which I of course view as something overwhelmingly negative.
Given the e-mails that I’ve received from my listeners, I’m very protective of them. Many of them have a very tenuous faith, for any number of reasons, and I’ve worked hard to reassure them that they’re not strange or bad Christians; we all go through this sort of thing at times.
This is not a debate site. There are plenty of them elsewhere, and my listeners are free to go there if they want to. But they don’t come here for that. But if I feel like somebody is coming here trying to turn it into something it isn’t, I start to get very anxious.
I’m sure there are some reading this that are upset at what I’m saying, thinking that I’m merely angry due to somebody disagreeing. That isn’t the case. I live in Los Angeles and have two shows on the internet; I’m used to disagreement. But I don’t like somebody dragging my show and website into territory it was never meant to occupy.
I guess I see it sort of like a person not liking jazz, but feeling like he should be musically well-rounded, so he goes to a jazz club. But, while he’s there, he spends all his time telling the other patrons how much jazz sucks and yells out “Freebird” between songs.